The Chronographia

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2
Downloaded from Brill.com 11/29/2023 12:05:32AM

via University of Edinburgh
STUD lEN UND TEXTE
ZUR GEISTESGESCHICHTE
DES MITTELALTERS
BEGRO~DET VON
JOSEF KOCH
WEITERGEFUHRT VON
PAUL WILPERT UNO ALBERT ZIMMERMANN
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON
JAN A. AERTSEN
IN ZUSAMMENARBEIT MIT
TZOTCHO BOIADJIEV, KENT EMERY, JR.

UNO ANDREAS SPEER (MANAGING EDITOR)
BAND LXVIII
ANTHONY KALDELLIS
THE ARGUMENT OF
PSELLOS'CHRONOGRAPHIA

THE ARGUMENT OF
PSELLOS'CHRONOGRAPHIA
BY
ANTHONY KALDELLIS
BRILL
LEIDEN . BOSTON' KOLN
1999

This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Kaldellis, Anthony.
The argument of Psellos' Chronographia / by Anthony Kaldellis.
p. cm. - (Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des
Mittelalters, ISSN 0169-8125 ; Bd. 68)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 9004114947 (cloth: alk. paper)
I. Byzantine Empire-Civilization Historiography. 2. Philosophy,
Medieval. 3. Psellus, Michael. Chronographia. I. Title.
II. Series.
DF59l.K35 1999
949.5'02-dc21 98-23101
CIP
Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-EinheitsaufnablTIe

Kaldellis, Anthony:
The argument of Psellos' Chronographia / by Anthony Kaldellis. -
Leiden ; Boston ; Kaln : Brill, 1999
(Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters ; Bd. 68)
ISBN 90-04--11494 7
ISSN 0169-8125
ISBN 9004 114947
© Copyright 1999 by Koninklijke Brill.NV; Leiden, TIe Netherlands
All rights reserved. No part if this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in aay form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or othenvise, without prior written
permission .from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal

use is granted by Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directly to TIe Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

Philology is that venerable art which demands of its votaries one thing
above all: to go aside, to take time, to become still, to become slow ... It
is more necessary today than ever, in the midst of an age of 'work,'
that is to say, of hurry, of indecent and perspiring haste, which wants
to 'get everything done' at once, including every old or new book.
This art does not so easily get anything done, it teaches to read well,
that is to say, to read slowly, deeply, looking cautiously fore and aft,
with reservations, with doors left open, with delicate eyes and fingers.
Nietzsche, Daybreak, preface 5
Read a lot and you will learn a lot. And if you do not understand, take
heart. For if you read the book many times, knowledge will be given
to you by God and you will understand it. And if you do not know
something, ask those who do and don't be arrogant about it.
Take a book when you are alone and read it, but when you have read
a little don't try to count the pages or to select those parts that you
think are better and read only them. For this will do you no good.
Begin from the cover where the words start and read until there are
no letters left. This will benefit you greatly. For it is the job of the gos-
sip not to read through the book for a second and third time, but to
select a few passages in order to babble about them.
Kekaumenos, Strategikon 46, 63 (eleventh century)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ...................................................................... IX
Introduction ................................................................................ .
1. Ethos and History .................................................................. 23

2. The Delusions of Romanos III ............................................. 28
3. Egregorsis: An awakening to human affairs ............................. 31
4. Philosophy and Philology ...................................................... 34
5. A Wicked Doctrine ............................................................... 41
6. Imperial Askesis ..... ....................... ..... ...... ....................... .... .... 51
7. The Secrets of the Virgin ..................................................... 62
8. An Impious Doctrine .. ................... ............. ................. ......... 66
9. The Secular Imperium ......................................................... 77
10. The Repudiation of Monasticism .. ............. ... ....................... 80
11. The Liberation of Philosophy from Christianity ...... ............ 89
12. The Triumph of Nature Over Faith .................................... 93
13. Virtual Divine Grace ......... ... .............. .................................. 98
14. The Unspeakable Mysteries of Providence .......................... 10 1
15. Providence: Pietism or Prudence? ........................................ 105
16. The Degeneracy of the Official Religion ....... ........ .............. 109
17. Patron of Blasphemers .......................................................... 115
18. Psellos' Enigmatic Confession of Faith ................ .... .... ... ...... 117
19. Philosophy and Rhetoric ...................................................... 127
20. The True Nature of Rhetoric ............................................... 132
21. A Rhetorical Performance .................................................... 141
22. The Redemption of Rhetoric ............................................... 145
23. Political Philosophy and the Rehabilitation of the Body..... 154
24. Psellos and Isaac Komnenos ................................................. 167
25. Philosophy and the Throne .................................................. 178
26. Who is the author of the Chronographia? ................... ... ... ....... 185
Bibliography ................................................................................. 199

Index of Passages ......................................................................... 213
General Index .............................................................................. 219

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The core of this book was written in the summer of 1996. I am grate-
ful to the Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies for award-
ing me the Bliss Prize Fellowship for 1995-97, which enabled me to
plan and compose a series of studies on Byzantine historiography.
John Fine patiently read countless drafts, making valuable comments
throughout and asking penetrating questions that led me to clarity
my arguments.
I dedicate this book to my friend Bryan Lauer, since I regard it as
little more than a footnote to the long discussions we had in the
hyperborean climate of Ann Arbor.
Anthony Kaldellis
Mytilene, Lesbos
t·

INTRODUCTION
This book is an interpretation of Psellos' Chronographia. Until recently,

scholars have mostly treated that text as little more than a source of
scattered historical facts and vivid yet disconnected images for life in
eleventh-century Byzantium. A few have studied it as a work of liter-
ature, by examining its language and narrative structure, or have
attempted to understand the 'world-view' of its author, presupposing
that it is readily transparent to the modern historian. I argue,
instead, that the text must be viewed as an interconnected whole,
because its narrative encloses a subtle and complex philosophical
argument that transcends the particularity of the events it describes.
Contrary to scholarly consensus, I contend that Psellos was a serious
philosopher rather than a mere polymath or intellectual dilettante,
and that he used his considerable rhetorical skills to disguise the rev-
olutionary nature of his political thought, which was consciously anti-
Christian and deeply influenced in some respects by the political phi-
losophy of Plato. This book is therefore a contribution to the history
of Platonism. But which Platonism, and which Plato? We must begin
with a digression.
The currently dominant view of Plato in the English-speaking
world has been created largely by academic historians of ancient phi-
losophy, who are not themselves philosophers. These scholars,
including A. E. Taylor, W. K. C. Guthrie, Gregory Vlastos, and
many others, interpret philosophical texts by employing modern
tools of analysis in order to determine the validity of their arguments.
Thus the dialogues are combed for discussions on particular topics,
which are then extracted from their dramatic and literary context
and transformed into formal arguments. These are always taken at
face value, subjected to rigorous logical analysis, and, more often
than not, found to be false or invalid. I According to Terence Irwin,
I See, in general, D. Clay, 'Platonic Studies and the Study of Plato,' and the
remarks by T. G. and G. S. West in the bibliography of their Plato and Aristophanes,
Four Texts on Socrates (cf. also the scholars cited in n. 3, below). The German
hermeneutical tradition, on the other hand, is less focused on logical form and more
open to the nuances of literary analysis. In the past two centuries, it has been influ-
enced by original philosophical thinkers like F. D. E. Schleiermacher, M. Heidegger,
and H.-G. Gadamer, to mention only a few.

2 INTRODUCTION
"much of what [plato] says is false, and much more is confused,

vague, inconclusive, and badly defended."2 While the approach that
Irwin represents has taught us something about the logical structure
of Plato's arguments, it has seriously misrepresented the great
philosopher's thought.
The analytical method of interpretation faces a number of difficul-
ties. First, those aspects of Plato's dialogues that cannot be reduced to
formal logic, such as the dramatic setting, or the inevitable peculiarities
in the interlocutors' comments and actions, tend to be dismissed as
mere literary embellishment. Yet it has now been recognized that dra-
ma and logic must be studied in tandem, or else the whole point of an
argument, even of a false one, may be missed. For the dialogue form
purposely situates intellectual issues within specific contexts, which
include the physical setting, the identity and character of the partici-
pants, and their actual behavior, which mayor may not accord with
their beliefs. Had Plato desired to write rigorous philosophical treatises,
he would have written like Aristotle. 3 Second, it simply assumes that
Plato straightforwardly believed in the major doctrines set forth by
Socrates, even when the arguments in their favor are seriously flawed.
But what if he deliberately devised false arguments? What if the aim of
his published texts was not the full and immediate disclosure of the
Truth? Plato was, after all, the first great philosopher to advocate the
Noble Lie. He thought it necessary for the philosophical reformers of
mankind to lie about the most important matters. 4 The reason for this
practice has ranged over the centuries from the moral edification of
the multitude to the dissimulation of the philosopher's more radical
and esoteric thoughts. However that may be, whoever advocates the
use of deception must be suspected of practicing it himself
2Terence Irwin, Plato's Moral Theory: The Earfy and Middle Dialogues, p. 4.
3The first modern scholars to give philosophical weight to the literary complexi-
ties of the Platonic corpus and the ambiguities of the Socratic character were Jacob
Klein and Leo Strauss. Strauss' students in particular have produced studies of a
number of Platonic dialogues, and have extended the criticism of the dominant ana-
lytical tradition; see, e.g., S. Rosen, Plato's Symposium, introduction. For an opti-
mistic appraisal of the current state of the issue, see C. L. Griswold, Self-Knowledge in
Plato's Phaedrus, p. ix: the analytical "approach, has, over the last decade or so, been
thoroughly discredited."
4 Cf. Plato, Republic 389b-c, 414b-c, 459c; Laws 663d fr. However, the ultimate
purpose of Plato's lies and myths is philosophical enlightenment, not a permanent
state of deception. For a minor example of how this might be possible see the
Emperor Julian, Or. 7: To the Cynic Herakleios 206c-207d, 216c-d (and cf. Republic
377a).

INTRODUCTION 3
Consider the Phaedo, for example, a work that will engage our
attention when we discuss an important passage of the Chronographia
(cf. §23). This work ostensibly sets out to prove the immortality of the
soul. In the course of the discussion, Socrates also tries to convince
his Pythagorean audience that in order to live the philosophical life
properly they must strive to separate their souls from their bodies
and shun every form of sensory stimulus and bodily experience.
When does the soul attain to truth? For when it tries to consider any-
thing in company with the body, it is evidently deceived by it (65b) ...
So long as we have the body, and the soul is contaminated by such an
evil, we shall never attain completely what we desire, that is, the truth
(66b).
But certain peculiar events occur in the dialogue that undermine

Socrates', and consequently Plato's, allegiance to this markedly dual-
istic system of belief. Almost the very first words that Socrates speaks
in the Phaedo concern the natures of pain and pleasure (60b). His
reflections are prompted by the removal of his fetters, which causes
him to rub his legs and contemplate the ensuing sensations. Obvious-
ly, in this case his sensory experiences contribute to his philosophical
understanding of pleasure and pain, 5 which are topics of consider-
able importance in the dialogue. This event seems to contradict
Socrates' professed epistemological principles. Second, in the very
middle of his narration, Phaedo recounts how Socrates, when faced
with seemingly insurmountable objections to his arguments, paused,
"stroked my head and gathered the hair on the back of my neck into
his hand - for he had a habit of playing with my hair on occasion -
and said, 'Tomorrow, perhaps, Phaedo, you will cut off this beautiful
hair' " (8gb). This highly sensual action, so instinctive that it almost
becomes unobtrusive, is hardly indicative of a man who had
renounced the body and its pleasures. Plato even has Pheado go out
of his way to tell us that this was a habit of Socrates. Third, at the
very end of the work (116b), we learn that Socrates, who was seventy
years old at the time, had two very young sons, one young enough to
5 As pointed out by P. Ahrensdorf, TIe Death if Socrates and the Life if Philosophy: An
Interpretation if Plato's Phaedo, p. 42 (cf. also Montaigne, Essays 2.11). This is to say
nothing about the fundamental empiricism of the 'recollection' argument: Plato,
Phaedo 74b-76a (cf. Philebus 34b). The most penetrating analysis of the Phaedo remains
Ronna Burger's TIe Phaedo: A Platonic Labyrinth.

4 INTRODUCTION
be held in Xanthippe's arms (60a).6 Finally, even at the end of the

day the main speakers doubt the validity of the arguments in favor of
the immortality of the soul. In other words, Plato knew that he was
offering his readers faulty arguments and repeatedly draws our atten-
tion to that very fact, by continually urging us to subject Socrates'
premises to thorough criticism. 7 The doctrines that Socrates
expounds in the dialogue may have been designed specifically for the
individuals who attended his death, while the contrast between the
speeches and Socrates' actions, including the tensions within the
arguments themselves, points the careful reader in the direction of a
deeper and more philosophical attitude toward the soul and death.
Though it does not solve the problems and riddles of the Phaedo,
the previous discussion demonstrates that there is room for substan-
tial disagreement about the broad nature of Plato's philosophy.
Although this statement is not controversial in itself, its implications
constitute a serious challenge to the fundamental presuppositions of
most Platonic scholarship. Avowed Platonists can perhaps disbelieve
that the life of philosophy involves the rejection of the senses, that the
soul is immortal, or that metaphysics and ontology take precedence
over ethics and politics, and yet still be closer to their master's teach-
ing than are those who accept such positions.
Psellos explicitly identified himself as a Platonist. It is clear from
many of his writings that he had studied Plato carefully and had an
intimate and thorough knowledge of the dialogues. In fact, Plato may
have been the single most important influence on his intellectual
development. Instances where he praises him can be adduced at
will,8 but a single event reveals the intensity of Psellos' allegiance. In
1054 he was accused by his erstwhile friend, the future Patriarch
John Xiphilinos, of forsaking Christ to follow Plato. Psellos had no
illusions about the seriousness of the charge: "you have separated me
from Christ and enrolled me among the followers of Plato" (Letter to
Xiphilinos line 230, also 57-61). Psellos realized that, according to
Xiphilinos, devotion to Plato was equivalent to a renunciation of
Christian Orthodoxy (242-244). Yet in his blustering response he
audaciously styles himself a "Platonic philosopher" (96), and argues
Cf. Socrates' pursuit of other pleasures: Plato, Apology 33c; Gorgias 4S8a.
6
Plato, Phaedo 63a, 76d-e, 84c, 8Sc, 91c, and esp. 107a-b (cf. Meno 86b); see H.-G.
7
Gadamer, The Proofs of Immortality in Plato's Phaedo.'
8 Cf. his lecture on a passage of Gregory of Nazianzos (= 7heologica 98).

INTRODUCTION 5
that the examined and rational life is far superior to the willful obscu-
rantism that characterized so much of Byzantine monasticism. He
even strikes back aggressively on behalf of his favorite philosopher
and goes so far as to accuse Xiphilinos of "blaming him for every-
thing, 0 Plato-hater and misologist, lest I call you a hater if philosophy!"
(42-3).9 Of course, Psellos could only make such bold statements by
claiming that Plato's teaching was ultimately compatible with the
Christian faith, a claim that is nevertheless hardly supported by the
meager evidence presented in his letter. However that may be, the
argument between the two men demonstrates that Psellos' involve-
ment with Platonism was viewed by some as improper on religious
grounds.!O Yet even when the sincerity of his Christian faith was
openly questioned (the worst possible accusation in Byzantium), Psel-
los was still unwilling to renounce Plato.
But which Plato? Like any modern student of philosophy, Psellos
was also confronted by an 'orthodox' interpretation of Plato, which
differed in some respects from the one that prevails today. The Pla-
tonism which prevailed in late antiquity and Byzantium was created
by Plotinos and his successors, the so-called Neoplatonists, who cen-
tered their thought around definite metaphysical and religious princi-
ples.!! Those thinkers completely disregarded the political aims of
Plato's teaching, and focused exclusively on his doctrines about the
supernatural world of the Forms. Their profoundly mystical mentali-
ty transformed it into a divine realm worthy of worship and filled it
with a host of luminous entities that formed a chain of being stretch-
ing from the One (lying "beyond being"), through the Forms and the
various grades of demons and angels, down to the Soul, and finally
to inert matter. In order to raise himself to higher levels of reality, a
philosopher had to withdraw from bodily life and embrace a purely
9 The allusion is to Eunapios, Lives qf the Philosophers 481: Priskos, a fourth-century

Neoplatonist, "used to say that one who is beaten in philosophical argument does
not thereby become milder, but rather, as he fights against the might of the truth
and suffers the pains of thwarted ambition, he becomes more savage, and ends by
becoming a misologist and a haler qfphilosophy." The ultimate source is, of course, Pla-
to, Phaedo 89c ff., esp. 90c-d.
10 Psellos' faith was called into question by contemporaries on more than one
occasion. See the text published by Antonio Garzya, 'On Michael Psellus' Admis-
sion of Faith,' and the poem by the monk Sabbaita, printed before Psellos' Poem 21.
II Through the influence of Marsilio Ficino, Neoplatonism remained the standard
interpretation of Plato in Europe until the eighteenth century (excepting original
thinkers like Francis Bacon, who followed an entirely different tradition of Platonism).

6 INTRODUCTION
spiritual existence, effectively detaching his soul from his body. The
Neoplatonists employed a highly technical, abstract, and obscure
vocabulary, which is almost impossible to render adequately in mod-
ern philosophical terms. Their system was the prevailing interpreta-
tion of Plato in the intellectual culture of the Byzantine Empire, and
can be labeled orthodox not only because it faced no serious
hermeneutical rivals but also because it was easily modified to accord
with official Church doctrine, as the influential works of pseudo-
Dionysios and others testify.12
Psellos was intimately acquainted with Neoplatonic literature. He
praised thinkers like Proklos, wrote commentaries on their works,
and disseminated their theological systems among his contempo-
raries. A number of his lectures are actually expositions of various
Neoplatonic doctrines. On these grounds, many scholars have
claimed that Psellos' own philosophical beliefs were similar in struc-
ture, and perhaps even in content, to those of the N eoplatonists (with
appropriate adjustments to accommodate his presumed Christian
faith). As a philosopher, therefore, Psellos emerges from modern
accounts more or less a Christian Neoplatonist. 13 But there are good
reasons to question this view.
First of all, it is not clear why his investigations into Neoplatonic
12 The literature on Neoplatonism is now gradually expanding, rendering previous

assessments obsolete. For a good introduction to the thought of Plotinos, see D. J.
O'Meara, Plotinus. An Introduction to the Enneads; for Proklos, see L. Siorvanes, Proclus:
Neo-Platonic Philosophy and Science. The study of later Byzantine Platonism is in its
infancy, but for some general surveys see B. N. Tatakis, 'H BvSavTlvry tP1Aoaocpia,
which begins with the sixth and seventh centuries, and H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche
profane Literatur der Byzantiner, v. I, c. I.
13 C. Zervos was the first to argue strongly that Psellos was essentially a Neopla-
tonist (see his Un philosophe neoplatonicien du Xl' siecle: Michel Psellos, sa vie, son oeuvre, ses
luttes philosophiques, son irifluence). His view has since become more or less standard,
although different scholars emphasize different aspects of his thought. See, for
instance, E. Darko, 'Wirkungen des Platonismus im griechischen Mittelalter,' p. 14:
Psellos tried to subordinate Christianity to Platonism; P. Leveque, Aurea Catena Home-
ri: Une etude sur l'allegorie grecque, !? 52: "synthese neoplatonicienne et transposition
chretienne chez Michel Psellos"; E. des Places, 'Le renouveau platonicien du Xle sie-
cle: Michel Psellus et les Oracles Chaldafques,' p. 314: "it is hardly an authentic Platon-
ism; rather it is a decadent form ... of Neoplatonism"; and M. Angold, TIe Byzantine
Empire 1025-1204: A Political History, p. 79.
One of the few scholars to question the identification of Psellos as a Platonist was
P. Joannou, Christliche Metaphysik in Byzanz (e.g., p. 7), who tied him closer to Christ-
ian traditions of thought, but his approach faces a number of serious problems. For
a discussion of some of them, and the questions surrounding Psellos' alleged Chris-
tianity, see below.

INTRODUCTION 7
metaphysics should be construed as reflections of his personal beliefs.

Only a minority of his writings actually deal with the very narrow
range of problems that interested Plotinos and his heirs. Thus even if
he did find their views meritorious, that does not mean that he saw
himself primarily as a Neoplatonist. He had many other interests,
and more urgent ones, than theoretical metaphysics. Like any mod-
ern scholar interested in Neoplatonism, he interprets, summarizes,
and explains the views of other thinkers, without necessarily
expounding his own in the process. He is certainly an exegete, but
not necessarily a disciple. 14 Psellos openly admitted that he was an
expert on theories that he considered entirely lacking in validity or
philosophical merit (cf. §16, 18). With individuals of such wide learn-
ing, familiarity and even expertise do not automatically indicate
acceptance and belief. In fact, it will be shown that Psellos' few meta-
physical discussions in the Chronographia are of questionable sincerity
(cf. esp. §26). It is unlikely that any of his personal religious beliefs
can be safely extracted from this highly deceitful text.
Furthermore, we shall see that Psellos attacked and ridiculed those
who claimed to live a purely spiritual life and who ostensibly repudi-
ated the needs and desires of the body (§IO, 23). He repeatedly
affirmed his own intention to embrace and even celebrate the bodily
aspects of human life. It has rightly been pointed out that "there is
undeniably a hedonistic, an Epicurean strain to his views on human
behavior."15 His attitude toward sensory experience, the body, and
material reality in general, was highly antithetical to Platonism, In
the orthodox sense of that word.
Most importantly, however, his conceptualization of the role of
philosophy was substantially different from that of the Neoplatonists.
Whereas they showed little or no interest in political matters, Psellos
repeatedly declared his interest in making philosophy relevant to the
14 So E.-A. Leemans, 'Michel Psellos et les M~at 7tEpt 'l'Uxi\~,' p. 204; the difficulty
of recovering an author's personal views from his commentaries and compilations
has also been recognized by J. A. Munitiz, 'Review of P. Gautier and D. J.
O'Meara,' p. 230, and P. Stephanou, 'Le temoignage religieux de Michel Psellos,' p.
268. But Stephanou's subsequent attempt to reconstruct Psellos' beliefs from the
Chronographia and the letters is highly unconvincing and beset with numerous difficul-
ties. He argues, for instance (p. 269), that Psellos' interest in the religious life and
activities of the Emperors is proof of his own religiosity. Some of Stephanou's other
arguments will be discussed later.
], Michael Angold, the Byzantine Empire 1025-1204: A Political History, p. 80.

8 INTRODUCTION
exercise of political power. 16 Unlike any of the N eoplatonists, he had

a very prestigious career in politics and influenced affairs of State at
the highest level. He frequently discussed the political uses of rhetoric
and the role of philosophy in public affairs. There is no way that his
treatment of these issues, which receive a great deal of attention in
the Chronographia, far more in fact than any metaphysical problem,
could have been influenced by the writings of the Neoplatonists.
Instead, his attempt to infuse the teachings of philosophy into the
political system of his age should be seen as a revival of the authentic
Platonic program, especially as it is outlined in the Laws. The exis-
tence in Psellos of a sophisticated political philosophy, i.e., of a phi-
losophy that has become openly political in its ambitions, should cau-
tion us against confining our understanding of his thought to the
conceptual world of the Neoplatonists. Therefore, in accordance
with the actual contents and emphasis of the Chronographia, I have
focused on the political aspects of his thought, which entirely tran-
scended the limits and horizons of Byzantine political ideology, since
their origins lay in the philosophy of ancient Greece.
*
Constantine Psellos was a native of Constantinople, the renowned
capital of the Byzantine Empire. He was born in 1018, during the
reign of Basil II (976-1025), who brought the Empire to its apogee of
military security and power. From an early age he pursued a career
in the civil administration, and played a leading role in the revival of
State-sponsored education under the feeble Constantine IX Mono-
machos (1042-1055).17 For a number of years he taught philosophy
and was the undisputed master of courtly rhetoric. Political instabili-
ty drove him from the court in 1054, and he was forced to become a
monk (taking the name Michael). Yet he soon discovered, or rather
confirmed, that monastic life was completely antithetical to his own
16 See esp. §19; for some general remarks to the same effect, see W. Conus-
\;Volska, 'Les ecoles de Psellos et de Xiphilinos sous Constantin IX Monomaque,'
pp. 237-238.
17 For Psellos' career, see G. \;Veiss, OstriJmische Beamte im Spiegel der Schriften des
Michael Psellos, pp. 1-110, which includes a detailed examination of the civil adminis-
tration of the Empire in the eleventh century; for a close look at his role in the edu-
cational system of that time, see P. Lemerle, Cinq etudes sur Ie Xl' siicle byzantin, c. 4:
, "Le gouvernement des philosophes," l'enseignement, les ecoles, la culture.'

INTRODUCTION 9
values. He returned to the capital in the following year, and was

favored by a number of succeeding Emperors, although he tends to
exaggerate his influence over them in the narrative of the Chrono-
graphia. During his many decades at court, Psellos witnessed the grad-
ual decline and near collapse of the Byzantine State, as internal
unrest eroded its ancient political and military traditions, and foreign
invaders threatened it on all sides. He drops out of sight during the
reign of his pupil Michael VII Doukas (1071-1078). The date and
circumstances of his death are unknown.
As an orator, teacher, author, statesman and philosopher, Psellos
was one of the most extraordinary figures in all of Byzantine history.
Not only was he himself politically active at the highest levels of gov-
ernment, many of his students also became influential Imperial offi-
cials, churchmen, writers, and philosophers. As a result, the history of
the eleventh century cannot be written without taking his intellectual
and political career into account. Psellos was also one of the most
voluminous Byzantine authors, treating in his works virtually every
field of knowledge known to his contemporaries. IS In them he rejected
the otherworldly bias of Byzantine literature and reversed its devalua-
tion of the material world. No other writer of his age possessed a
keener sense for psychological and political realities, or a better liter-
ary style. Partly for those reasons, his works decisively altered the
intellectual world of Byzantium. 19 Greek literature was scarcely the
same after him, becoming in many respects more beautiful, diversi-
fied, insightful, and certainly less pious. One of the most prominent
Byzantinists of this century, George Ostrogorsky, called him "the
greatest Byzantine philosopher and the first great humanist."20
Despite his unique place in Byzantine history and civilization,
Psellos has received comparatively little attention in modern times.
Until the mid-1980's, when the Teubner edition of his works began
to appear, his writings could only be found in rare, usually out-of-
IS To list a few: medicine, astronomy, law, history, panegyric, hagiography, poet-

ry, forensic oratory, logic, numerous branches of natural science, metaphysics, theol-
ogy, philology and textual exegesis, music theory, etc.; cf. §18.
19 So Karl Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur §184, p. 435. A more
recent estimate calls Psellos "a towering figure whose career and writings were so
important for the development of literary culture under the Komnenoi" (P. Mag-
i:lalino, The empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180, p. 331). Magdalino adduces con-
siderable documentation in support of this claim on pp. 382-406.
20 George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, p. 328; cf. p. 316: "the greatest
scholar and clearest thinker of his day."

10 INTRODUCTION
print, collections, and scattered throughout the issues of many, often

inaccessible, journals. 21 Some of his works have still not been proper-
ly edited or published. Their chronology is on the whole unknown,
and the authenticity of many texts attributed to him is uncertain. It is
therefore no surprise that most modern research on Psellos concerns
stricdy textual matters. Furthermore, there is litde that is valuable in
the way of historical or philosophical analysis, for the scholarship of
the past century has been dominated by a standardized and shallow
interpretation of his career and thought, which has been reiterated
with very litde variation. This is usually sprinkled with brief quota-
tions which are arbitrarily taken from his various writings, and sim-
ply recycled from one general survey to another. Few of his writings
have been translated into modern languages, thus making them inac-
cessible to the general reader. Psellos' inaccessibility is magnified by
the fact that even the trickle of scholarship on him has been written
in half a dozen different languages.
This book will not remedy all of these problems. It is neither a full-
length biography of Psellos nor a comprehensive study of his
thought; rather, it is an interpretation of a single text, the Chrono-
graphia. Although this acknowledged "masterpiece"22 is one of the
most widely read works of Byzantine literature today, and has been
translated into numerous modern languages, it too has received very
litde critical attention,23 and its translations are often inaccurate and
based on inadequate editions. Nevertheless, it is through this work
21 I am preparing two comprehensive bibliographies, to be published separately:

one of editions of Psellos' texts, and one of modern works that discuss his career and
thought (since 1800).
22 The word is Cyril Mango's (Byzantium: 77ze Empire if New Rome, p. 245). Unlike
R. Anastasi (Studi sulla "Chronographia" di Michele Psello, p. 7 ff.), I attach no signifi-
cance to the title "Chronographia," for Psellos does not seem to differentiate
between it and the term "history." Even though it is not entirely clear what he him-
self called the work, I will use the traditional title for the sake of convenience.
23 And what does exist is not always reliable or scholarly. For instance, A.
Gadolin's A 77zeory if History and Society with Special Rqerence to the Chronographia if
Michael Psellus, attributes the whole of ancient thought to Psellos, and through him to
the rest of his contemporaries. Christianity is hardly discussed, and the overall argu-
ment is confused and often unintelligible.
R. Anastasi's Studi sulla "Chronographia" di Michele Psello, possibly the only scholarly
book ever written exclusively on that text, is very short and, besides, almost half of it
deals with the second part of the Chronographia. Anastasi addresses different issues than
those which I intend to examine, such as when the various parts of the text were com-
posed, and he often takes for granted certain conventional notions that I intend to
question. Some of his arguments will be considered in the course of my analysis.

INTRODUCTION 11
that all modern students of Byzantium first become acquainted with

Psellos.
The text was composed in two main stages. 24 Its first edition came
to an end with the abdication ofIsaac Komnenos in 1059, as Psellos
states explicitly in section 7.51, and must have been written before
1063 (when the Patriarch Constantine Leichoudes died, who was
obviously alive when Psellos wrote his account of the reign of Isaac).
Over a decade later, and while Michael VII Doukas occupied the
throne, Psellos extended the narrative to include the reign of his
Imperial student. The two parts of the work are not only unequal in
length (the first is six times longer than the second), they are also
completely different in style, method, and purpose. The first part
contains a coherent and complex argument that reaches its conclu-
sion in the account of the reign of Isaac, and thus possesses a unity of
purpose and design that the second does not maintain on any level.
My study, therefore, deals only with the first part of the work. 25
Today the Chronographia is possibly the most popular work of
Byzantine historiography. It is an entertaining and enormously valu-
able source for the political and intellectual history of the eleventh
century, and also a literary masterpiece in its own right, perhaps
even the greatest achievement of Byzantine literature. 26 Its brilliant
and renowned character sketches, artfully integrated autobiographi-
cal elements, and reflections on philosophy, rhetoric, and history,
make it a work of striking individuality and intellectual complexity.
Yet in the one hundred and twenty years since it was first published
in modern times, and despite its popularity and importance, the
Chronographia has never really been understood. There are two main
reasons for this. First, scholars have not realized that the work is
24 Cf. W. Fisher, 'Beitrage zur historischen Kritik des Leon Diakonos und Michael
Psellos,' p. 362;]. Sykoutris, 'Zum Geschichtswerk des Psellos,' pp. 62-63; and]. M.
Hussey, 'Michael Psellus, The Byzantine Historian,' pp. 82-83.
25 However, I hope that readers who find my approach insightful are encouraged
to examine the second part of the Chronographia for themselves. For some discussions
of the various historical problems that it presents, see R. Anastasi, Studi sulla "Chrono-
graphia" di Michele Psello, c. 2; idem. 'Considerazioni suI libro VII della "Chrono-
graphia" di Michele Psello'; M. L. Agati, 'Michele VII Parapinace e la Chronographia
di Psello.' For some useful general remarks on the significant differences between the
two sections, see G. Misch, 'Die Bruchstiicke einer Autobiographie des byzantini-
schen Hofphilosophen Michael Psellos,' pp. 775 ff., 810-813.
26 Cf. the comments by]. N. Ljubarskij et al., 'Oyellenforschung and/or Literary
Criticism: Narrative Structures in Byzantine Historical Writings,' for some introduc-
tory remarks on this aspect of the text.

12 INTRODUCTION
more than just a history, and therefore the full significance of its con-
tents has not been appreciated. Second, questionable methods have
been employed to determine its author's beliefs. These stem from
erroneous yet widespread preconceptions about the limitations of
medieval literature.
The Chronographia contains a narrative of events of the late tenth
and eleventh centuries. Yet, although it appears to be a mere work of
history, formally no different from the works of other Byzantine his-
torians, it is also a very extended, and in my view coherent, argu-
ment about the complex interrelationship between philosophy,
rhetoric, politics, and religion. The narrative of events provides the
framework for the discussion of this network of issues, which, accord-
ing to Psellos, comprises the most important philosophical problems.
He deliberately and very artfully weaves his wider argument into the
narrative, relying heavily on the use of digressions, which should be
seen as integral to his deeper purpose, rather than as vain or irrele-
vant distractions. 27 The subtlety and coherence of his argument indi-
cate that this text is the product of considerable planning and inge-
nuity.
The primary purpose of my interpretation is to reveal and discuss
the philosophical teaching of the Chronographia, and not to evaluate
the reliability and literary qualities of the historical narrative. I exam-
ine the internal dynamics and intricately layered message of the text
in order to unveil Psellos' view of the philosophical life and his teach-
ings on how the philosopher can respond to the great threats posed
to it by political and religious authorities. Occasionally, however, I
indicate that the demands of his wider agenda may have led him to
misrepresent or perhaps even to invent historical events. Therefore,
historians who are persuaded by my interpretation, and who wish to
use the Chronographia as a historical source, may have to reconsider
the way in which factual knowledge is extracted from it. They must
understand the overall purpose and nature of the work before using
any of the information it contains. After all, any text may be a care-
ful forgery, a cruel hoax, or a joke.
27 The difficulty, though not the significance, of Psellos' digressions has been rec-
ognized: see N. G. Wilson, Scholars if Byzantium, p. 157; cf. also §20.

INTRODUCTION 13
How then does my approach differ from that of existing scholarship

on Psellos? The answer emerges from a critique of traditional meth-
ods and prevailing assumptions.
Although there are a few exceptions, modern historians interested
in Psellos' philosophical and religious beliefs tend to draw their con-
clusions on the basis of selected passages or brief quotations. His
works are ransacked for allegedly representative declarations on top-
ics that scholars consider important. These are then stitched together
and presented as "Psellos' world-view." This cut-and-paste approach
rarely takes the original context of the quotations into consideration,
for it assumes that since Psellos wrote the words, he must have
believed them to be true. Like the declarations of a religious creed,
or the arguments of a modern scholarly monograph, his various
statements are taken at face value, though exceptions are occasional-
ly made for the obvious exaggerations of his rhetorical compositions,
and his sarcastic treatment of contemporary individuals. But in gen-
eral, the individual nature of each text and the unique context of any
statements it may contain are completely disregarded. This is exem-
plified and reinforced by the reprehensible yet pervasive practice of
citing passages by the page number of the most recent edition, even
if it is a massive compilation containing dozens or even hundreds of
separate texts. Readers are apparently not supposed to care what
kind of work is being cited or what the context of a particular pas-
sage IS.
An example of the inevitable results of such scholarly exegesis can
be found in the prestigious and widely-used Pauly- Wissowa... Real
Encyclopiidie. The author of the long article on Michael Psellos, E.
Kriaras, does not hesitate to ascribe the most glaring contradictions
to the Byzantine thinker, for example concerning the relationships
between rhetoric and philosophy, or Christianity and Greek philoso-
phy. We learn in the space of a few pages that Psellos believed that
Greek philosophy had value independently of Christianity and that it
was valuable only insofar as it prepared the ground for Christianity;
that rhetoric was philosophy's equal and that he despised it because it
did not seek the truth. Kriaras does not attempt to explain or resolve
these blatant contradictions, which are produced by juxtaposing quo-
tations taken from different works. 28 We are not told whom Psellos is
28 E. Kriaras, 'Michael Psellos,' esp. cols. 1140-3, 1158-9, 1162-4 (pp. 75-78, 97,
102-3 of the Greek translation), and passim. I will return to the problems posed by

14 INTRODUCTION
addressing in each case, nor under what circumstances each work

was composed. Consequently, Psellos emerges as a man utterly con-
fused about the most basic principles of those disciplines to which he
had devoted his life.
An article in modern Greek, entitled 'The Theological Thought of
Michael Psellos,' illustrates the arbitrariness of prevailing hermeneu-
tical methods. The author, D. Koutsogiannopoulos, promises to
resolve some of the apparent contradictions in Psellos' thought. Yet
in order to do so, he simply postulates that Psellos was fundamental-
ly a Christian, and even claims that "Psellos, of course, could not fol-
low every aspect of Proklos' dialectical derivations; this was due to
the unsurpassable obstacle posed by the Christian source of his own
philosophical thought."29 The author, of course, would hardly coun-
tenance the suggestion that the same might be true of a modem Chris-
tian scholar of Neoplatonism, including, perhaps, himself. However
that may be, he believes that one can derive Psellos' personal theo-
logical beliefs from a single work "alone," the De Omniforia Doctrina.
This work is a series of conceptual definitions and discussions on reli-
gious, philosophical, and scientific topics, which range from the
nature of God to the reason why sea water is salty. The work does
suggest that Psellos was a believing Christian, albeit an intellectually
sophisticated one. But the crucial fact that it was composed for the
benefit of Psellos' imperial protege, Michael Doukas, who was
Emperor from 1071 to 1078,:lO is never mentioned in the article.
The possibility is never considered that a direct exposition of doc-
trinal principles before a member of the Empire's ruling family may
not necessarily express its author's genuine views. But it takes only a
moment's reflection to realize that even if Psellos were not a Christ-
ian, he would still have to pretend that he was. His very circum-
stances would have compelled him to conceal or disguise his true
beliefs. After all, he had a highly prestigious career, and was at vari-
ous times director of the schools of higher education in the Capi-
these very contradictions in my analysis of the Chronographia. Similar methodological

difficulties beset the treatments of Psellos' thought in B. N. Tatakis, 'H Bvt;avTlvry
lP1Aoaocpra, p. 159 ff., and P. Joannou, Christliche Metaphysik in By;;;an;;;, where quota-
tions from very different kinds of texts and contexts are run together to produce an
allegedly coherent system.
29 D. Koutsogiannopoulos, "H 8EOAoytKft crKEljlt~ 'tou Mtxa~A 'PEAAOU,' p. 212.
30 An earlier version of the text, with fewer chapters, may have been dedicated to
Constantine IX Monomachos.

INTRODUCTION 15
tal,31 tutor of the heir to the throne, and intimate advisor to several
Emperors. We cannot expect a man of such public prominence, if
he had a shred of prudence in him, to reveal his lack of faith openly
before his rather intolerant contemporaries. And he would certainly
have declared himself an Orthodox Christian, especially when the
sincerity of his faith was challenged. "One will be able to do justice
to the question of a Byzantine author of the eleventh century, only if
one takes into account that he could never overstep the limits
imposed by Orthodoxy without seriously endangering himself. "32 In
other words, just because a medieval philosopher publicly presents
himself as a Christian does not automatically mean that he was one.
In an age of religious persecution and enforced orthodoxy, dissimu-
lation was often a necessary strategy for survival. The desire to con-
tinue to wield influence at court, not to mention the fear of punish-
ment or exile, can explain why Psellos' treatment of sensitive reli-
gious matters was occasionally conventional (which the De Omnifaria
Doctrina really is not). At the very least, he had to respect the opin-
ions of his masters, but, as has rightly been pointed out, "to respect
OpInIOnS is something entirely different from accepting them as
true. "33
Thus, we cannot simply assume that the De Omnifaria Doctrina
reveals Psellos' true beliefs. The need for such caution is confirmed
by the existence of a curious discrepancy between a crucial statement
in that text and a comment on the same topic in the Chronographia. In
the final section of the De Omnifaria Doctrina (20 I), Psellos claims that
its teachings represent a combination of Christian doctrine and
"those salty waters, I mean Hellenic thought."34 But in the Chrono-
graphia, near the conclusion of its central autobiographical passage
(6.42.16), Psellos explicitly compares the texts of ancient rhetoric and
31 For the prominence and importance of Psellos' position, see W. Wolska-Conus,

'Les ecoles de Psellos et de Xiphilinos sous Constantin IX Monomaque,' pp. 231-
233.
12 H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche prqfane Literatur der Byzantiner, v. I, pp. 21-22; also J.
Hussey, Church and Learning in the Byzantine Empire 867-1185, p. vii: "however wide his
dialectical activities might range in private thought, he must guard against present-
ing them to the public if they were in any way antagonistic to the doctrines of the
Orthodox Church."
33 Leo Strauss, What is Political Philosophy? and Other Studies, p. 222; cf. Niccolo
Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy 3.2.
34 Psellos uses the same image to characterize Hellenic thought in his Letter to
Xiphilinos line 28.

16 INTRODUCTION
philosophy to valla, which ordinarily refers to the clear running

water of a spring.35 He there claims that his revival of genuine phi-
losophy was based entirely on the teachings of non-Christian antiqui-
ty. The apparent disagreement between these two passages is signifi-
cant, regardless of the fact that they are both couched in metaphori-
cal language. We must, in this connection, be prepared to interpret
images as well as words, and on this crucial issue the images of the De
Omnifaria Doctrina and the Chronographia are fundamentally at odds
with each other.
What if for every statement that seems to establish the sincerity of
Psellos' Christian faith, we could find another that seems to under-
mine it? For instance, in his apologetic Letter to Xiphilinos (lines 11-19),
Psellos says that although he had read many non-Christian books, he
had found them all to be corrupt and inferior to Scripture, which
alone is entirely pure and reliable. Yet, in one of his lectures, he
instructed his students not to believe everything written by Moses
and not to dismiss every aspect of Hellenic, i.e., pagan, theology.36
This is an astonishing statement for a thinker of his age (it would be
centuries before similar ideas were pursued seriously in the West).
We are thus faced with a conventional affirmation of the perfection
of Scripture, and a revolutionary attempt to establish a relative neu-
trality between it and Hellenic theology, which inevitably calls for the
creation of an independent, i.e., non-Scriptural, method of adjudicat-
ing theological truth. Perhaps we now have at least some tentative
grounds on which to question the sincerity of Psellos' faith, for "when
an author living in an age when people are persecuted for hetero-
doxy expresses contradictory sentiments regarding religion, the bur-
den of proof... lies with those who would uphold the author's
piety. "37
Like the corpus of Psellos' works as a whole, the Chronographia by
itself contains many contradictory declarations on important aspects
.15 For a discussion of this word, and the context and significance of Psellos' use of
it, see §19.
36 He reproaches his students for neglecting their work (= Oratoria Minora 24.79 fT.) .
.17 D. L. Schaefer, The Political Philosophy of Montaigne, p. 42, n. 5, summarizing an
argument by A. Armaingaud. This argument was made as early as 1720 by John

Toland (Tetradymus, p. 96), and has been reformulated in various ways by more
recent exegetes (cf. Leo Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing, pp. 32,177,184-186;
Paul A. Cantor, 'Leo Strauss and Contemporary Hermeneutics,' pp. 272-273, 277-
278).

INTRODUCTION 17
of religion, philosophy, politics, and rhetoric. Now a small number of

them may perhaps be ascribed to confusion or carelessness. But
repeated and glaring discrepancies concerning problems to which
"the greatest scholar and clearest thinker of his day"38 had devoted a
great deal of attention ought to raise the suspicion of deliberate
deception. He often seems to be speaking out of both sides of his
mouth. But this means that we cannot be sure that anyone of his
statements accurately reflects his true beliefs. Perhaps the latter can-
not be determined by simply quoting his works after all. What if, like
Socrates, "he spoke ironically and spent his whole life playing with
people"?39 Whereas lies enable one to say the opposite of what one
believes, irony enables one to mean the opposite of what one literally
says. Dissimulation, deceit, and irony, therefore, are factors that no
account of Psellos' philosophy can afford to overlook. 40 Nor must we
underestimate the importance of determining the sincerity of his
faith, for the discovery that a medieval philosopher did not accept
the basic tenets of the Christian religion must guide or at least influ-
ence the exposition of virtually every aspect of his thought.
A few scholars have noticed the serious questions that surround
Psellos' faith, but have made no sustained effort to uncover the truth.
Konstantinos Sathas, the first modern editor of the Chronographia,
observed that Psellos seemed to want to reconcile Plato and Chris-
tianity, but sometimes, "when circumstances allowed," used his Pla-
tonism to attack the Church. Sathas strongly implied that Psellos was
not a Christian at all,41 but stopped short of discussing the momen-
tous consequences of this implication. Ostrogorsky's view was simi-
larly ambivalent: "he was not altogether devoid of piety and was at times
deeply moved, if onlY aestheticallY, by the religion of his forefathers."42
N. G. Wilson also questioned the sincerity of Psellos' professions of
Christianity, and postulated that he may have frequently tailored his
statements to suit particular audiences or occasions. 43 But he did not
38 George Ostrogorsky, History qf the Byzantine State, p. 316.

39 Plato, Symposium 216e. Cf. R. Burger, 'Socratic EipwvEia,' and A. Kazhdan on
Psellos' style: "always ironical, sarcastic" ('Some Problems in the Biography ofJohn
Mauropous,' p. 97).
40 Cf. the general comments ofU. Albini, 'Artifizi del diplomatico Psello,' p. 261.
41 Konstantinos Sathas, MEaa!wvrrdj Brj3Aw8f/1'l1, v. 5, pp. xl-xliii (quotation from p.
xlii); and cf. his comments in ibid. v. 4, pp. I-Iii.
12 George Ostrogorsky, History qf the Byzantine State, p. 327 (my italics).
43 N. G. Wilson, Scholars qf Byzantium, p. 156 ff.

18 INTRODUCTION
try to substantiate this hypothesis, or explicate its profound conse-

quences for our understanding of Psellos' thought.
Most scholars, however, have never actually followed Psellos' care-
fully-laid trail of subtle clues. Instead, they hide it from view and
block further progress by advancing the completely unproven asser-
tion that in spite of all his perplexing peculiarities he was still limited
by the culture of his age. Nowadays many historians are willing and
even eager to impose very narrow limits on the ability of individuals
to transcend or reject the prevailing world-view of their society. They
are completely unmoved by philosophers' contemptuous references
to the "common notions."44 A typical example of this tendency can
be found in a very influential article on the intellectual life of Byzan-
tium in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. "Psellos," we are told,
"like all his fellows, was a good Christian. There was nothing else to
be, except a Moslem or aJew, and this would have been absurd."45
In reality such assumptions merely encourage hermeneutical superfi-
ciality and facilitate the evasion of crucial problems. Even Cyril
Mango, who is by no means committed to the orthodoxy of histori-
cist cliches, can occasionally take it for "granted that the Byzantines
could not transcend their mentality."46 This claim is completely
unverifiable, and verges on being tautological, or simply meaningless.
Jean Gouillard, who also grasped the problematical nature of Psellos'
professions of faith, ultimately fell back upon a false dichotomy in
order to reassert the efficacy of trite historicist explanations. Was
Psellos "un "libre penseur" de guise? Certes non." The "religion de
Psellos" can after all still be reduced to "son temps" and the
"milieu."47 It sometimes seems as though modern scholars are under
as many constraints to declare that Psellos was a Christian as Psellos
himself was.
Yet the tide is slowly turning against the uncritical belief in homo-
geneous and domineering "mentalities" that grip whole cultures in
H E.g., Psellos, He reproaches his students for neglecting their work (= Oratoria Minora
24.48).
45 Robert Browning, 'Enlightenment and Repression in Byzantium in the
Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,' p. 10, endorsed as "substantially correct" by U.
Criscuolo, in the preface to his edition of Psellos' Encomium in Praise of his Mother, p.
18, n. 4.
40 Cyril Mango, 'Diabolus Byzantinus,' p. 221, appropriately located in a collec-
tion devoted to the topic of the 'Homo Byzantinus.'
47 Jean Gouillard, 'La religion des philosophes,' p. 323.

INTRODUCTION 19
iron-clad cognitive embraces. 48 The mounting number of exceptions

will gradually render such formulaic theories obsolete. Our beliefs
about what the Byzantines could or could not think should be based
on contextualized interpretations of their works, and not the other
way around. The understanding of an author and of his age is a
dialectical process, wherein the one constantly illuminates the other.
Once a substantial number of dissenting or atypical authors has been
established our notions about 'how the Byzantines thought' will nec-
essarily have to be modified or expanded.
However that may be, my reading of the Chronographia as a duplic-
itous document of great rhetorical sophistication should not by itself
be seen as an attempt to distance Psellos from his contemporaries.
Most educated Byzantines were masters of Greek rhetoric and were
therefore capable of wielding language in very subtle ways, i.e., they
could lie beautifully (cf. §4). Even the sacristan Nikolaos Mesarites, in
his Description if the Church if the Holy Apostles (c. 1200), could claim that
of the students of rhetoric attending the school attached to the
church, "those who have achieved the higher and more complete
stages, weave webs of phrases and transform the written sense into
riddles, saying one thing with their tongues, but hiding something
else in their minds" (8.3). The literary culture of Byzantium was
highly rhetorical, and thrived on veiled allusions, subtle word-plays,
and riddles which disclosed meanings that were invisible on the sur-
face of the text. Modern historians, used to the dry and precise lan-
guage of modern scholarship, are sometimes insensitive to these
aspects of ancient and medieval literature. But as P.Magdalino
warns, "the problem in reading Byzantine authors is knowing when,
and how, they are having you on."49 The Byzantines also learned
how to dissimulate in order to survive and gain power in the danger-
ous and intricate environment of their political system. The historian
Niketas Choniates, who spent his whole life in public service, offered
this general advice to his readers: "suspect all rivals in power who are
48 For the medieval and early modern west, see S. Reynolds, 'Social Mentalities
and the Case of Medieval Scepticism,' and P. Zagorin, Ways of Lying: Dissimulation,
Persecution, and Conformity in Ear!J; Modern Europe. Analogous studies are much needed
for Byzantium. For a more theoretical attack on Weltanschauung historicism, partly
based on the work of the anthropologist Clifford Geertz, see P. Levine, Nietzsche and
the Modern Crisis of the Humanities, who, however, completely misinterprets Nietzsche
himself.
49 P. Magdalino, 'The Fourth Kingdom and the Rhetoric of Hellenism,' p. 119.

20 INTRODUCTION
not open in their manner but are instead insidious in their ways, and
say one thing with their lips and mean the opposite in their heart."5o
Some modern historians have even claimed that "treachery ...
became in Byzantium a principle of human relationship."5l Finally,
the intolerance of the Empire's ecclesiastical establishment led reli-
gious dissidents to practice a more covert form of dissimulation. 52
The writer and statesman Constantine Akropolites (died c. 1324)
wrote a letter accusing the anonymous author of the satire Timarion
(in which Psellos happens to be a character) of
wanting to revive the myths of the pagans, though he was shrewd

enough to assume the veneer of a Christian refuting open error and
commending true belief and, if I may put it so, laying out the tenets of
true orthodoxy before the eyes of those that can see, whilst all the time
his intention was to string together pagan nonsense in an incompatible
union with the truth and to make light of things that should properly
induce awe since they proceed from the one true perception of God. 53
A recent analysis of the Timarion has plausibly concluded that its

author used irony, allusion, and subtle parody in an effort to mock
the aristocratic values of twelfth-century Byzantium. He exploited
the conventions of literary form in order "to say one thing while
meaning another in words which were not his own."54 Akropolites
was right to suspect his intentions, and the Timarion has not yet been
cleared of the charge of religious subversion. 55 Regardless of the
validity of its accusations, however, Akropolites' letter demonstrates
that such rhetorical and subversive "shrewdness" as I will attribute to
.50 Niketas Choniates, Annals III.

51 A. Kazhdan and G. Constable, People and Power in Byzantium, p. 126.
52 Cf. A. Kaldellis, 'The Historical and Religious Views of Agathias: A Reinter-
pretation. '
53 The translation of the letter is from the introduction to the translation of the
Timanon by Barry Baldwin (p. 25, my italics). For the Greek text, see M. Treu, 'Ein
Kritiker des Timarion.'
.54 M. Alexiou, 'Literary Subversion and the Aristocracy in Twelfth-Century
Byzantium: A Stylistic Analysis of the Timanon (ch. 6-10).' Alexiou rightly focuses on
the literary aspects of the work, which must be understood before any historical
'data' can be extracted from it. She has a keen sense for irony and allusion, but
unfortunately her presentation is hampered by a mechanical use of the unnecessary
and questionable jargon of French literary analysis, which makes her work far less
enjoyable to read than it otherwise could have been.
55 Cf. P. Magdalino, 'The Fourth Kingdom and the Rhetoric of Hellenism,' pp.
152-3.

INTRODUCTION 21
the author of the Chronographia was not at all inconceivable to the

Byzantines.·'i6 To the contrary, H.-G. Beck's general survey of Byzan-
tine culture presents us with an entire underworld of duplicitous
expression. Court orators knew how to veil their criticisms of men in
power, indecent works were disguised under acceptable forms, and
religious dissidents used a coded language to avoid detection. About
Psellos in particular, Beck confesses that "it is very difficult to deter-
mine what he believed personally."57 As another scholar has conclud-
ed, "perhaps there is much more to his character and personality
than we have suspected or than he has told US."58
It is precisely this impasse that I have tried to overcome. But in
order to do so I have had to set aside some of the dogmas of con-
temporary scholarship. We cannot automatically assume that Psellos
was a believing Christian just because he said he was, or, as Brown-
ing and others would have it, simply because he was a Byzantine. His
declarations on any matter do not necessarily correspond to his per-
sonal beliefs. In the end, modern notions about reading and writing
may be inappropriate for understanding texts that were produced
under circumstances radically different from our own. Liudprand,
the Bishop of Cremona, visited Constantinople in the tenth century
and came to the conclusion that it was "a city full of lies, tricks, and
perjury." He even wrote a poem to vent his frustration.
Trust not the Greeks; they live but to betray;

Nor heed their promises, whate'er they say.
If lies will serve them, any oath they swear,
And when it's time to break it feel no fear. 59
56 Cf. the similar accusations of Arethas against Leo Choirosphaktes (in the former's
Choirosphaktes or Wizard Hater, translated by P. Karlin-Hayter, 'Arethas, Choirosphactes
and the Saracen Vizir,' pp. 468-481); the possible truth behind Arethas' accusations is
discussed by P. Magdalino, 'In Search of the Byzantine Courtier: Leo Choirosphaktes
and Constantine Manasses.' See also lines 214-218 of Anathema 7 of the Synodikon if
Orthodo:ry, directed against John Italos, Psellos' student: "Anathema on those who go
through a course of Hellenic studies and are taught not simply for the sake of educa-
tion, but follow these empty notions and believe in them as the truth ... [and] lead oth-
ers to them, sometimes secretly, sometimes openly, and teach them without hesitation"
(translation in N. G. Wilson, Scholars if Byzantium, p. 154).
57 H.-G. Beck, Das byzantinischeJahrtausend, pp. 140, 144-146,266, quotation from
p.265.
Sil G. T. Dennis, 'The Byzantines as Revealed in their Letters,' p. 165.
59 Liudprand, 1he Embassy to Constantinople 57; for similar criticisms from the East,
see Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle 1.91, and passim; from the north, Ioannitzes in
Niketas Choniates, Annals 628.

22 INTRODUCTION
Some scholars have rejected these views as prejudiced and unfair,

but, as we shall see, Psellos paints a similar picture of his fellow
Byzantines (§16), and even of himself. 60 My reading of the Chrono-
graphia has therefore been tempered by caution and mistrust, for it is
an extremely rhetorical text, whose purpose is as much to obfuscate
as it is to reveal and instruct.
*
In conclusion, a note on the text. Psellos' Chronographia survives com-
plete in a single manuscript which dates from the second half of the
twelfth century.61 In modern times it was not edited and published
until 1874, when K. Sathas, as he himself later put it, "rescued [it]
from oblivion." Twenty-five years later, Sathas published a second
edition and introduced the division into sections that has since
become standard. 62 Unfortunately, the only English translation, that
of E. R. A. Sewter, contains many mistakes, and occasionally even
direcdy contradicts the meaning of the original. Therefore, I have
provided my own translations of all the passages that I discuss. I have
used the text prepared by Salvatore Impellizzeri (1984), the most
accurate and up-to-date critical edition, and all citations to book, sec-
tion, and line number, refer to it.
60 G. Misch, 'Die Bruchstilcke einer Autobiographie des byzantinischen Hof-

philosophen Michael Psellos,' p. 763, suggests taking Psellos' views on human behav-
ior, and his analysis of courtly perfidy in particular, and applying them to Psellos
himself. It seems, however, that Psellos fully intended and even encouraged his read-
ers to understand him in this manner (cf. §12, 19-22). Misch later notes (p. 777) that
it is Psellos' own account that informs us about the unsavory aspects of his character.
61 For the manuscript and its history, see the careful work of K. Snipes, The
Chronographia of Michael Psellos and the Textual Tradition and Transmission of the
Byzantine Historians of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries'; and idem. 'Notes on
Parisinus Graecus 1712.' For a fragment of the second part of the text preserved in
another manuscript, see idem. 'A Newly Discovered History of the Roman Emper-
ors by Michael Psellos,' and W. J Aerts, 'Un temoin inconnu de la Chronographie
de Psellos.'
62 The first edition, entitled 'E,carOVTa£TTjpi<; Bv\;avTlvij<; '/aropza<;, is in K. Sathas
ed., Meaarwvlrdj BIj3AIO(hjK7], v. 4, pp. 1-299; the second edition was entitled TIe His-
tory of Psellus (quotation from p. vii).

1. ETHOS AND HISTORY
The historical narrative of Psellos' Chronographia starts where the His-

tory of Leo the Deacon ends, with the death of the Emperor John
Tzimiskes in 976. Psellos begins by immediately describing the indi-
vidual "character" (~eo~) of each of the two new rulers, Basil II and
Constantine VIII (1.2). We may set the particular content of those
descriptions aside for the moment, and focus instead on the wider
implications of Psellos' narrative method. He assumes throughout the
Chronographia that the actions of men and women, and consequently
the policies of Emperors and Empresses, are the natural products of
their 'innate characters,' their particular natures as individual human
beings. He says this explicitly about the beliefs and conduct of Con-
stantine IX Monomachos: "they accorded perfectly with his ethos"
(6.98.4). Psellos structures his presentation consistently according to
this principle. For example, his account of the sole reign of Constan-
tine VIII begins with a detailed examination of the new ruler's char-
acter (2.1-2), which is presented as the spring from which his actions
and policies naturally flowed. In short, methodologically Psellos
moves from action to ethos, though ontologically action proceeds
from ethos. 63
Yet inner character can be discerned only through the penetrating
observation of action, its outward manifestation. 64 This implies that
the historian must have first-hand experience of the events he
describes and seeks to explain. He is thus limited to writing contem-
porary history, unless he can rely on highly detailed and accurate
63 This view of the human personality represents a complete rejection of the

'paratactic' presentation of man in literature (outlined by J. N. Ljubarskij, 'Man in
Byzantine Historiography from John Malalas to Michael Psellos'), in which human
attributes and actions are related sequentially without any attempt to structure them
coherently with reference to some ordering principle. For some introductory
remarks to Psellos' view of the human character, see K. Svoboda (,Quelques obser-
vations sur la methode historique de Michel Psellos,' pp. 386-389) who calls it "more
Hellenic than Christian," but does not elaborate on the meaning of this distinction.
The role of individuals in the ChTonographia is analogous to the role of cities in Thucy-
dides (see S. Forde, TIe Ambition to Rule, p. 17 ff.) and of nations in Posidonios' now-
lost History (see I. G. Kidd, 'Posidonius as Philosopher-Historian').
64 At least one modern theorist of history has proposed a similar method: J. G.
Droysen, GrundTiss deT Historik §9-IO (pp. 328-329).

24 'ETHOS' AND HISTORY
sources for past events. Psellos admits as much at the beginning of his
account of the reign of Romanos III.
Henceforth my history v.~ll be more accurate than before. For the

Emperor Basil died while I was still an infant, and Constantine while I
was still taking my first lessons. I neither met them personally, nor
heard them speak, nor do I know if I ever saw them, as I was too
young to retain anything in my memory. But I both saw Romanos for
myself, and even spoke mth him on occasion. Therefore I wrote about
the former based on the accounts of others, but anything I write about
Romanos mil be my own and not learned at second-hand (3.1).
Psellos repeatedly stresses the importance of his own perception of
events: "I myself witnessed these things, and having seen with my
own eyes the truth about what really happened, I am now commit-
ting it to writing unaltered" (5.3.1-3).65 However, this dependence on
the outward manifestation of character, even when one has first-
hand experience, can lead to uncertainty and ambiguity, for deliber-
ate deception on the part of historical agents may obscure their true
ethos. In his account of the sole reign of Theodora, Psellos notes that
the Empress' behavior seemed remarkably changed, in particular,
"she no longer retained her compassion of soul" (6A.16. 7-8). Psellos
professes that he does "not know whether she was reverting to her
implanted nature, to show that her past conduct up to now had been
a piece of theater, or whether her recent behavior was deliberately
cultivated" (6A.16.9-11). Either way, a fraud was involved.
Psellos delineates the "implanted ethos" of every major individual
in the Chronographia before giving an account of his or her action. 66
He outlines his method at the beginning of his account of the reign
of Michael V Kalaphates, where he interrupts the sequence of events
to "comment first [npo'tEpoV] on the Emperor's mind and soul, lest
you be perplexed when I describe his actions" (5.9.1-3). The entire
narrative of the Chronographia is based on this view of causation,
though some of Psellos' character-sketches are more subtle than oth-
ers.
In Psellos' usage, ethos primarily denotes the relatively fixed prop-
erties of the individual character, and should be contrasted to the
6j Cf. also 4.38.4-8, 6.77.1,7.86.1-2.

66 E.g., 4.12-14: John the Orphanotrophos; 6.4-6: Zoe and Theodora; cf. also
7.71.2.

'ETHOS' AND HISTORY 25
fleeting emotions of the moment (e.g., 5.48.8). In some cases, howev-

er, it may refer to merely habitual or even temporary behavior,
which can be altered more easily than implanted character (e.g.,
1.34.13-15, 5.44.9). Psellos uses many other words to describe the
individual personality, such as nature (qrucrtc;), soul ('l'UX~), gnome, tro-
pos, and also simply 'character' (2.6.1-2, 4.12.4, 6.26.12-13). We must
examine this vocabulary closely. For although Psellos can ably char-
acterize an individual without using any of these technical terms, a
review of their range of meaning and their semantic configurations
may enable us to understand better his view of human nature. It
emerges, for example, that these words do not have sharply and
rigidly defined meanings. Depending on the context, the same two
terms can either be used as synonyms or stand in opposition. Thus
Psellos' psychology is not composed of discreet elements or faculties,
but utilizes instead a broad spectrum of meanings which may vary
according to each occasion. For instance, the line between the emo-
tions and reason is drawn clearly only in the rare cases of individuals
who consciously seek to suppress their bodily desires. Otherwise, it is
not easy to discriminate precisely between emotional and rational
behavior. It is these ambiguities, and the semantic richness of his
vocabulary, which allow Psellos to create the vivid and compelling
human portraits for which he is famous.
'Nature' has a wide range of philosophical meanings in the Chrono-
graphia, but when applied to human beings it can sometimes mean
'implanted character' like ethos. 67 Yet there is a markedly physical
aspect to nature that is absent from ethos: it can denote an individ-
ual's physical properties (2.7.2-4), or the material limits of human life
in general (e.g., 3.5.9-10; cf. §12). Often it refers to human nature in
general, i.e., the properties that all individuals share in common by
virtue of being human (e.g., 1.32.7-8, 6.24.3). Unfortunately, Psellos
discloses very few of his beliefs regarding human nature as such (cf.
1.2.15-16, 4.16.17). In general, it seems that ethos individuates the
common framework provided by nature.
'Soul' occasionally refers to that which animates the body (e.g.,
5.25.22, 6.66.11). The ease with which the word can be used in a
merely literary manner should caution us against placing too much
emphasis on its metaphysical and religious connotations (e.g.,
67 E.g., 6.47.13-14; in 1.32.14-16 ethos is used almost as a synonym for nature.

26 'ETHOS' AND HISTORY
4.54.12, a very rare specimen). In the vast majority of cases, it repre-

sents the seat of reason and the emotions (e.g., 2.6.13, 6.52.4-5). Soul
hosts both rational thought and passion, though in the Chronographia
the latter element tends to dominate. More often than not, reason is
an instrument in the service of strong emotions like ambition,
revenge, and love.
One of Psellos' most ambiguous terms is gnome. Often it represents
implanted dispositions or inclinations (e.g., 2.5.3), but it can also
mean, depending on the context, plan, purpose, will, favor, opinion,
desire, etc. (e.g., 4.2.11, 4.42.5). Gnome can signify anything from the
near-permanence of ethos to the transient desires of the moment.
Can ethos be changed? Apparently it can be suppressed and its nat-
ural tendencies checked, diverted into other channels, or obscured by
deceit. To designate a suppressed or hidden natural quality, Psellos
likens it to "a fire smoldering under ashes,"68 a metaphor which
implies a highly essentialist view of human qualities. Accordingly, the
basis of human nature for Psellos is physical and hence determinist.
For the majority of people, being precedes willing. "Certain natural
virtues or their opposites are given to us at birth. I use the word
'virtue' here neither in an ethical nor in a political sense, nor in any
higher sense which may point to the heavenly pattern or to creative
perfection" (6.44.6-9). The supremacy of natural qualities over ethi-
cal ideals is asserted in a discussion of mystics and monks who
desired to escape entirely from the natural world and to live with the
angels. Psellos counters their lofty aspirations with the claim that "no
one has triumphed over nature to such an extent" (6A.8.18-19; cf.
§10, 12). Nevertheless, ethos can be changed by extraordinary individ-
uals or extraordinary circumstances (e.g., 6.27.17). The most promi-
nent case of such a change in the Chronographia is that of Basil II, but
Psellos gives us two accounts which seem incompatible: Basil was
changed by events (1.4.5-10), and Basil deliberately changed his own
ethos (1.4.16-18, 1.22).
A historical method based on the nuances of the human personal-
ity requires great observational skills, which Psellos knew he pos-
sessed (4.12.1 fT.), as well as the ability to paint complex and pene-
trating portraits with precision and wit, in which respect he ranks
68 1.34.5: Basil II's anger; 4.28.7-8: Michael V Kalaphates' hatred and resent-
ment; cf. also 3.2.14, 5.6.10-11.

'ETHOS' AND HISTORY 27
with the world's masters. Yet this approach generally finds little favor
with modern historians, especially professional scholars. In the twen-
tieth century, the view that history is shaped mainly by the actions of
individuals, or that "the times changed with the prince," as Machi-
avelli put it,69 has been generally rejected. The view that certain rare
men of great genius have profoundly altered its course has been
attacked in an extravagant way. Many schools of historical thought
have, if not entirely banished, at least severely curtailed the role of
the individual in the making of history. Instead, it is now understood
that broad socio-economic or cultural 'forces' and 'trends' are entire-
ly responsible for molding the individuals of every particular histori-
cal period and determining their actions. "In history, the individual
is all too often a mere abstraction. " Yet "the question is not to deny
the individual on the grounds that he is the prey of contingency, but
somehow to transcend him."70 Such positions today represent a
deeper level of historical analysis.
As we shall see, Psellos was not unaware that the course of histori-
cal events is to a certain degree shaped by the existence of broad
social, economic, and political structures. Nevertheless, he would
have rejected the claim that the individual cannot alter the course of
history in ways that transcend the societal forces of his times. For
sometimes those forces are themselves created by individuals. The
most important event in the Chronographia is the resurrection of true
philosophy by the genius of Psellos himself (6.36-43), the true protag-
onist of the work. This is a clear instance of a single man creating an
intellectual, and hence political, force practically ex nihilo and
unleashing it upon his contemporaries and posterity. That monu-
mental achievement (or so it seemed to the man who was at once its
creator and historian) was the immediate product of Psellos' own
nature, his ethos. One of the main goals of our discussion, therefore,
will be to determine its precise identity. Who exactly is the Psellos of
69 Niccol6 Machiavelli, Florentine Histories 1.2.

70 Fernand Braudel, On History, p. 10; cf. M. Foucault in A. 1. Davidson ed., Fou-
cault and his Interlocutors, p. 115: "I have without any doubt given very little room to
what you might call the creativity of individuals, to their capacity for creation, to
their aptitude for inventing by themselves, for originating concepts, theories or sci-
entific truths by themselves"; H.-G. Gadamer, Truth and Method, p. 276: "The self-
awareness of the individual is only a flickering in the closed circuits of historical life.
1hat is why the prejudices if the individual, far more than his judgments, constitute the historical
realiry if his being' (italics in original). Gadamer's concept of "prejudice" does not car-
ry the negative connotations the word now has in English.

28 THE DELUSIONS OF ROMANOS III
the Chronographia and what is his ethos? The answer to this question
lies at the heart of the text and a great deal of excavation will be
required before its thousand-year-old secrets are revealed. As we
shall see, Psellos has hidden himself within multi-layered rhetorical
deceptions, and it is incumbent upon us to release again the fire that
smolders within them.
2. THE DELUSIONS OF ROMANOS III
Psellos does not give us an explicit description of the ethos of

Romanos III. The word does not even occur until the narrative has
reached the very end of his reign, when his ethos began to change
under the influence of a debilitating disease (3.24.6-10).7 1 Psellos
instead allows us to deduce the Emperor's character for ourselves.
We are provided with an account of his actions and are invited to
trace them back to their common source, namely the tendency to be
deluded and the inability to grasp reality that both produced and
undermined all of Romanos' hopes and endeavors. Repeated mani-
festations of this trait urge us to infer its origins in Romanos' person-
ality. This tactic makes us active participants in Psellos' method, and
hopefully more sympathetic judges of his wider program. 72
The reign of Romanos is presented as an exercise in illusion and
grand but groundless ambition. Reality, material, earthly, and stub-
born, always frustrated the realization of his extravagant dreams. His
reign was consequently a piece of theater, a pretentious and expen-
sive personal delusion.
71 For Psellos' account of Romanos' sickness and death (murder?), see R. Volk, Der
medizinische Inhalt der Schrifien des Michael Psellos, pp. 384-389.
72 The power of this technique was understood by ancient analysts of style: "These
then are the essentials of persuasiveness ... You should not elaborate on everything in
punctilious detail but should omit some points for the listener to infer and work out
for himself. For when he infers what you have omitted, he is not just listening to you
but he becomes your witness and reacts more favorably to you. For he is made
aware of his own intelligence through you, who have given him the opportunity to
be intelligent. To tell your listener every detail as though he were a fool seems to
judge him one" (Demetrios, On Style 222; cf. Lucian, How History Should be Written 17,
on philosophers writing history); see also the discussion on Lysias in §4.

THE DELUSIONS OF ROMANOS III 29
Romanos envisioned a long line of rulers springing forth from his

loins (3.1.3-10), but his vain efforts to conceive a child with the
Empress Zoe are presented as puerile and pathetic (3.5). He paid lit-
tle attention to the fact that his wife was well past her child-bearing
years, and even "the vigor of his own body was exhausted" (3.5.20-
21). The Imperial couple turned for help to ridiculous magical oint-
ments, charms, and amulets, which the philosophical historian dis-
misses as "nonsense" (3.5.17).7 3 Similarly, Romanos' grand military
aspirations were based on an unrealistic perception of the Empire's
strategic situation (3.4), while his ambition to rival Julius Caesar and
Alexander in martial glory is shown to be absolutely hollow (3.8). His
expedition to the East was a disaster, though, typically, he dreamed
of triumphal parades before even facing his enemy on the field
(3.7).74 His military parade in Antioch was "more theatrical than
martial" (3.8.5-6). Psellos frequently employs the image of the theater
when one of his characters has failed to grasp the reality of his cir-
cumstances. This image (if we may digress slightly) evokes Plato's
famous theory, expounded in the tenth book of the Republic, that the
creations of poets and playwrights, like those of painters and other
artists, exist at a remove from the reality they seek to describe. They
themselves are "not true" (596e), but are only deceptive imitations of
the truth. According to the graduated ontology of orthodox Platon-
ism, true Being is constituted by the supernatural world of the imma-
terial Forms. This theory has been criticized, mostly in modern
times, as hostile or indifferent to the physical world of men, to the
earth and its commandments.
Even Romanos' piety was nothing but a mixture of superficiality,
outward pretense, and theological incomprehension (3.13). Unjustly
exacting funds from his subjects, he built a church to the Virgin in a
vain attempt to rival the monuments of Justinian and Solomon. His
workers were compared to the best of ancient craftsmen, but the
73 This reference, and consequently Psellos' negative attitude, is not noted by John
DuffY ('Reactions of Two Byzantine Intellectuals to the Theory and Practice of
Magic: Michael Psellos and Michael Italikos'), who does, however, discuss Zoe's
involvement with the magical arts in the Chronographia at some length. For amulets
(mostly protective) in the Byzantine world, see Ph. Koukoules, Bvsavnvwv BloC; /Cai
[JOAlTl(JtlOC;, v. I, pt. 2, pp. 255-265. Psellos attacks them also in his Encomium in Praise
if his Mother 1785-1793.
74 In 1030 Romanos attacked the city of Aleppo (in Syria) without provocation
and was soundly defeated; for a modern account, see "V. Felix, Byzanz und die islami-
sche Welt imjrfiheren 11. Jahrhundert, pp. 82-94.

30 THE DELUSIONS OF ROMANOS III
building failed to materialize on schedule (3.14).7 5 In his religious

devotion, as in every other aspect of his reign, "he pretended to be
more than he really was, and seeming was more important to him
than being' (3.13.4). Psellos' condemnation utilizes the language and
values of Platonic metaphysics, and strongly implies that the State
required a ruler who, like a true Platonic philosopher, could clearly
distinguish between reality and illusion.
The peak of Romanos' delusion was revealed by the Empress
Zoe's affair with Michael Paphlagon. Romanos did not know, or did
not want to realize, what was taking place in his very own palace. He
refused to believe the strong evidence presented before him (3.21-23).
Psellos more than insinuates that his neglect of the desires of his wife
(3.6, 17), and his later indifference to the raging affair between her
and the comely youth Michael, eventually led to his murder (3.26,
4.4, 6).76 During his final sickness, the Imperial garments became too
heavy for Romanos' frail body (3.24.19-20). That image may sym-
bolize his reign as a whole. Yet Psellos pursues the unhappy man
even beyond the grave. As a young student of Homer witnessing the
Emperor's Imperial funeral, he identified Romanos' body only by its
clothing and adornment, it had so withered away (4.4). "His funeral
was worthy of his way oflife" (4.5.1-2).
Romanos, we are led to believe, would have benefited immensely
from the advice of a philosopher who could discriminate between
reality and illusion. Instead, as we shall see, he surrounded himself
with a crowd of shallow and pretentious theologians who did not
even understand the philosophy they professed to know and practice.
75 For this church and its history, see R. Janin, us eglises et les monasteres, pp. 218-
222.
76 Psellos' account of this affair, with its suggestive language, reads like an ancient
romance novel, with the difference that no character in it retains his or her virtue. In
fact Psellos claims elsewhere that he used elements of romantic literature in his own
writing (On the Character of Certain Texts, pp. 51-51; for his possible influence on the
future development of this literature in Byzantium, seeJ N. yubarskij, 'Some Notes
on the Newly Discovered Historical Work by Psellos,' pp. 222-223).

'EGREGORSIS': AN AWAKENING TO HUMAN AFFAIRS 31
3. EGREGORSIS: AN AWAKENING TO HUMAN AFFAIRS
According to Psellos, Romanos "showed himself unsuited to the

management of public affairs [tot~ npaYllacrtv]."77 He lacked practical
wisdom and political acumen, qualities upon which the military his-
torian Polybios had based his concept of the tough-minded prag-
matikos aner, the successful statesman. An equivalent concept in the
Chronographia is EYPTtYOpcrt~, literally 'wakefulness.' Psellos ascribes it
primarily to military heroes, e.g., to the Emperors Basil II (1.2.3) and
Nikephoros Phokas (1. 7 .3),78 but also to the effective ruler called for
in section 6.47.3-4: "egregorsis of the soul is always required for an
effective administration of state affairs [trov npawanov]." This virtue
is twice explicitly denied to the most inept Emperor in the Chrono-
graphia, Psellos' patron and benefactor Constantine IX Monomachos
(6.89.5, 6.97.3). The second of these passages deserves to be quoted
at length, although its full significance will not be revealed until the
end of our discussion of the Chronographia:
His soul was indolent and careless, but all those who are awake to the
matters of this world [m,pl-tcutpaYI-la1:u £YPTlyoPUat], and know that tri-
fling causes sometimes produce the greatest disasters, pay attention to
every seemingly trivial event... On the other hand, there are the more
simple-minded,7g who neither suspect the origin of future evils nor try
to counter the causes of disasters ... There is also a third kind of per-
son, who possesses a much better sou!. Should trouble sneak up on
him surreptitiously, he is not shown to be unprepared, nor is he shak-
en, distressed, or subdued, by any outside commotions. When all oth-
ers have surrendered, he takes an unshakable stand against all difficul-
ties, relying not on material supports, but on the steadiness of his rea-
son and his superior judgment. But I have never met any people of
this kind among my contemporaries.
77 3.6.7. His successor Michael IV Paphlagon, however, "immediately paid proper

attention to the direction of affairs" (EUeU~ 'tfi~ aKpt~OU~ 'troY 1tpaYl-lu'tOlv £<PPOV'ttO"E
OlOlKT]o"EOl~, 4.8.8-9).
78 Cf. Leo the Deacon, History 1.5: ~v yap ayxivou~, 5.2: Kat £YPTlYopw~. Note that
Plato calls 'awake' those who contemplate the Forms (Republic 476d), and claims that
"a man who has his understanding truly turned toward the things that are has no
leisure to look down toward the affairs [1tpaYfla'tEia~J of human beings" (500b). For
the philosophical significance of wakefulness in the Apology, see T. G. West, Plato's
Apology of Socrates. An Interpretation, p. 228.
79 The word can also mean 'kindly' or 'good at heart.'

32 'EGREGORSIS': ~"I AWAKENING TO HUMAN AFFAIRS
Constantine IX was clearly one of the "simple-minded," who are

contrasted in the text to the members of two superior groups. The
first, in constant egregorsis, are characterized primarily by an aware-
ness of the causes and consequences of events, particularly political
events. Although Psellos ascribes this quality to men of action like
Basil II and Nikephoros Phokas, we must not lose sight of the fact
that egregorsis is a virtue of the mind, as it encompasses perceptive-
ness, foresight, and attention to detail. By implication, therefore, no
individual in the Chronographia possesses more egregorsis than Psellos
himself, who repeatedly declares that an important function of the
historian is to uncover causes and trace their consequences. 80
On one occasion Psellos even links that function with the political
aspects of egregorsis, and implies that he himself possessed that virtue
in the highest degree. Among the "greatest disasters" for Psellos was
the decline of the Byzantine Empire in the eleventh century, caused
largely by the wasteful extravagance of the court, which starved the
army and led to the creation of a bloated civil administration (see in
general 7.52-59). This wastefulness was in its early stages in 1042,
during the joint reign of the two sisters Zoe and Theodora, when it
signaled "the beginning of the reversal of our fortunes and eventual
humiliation. But at the time this was discerned only by a few
prophets and wise men" (6.7.10-13). Given Psellos' fondness for mak-
ing veiled and allusive references to himself, it is plausible to believe
that he was among those "prophets and wise men." It is their view,
after all, that Psellos tries to validate throughout the Chronographia. In
addition, he associates himself with prophesy, or at least political
foresight, elsewhere in the work. In sections 6A.l 0-1 I he denies pos-
sessing the ability to make supernatural predictions, but admits that
he had a reputation for being a prophet. s, The prediction concerning
the long-term effects of Zoe's financial policy owes nothing to super-
natural assistance. It is a clear case of political prognostication by an
astute observer of events at court. Another correct prediction is
claimed by Psellos concerning the eventual rise to the Patriarchate of
Constantine Leichoudes (7.66.24-27, and see §24).
By indirectly linking the virtues of the historian to those of the
statesman, Psellos is artfully arrogating to himself a quality that he
80 E.g., 6.30.9, 6.46.16-18, 6.73.1-2, in addition to numerous specific instances.

81 For a more detailed look at this passage see §18.

'EGREGORSIS': A."l AWAKENING TO HUMAN AFFAIRS 33
attributes openly only to great military leaders like Basil II and his
heroic rival Bardas Phokas (1.7.3), and to the effective Emperor
called for in section 6.10.2-7:
Circumstances ['tOtS npaYllacrt] urgently required the brave and intelli-

gent direction and supervision of a bold man trained by harsh reality
['tOtS npaYllacrlV], who could not only see the present clearly but who
could also manage all the things neglected in the past and forestall
their future consequences.
The political virtue designated by Psellos' concept of egregorsis has

been ascribed to astute statesmen by the most insightful political
philosophers, both ancient and modern. Niccolo Machiavelli wrote
of Cosimo de Medici that "he recognized ills at a distance and there-
fore was in time either not to let them grow or to be prepared so
that, if they did grow, they would not offend him."B2 Through his
own egregorsis, Psellos had predicted as early as 1042 that the Empire
would suffer great harm from the wasteful economic policies inaugu-
rated at Zoe's court. His value as an Imperial adviser has thereby
increased: not only can his philosophical ability to see through illu-
sions save Emperors like Romanos III from the dangers of their own
false hopes and dreams, but he can also detect the causes of future
threats and predict the outcomes of new policies.
Egregorsis thus characterizes two different kinds of people in the
Chronographia. It is an attribute of a few unphilosophical military lead-
ers, like Basil II, who possess it instinctively and consequently do not
need to be advised by others on how to rule the State. It is also an
attribute of the philosophical historian, who, in the course of observ-
ing contemporary events, discerns their causes and predicts their ulti-
mate outcomes. This virtue of the historian can easily become a
powerful asset to those rulers like Romanos III and Constantine IX
who lack the ability to understand the realities of political affairs.
Psellos is using his history (and perhaps abusing his hindsight) to
advertise his value as a philosophical court adviser. As we shall see,
the Chronographia culminates in an extravagant vindication of Psellos'
political skills.
82 Niccolo Machiavelli, Florentine Histories 7.5; The Prince, c. 3; Discourses on Livy

1.18.4; Personal Correspondence: Letter 213 (p. 237); cf. Thucydides 1.138, 2.65; Aristo-
tle, Politics 1308a33-35: "for to recognize an ill as it arises in the beginning belongs
not to an ordinary person but rather to a man expert in politics."

34 PHILOSOPHY AND PHILOLOGY
We turn now to the third class of people described in the passage

quoted above, whose members have the ability to withstand adversi-
ty by relying on their "reason" and "superior judgment." There is
probably only one man who fits this description in the entire Chrono-
graphia, though he will not emerge until the end of our discussion.
Psellos has kept his identity a secret by denying that any such person
appeared during the eleventh century. But would he go to such
lengths to describe a person who would play no role in his history?
4. PHILOSOPHY AND PHILOLOGY
"If a man be thought secret, it inviteth discovery." So wrote the enig-

matic Francis Bacon in his essay 'Of Simulation and Dissimula-
tion,'S1 proving that the greatest secrets are not those of kings, but of
philosophers. It is they, consequently, who offer us the greatest dis-
coveries. But it is often best for some discoveries to remain secret.
Whereas Psellos gleefully reveals the innermost thoughts and pas-
sions of his sovereigns, he never discloses the innermost teachings of
the great philosophers, which he claims to have discovered. And who
can doubt that Psellos himself had secrets?
\Ve turn directly to his first extensive discussion of philosophy and
philosophers. According to the first sentence of section 3.2, Romanos
had been raised with Hellenic paideia (signifying both education and
general cultureS 1). However, we soon discover that his learning fell
far short of his own inflated estimation of it (3.2.5), and later in the
same section, Psellos tells us outright that Romanos' knowledge was
sloppy and superficial (3.2.10-11). In a later passage we are told that
he was utterly incapable of transforming his abstract knowledge of
syllogisms into living philosophy, manifested in deeds (3.15.23-25).
His education turns out to be an illusion, like the rest of his reign.
And yet he aspired to emulate the Antonine Roman Emperors in
wisdom as well as military virtue, even though, as we have already
Rl Francis Bacon, The Essays, p. 77.

8'f Cf also the contemporary author Kckaumenos, Stratigikon 76.

PHILOSOPHY AND PHILOLOGY 35
seen, "he knew absolutely nothing of the latter" (3.2.9-10). He sur-

rounded himself, Psellos continues, with individuals who fancied
themselves orators and philosophers. Our presumably genuine
philosopher justifies his negative view of their credentials in the next
section. These so-called philosophers, Psellos explains,
stood only at the outer doors of the Aristotelian doctrines and merely
mouthed the Platonic symbols, knowing nothing of their hidden teach-
ings [troy KEKPUIlIlEVOOV] or of these men's studies in dialectic or proof
by argument. Having no solid basis upon which to make a judgment,
their opinions concerning these thinkers were false. Nevertheless, our
scholars posed questions and problems, but most of them remained
unsolved. For they sought to establish how one could have both the
Conception and its Immaculateness, the Virginity and the Birth, and
they sought after metaphysical matters. And you could see the court
cloaked in the mantle of philosophy, but it was all mask and pretense,
for there was no sincere examination of the truth (3.3; cf. 3.13).
One cannot avoid the conclusion that Psellos regarded abstract spec-
ulation on the Virgin Birth as a waste of philosophical effort. He cer-
tainly does not suggest that a correct' understanding of Plato and
Aristotle can ever solve such problems. This indicates his apprecia-
tion of the gulf separating the concerns of ancient philosophy from
the objects of Christian inquiry. Yet this criticism, although ostensi-
bly directed against the second-rate theologians of Romanos, applies
equally to the Fathers of the Church, like St Basil of Caesarea, who
labored to prove the perpetual virginity ofJesus' mother. 85 Is Psellos
suggesting that all theologians who investigate such questions do not
deserve to be called philosophers? However that may be, we may
note that his dismissive attitude is remarkably similar to the Renais-
sance humanists' attacks on the pedantic and futile inquiries of
scholastic theology. Witness Erasmus: "they interpret hidden myster-
ies to suit themselves: ... by what means, in what measure, and how
long Christ was formed in the Virgin's womb ... But this sort of ques-
tion has been discussed threadbare"86 - and has never been solved.
Yet the criticism of Romanos' theologians raises a far more impor-
tant issue, the centrality of interpretive philology to the proper
85 For the attempts by him and others, see J. N. D. Kelly, Earfy Christian Doctrines,
p. 494 ff.
fH; Erasmus, Praise if Folfy, p. 86. There are, of course, profound differences in out-
look between the two men on other issues (but cf. §23).

36 PHILOSOPHY At'\TD PHILOLOGY
understanding of philosophical texts. For Psellos is not accusing the

theologians of not reading philosophical texts at all, or of not reading
the right ones. Instead, he claims that they did not read them cor-
rectly. Their interpretations of Plato and Aristotle were deficient and
served shallow theological ends. Consequently, they missed the hid-
den teachings of those great philosophers, which can presumably
only be recovered by the application of sophisticated hermeneutical
methods. In short, Psellos' accusation is less philosophical than philo-
logical.
Psellos thought that he had understood Plato and Aristotle correctly
and that he had uncovered the doctrines "hidden" in their works.
What were those doctrines? And why did Plato and Aristotle hide
them in the first place? It is generally believed that philosophers seek to
discover the truth, and that they try to present it to the world as clear-
ly as possible. But Psellos approached philosophical texts with a very
different set of expectations. He realized that the greatest philosophers
did not write in a straightforward way, and that they reserved their
innermost truths for the few who can penetrate the surface of their
texts. 87 Therefore, the criticism of Romanos' theologians contains an
implicit call for a new hermeneutics of classical philosophy. Modern
scholars may be tempted to dismiss this as the product of an overly
imaginative medieval mind, lacking the benefits of modern specialized
training. One could argue that Psellos' reading of the classics was just
as misguided or anachronistic as those of the theologians. But before
we judge the ideas of the past by the standards of modern disciplines,
we should note that Psellos claims to have studied Plato and Aristotle
before he turned to an investigation of their authoritative commenta-
tors (6.37-38). Modern scholars, on the other hand, generally approach
ancient philosophy only after they have been told by their teachers and
textbooks what they will and will not find there.
Nowhere in the Chronographia does Psellos tell us directly what the
esoteric doctrines of Plato and Aristotle are and why those philoso-
phers hid them from the majority of their readers. Behind his claims
to a deeper understanding of their works, scholars may see the meta-
physical Neoplatonic doctrines that Psellos ostensibly espoused. This
interpretation should be accorded full consideration (cf. §26). Neo-
platonism, however obscure and unintelligible to us, is after all a
87 cr. Proverbs 25.2.

more credible interpretation of classical philosophy than the theology

of the Virgin Birth. And many Neoplatonist thinkers claimed that
they had uncovered the secret teachings of their more famous prede-
cessors. Yet Psellos lists "metaphysical" discussions [ra U1tEP (j)'l)ow]
among those of the so-called philosophers of Romanos' court. Are
then the hidden doctrines of Plato and Aristotle not metaphysical in
nature? Our exegesis will hopefully cast some light on this problem.
For instance, what were the "secrets" that Psellos would not even
reveal to his warm supporter, the Emperor Isaac Komnenos? (7.64.7)
And what purpose do hidden doctrines serve?
To write a text that reveals its secrets only to a select group of peo-
ple, while withholding them from the majority, is to go beyond the
philosophical calling, as that is usually understood. It requires the
clever and subtle use of words, in short, rhetorical skill (cf. §19). Lat-
er in the Chronographia, Psellos praises one of the great orators of clas-
sical antiquity, Lysias, precisely for his ability to make veiled pro-
nouncements.
In addition to the other attested virtues of his speech, they say that he
was able to bridle his eloquence at the appropriate moments.
Although he was quite capable of saying everything openly, he con-
tented himself with saying only what was essential, from which one
could infer those things that he left unsaid (7.48.4-8).38
In other words, the correct interpretation of a great author, whether

philosopher or orator, may depend on the implications of what he
states directly, to say nothing of what he may have "hidden" in his
works. There appears to be a parallel between Psellos' movement
from the outward actions of individuals to their inner, often fraudu-
lently concealed, ethos, and his movement from the surface of a text
to its esoteric, often deliberately obscured, meaning. For Psellos, clas-
sical texts may contain secret teachings, or leave their most impor-
tant conclusions unsaid but forcefully implied. Very little can be tak-
en for granted or at face value. Even the novelist Heliodoros was not
33 Cf. Demetrios, On Style 222, quoted in the second footnote of §2, and 254:
"(strange as it may seem) obscurity is often a sort of forcefulness, since what is
implied is more forceful, while what is openly stated is despised," and, we might add,
sometimes punished. Psellos' characterization of Lysias' rhetoric is not entirely com-
patible with that of Dionysios of Halicarnassus, Lysias 4-6, and indeed appears to
contradict section 15 of Dionysios' treatise.

entirely straightforward. In a masterful metaphor, Psellos captures

the intricate structure of his Aithiopika:
At the beginning of the reading the reader fancies that most elements
are superfluous, but as the narrative progresses, he comes to admire
the author's organization. The beginning of the work itself resembles a
coiled snake: the snake conceals its head inside the coils and thrusts
the rest of its body forward; so the book makes a beginning of its mid-
dle, and the onset of the story, which it has, so to speak, inherited,
slips through to end up in the middle. 89
This effect is produced in part through the mendacity of the main

characters and the narrator Heliodoros himself. The aggressively
chaste heroine, Charikleia, is nothing less than an inveterate liar. In
her own words, "sometimes even a lie can be good, if it helps those
who speak it without harming those to whom it is spoken" (1.26). To
rehabilitate the work in the eyes of his contemporaries, Psellos
euphemistically, but accurately, called Charikleia's mode of speech
"more sophistic in tone."90
We are now entitled to ask whether Psellos himself practiced the
serpentine art of secret writing, and whether his own works, like those
of Plato and Aristotle, contain "hidden" or esoteric teachings. For any
writer who has uncovered the techniques of esoteric writing in others
must be suspected of practicing them himself. Does his prose regular-
ly imply more than it says? Is it characterized by obvious contradic-
tions or lies? Or perhaps, in the manner of the Aithiopika, does the
structural middle of the Chronographia possess a special importance?
Does it explain the significance of seemingly "superfluous" elements?
We know that Psellos was a superb practitioner of the art of rhetoric.
As I hope to demonstrate, this philosopher, who disguised himself as
an orator so successfully that he is still widely considered to have been
an orator who merely fancied himself a philosopher,9! was acutely
aware of the potential of rhetoric for allusion, subtlety, deception,
misdirection, and veiled pronouncement (cf: 7.39.4-6).
fl'1 The Essays on Euripides and George if Pisidia and on Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius, pp.
90-93.
90 ibid. pp. 92-93; cf. J. J. Winkler, 'The mendacity of Kalasiris and the narrative
strategy of Heliodoros' Aithiopika,' p. 93: "contradiction is not a mere oversight or
poorly planned effect but more like a deliberate narrative strategy on Kalasiris' part,
and hence an aspect of the larger problem of his honorable mendacity."
91 For the widespread view that "rhetoric not philosophy was Psellos' forte," see,
e.g., M. Angold, The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204: A Political History, p. 79; K.

Psellos in fact informs us that he was capable of veiling his beliefs

in such a manner that only a careful reading can uncover them. His
chief admission that he practiced the art of esoteric writing is itself
neatly disguised and incorporated within the narrative, so that its full
significance is not so obvious to the casual reader. 92 Constantine IX
Monomachos used to strike a modest and humble pose in his letters
to the ruler of Egypt. He sometimes assigned this function to Psellos
himself,
recommending that I should voluntarily humiliate him and present
him as inferior, while exalting the other man. Nevertheless, by
rhetorical devices of reversal I secretly managed to do exactly the
opposite. I gave my ruler a different impression, but really set traps
for the other man, and, without his noticing, abused him by employ-
ing subtle enthymemes. But because my letters were rather obscure,
Constantine decided to dictate the correspondence to the Egyptian
ruler (6.190).
This confession should immediately warn us that passages of the

Chronographia may themselves be designed to give different messages
to different people, depending on the subtlety of their philological
approach. The surface meaning of the text may be directly contrary
to the meaning which the author wishes to convey to the careful
reader. Strategically placed clues help point the latter in the right
direction. "Obscurity" (ucra<p£la) is one sign of esotericism; there are
indeed many obscure passages in the Chronographia. 93 According to an
anonymous treatise on rhetoric, dated to the tenth century, "when
the speaker intends one thing but says another, but the listener
accepts what was said, having grasped its true import, then obscurity
[ucra<p£la] becomes useful and beneficial [XPTJcrl~J. "94
Discretion is another sign. The Empress Theodora made use of
Dieterich, Byzantinische CharacterkbPfi, p. 73; J. Sykoutris, 'Review of E. Kurtz and F.

Drexl,' p. 514: "like all Byzantines ... " ; P. Magdalino, The empire if Manuel] Komnenos,
1143-1180, p. 409: "Psellos and the Byzantines ... tended to value philosophizing elo-
quence over pure philosophy."
92 "In some cases, we possess even explicit evidence proving that the author has
indicated his views on the most important subjects only between the lines. Such
statements, however, do not usually occur in the preface or other very conspicuous
place" (Leo Strauss, Persecution and the Art if Writing, p. 32) .
• 93 Cf. the general comments ofU. Albini, 'Artifizi del diplomatico Psello,' p. 261.
94 Anonymous, Scholia on the Ideai if Hermogenes, p. 951.13-16. The uses and vices
of obscurity were discussed throughout the Byzantine period. For an analysis of the
evidence, see G. L. Kustas (Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric, to whom lowe this reference:

Psellos' skills "whenever she wanted to write something confidential

or conduct secret business" (6A. 13.10-11). During the reign of
Michael VI Stratiotikos, Psellos was sent as an ambassador to the
camp of the rebel Isaac Komnenos. When Isaac's supporters shouted
that their leader was already an Emperor and not a private citizen,
Psellos, though in danger of losing his life, replied that Isaac should
relinquish that title, "as his current position does not have a
respectable name (for I feared calling rebellion by name)" (7.29.4-
6).95 Fear may have similarly caused the author of the Chronographia to
speak elusively about certain matters. The efforts of the Byzantine
Church to establish and enforce religious Orthodoxy certainly consti-
tuted a major threat to free expression, and the autocratic nature of
the State rendered political criticism equally dangerous. A contem-
porary of Psellos, the monk Cyril Phileotes, who moved in very high
circles, knew that "the things which an Emperor's friends do not
dare propose publicly, they write in books."96 A book of history may
reveal more of its author's genuine beliefs than an official encomium,
but we still cannot expect a full and unambiguous disclosure. Many
aspects of life in eleventh-century Byzantium recommended a high
degree of reservation and caution.
Accordingly, none of Psellos' political, religious, and philosophical
declarations in the Chronographia is entirely straightforward. They are
never innocent or naive. His narrative is Byzantine in the most
intriguing and maligned sense. 97 After a century of scholarly rehabil-
itation, it is time to revive and celebrate the skill with which the
Byzantines practiced deceit, dissimulation, and intrigue. Psellos, the
most intelligent and subtle man of his times, perhaps of the entire
p. 88). Unfortunately Kustas does not discuss the use of obscurity in political con-
texts, focusing instead on the religious dimension. See also Photios, Epistula 64 (dis-
cussing prophesy): " ... to reveal the hidden to those who are worthy, but to make
them inaccessible to the profane, that is most fitting which is cast in shadows, rid-
dles, and hidden behind screens"; and Nikolaos Mesarites, Description of the Church of
the Holy Apostles 8.3 (quoted in my introduction). The twelfth-century writer Michael
Italikos, praised by the historian Niketas Choniates as "eloquent in speech" and "the
darling of wisdom, ... said one thing [to the German king] but meant another and
disguised his true feelings to benefit the Romans" (Annals 62-63). The ability of
Greek rhetoric to say one thing on the surface but yield quite another meaning upon
careful consideration was fully appreciated as early as Isocrates (Panathenaikos 246).
95 "In addressing a tyrant or any other violent individual, if we wish to be censori-
ous, we often need to be oblique out of necessity" (Demetrios, On Style 289).
96 Nikolaos Kataskepenos, Lift of 5,aint Cyril Phileotes 26.2.
97 ct: Kekaumenos, Strategikon 67, 74.

A WICKED DOCTRINE 41
Byzantine period, was also its greatest and most successful liar.
A note in conclusion. All the above cases of subtle or indirect
expression on the part of our philosopher, from the correspondence
with the ruler of Egypt to his prudence before the followers of Isaac
Komnenos, involve political issues and contexts, and not metaphysi-
cal ones.
5. A WICKED DOCTRINE
Just as Psellos realized that writers could not always conform to the
ideals of lucidity and candor, so too did he believe that Emperors
should not always adhere to the ethical standards of the Christian
religion. Psellos valued eflective central government, and realized
that it could be obtained only at the cost of conventional morality.
This realization, which influences the tenor of the entire Chrono-
graphia, reveals his rejection of the traditional values of other Byzan-
tine chroniclers and historians. In judging the Emperors of the past,
those authors had used definite moral, religious, or even narrowly
sectarian criteria, and their views were often informed by an exalted
conception of the 'ideal' Emperor. By constructing and promoting
such ideals, they indirectly provided modern scholars with a fair
amount of material for the study of Byzantine political values. The
'ideal' Byzantine ruler was infused with a moral conception of virtue,
which comprised orthodox piety, strict but merciful justice, love for
the Empire's subjects, etc. Yet the harsh realism of the Chronographia
shatters these illusory values. It exposes ideal Emperors as the super-
ficial and imaginary constructs of moralists and court flatterers, igno-
rant of the realities of power and blinkered by the acceptance of tra-
ditional patterns of thought. Psellos eschews abstract moralistic ideals
and focuses instead on the ambiguous realities of executive power.
By exposing the all-too-human aspects of Emperors' personalities,
the Chronographia de constructs many of the myths about Imperial
power that had held sway in Byzantium from the very beginning (the
court panegyrics of late antiquity). Psellos pried into the hearts of his
sovereigns and paraded their human failings before his readers. He
mercilessly applied the Christian belief that all men are flawed to

42 A WICKED DOCTRINE
God's anointed rulers (cf. 4.11, 6.26), who had generally received
respectful and sometimes even reverential treatment by Christian
authors. Individual Emperors had, of course, been savagely attacked,
but the ideal continued to shape the pious imagination. 9B Most
Byzantines, for example, believed that an Emperor ought to conform
to divine law, if not to strive to become as Godlike as possible.,!9 As
we shall see, Psellos argued that such ideals were never attained in
the period covered by his work (if ever), and, furthermore, that they
were in some respects positively undesirable.
Psellos' deconstruction begins with Basil II and continues straight
through to the end of the first edition of the work, which possesses a
unity of purpose that the later additions do not even pretend to
uphold. Basil himself is celebrated as the most efficient and powerful
ruler that the Empire had ever had. Yet we must pay close attention to
the kind of character, or ethos, that made his success possible. His first
step was to summarily deprive his brother of all authority. This action,
although it robbed a man of his "equal share of inherited fortune,
namely his right to the throne," is justified by Psellos on purely prag-
matic grounds: the good governance of the Empire depended upon it
(1.2-3). Thus justice is sacrificed to expediency and absolutism at the
very outset of Basil's rule, and, by extension, of the Chronographia itself.
Basil's regime was nothing less than a harsh and absolute autocra-
cy, and yet in the overall argument of Book 1 his supremacy is estab-
lished without moral challenge, even though it meets with fierce
physical resistance. The unfair dismissal and exile of the competent
Basil Lekapenos, the parakoimomenos who had taught the young
and ungrateful Emperor everything he knew, is presented with sym-
pathy for the unhappy eunuch but without censure for the monarch
98 Cf. the role of Constantine the Great in Theophanes the Confessor and others, of
Basil I in Genesios and Theophanes Continuatus, of Nikephoros II Phokas in Leo the
Deacon (esp. History 5.8), ofNikephoros III Botaneiates in Michael Attaleiates, etc. The
production of these fictions owed as much to traditions of courtly panegyric as it did to
the imposition of Christian concepts upon the Imperial ideology (for a detailed analysis
of some texts on Basil I, which indicates how these two traditions had merged to forge
a new Imperial literature, see P. A. Agapetos, "H dKOVU 'tOU ull'toKpa'tOpu BucnAdou
A' (HT, <!nMlluKE8ovtKT, YPullllu'tEiu 867-959,' \\~th extensive citations to modem litera-
ture). Succinct expositions of Byzantine ideals ofImperial rule can be found in Photios'
utter to Boris and the influential Ekthesis of the sixth-century deacon Agapetos (for the lat-
ter work, see D. G. Letsios, 'H "'EJdjEcn~ KE<pUAaiwv 1tUpmVEnKoov" 'tOU 8tUKOVOU AYU1tll-
'tOu'). These two works are not histories, but they nevertheless reveal the political values
that inform the works of many Byzantine historians.
99 E.g., Michael Attaleiates, History 4.

(1.3, 19-20).100 The injustice is magnified by the fact that the

parakoimomenos had genuine affection for his Imperial pupil. 101
Psellos' narrative reveals that the very qualities which made Basil
an effective ruler also made him a highly unpleasant human being
(cf. §6). He was "harsh and irascible, his ethos was rough" (1.4.2-3);
"he was suspicious of everyone, assumed a haughty and dour counte-
nance and disposition, and quickly became angry and wrathful at
those who failed him" (1.18.3-5). He ruled both himself (1.22) and all
his subjects with an iron fist:
The Emperor Basil behaved with great arrogance toward his subjects,
and in truth he established an authoritarian regime based more on the
fear [<p6~OlC;] of his own person than on good will [Euvoiatc;] (l.29.3-
6)102 ... This man, after he had swept away the barbarians, and - there
is no other word for it - conquered his subjects, decided to abandon his

previous policy; he now subjugated the eminent families and rendered
them equal to all the others, and thus ruled the State with great ease
(l.30.1-7).103
Psellos' description of Basil's "transition from a carefree and volup-

tuous life to a vehement one" (1.4.6-7) probably alludes to
Philostratos' claim that "{yrants are more appealing to their subjects
when they are carefree rather than vehement."104 The mature Basil
is certainly presented as a tyrant in the Chronographia, and yet he was
also "that Basil who outshone all other Emperors, who was the pre-
cious treasure and the glory of the Roman Empire" (5.22.7-9; cf. also
4.39.3). This strong language is in Psellos' own voice, and is reserved
in the Chronographia for Basil alone. There is no contradiction here,
only a shocking conclusion: the Empire's best ruler was a tyrant.
100 For this Basil see \v. G. Brokkaar, 'Basil Lecapenus.'

101 Cf: also Leo the Deacon, History 10.8.
102 Cf. the pious advice given by Tiberios Constantine to Maurice in Theophylak-
tos Simocattes, History 1.1.17: "Seck from your subjects goodwill [EDvotav] rather
than fear [<p6~ou]."
un For an example of Basil's arbitrary and despotic treatment of the provincial
magnates, see John Skylitzes, Synopsis 340: Basil forced Eustathios Maleinos to live in
the capital, after the latter had provided the Emperor and his army with supplies
and hospitality in Cappadocia, and confiscated his entire estate when he died. See
also Basil's novel against the interests of the "powerful" in J. and P. Zepos, Jus
Graecoromanum, v. I, pp. 263-272, esp. p. 265.
104 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 500, my italics. The allusion was first noted by St.
Linner, 'Psellus' Chronographia and the Alexias. Some Textual Parallels,' p. 3. For
additional parallels between the text of the Chronographia and Philostratos, see P. Care-
los, 'Die Autoren der zweiten Sophistik und die Chronographie des Michael Psellos.'

Psellos' analysis is comparable to that of a famous teacher of evil,

who insisted that an effective state, capable of protecting its subjects
and safeguarding its dominions, could only be based on greed, naked
ambition, and a dose of injustice and cruelty. Machiavelli, in his
attempt to unite the extremes of self-interest with a conception of the
common good, produced an amoral view of leadership similar to the
one found in the Chronographia.
Among the admirable actions of Hannibal is numbered this one: that

when he had a very large army, mixed with infinite kinds of men, and
had led it to fight in alien lands, no dissension ever arose in it, neither
among themselves nor against the prince, in bad as well as in good
fortune. This could not have arisen from anything other than his inhu-
man cruelty which, together with his infinite virtues, always made him
venerable and terrible in the sight of his soldiers; and without it, his
other virtues would not have sufficed to bring about this effect. And
the writers, having considered little in this, on the one hand admire
this action of his but on the other condemn the principal cause of it. lo )
Machiavelli's Hannibal and Psellos' Basil have much in common.

The laudable achievements of both depended upon qualities that no
moralist can praise. Both ruled over a heterogeneous group of people
through ruthlessness and fear (cf. 1.29), and spent their lives on cam-
paign conducting brutal and aggressive wars (1.22, 1.31). Yet neither
faced an internal challenge once they began to rule in this fashion. lOG
Basil's reign was modeled exactly on the harsh and wicked advice of
his defeated enemy Skleros, advice which Psellos calls "devious":
'Cut down all sources of authority that become arrogant. Allow no

general to prosper, but suppress them all with unfair exactions, to
keep them busied with their own households. Allow no woman to
enter the palace. Be accessible to no one. Share your innermost plans
,vith only a few' (1.28.13-18).107
10., Niccolo Machiavelli, the Prince c. 17; for Hannibal, see also Discourses on Livy
3.21.4, Personal Correspondence: Letter 121. Livy (28.12) admired Hannibal's ability to
keep his army disciplined and unified under extremely difficult circumstances, but
condemned his cruelty as a vice (21.4). Elsewhere, Machiavelli calls the Roman
Emperor Severus "a criminal," "very cruel and very rapacious," but also full of "so
much virtue" (Discourses on Livy 1.10.4, the Prince c. 19). .
IOh Note that Basil's imperious ethos fully evolved only after the final suppression of
Skleros: 1.4, 1.22.
107 Cf. Kekaumenos, Strategikon 14, and the very different advice of Photios, Letter to
Boris 58: "the ruler should seek the opinions of his subjects. He should make them
participants in his friendship, his governance, and his counsels," etc.

Psellos may have put his own views about Basil's reign into Skleros'
mouth. However that may be, Book I of the Chronographia shows that
Imperial success is achieved through calculated ruthlessness, not by
gaining the favor of the deity, or the goodwill of the populace.
Machiavelli and Psellos, each a politician, historian, and philoso-
pher, independently recognized that effective leadership is essentially
amoral. Basil, presented as almost inhuman, and sometimes unjust
(c£ 1.34), secured the peace and prosperity of his subjects just as
Cesare Borgia's "cruelty restored the Romagna, united it, and
reduced it to peace and to faith."lo8 By focusing their attention on
the realities of power, both thinkers appreciated the gulf that exists
between the moral ideals of classical political philosophy, including
its Christian descendants, and the actual conduct of princes and their
states. 109 Yet their aim was not to lament the weakness of the flesh
and reassert the validity of transcendent ideals. Instead, they rejected
those ideals as unworkable in practice. Both were thus genuine
philosophers in that they questioned, and attempted to revise, the
fundamental beliefs and values of their contemporaries. They did not
really 'belong' to their societies, far less were they 'trapped' in them.
Most intellectual historians today examine past thinkers solely within
the context of their own times. Yet a more fruitful and revolutionary
line of inquiry may be pursued on the premise that "what unites all
genuine philosophers is more important than what unites a given
philosopher with a particular group of non-philosophers.""o We
must also note that both thinkers wrote in circumstances that
required extreme caution for the propagation of revolutionary ideas,
and thus could not express themselves as clearly and unambiguously
as modern scholars aim to do. Both relied on the extensive use ofbit-
ing wit and sarcasm. Yet this sarcasm almost always pointed toward
serious and controversial arguments.
Like Machiavelli, Psellos revealed the blasphemous implications of
lOR Niccolo Machiavelli, 1he Prince, c. 17, i.e. to peace and loyalty to the prince.
109 Cf. Niccolo Machiavelli, 1he Prince, c. 15: "It has appeared to me more fitting
to go directly to the effectual truth of the thing than to the imagination of it. And
many have imagined republics and principalities that have never been seen or
known to exist in truth; for it is so far from how one lives to how one should live that
he who lets go of what is done for what should be done learns his ruin rather than
his preservation." Both the classical political philosophers and Augustine are the tar-
gets of this section. Aristotle directed similar criticisms against Plato (cf. Politics 4.1,
4.11), but the latter's Laws should be considered separately (cf. 746b-c).
110 Leo Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing, p. S.

his political insight, although, for obvious reasons, he always did so

tactfully. For instance, he feigned wonder at the success of the Mace-
donian dynasty, which was established when Basil I (ruled 867-886)
murdered his patron and benefactor Michael III, one year after he
had murdered his rival, the Caesar Bardas.
I know of no family that was loved by God as much as theirs was, and
I marvel at this knowing full well the unlawful manner in which its
roots were planted with murders and bloodshed. But the plant blos-
somed to such an extent and produced so many branches, each bear-
ing Imperial fruit, that no other can be compared with it, either in
beauty or majesty. But this observation has intruded as a digression
from my main narrative (6.1.6-14).
Psellos calls this observation a "digression" in order to divert atten-

tion away from its impious assumptions. First of all, we are encour-
aged to conclude that God's favor is indifferent to moral standards.
Second, Psellos more or less confesses that he admired this family
and its success in spite of its dismal moral record. One can even infer
that he allowed an aesthetic view of their power and abilities to over-
ride basic moral sensibilities. He certainly does not condemn the
bloodshed that nourished the growth of Macedonian supremacy,
which even God was prepared to overlook. And we can hardly
believe that he was surprised that Basil I's family prospered for as
long as it followed its founder's ruthless example. Basil II was a wor-
thy successor to his great-great-grandfather.
A passage from the books added to the Chronographia in the 1070's
clearly shows that in Psellos' view 'reasons of state' take precedence
over the ethical demands of religion. \Vhen Romanos IV Diogenes
was finally captured by the agents of the government in Constantino-
ple, his attempt to take back the throne after the disastrous battle at
Manzikert (107l) was conclusively defeated.
Up to this point our story has traveled swiftly, carried upon a 'smooth
and royal road,' as the words of the divines [nx 8EOAoymx p~llam]
would have it.'" But now it hesitates to proceed any further and relate
an action which should not have happened, but -- to repeat what I just
said in only a slightly different way -- which had to happen at all costs:
thc former on account of piety and religious scruple against cruelty,
the latter on account of the state of affairs and the circumstances of
the moment (7B.42.1-8).
III A conflation of Odyssey 10.103 (') and Numbers 20.17.

Romanos was viciously blinded and died five weeks later.ll2 Psellos
feigns moral shock, but let us not be deceived: he may have been
personally responsible for the general's fate. What should be noted in
connection with this passage is the rather harsh distinction that Psel-
los draws between the constraints of government on the one hand
and the dictates of religion on the other. The contrast shows that
their opposition is sometimes real and uncompromising. A decision
had to be made, with grave consequences either way. Either morali-
ty or the safety of the regime had to be sacrificed. There is no ques-
tion which option the above passage endorses, albeit in a gentle and
insincerely repentant way. Other authors would have suppressed the
uncomfortable event, if they recognized its utility, or would have pre-
sented it as somehow compatible with their religion, for there is no
amount of cruelty that has not at some time or other received Chris-
tian sanction. ll3 But Psellos wants to expose the tension and insinuate
his view as to how it should be resolved. His view of religion as essen-
tially merciful and charitable is honorable; his subordination of it to
Realpolitik is outright sinister. He thus rejects the principle enshrined
in Roman law by the Emperor Tiberios Constantine, that "there is
nothing greater than God or justice." 114 The safety of the State, or at
least the security of the regime, sometimes depends upon the swift
execution of cruel, unjust, or irreligious measures. In the words of
Guicciardini, a close friend of the author of the Prince, "anyone who
wants to hold dominion and states in this day and age should show
mercy and kindness where possible, and where there is no other
alternative, must use cruelty and unscrupulousness."115 Psellos' lan-
guage, like his personality, is more veiled, but his true meaning is no
less brutal.
Not only is cruelty and injustice occasionally conducive to effective
government, virtue can sometimes be a positive impediment. Psellos
relates how Constantine IX Monomachos would entrust his personal
liZ D. 1. Polemis, 'Notes on Eleventh-Century Chronology (1059-1081),' pp. 65-
66,76.
113 Note the use of Psalm 136 in Genesios, On the Reigns 1.12; cf. Theophanes the
Confessor 495. Romanos Diogenes could have been presented as an impious tyrant
who threatened the lives of all the Christian inhabitants of the Empire, etc. See the
depiction of Thomas the Slav in the propaganda of his victorious enemy Michael II,
preserved in historians like Genesios.
114 Corpus Juris Civilis, Novellae 164, preface.
115 Guicciardini, Dialogue on the Government if Florence, p. 158.

safety to God by not posting guards outside his bedroom. This

inevitably led to a series of assassination attempts. Psellos pointedly
concludes that "that which indicated his good nature also made him
vulnerable to the plots of his enemies" (6.132-133). From the point of
view of religion, Constantine's faith was praiseworthy. Yet in an
Emperor it was foolhardy, as was Romanos' faith in the Virgin (see
§7). Another case of misplaced or needless virtue occurs slightly earli-
er in the narrative, after the suppression of the revolt of Leo
Tornikios (in 1047).116 All of the rebel's followers broke their oaths of
allegiance and abandoned him.
Only one man stayed by his side till the very end, an old comrade and
fellow soldier of his, whose name was John Vatatzes. In the physique
of his body and the strength of his arms he was equal to the celebrat-
ed heroes of old. So when the rebel fled and sought refuge in some
church, John fled and sought refuge along with him, even though he
could have abandoned Tornikios and gained the highest honors. But
for him all other considerations took second place; keeping his sworn
word he valued above everything else (6.122.1-8).
This is the first of only two instances in the entire Chronographia of

observed oaths; all the others are broken, like that of the Emperor
Constantine IX who
desired that no punishment be inflicted upon any of the rebels, and he

swore to that effect before God calling down upon himself the most
horrific retributions were he not to treat all of those who had raised
their hands against him with mercy and compassion. But when they
appeared before the walls, he remembered all that they had dared to
do against him, and, without considering any other options, or
restraining himself at all, he ordered that they should suffer the imme-
diate loss of their eyesight. At that the tyrant let out a loud cry and
began to lament his fortune in a miserable way, but the other man
said only this, namely that the Roman Empire was losing a brave sol-
dier, and then he lay down on the ground and bravely submitted to
his punishment (6.123).
Vatatzes may have meant to designate T ornikios as the "brave sol-

dier," but he may also have meant himself (his modesty extending no
further than the ambiguity of the reference). Psellos himself clearly
points to the second alternative, for he explicitly presents Vatatzes,
116 For Leo's revolt see Jacques Lefort, 'Rhetorique et politique. Trois discours de
Jean Mauropous en 1047.'

not his defeated commander, as bearing his fate bravely. Vatatzes

thus paid the price for his extravagant virtue, and yet the ultimate
victim of his fidelity to his oath, and Constantine's infidelity to his
own, was the Roman army.
Yet Psellos is interested in the whole of an Emperor's character,
not merely the degree to which he adheres to traditional virtues. He
pays as much attention to the rough contours of Basil's implacable
ethos as to his specific actions. In this respect, Basil, the greatest
Byzantine Emperor, can again be contrasted to Constantine IX
Monomachos, who was, according to Psellos, an utterly incompetent
ruler (cf. §20-21). Constantine is nevertheless presented as a highly
pleasant and fun-loving man. Psellos notes that he was not at all
arrogant or vindictive, and that he was in fact a real charmer. 117
Whereas the mature Basil neither married nor ever enjoyed female
companionship, thus conforming to the harsh advice of Skleros or to
his natural inclinations, Constantine shared his throne with two
Empresses and a number of mistresses, all of whom managed to
squander a good portion of the Empire's resources. IIS He foolishly
confided in a number of sinister individuals, some of whom tried to
assassinate him. His reign was marked throughout by powerful
revolts and military decline. However, at the very end of Book 6,
Psellos notes that Constantine's "ethos set a fine example for those
who want to live the good life" (6.203.4-5), by which he probably
does not mean a moral life. In any case, his pleasant and mild ethos
was unsuitable for a ruler of State.
The realization that underlies Psellos' wicked doctrine is stated
openly in section 6.25.lO-14, although it is attributed to "others" in
order to deflect attention away from its real author. Yet nowhere
does Psellos disagree with "their" observation that "Imperial affairs
as well as the actions of Emperors are a mixture of good and bad ...
opposite qualities lie next to one another." Two sections later, Psellos
repeats this view, again deflecting responsibility away from himself,
but essentially agreeing with it entirely. "The majority of those who
have recorded Imperial affairs are amazed that no Emperor
remained good to the very end, but that the early years of some are
III Throughout Book 6; esp. sections 15-16, 31-34, 203; note that Romanos III is
also presented as a pleasant man: 3.24.1O-1l.
liS The depravity of the women's quarters under Constantine IX is described by
Anna Komnene, Alexiad 3.8.

good, while others improve near the end of their reign" (6.27.1-4).
This statement is clearly false. 119 No Byzantine historian expresses
such a view, and in fact the majority of them had favorites whom
they presented consistently in a good light, if not as 'ideal Emperors.'
The error disguises the fact that the observations are his own, and
they include another subtle blasphemy. "It might be possible," he
continues,
to find some private citizen who has followed one and the same path
throughout his life from the very beginning all the way to the end ...
but a man who has received Imperial rule from God, especially if he
lives for many years, would never be able to maintain the highest stan-
dards of excellence throughout his reign (6.27.8-14).
We are of course intended to recall that Basil II, "lived longer than
any other Emperor" (1.37.1-2).
Psellos then gives an insightful presentation of an Emperor's lot:
no matter what course of action he follows, he will inevitably harm
someone's interests. The complex nature of the human condition
ensures that "in this world, unless you are dead, you cannot avoid
doing things occasionally that will offend someone."120 Every deci-
sion can be seen as an injustice. Psellos' observations should greatly
interest students of Byzantine political thought. They brilliantly cap-
ture the tensions and ambiguities of leadership in an autocracy.
If an Emperor desires some relaxation, he is immediately blamed for it
by some; if he somehow indulges in philanthropy, he is made to look
ignorant; if he rouses himself to become involved, he is accused of
interfering; if he moves to defend himself or acts bluntly, all his actions
are slandered as the products of 'anger' and 'wrath'; if he attempts to
do something in secret, well, Athos can more easily escape detection ...
(6.27.24-30).
119 No such view of the Imperial position is noted anywhere in F. H. Tinnefeld,

Kategorien der Kaiserkritik in der by::.antinischen Historiographie, pp. 11-134 (historians up to,
and including, Psellos), 180-193 (conclusion). I know only of Tiberios Constantine in
Theophylaktos Simocattes, History 1.1.6: "those who possess abundance of power are
likely also to be attended by more numerous faults." But this single citation hardly
justifies Psellos' claim. Criticism of the Imperial position as such is not supposed to
have emerged in Byzantine historiography until Niketas Choniates (cf. Tinnefeld, op.
cit., c. 17 and p. 193; P. Magdalino, 'Aspects of Twelfth-Century Byzantine Kaiserkri-
tik'). Psellos takes precedence.
120 Guicciardini, Maxims and Riflections (Ricardz), p. 97; cf. Montaigne, Essays 1.22.

IMPERIAL 'ASKESIS' 51
Psellos is not simply pointing out that criticisms of various Emperors

are often unfair or exaggerated. 121 He is arguing instead that the very
nature of the Imperial position is such that the actions of any Emper-
or will inevitably give rise to criticism, the justice of which is a func-
tion of one's perspective. He concludes that "there is nothing surpris-
ing in the fact that no Emperor's life has been blameless" (6.27.31-
32), and thus indirecdy suggests that no Emperor should aim at such
a life. What then are the true duties of the Imperial position?
6. IMPERIAL ASKESIS
Psellos did not intend the Chronographia to contain a comprehensive

recommendation for the proper exercise of Imperial power. In the
narrative and in the various digressions he discusses some of the chal-
lenges that confronted every Byzantine ruler, but he never attempts
to resolve them in a systematic fashion. Nevertheless, the Chrono-
graphia does offer an oudine of a theory of effective government.
Since Basil II is consistendy praised as the only ruler who managed
to steer the Empire away from the dangers to which it eventually
succumbed under his weak successors, his reign constitutes an implic-
it model of effective rulership (though see §23 for an important short-
coming).
We therefore begin our discussion with Basil, who is in some
respects the key to the political message of the Chronographia. When
he "observed the diversity of the Empire, and realized that it was no
simple and easy thing to wield such authority, he renounced every
form of pleasure" (1.22.1-3). He suppressed his immediate desires,
renounced any pleasures that he might obtain from his station, and
devoted himself to the difficult work that lay before him. In contrast,
his brother and successor Constantine, who was unable to bear the
weight of that authority, shifted it onto others after Basil's death
(2.6.2-6).
121 Which is the meaning of Photios, Letter to Boris 20: " ... those who govern large
numbers of men: even a small blunder of theirs is inflated and talked about by
everyone." Cf. Montaigne, Essays 1.42 (p. 194, D. M. Frame tr.).

52 IMPERIAL 'ASKESIS'
Basil's regime of ascetic self-control, the reverse side of his arro-

gance and irascibility, constituted a precondition for his ability to
rule effectively. He was "moderate in his daily life, and avoided all
softness ... he renounced all pleasure and gave himself entirely over to
his work" (1.4.16-18). "He despised bodily ornaments" (1.22.3-4),
and, even though he enriched the treasury so much that he had to
build new vaults, "he enjoyed none of it ... and spent most of his reign
on campaign" (1.31.17, 24-25, cf. 7.52). In section 1.32.5-8 Psellos
explicitly connects Basil's personal asceticism to his political and mil-
itary power, thereby attributing his success to the harshness of his
ethos: "he patiently endured the extremes of both winter cold and
summer heat, and would not drink immediately when he felt thirsty.
He never yielded before any natural need, and was as hard as
steel." 122 These abilities enabled Basil to bring the Empire to the
peak of its power. In general, it seems that the fate of the Empire
depends directly upon the personal qualities, the ethos, of its ruler.
We must note, however, that Basil's asceticism is not presented as
religious in any way. It should not be interpreted as submission to God
and obedience to His world-denying commandments (cf. §9). A com-
pletely different psychological profile emerges from Psellos' narrative:
Basil's implacable ambition, devoted entirely to the increase of his
Empire and the protection of his subjects, so utterly consumed him
that it silenced the chatter of his petty desires. He brutally suppressed
the distracting concerns of personal comfort and sensual indulgence.
As a later neo-pagan noted, "the sweets of marriage and the dearness
of children commonly draw men away from performing great and
lofty services to the commonwealth."123 Religious belief thus need not
be invoked to understand Basil's ascetic regime. A combination of
ruthless ambition and personal responsibility for the strength and well-
being of his Empire suffices. Basil conquered the flesh in order to attain
mastery over this world, not favorable entry into the next.
The assumptions that underpin the role of the ruler's asceticism in
the Chronographia seem to be derived from an ancient Hellenic model,
which was propagated by a number of intellectual traditions and
122 Cf. Psellos' Oration before the Emperor l'vfonomachos (= Orationes Panegyricae 2) 77 ff,
for a similar view of Basil's character and abilities.
123 Francis Bacon, 'Orpheus or Philosophy.' The personal power and energy
gained by rulers through ascetic renunciation is well described by Ammianus Mar-
cellinus in his account of the Emperor Julian.

assumed various shapes throughout antiquity. Like so many philoso-

phers, Psellos set aside the beliefs of his contemporaries and turned to
the thought of antiquity for solutions to the most pressing problems of
his own time. In Xenophon's Memorabilia, Socrates urges his compan-
ions to "train themselves to be continent [aoK£tV fYKpa'tHuv] in their
desire for meat and drink, and in regard to lust, sleep, cold, heat, and
labor" (2.1.1). But continence is not sought for its own sake, since
Socrates justifies his exhortation by arguing that self-control is neces-
sary for one who would rule a State. Indeed, the whole conversation
starts when he asks one of his licentious companions, Aristippos,
about the proper education for a ruler. A good ruler must be able to
control his passions "so as not to be prevented on this account from
taking action" (2.1.3; for the kind of action meant, see 2.1.19 and
2.1.28). Later in the same discussion, Socrates narrates 'The Choice
of Hercules,' a famous fable written by the sophist Prodikos. In it
Hercules faces a choice between a path of pleasure and a path of toil
and hardship that leads to true virtue. Again 'virtue' is not presented
as an end in itself; rather, it is a means to the effective command of a
State. 124 Its ultimate reward is worldly honor and secure political pow-
er. "Socrates' askesis, or asceticism, was not the virtue of a monk, but
the virtue of a ruler."125 According to personified Virtue,
if you set out to increase yourself through war and wish to be able to
make your friends free and subdue your enemies, you must learn the
warlike arts themselves from those who understand them, as well as
practice how one must use them. And if you wish to be powerful also
in your body, you must accustom your body to serve your judgment,
and your must train with labors and sweat (2.1.28).126
In the Chronographia, Basil chooses the path of toil which leads to

political supremacy and military excellence,127 while his brother
124 For the same point, see Ernest L. Fortin, 'Basil the Great and the Choice of
Hercules: A Note on the Christianization of a Pagan Myth,' p. 161: "the practice of
moral virtue is linked exclusively to the achievement of worldly glory and other sim-
ilarly mundane goals."
12i W.Jaeger, Paideia: The Ideals Of Greek Culture, v. 2, p. 53.
126 Cf. Musonius Rufus fr. 6 ('On Training,' nEpl. 'AcrKfJcrE(o~): "the body is
strengthened and becomes capable of enduring hardship, sturdy and ready for any
task."
127 The twelfth-century poet and churchman Constantine Manasses, describing
Basil's continence and military prowess, compared him to his ancestor Basil I (ruled
867-886) and to Hercules (Breviarium Chronicum 5840 fT,).

Constantine VIII abandons himself to the path of pleasure and vice,

which leads to political inactivity and sloth. The two first books of
the Chronographia thus delineate the two most divergent responses to
the 'choice' which all subsequent rulers in the work must make.
In his First Oration on Kingship, the second-century orator and
philosopher Dio Chrysostomos offered an explicitly political interpre-
tation of 'The Choice of Hercules' (Or. 1.59-84). The young Hercules
represents the future ruler, and by his choice of Royalty over Tyran-
ny he becomes the ideal king depicted by Dio for the edification of
the Emperor Trajan. This ideal is infused with a powerful exhorta-
tion to conventional morality: a king should be pious, just, humble,
and benevolent. Like Psellos in the Chronographia (6.47.2-3; cf.
4.42.11-12), Dio emphasizes that his primary responsibility is to
assure the welfare of his subjects. 128 Similarly, Dio presents personal
asceticism as a means to a more efficient command of the State.
Having diminished his own needs (61-62), Hercules could then
devote himself to the welfare of his subjects (65). "Being self-reliant,
zealous of soul, and competent in body, he surpassed all men in
labor" (63; cf. 13). In contrast to Dio, however, Psellos allows Basil's
"self-reliance" and "zealousness of soul" to override certain moral
constraints in the pursuit of the same objectives. His endorsement of
the tyrant Basil effectively sunders the strong link uniting ethics and
politics in the thought of the ancient philosophers.
However that may be, Psellos certainly presents us with a com-
pletely different conceptualization of the function of askesis than is
found in Christian writings. With Basil II and the Chronographia we
are closer to the world of the ancient military manuals, such as that
of the philosopher Onasander (first century A.D.), who argued that
"the general must be temperate in order that he may not be so dis-
tracted by the pleasures of the body as to neglect the consideration of
matters of the highest importance."129 Psellos tells us explicitly that
Basil was a student of military handbooks - the only literature we are
ever told he read (1.33.1-3).
Historians have rightly resisted the temptation to construe Basil's
128 Dio Chrysostomos, Or. 1.12-13, 16-20, 2.67, 3.39-41. Note the citation from
Homer (Iliad 2.24-25) that Psellos employs (6.175.2-3) to describe a ruler's ultimate
responsibilities. A reminiscence of this Homeric passage has been detected in Dio,
Or. 1. 13-14.
129 Onasander, Strategiko5 1; cf the author's similarly instrumental view of other
virtues.

asceticism as a manifestation of Byzantine piety.130 Beyond its intrin-
sic attraction, such an interpretation is given plausibility by what we
know of the Emperor Nikephoros Phokas (ruled 963-969), who may
have influenced the young Basil. The boorish Nikephoros, a ruthless-
ly effective general and insensitive ruler, displayed character traits
very similar to those developed later by Basil. He combined an ener-
getic life of military campaigns with a harsh ascetic life-style that was
unquestionably shaped by religious motives and powerful monastic
influences. 131 The same may have been true of the historical Basil, as
opposed to the Basil depicted in the Chronographia. The near-contem-
porary historian Yahya of Antioch seems to have connected his con-
tinence to his presumed Orthodox faith: "Throughout his long reign,
Basil always lived with the most extreme moderation, making use
only of what was strictly necessary; throughout his life, he continual-
ly distinguished himself for his zeal in favor of religion."132 Yet, sig-
nificantly, there is no comparable statement in Psellos. According to
him, Basil's asceticism was not an aspect of religious conviction, but
rather an expression of his will to power, which Psellos chose to
interpret through the values of ancient philosophy and military man-
uals. In the words of Diotogenes, whose treatise On Kingship was par-
tially preserved by the anthologist Stobaios, "the king must not be
conquered by pleasure, but must himself conquer it... It is proper
that one who desires to rule over others should first be able to rule
over his own passions."133
Religious motivation and conventional morality are not the only
130 Although there are exceptions, e.g., M. Arbagi, 'The Celibacy of Basil 11.'
131 For Nikephoros' character and asceticism, see G. Schlumberger, Un empereur
byzantin au dixibne siecle: Nicephore Phocas, p. 309 ff., and, more recently, R. Morris,
'The two faces ofNikephoros Phokas.'
132 Quoted and translated in G. Schlumberger, L'epopee byzantine a lafin du dixibne
siecle, pt. 2: Basile II, Ie Tueur de Bulgars, p. 634 (Yahya wrote in Arabic); cf. Matthew
of Edessa, Chronicle 1.53: "He led a holy and chaste life ... "; see also Ademar of Cha-
bannes (quoted by M. Arbagi, 'The Celibacy of Basil II'), who even claims that Basil
took monastic vows!
133 Fragment in Stobaios 4.7.62 (p. 265); translation and discussion in E. R. Good-
enough, 'The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship,' p. 68; for more citations,
see M. A Flower, Theopompus if Chios, p. 73. The same psychological analysis has
been employed by some scholars interested in understanding how the monks of late
antiquity functioned within their social setting, e.g., S. Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men,
and Gods in Asia Minor, v. 2: The Rise if the Church, p. 138: "The goal that Theodore
achieved was much more than a mastery of his own bodily desires; a holy man
acquired not simply power over himself, but power over others." It is always inter-
esting to observe ancient cliches become cutting-edge cultural theory.

features conspicuously missing from the greatest Emperor of the

Chronographia. Basil also lacked learning and an interest in philosophy.
Not only was he no philosopher, "as he grew older and gained expe-
rience in all matters, he completely dispensed with the advice of wis-
er men ... He paid no attention to scholars, indeed he even utterly
despised such people" (1.29.6-8, 11-13). How is it possible for any
philosopher, much less a Platonist like Psellos, to endorse such a
ruler? For Plato's most famous treatment of politics, the Republic,
openly calls for the rule of men who are first and foremost philoso-
phers, even though they may appear to be ascetics to the general
population. "Unless," runs Socrates' famous formulation (473d), "the
philosophers rule as kings or those now called kings and chiefs gen-
uinely and adequately philosophize ... there is no rest from ills for the
cities, nor I think for human kind." With respect to the relationship
between philosophy and political power the majority of ancient
thinkers were Platonists of some sort.134 The Stoic philosopher Muso-
nius Rufus, for instance, may have taught that "the first duty of a
king is to be able to protect and benefit his people," and that "in the
next place it is essential for the king to exercise self-control," but his
discussion was shaped by the parameters imposed by the Platonic
rubric "That Kings also Should Study Philosophy" (fr. 8). Has Psel-
los lost faith in philosophy? Does he not believe that the practice of
philosophy is a necessary requirement for the proper exercise of
worldly power? The Chronographia does offer an answer, which is
gradually revealed as the narrative progresses. The theme of the rela-
tion between philosophy and the throne is developed thematically
alongside the main narrative of the text, which progresses chronolog-
ically. We will trace its development in the course of our examination
of the wider argument and agenda of the work.
Basil's brother, Constantine VIII, was a voluptuary (2.1, 7.52),
capable of exertion only when hunting or playing games (2.8-9).
Michael IV Paphlagon, on the other hand, was the ruler Psellos
admired most after Basil II. Psellos pretends to find some of his
actions reprehensible (such as his affair with Romanos' wife Zoe), but
otherwise claims that "this man will be ranked among the best of
Emperors" (4.7.5; cf. esp. 7.54). The sincerity of this claim is born
134 Byzantine writers further degraded Plato's hypothesis; see, e.g., Agapetos,
Ekthesis I 7.

out by Psellos' favorable account of his reign. Like Basil, Michael
began by indulging in pleasures, but when he realized the weight of
his responsibilities, he quickly turned himself around (4.9). But, also
like Basil, he .
was entirely devoid of Hellenic paideia; on the other hand his ethos was
more harmonious than that of those who philosophized in accordance
with that paideia. He was the master of his body, which was in its prime
[cr<pPty&V1:O~ croollaTO~J, and of his blossoming youth. His passions did
not rule his reason, rather he was in control of them (4.7.6-10).
The language of Platonic psychology and ethics 135 is employed to

praise a ruler who was no philosopher. Indeed, Psellos later informs
us that Michael was a pious Christian, and that his beliefs were naive
and even superstitious. Both facts indicated to Psellos that Michael
lacked any serious acquaintance with philosophy. Furthermore, his
capable brother John the Orphanotrophos, to whom Michael
entrusted the administration of the Empire, was downright hostile to
those of Hellenic paideia (4.14.13-15).136 The type of Emperor repre-
sented by Basil and Michael, able to rule through the mastery of his
bodily desires but ignorant of higher learning, will play an important
role when we uncover the subtext of the Chronographia and indicate
the resolution of its tensions.
Against the two competent rulers Basil and Michael, we must
again set Constantine IX, whom Psellos describes as a highly un-
ascetic man. Psellos documents the various ways in which he devoted
his life to the pursuit of pleasure, and exposes his complete evasion of
responsibility. Constantine, a mild and pleasant man, lacked precise-
ly those qualities which Psellos deemed necessary in a ruler. "It
seems that he had earlier imagined some new and unexpected level
of happiness... and, when he came to the throne, he immediately
attempted to transform his dreams into reality" (6.29.2-6).
He gave the impression of a man who had sailed into the Imperial
harbor, seeking refuge from the waves and from some terrible storm (I
am referring to the misfortunes of exile), and he needed every kind of
relaxation. He welcomed anyone who had a pleasant countenance
and who was ready to say anything that would gladden his soul by
135 Cf. Plato, Republic 430e ff.; Laws 83ge-840b: 1:U lie aw~a'tU ... a<pPtyiOV'tE~.
136 For John, see R. Janin, 'Un ministre byzantin: Jean l'Orphanotrophe (XI' sie-
de).'

predicting the happiest future (6.34; cf. the quite different 'prophetic'
requirements of the effective Emperor: 6.10).
This impression of Constantine is conveyed consistendy throughout

Book 6 of the Chronographia. Psellos' greatest benefactor is presented
as wholly lacking the qualities necessary for a ruler. His hedonism led
to enervation, and his evasion of hardship to the neglect of the seri-
ous problems facing the Empire.
Psellos' evaluations of Basil II, Constantine VIII, Michael IV, and
Constantine IX, draw upon common themes which point toward a
coherent model of effective rulership. Psellos consistendy focuses on
the ability to sacrifice present or frivolous concerns for the sake of
future security and prosperity. In order to safeguard their dominions,
Emperors must be capable of making long-term decisions and sup-
pressing present interests. In the Chronographia, they are criticized
almost exclusively for failing to make such decisions, especially on a
personal level. Surrendering to immediate desires, not impiety or
injustice as such, is the worst vice for an Emperor.
Personal asceticism does not merely symbolize the ability to tran-
scend short-term interests. It is an essential character trait of a ruler
capable of making the right decisions and implementing them under
difficult circumstances. A ruler's ethos is, after all, the direct source of
his or her actions. For instance, Imperial askesis has a crucial impact
upon the finances of the State and consequendy upon its ability to
resist foreign enemies. Psellos' account of the Empire's decline during
the eleventh century contains a strong economic component. Too
many Emperors wasted too much money on personal luxuries, vani-
ties like churches, and favorites at court, while neglecting the army
and other useful branches of the State. Psellos pursues this theme
throughout the Chronographia, beginning with Basil himself, who
hoarded the Empire's wealth and augmented it by war. But his suc-
cessors "squandered the Imperial treasures on personal desires, using
the public revenues not to strengthen the army, but wasting them on
political favors and vain displays" (7.59.2-5). Constantine VIII spent
the money amassed by his brother to gratify his hedonistic inclina-
tions (2.1, 7.52). On campaign, Romanos III slept in a gem-encrust-
ed tent, a virtual palace, which fell into the hands of the barbarians
who defeated him in batde (3.10.6-14). It is not necessary to give
more examples since Psellos generally claims that almost all Emper-
ors after Basil wasted the State's resources. The potential for such

irresponsibility was a serious threat to the treasury of the Byzantine

Empire, prey as it was to a single person's whims. Yet short of over-
hauling the Byzantine form of government, Psellos can only offer
personal self-control as a bulwark against the frivolous waste of
resources. A fragile human quality thereby acquires an urgent histor-
ical significance, for it was the foolish policies of the court that
brought the Empire to the brink of collapse. 137 The subjects of any
autocracy have good reason to believe that the "times" may "change
with the prince."138
Psellos is a masterful narrator of decline. The misfortunes of many
individuals in his work mirror and foreshadow the decline of the
Empire as a whole. He refers to the cruelty of fortune in connection
with the falls of the parakoimomenos Basil (1.21.9-10) and the
Emperor Michael V Kalaphates (5.40.11-13), and he treats the dis-
tress and suffering of both men with sympathy (cf. also 5.22: the
moving description of Zoe's expulsion from the palace; 6.125-131:
the lost beauty and debilitating sickness of Constantine IX Monoma-
chOS).139
But beyond the literary merits of his narrative, and in spite of the
fact that the true subject matter of the Chronographia is not the decline
of the State but the revival of philosophy, Psellos' historical explana-
tion for the fall of the Byzantine Empire is a perfectly acceptable kind
of explanation, which meets the standards of modern scholarship.
Psellos notes that the disasters of the State were not caused simply by
barbarian invasions, as many of his contemporaries believed, but
were also due to the internal weakening of Imperial structures (6.9).
He explains that the Empire was maintained by the prudent use of
its system of offices and honors and by its system of tax collection
(6.29), both of which were abused by the incompetent and immoder-
ate Emperors of the eleventh century, who succumbed to their own
137 Cf. the verdict of Anna Komnene, Alexiad 3.9. G. J. Johnson exaggerates the
role played by Constantine VIII in Psellos' account of the eleventh-century decline
('Constantine VIII and Michael Psellos: Rhetoric, Reality, and the Decline of
Byzantium, A.D. 1025-28'). If there is a "preeminent villain" (p. 221) in the work, it
is surely Constantine IX. Johnson's attempt to question "Psellos' scenario of decline"
by challenging "the accuracy of Psellos' portrayal of Constantine VIII" (p. 224) is
therefore tenuous.
138 Niccolo Machiavelli, Florentine Histories 1.1.
139 According to P. Stephanou, 'Le temoignage religieux de Michel Psellos,' p.
271, these passages establish the sincerity and profundity of Psellos' Christian faith.
Of course, they do no such thing.

petty desires and to the demands of their court flatterers. 140 Psellos
thus shows himself capable of integrating the ethos of powerful indi-
viduals within a broader argument based on institutional constraints
and societal practices, and, above all, on an analysis of the political
culture of the autocratic Byzantine court.
Certain striking conclusions about the nature of Psellos' political
thought emerge from this discussion. First of all, Psellos examines
political life on its own terms, without subordinating it to a putative
level of reality that may exist beyond or above it. His most sustained
discussion of the effective ruler reminds us of the modern executive,
the historical creation of Machiavelli, and not the Christian king
crowned by the grace of God. After the fall of Michael V Kalaphates
(in 1042),
circumstances demanded the brave and intelligent direction and

supervision of a bold man trained by harsh reality, who could not only
see the present clearly but who could also manage all the things
neglected in the past and forestall their future consequences, by
preparing beforehand for every attack and every invasion (6.10.2-8).
Unfortunately, the man who did gain the throne at that time, Con-
stantine IX, Basil II's inverse image, "did not understand the nature
of the Imperial position. He neither realized that it is a service that
provides prosperity for its subjects, nor that egregorsis of the soul is
always required for an effective administration of state affairs"
(6.47.1-4). Of course, the fact that an Emperor should work for the
benefit of his subjects in no way implies that he should cater to their
demands, whatever their station. On the contrary, security from
external enemies and the preservation of the State from economic
and social disorder may require the curtailment of the freedoms and
ambitions of most, if not all, subjects. The effective strength of a
monarch may be weakened by the rise of powerful nobles, as Basil
learned well at the beginning of his reign.
Psellos' model, though certainly presented as normative, differs
greatly from the ideals of other Byzantine thinkers. For instance, his
140 Summarizing the conclusions of "modern research on Byzantium," A. Savvides

says that "one of the basic reasons for the internal weakening and the economic
decline of the Empire was the unbriddled and unchecked award of honorary titles"
(Bvsavnva l:raaraOT[K"a K"ai Avrovo.ulanK"a KlV11.uara ara LlwOtxav1)aa K"ai ari] MIK"pa
'A ala 1189-c.1240 .u.x., p. 104).

answer to the problems of Imperial action completely avoids simplis-

tic moralisms and conventional formulae. He never recites the tired
lists of stock virtues that grace the effusions of the panegyrists and
shape the judgments of other historians. More importantly, however,
Psellos presupposes that an Emperor's sole responsibility is to ensure
the material prosperity and strength of the Empire. Most Byzantines
would have agreed that this was one important aspect of his responsi-
bilities,141 but they would have denied that it constituted the whole.
Psellos not only wants to dismantle many of the moral and religious
restrictions that they would impose on the throne, he also defines
prosperity in purely military and economic terms. Orthodoxy there-
by becomes a superfluous goal (see §8, 9). While he strongly empha-
sizes practicality, efficiency, and the ability to work hard, he scarcely
mentions traditional virtues such as piety, mercy, justice, etc., as
desirable qualities in a ruler. (They may, in fact, be positively unde-
sirable in some circumstances.) Nowhere in the Chronographia does
Psellos suggest that an Emperor should conform to the pious ideal
endorsed by, among many others, the Patriarch Photios, who wrote
the preface to the Eisagoge, a law book of the ninth century:
The Emperor is in the first place obligated to preserve and uphold all
that is written in Holy Scripture, then those things that were estab-
lished as dogma in the seven holy councils, and finally the Roman
Laws. The Emperor ought to be most prominent in his orthodoxy and
piety, and renown for holy zeal (2.4-5, my italics).142
Psellos' silence on these issues can only be deliberate, and must not
be overlooked. It effectively eliminates many of the Emperor's tradi-
tional responsibilities, perhaps in order to make the attainment of the
desired political order more feasible. A ruthless but competent mili-
tary leader is easier to find than a saint who also understands politics
and war.
141 See the sources collected and discussed by]. Karayannopoulos, 'R nOArnTd,
OEwp{a Trov Busavnvrov, pp. 25-29, 69.
142 Text in]. and P. Zepos, Jus Graecaromanum, v. 2, pp. 236-368 (under the wrong
name Epanagagf); for similar sentiments see also Photios' Letter to Boris 19, 25-28;
Agapetos, Ekthesis I, 5, 15: "More than any other of the glories of kingship, that of
piety crowns the ruler," and passim.

62 THE SECRETS OF THE VIRGIN
7. THE SECRETS OF THE VIRGIN
Though saints cannot rule effectively, warlords may posture as saints

if it helps them consolidate their power. Having established the
rough outlines of Basil's character, we may now turn to a specific
incident from his reign, which allows us to explore further the limits
of Psellos' political amoralism and religious subversion.
The first miracle of the Chronographia, a masterpiece of prevarica-
tion, concerns the death of a noble warrior, Bardas Phokas, who
rebelled against the man who would become the greatest Byzantine
Emperor. Psellos dramatically offers us a mystery, and then gradual-
ly gives us the clues necessary for its solution. On 13 April 989, with
the armies of the two men facing each other, Phokas charged the
young Emperor in the fields near the city of Abydos.
Basil rode out in front of his own army, and took his stand there with
sword in hand. With his left hand he held the icon of the Mother of
the Word close to his chest, making it his surest defense against the
unrestrained charge of his enemy ... Those stationed on either flank of
Basil's army threw their javelins at Phokas, and the Emperor Constan-
tine had moved slightly forward of the main line of the army bran-
dishing a long spear. Not far from his own forces, Phokas suddenly fell
off his mount and onto the ground. At this point various accounts are
given. Some claim that he was mortally wounded by the javelin-
throwers and hence fell down. Another says that his mind was sudden-
ly clouded as a result of some intestinal commotion and movement.
Losing his consciousness, he fell off his horse. On the other hand, the
Emperor Constantine arrogated to himself the honor of having slain
the tyrant. According to the prevailing account, however, all that hap-
pened was the result of a plot. Phokas had imbibed a poison which
had been mixed with his drink, and when he began to move it was
suddenly activated, depriving him of his reason and making him very
dizzy, which led to his fall. The plot had been directed by Basil, but
executed by the treacherous hand of the rebel's cupbearer. I, however,
will not express an opinion on this matter, but will ascribe all to the
Mother of the Word (l.l6).
It is easy to see through Psellos' evasion. His refusal to investigate the

exact cause of Phokas' death does not mean that he cannot do so.
On the contrary, Psellos as much as tells us that his ascription of the
event to the Virgin is precisely a device by which he can avoid such
a discussion, while maintaining a pious front. In other words, he does
not really believe that the Virgin intervened and caused the death of

THE SECRETS OF THE VIRGIN 63
Phokas; rather, he believes that the true reason, or at least the one
that he himself wants to endorse, is not one that he can endorse
openly. The reader is again invited to investigate the question for
himself.
An incident from the reign of Romanos III confirms this prelimi-
nary conclusion. We have already mentioned that the unjust cam-
paign waged by Romanos in the east ended in a disastrous defeat.
Afler his account of that battle, Psellos tells us that
the icon of the Mother of God was now brought to Romanos, an icon
which the Roman Emperors usually take with them on campaign as
though it were a general or guardian of the entire army. For the icon
alone had not fallen into the hands of the barbarians (3.10.23-27).
Psellos sarcastically contrasts the popular belief in the powers of the

icon with the fact that it could apparently save only itself. His claim
that Romanos trusted in the icon for victory is not placed before the
account of the battle, because that would be too clear a refutation of
its powers. Psellos does not want to offend pious sensibilities openly.
Instead, the presence of the icon is mentioned as an afterthought,
though one with considerable implications, and not only because it
implicitly denies the efficacy of the icon's powers. The incident
should be correlated with the broader argument concerning Basil's
ostensible trust in the Virgin.
The icon of the Virgin is mentioned only twice in the whole work,
and in this second instance the author does everything short of
directly using the great Emperor's name to inform us that this was
the very icon carried by Basil. Weare expected to draw a connection
between the two incidents. Romanos had placed his full trust in this
icon (3.11), and Psellos wants us to consider this as another aspect of
his misapprehension of reality. He was a bad general and a supersti-
tious fool, and he deserved defeat for both reasons. His extravagant
veneration of the icon is rightly and openly ridiculed (3.11.1-7).143
His delusions had no place on the battlefield.
14:1 A different perspective on such worship is furnished by the twelfth-century his-

torian Niketas Choniates, a sincere believer, who considered John II Komnenos'
similar behavior before the icon of the Virgin ("wailing loudly and gesturing pitiful-
ly") to have been wholly commendable. In Niketas' eyes, John's pious entreaties led
directly to victory (Annals 15-16). Niketas always associated the icon with victory (15,
19, 158, 382), except when it was captured by the warriors of the fourth crusade
(567), an event that foreshadowed the capture of Constantinople itself. Significantly,

64 THE SECRETS OF THE VIRGIN
We may now return to the contest between Phokas and Basil II,
"that Basil who outshone all other Emperors, who was the precious
treasure and the glory of the Roman Empire" (5.22.7-9; cf. 4.39.3).
\Ve are offered four non-supernatural, plausible explanations for the
death of Phokas. His treacherous murder by Basil stands out in every
respect. Not only is it singled out by Psellos himself, although in such
a way that he does not assume responsibility for it - he labels it the
"prevailing" account - it also qualifies as an account which Psellos
could not easily endorse openly. There are additional indications in
the text that Psellos meant to insinuate this explanation into the
minds of his readers.1H
Bardas Skleros is the last nobleman to challenge Basil's authority
in the Chronographia. He had supported Phokas' rebellion (1.12), but
was not present at the battle of Abydos. We know that he was being
held prisoner by Phokas at that time, l~) although Psellos does not
mention this. After Phokas' death Skleros raised another revolt, but
the crusaders who won the icon in battle were themselves anxious to explain away
the fact it had failed to protect its previous owners (ef. Robert de Clari, La Conquete de
Constantinople 66). For the various icons of the Virgin used in military campaigns in
the tenth and eleventh centuries, see Ph. Grierson, 'A l'vlisattributed Miliaresion of
BasilII,'pp.114-115.
1+4 Leo the Deacon (Histol)' 10.9), a contemporary and generally reliable witness,
says only that Phokas fell off his horse and was then decapitated with a sword. But
Leo was writing under Basil II and may not have felt free to speak the whole truth,
especially since that truth was unfavorable to Basil. The Historia Syntomos (106.30-34),
attributed to Psellos, and almost certainly by him, claims only that Phokas fell ofr his
horse because he had been poisoned by Basil (for Psellos as the author of this text,
cf. J. ]\i. Ljubarskij, 'Some Notes on the Newly Discovered Historical Work by Psel-
los'). John Skylitzes (Synopsis 337) gives three of the explanations that are found in
the Chronographia (he omits the boast of Constantine VIII), but clearly endorses the
view that Basil managed to poison Phokas by subverting his cupbearer (and Skylitzes
adds circumstantial details to this account that are not found in the Chronographia).
Zonaras' account (Epitome 17.71 is entirely derivative. Yahya of Antioch (Hiltory, v. 2,
pp. 425-26) and the Armenian historians (Aristakes, History of Armenia 3.34; Matthew
of Edessa, Chronicle 1.35) contribute nothing to our knowledge of the precise cause of
Phokas' death. If, as seems plausible, the poisoning of Phokas by Basil is historical,
and not just Psellos' insinuation, then it is possible that Basil learned how to elimi-
nate enemies from his teacher Basil the parakoimomenos (for whose assassination of
the Emperor John Tzimiskes, see W. G. Brokkaar, 'Basil Lecapenus,' pp. 223-4).
The Chronographia is the only source to mention the presence of the icon on the
battlefield, though a series of coins issued by Basil and Constantine may be linked to
this event (Ph. Grierson, 'A Misatlributed Miliaresion of Basil II'), but the dating has
been questioned (W. Seibt, 'Der Bildtypus der Theotokos Nikopoios,' pp. 552-553).
115 Cf. John Skylitzes, !ivnopsis 335-338. For a recent account of the revolts aimed
against Basil, see M. Whittow, TIe lvlaking of Orthodox Byzantium, 600-1025, pp. 361-
373.

THE SECRETS OF THE VIRGIN 65
finally capitulated, leaving Basil in undisputed possession of the

Empire. Psellos describes the conversation that then took place
between the two warriors in the privacy of the Imperial tent. "As
they shared a drinking bowl, the Emperor first put the cup offered to
Skleros to his own lips and took a moderate sip before handing it
back to him. He thus dispelled any suspicions of treachery" (1.28.6-
9). This passage probably provides a clue for the solution of the mys-
tery of Phokas' death because it raises (for the second time in the
text) the suspicion that Basil used poison against his enemies. Skleros,
it seems, had reason to fear treachery, and he may have known how
Phokas really died. And even though Basil reassures him on this
occasion (after his surrender, when killing him would accomplish
nothing), Psellos says nothing to reassure us about Basil's character.
His peculiar and intrusive description of Basil's action only heightens
our suspicions that he was in fact quite capable of such "treachery."
For even if sipping from a cup offered to a former enemy was stan-
dard Byzantine practice, it does not explain why Psellos chose to
describe it in full only in this particular instance. The probability of
the "prevailing" account has just increased.
Other peculiar statements in the text reinforce this conclusion.
During the struggle between Basil and Skleros, the former "plotted"
against the latter, and employed "various devices" and "traps" that
Skleros was able to counter - yet we are not told of any military
encounters occurring at this time (1.26). In fact their occurrence is
explicitly denied (1.24). We are also told later that Basil was "highly
devious" in wartime (1.34.3).
Psellos informs us at the beginning of section 1.15 that when
Phokas decided to engage in battle with Basil, he entrusted his fate
to tyche (,chance' or 'fortune').146 Yet he later tells us that one of
Basil's virtues was precisely the ability to master fortune. He
relieved the State of its vagaries (1.31.1-2), and did so by being pre-
pared for all occasions (1.33-34).147 Psellos' praise of Basil here
anticipates Machiavelli's famous teaching on the role of fortune in
political affairs.
146 Cf. Leo the Deacon, History 7.8: the same Bardas Phokas, after his earlier revolt
against John I Tzimiskes had failed, EYVOl EVOOUVUl'tfj 1UXTl, and surrendered.
14) Cf. Psellos' Oration bifore the Emperor Monomachos (= Orationes Panegyricae 2) 109-
Ill.

66 AN IMPIOUS DOCTRINE
I liken her to one of these violent rivers, which, when they become
enraged, flood the plains, ruin the trees and the buildings ... ; each person
flees before them, everyone yields to their impetus without being able to
hinder them in any regard. And although they are likc this, it is not as if
men, when times are quiet, could not provide for them with dikes and
dams, so that when they rise later, either they go by a canal or their
impetus is neither so wanton nor so damaging (The Prince, c. 25).
Basil, unlike Phokas, did not trust in chance, and unlike Romanos he
did not place his hopes in the illusory promises of an icon. But a little
poison can make a lifeless piece of painted wood go a long way.
Basil is the only man in the Chronographia who is given uncondi-
tional praise as a ruler (though not as a man). Nevertheless, we have
just discovered that he may have poisoned his noble enemy (a most
un-Christian and un-Homeric act), while posturing as a recipient of
the divine succor of the Holy Virgin. His piety was a sham, his victo-
ry a vile work of treachery. Yet Psellos does not utter a word of criti-
cism on these counts. He does not openly endorse the "prevailing"
explanation of Phokas' death precisely because he does not want to
condemn the action at its center. Could he openly claim that a
strong ruler will sometimes find it necessary to murder a noble oppo-
nent and then attribute his victory to the Mother of God? Such is
nevertheless the conclusion if the "prevailing" account is accepted,
and our sources seem to confirm its historical accuracy.
8. AN IMPIOUS DOCTRINE
Psellos criticizes Romanos Ill's inept effort to build a grand church in

honor of the Virgin just as he ridicules his adoration of her icon. "His
pious intention became a cause of evil deeds and of many injustices"
(3.14.7-9) - though not of the kind that might benefit the State. Thus
Psellos affirms the reverse side of his wicked doctrine: the practice of
traditional virtues can be harmful to the Empire (ct: 6.133.10-12).
For the expenditures required kept adding up ... The Imperial treasury
was entirely emptied to finance the· construction, and every stream of
gold was poured into it. Every source of revenue was exhausted, but
the church gave no sign of being completed (3.14.9-10, 20-23).

AN IMPIOUS DOCTRINE 67
Initially it seems that Psellos is attacking only the extravagant and

wasteful construction of a single church. Such criticism would not be
inconceivable even for a sincerely pious Byzantine. 148 Yet Psellos is
the only Byzantine author who systematically opposes the construc-
tion of churches and monasteries on purely economic grounds (cf.
also §9, 10). As we shall see, something extremely subversive is 'smol-
dering beneath these ashes.'
Section 3.15 is located in the very middle of Book 3, the book on
the reign of Romanos.1 49 It begins with a strong contrast: a condem-
nation of the criminal means by which Romanos gathered the funds
to build his church is followed by a commendation of the desire to
glorify the Lord through the construction of beautiful churches
(3.15.1-8). By praising generally the holy zeal expressed in the con-
struction of churches, Psellos gives the impression that he wants to
attack only the particular actions of a single incompetent ruler. But
he then proceeds to place wide-ranging restrictions on the Imperial
patronage of the Church and on church-building in general: "Noth-
ing dishonorable should be associated with this pious purpose. It
should not be accompanied by many injustices, neither should the
commonwealth be thrown into confusion, nor the body politic be
allowed to break down" (3.15.9-11). Psellos here reveals his decided-
ly secular priorities. He clearly values social welfare and military
security over pious devotion, and tactfully suggests that the latter
should be subordinated to the former in Imperial decisions about
public policy. His argument is based on the recognition that there is
at least a potential conflict of interest between religious and secular
expenses, given the finite extent of the Empire's economic resources.
But when does that conflict become operative? Under what circum-
stances must an Emperor decide that strengthening the common-
wealth takes precedence over the claims of religion?
Romanos ruled over a prosperous and essentially peaceful Empire.
Yet Psellos suggests that even his ecclesiastical expenses threatened or
148 Cf. Evagrios Scholastikos, Ecclesiastical History 4.30, with regard to Justinian's
building projects (for Evagrios' motives, see F. H. Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik
in der byzantinischen Historiographie, p. 44); John Skylitzes (~nopsis 384) criticizes the
extravagance of Romanos Ill's gifts of gold and silver to various churches (but is he
following Psellos?); Niketas Choniates, Annals 204.
149 The division into books was probably Psellos': J. Sykoutris, 'Zum
Geschichtswerk des Psellos,' p. 62. The section numbers are a modern addition (see
Introduction).

undermined its stability and well-being. Was this due to the criminal
and irresponsible means by which he raised the necessary funds, or
does Psellos' argument reach deeper, to the conclusion that no
Emperor at all should spend money on churches? After all, any
amount spent there is automatically denied to the army and to other
secular departments of the State. Later in his discussion, Psellos indi-
cates that he has the second alternative in mind.
It is required of an Emperor, even if he should have to break the law

with regard to external decorations, to care for the palace, beautify the
acropolis, repair what has been damaged, fill the Imperial treasury,
and spend money on the military (3.15.26-30).
First of all, we can see that Psellos is more interested in telling

Emperors where to spend their money than in making sure that they
obtain it properly. He even hints that criminal means may be neces-
sary to secure funds for the essential functions of the State.
More importantly, however, the Church is conspicuously absent
from Psellos' list of required Imperial expenditures. This omission is
significant and cannot be ascribed to carelessness, for the whole dis-
cussion is concerned precisely with the relative value of Imperial
expenses. What an author of Psellos' subtlety and intelligence does
not say is often as important as what he does say. His silence acquires
a crucial significance when it concerns matters that he is discussing
directly. ISO Although he begins section 3.15 with a criticism of the
particular actions of a single ruler, Psellos concludes by implying that
no Emperor ought to build or enrich churches at all, or at least that
it is not "required" of him to do so. If Romanos, heir to the condi-
tions of great prosperity created by Basil II, ought not to have spent
money on churches, then surely none of his successors, who presided
over the financial decline of the Empire, should have been afforded
that pious luxury. Psellos' implication that an Emperor should be
more concerned to beautify the acropolis and the palace than to dec-
orate and enrich churches can easily be interpreted as downright
impious. lSI
\,0 "If a wise man is silent about a fact that is commonly held to be important for
the subject he discusses, he gives us to understand that that fact is unimportant. The
silence of a wise man is always meaningful. It cannot be explained by forgetfulness"
(Leo Strauss, 77zoughts on Machiavelli, p. 30).
I'>! From a less religious period, cf. Cicero, De Officiis 2.60: "The expenditure of
money is better justified when it is made for walls, docks, harbors, aqueducts, and all

By examining the attitudes of other Byzantines on this issue we
can appreciate better the radical nature of Psellos' position and per-
haps also understand his reasons for holding it. How did the Byzan-
tines react when the economic conflict of interest between Church
and State manifested itself in an uncompromising form? Two events
illustrate the dominant values. In the early 620's, the Emperor Her-
akleios (ruled 610-641) found his Empire on the verge of utter defeat.
The Balkans had been overrun by the Avars and the Slavs while the
eastern provinces had been conquered by the powerful Persian
Empire. In order to prosecute the war in the east, Herakleios
received a loan from the Church: gold from the churches of the City
was melted down and used to fund his necessary military activities. 152
After his spectacular victory over Persia, however, Herakleios felt
compelled to repay the loan to the Church, by exacting funds from
the recently reconquered territories, which could ill-afford to support
even the Imperial administration itself. "Had the Church been more
self-denying or more patient, had Syria and Mesopotamia been left
for a few years exempt from the burden of taxes, a firmer resistance
might have been offered to the Arab invader."153 Restoring to the
Church its gold immediately after the war was apparently a higher
priority for Herakleios than was effective Imperial reconstruction.
A parallel and more interesting conflict of interest emerged a gen-
eration after Psellos finished writing the first part of his Chronographia.
When the Emperor Alexios Komnenos (ruled 1081-1118) gained the
throne, he found the Empire once again threatened with extinction.
The Seljuk Turks had taken most of Anatolia, and the Normans,
under the leadership of the ruthless Robert Guiscard, had launched
their invasion of the Balkans from Italy with the express purpose of
seizing control of the Empire. Alexios was in desperate need of mon-
ey, and, after he had exhausted the contributions of his relatives and
supporters, he had no alternative but to make use of the Church's
those works which are of service to the community ... Out of respect for Pompey's
memory [not the Gods!] I am rather diffident about expressing any criticism of the-
aters, colonnades, and new temples; and yet the greatest philosophers do not
approve of them - our Panaetius himself, for example, whom I am following."
152 Theophanes the Confessor 302-303.
153 J. B. Bury, A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene, v. 2, p. 246;
for the immediate repayment of the loan, see Nikephoros, Short History 19; for the
financial difficulties of the State on the eve of the Arab attack, see W. E. Kaegi,
Byzantium and the earty Islamic conquests, p. 38; for the great wealth of the Church at
that time, see C. Haas, Alexandria in Late Antiquity, p. 249.

gold. This led to a heated controversy in which reasons of state were

pitted against uncompromising religious values.
To gain access to the treasure, Alexios resorted to a legal pretext:
according to rules of the Church, ecclesiastical treasure could be
expropriated to ransom prisoners of war. Therefore, to fund the wars
that were necessary for the very survival of the Empire, Alexios had
to twist the literal meaning of canon law. 154 His action provoked con-
siderable opposition, among both the clergy and the laity. His most
vocal opponent was Leo, the Bishop of Chalcedon, who called the
expropriation "hubris," "i~ustice," and "a crime." According to
Leo, Alexios' action also smacked of "iconoclasm," since some of the
melted plate had divine images impressed upon it. li .1 In response to
Leo's passionate attacks against his person, and after a preliminary
defeat on the field of battle, Alexios issued an abject apology in
which he ostentatiously revealed, or merely affected, a guilty con-
science and grave moral anxiety before his subjects and their God.
While silently dropping the pretext in canon law, he nevertheless
claimed in essence that his impious action was justified for reasons of
state, an excuse which his adoring daughter and biographer Anna
readily accepted. 156 Yet at the same time he roundly condemned his
seizure of Church treasure as impious and sacrilegious, and forbade
future Emperors from ever repeating it.157 He repeated it himself
only a few years later when the Pechenegs invaded the Balkans. lss
It is impossible to know exactly how popular Leo's views were, or
how many people understood the necessities invoked in Alexios'
154 A. A. Glavinas, 'H bd AA£~{OV KOJlv1)vov (10B1-111B) 1r£pi l£pwv oX£vwv, I\£lJl1)-
A£1wv, miaYlwvi"i1\6vwvEpu;(IOBI-1095), pp, 54-61.
155 ibid. pp. 66-69, 82. The accusation of iconoclasm appears to have been used
regularly, especially when churchmen felt that their financial interests were being
threatened; see John Oxeites, Patriarch of Antioch, also writing under Alexios I
Komnenos (De monasteriis laicis non tradendis 6-8). For the severe reaction by church-
men to Alexios' policies, see in general P. Magdalino, TIe empire if Manuel I Komnenos,
1143-11BO, pp. 267-272.
1St; "ai 1tOtKtAat Kat 1tOAV~EPE1~ ,mv 1tpay~a1(ov 1tEpHHaO"Et~," etc. ("the various and
multi-sided state of affairs ... "), in Alexios' De sacris uasibus; cf. Anna Komnene, Alexi-
ad 6.3.
157 A. A. Glavinas, op. cit., p. 76.
158 ibid., pp. 133-141. Alexios "was, beyond all others, a dissembler, deeming
secretiveness a clever thing and never saying much about what he intended to do"
(Niketas Choniates, Annals 6). Even his wife could tell him that "in life you excelled
in all kinds of deceits, gilding your tongue with contradictory meaning" (ibid. 7; cf.
Anna Komnene, Alexiad 2.2.4).

apology. What is significant, however, is that he had to make an

apology. An astute observer of political fortunes, Alexios evidently
felt that a public confession of guilt and repentance was necessary to
repair his tarnished public image. 15g This proves that in the arena of
public discourse, Leo's views held the moral high ground. Yet Leo
had offered no alternative suggestions as to how the State could have
been saved. He believed, pure and simple, that Church treasures
were of divine or inalienable value; nothing else seemed to matter to
him or his numerous supporters. 160 In this context, the secular posi-
tion upheld in section 3.15 of the Chronographia becomes highly con-
troversial. It is exactly antithetical to the religious fervor that moti-
vated Leo and the public values that drew forth Alexios' confession.
For not only does it fully support the measures that Alexios took in
those perilous circumstances, it suggests that Emperors should not
spend money on churches even in times, as was the case under
Romanos III, of peace and prosperity.
It could be objected that this event does not really illuminate Psel-
los' position, since he merely advises Emperors not to give gold to the
churches, whereas Alexios and his supporters had dared to confiscate
it from them. The latter controversy concerned a deed that was con-
strued by many as actively impious. The next sentences of section
3.15 undercut this objection,16l along with the position of Leo of
Chalcedon and all other iconodules, by questioning the religious val-
ue itself of church decorations. If they have no religious value, as
Psellos clearly implies, the opponents of Alexios' action have no
grounds upon which to protest. In other words, if Psellos does not
exactly encourage the confiscation of Church treasures, he at least
permits it.
"The symmetry of walls, the encircling columns, the hanging
tapestries, the luxury of the offerings, and other things qf similar magnifi-
cence, what can they contribute to the divine purpose of piety?"
(3.15.15-18, my italics) Psellos is no longer comparing the relative
value of a stable "body politic" on the one hand and of ecclesiastical
wealth on the other. He has shifted the grounds of the debate and
159 A1exios' crime was to have taken silver and gold from a Church whose founder
had preached poverty, abstinence, and humility. Cf. §10 on Basil II and St Basil's
monastery, and §24 on Isaac's measures.
160 Cf. some similar declarations in Michael Attaleiates (History 277-279). This his-
torian's true views continue to elude me (cf., for example, ibid. 6Iw).
161 As does section 7.60.14-19 (cf. §24).

has now brought it entirely within the Church itself. His rhetorical
question effectively denies that church decorations possess any innate
religious value whatsoever, although the thrust of his criticism is par-
tially blunted by the continued reference to "luxury." But this is an
escape clause; we can hardly believe that Psellos would be satisfied if
the walls were not symmetrical and the "other things" were not
"magnificent." The iconoclastic nature of his proposal is revealed
through a comparison to the beliefs of the ninth-century Patriarch
Photios, who presided over the final defeat of Byzantine iconoclasm.
In the magnificent language of his tenth Homify, Photios emphasizes
precisely the religious value of symmetrical marble walls, gold
columns - and depictions of religious figures (esp. 10.4-6).162 Psellos'
rhetorical question undermines the very foundations of Photios'
exposition.
Thus in section 3.15, after denying that Emperors should spend
money on the Church, Psellos calls into question the religious value
of the entire artistic and ceremonial tradition of the Byzantine
Church, and follows a path of reasoning that could easily expose him
to charges of iconoclasm. What are, after all, the "other things of
similar magnificence" found in Byzantine churches? Instead of nam-
ing the controversial items, Psellos abolishes them quietly through
another rhetorical transition to even greater generality and religious
abstraction.
Does it not suffice [apKoll1] for the purposes of piety that a man's
mind [vou~] be elothed with divinity, his soul dyed in the intellectual
[vo£p~] purple, his deeds upright, his beliefs graceful, or, in a word,
that his disposition be honorable? Is it not on account of these things
that a different kind of temple is built within us that is welcome to the
Lord and suitable to receive him? (3.15.18-23; cf. I Corinthians 3.16)
162 Cf. the gratified Theophanes the Confessor (493), who mentions with approval
the payments in gold made to the Patriarch and the clergy by the obedient son of
the Church Michael I, and then lists "the sumptuous adornment for the holy sanc-
tuary, namely golden vessels set with stones and a set of four curtains of ancient
manufacture, splendidly embroidered in gold and purple and decorated with wonder-
ful sacred images" (494), including even more payments in gold to the clergy. These
were subjects close to Theophanes' heart. The religious value and theological signif-
icance of the church building itself, apart from its decorations, found its classic expo-
nent in Maximos the Confessor, Afystagogia 2-5; cf. also St Germanos (Ecclesiastical
History and Afystical Contemplation), who followed Maximos, and found symbolic, i.e.,
religious, value even in· the embroidery on the arms of the robes of deacons and
presbyters (17).

To grasp the extent of the heterodoxy expressed in this passage, we
must compare it to the teachings of prominent Orthodox theologians
who had explicidy denied the conclusions that Psellos affirms above.
Theodore of Stoudios, a zealous iconodule activist and theologian,
was most emphatic that "mental contemplation alone [~KU'teX vouv
1l6vov 8£())piu]" is not "sufficient [apK£'i] ," and that the memory of
things "seen mentally ['to vo£p&C; ~A£1t61l£vov]" is lost in time without
material reminders. 163 John of Damascus, the most famous champion
of images, who exercised enormous influence on all subsequent
Byzantine theology and intellectual life, had revealed exacdy what
was at stake in these debates.
If you say that only intellectual [VOEProC;] worship is worthy of God,

then take away all corporeal things: lights, the fragrance of incense,
prayer made with the voice. Do away with the divine mysteries which
are fulfilled through matter: bread, wine, the oil of chrism, the sign of
the cross. All these things are matter! [VAll] Take away the cross and
the sponge of the crucifixion, and the spear which pierced His life-giv-
ing side. Either give up honoring all these things, which would be an
impossible thing, or do not refuse to honor images. 164
In accordance with John's instructions, as it were, Psellos has indeed

gradually stripped away from true religion everything that is recog-
nizably Christian. He has preserved only the intellectual core of
faith, coupled with certain universal moral values. And the only
thinkers who believed that this "sufficed" for religion were Hellenic
philosophers. Witness Porphyry, the student of Plotinos and an arch-
enemy of Christianity, who developed a definition of piety strikingly
similar to Psellos':
Reason tells us that the divine is present everywhere, but only [~6vllv]
the mind of the wise man is sanctified as its temple, and the proper
honor is given to God by him who knows Him best. And it is reason-
Ib3 Theodore of Stoudios, Antirrhetici adversus iconomachos 1. 7 and 3.4.13. The icono-
clastic council of Hieria (754 A.D.), on the other hand, insisted that God could be
approached only through "the eyes of the intellect" and emphasized the priority of
"worship in a spiritual manner" (for a careful translation of the council's horos see S.
Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Rezgn if Constantine V, pp. 68-94; the quotations
are from pp. 89 and 92). The passages from the Fathers adduced by the horos also
stress the priority of spiritual contemplation, although they certainly do not go as far
as Psellos does.
16!John of Damascus, Contra imaginum calumniatores 1.36; for John's emphasis on the
sacred material objects of his version of Christianity see also 1.16, 3.35.

able that this is the wise man alone [Jlovov], for whom the divine must
be honored through wisdom, and who must adorn a temple for it in his
mind, also through wisdom ... Let your mind be a temple to God: you
must prepare it and adorn it and make it suitable to receive him.165
In a small separate work that echoes section 3.15 of the Chronographia,

Psellos argues similarly that God is present everywhere and cannot
be contained in any receptacle, but then concedes that "the most
contemplative mind," and that one "alone" Lu6vo~yap o{)tO-;], might
house His glory.166 The next step in this path of reasoning is the
statement of the second-century medical writer and philosopher
Galen that true piety consists not of the ritual acts demanded by tra-
ditional religion but simply of knowledge and wisdom. 167 Interesting-
ly, when Psellos applies his new definition of piety to Romanos, he
finds the Emperor deficient precisely because "he did not know how
to show forth a philosophical disposition in his deeds" (3.15.24-25).
True piety has now become something that only philosophers can
attain, while the religion of the majority, Orthodox Christianity, has
been quietly and gradually dismissed from serious consideration.
True religion is philosophy, and true piety is wisdom.
This radical conclusion is not proven by argument, but is instead
produced through a specious chain of rhetorical questions that con-
tinually transpose the issue to higher and higher levels of abstraction.
At each stage, the discussion employs assumptions that arc progres-
sively less Orthodox. Psellos slyly hopes to confer upon the last the
initial plausibility of the first. 168 He begins by trying to link religious
expenses in general to Romanos' mishandling of the funds for a spe-
1(;5 Porphyry, Ad Marcellam II, 19; cf. also the fifth-century Platonist philosopher
Hierokles, In aureum Pythagoreorum carmen commentarius 1.18: "The only one [1-l6vo~]
who knows how to honor properly is he who does not confuse the value of the things
being honored ... and who builds his mind into a temple suitable for the reception of
the divine light."
166 On the Dwelling of the Glory of God (= Dissertatio 44 in Scripta Minora, v. I, p. 423):
"'t61to~ 'tOU crKTivffil-la'tO~ 'tTi~ 1i6~1l~ a1Hou 6 eEOJpllnl(ffi'ta'tO~ vou~"; cf. Hierokles, In aureum
Pythagoreorum carmen commentarius 1.19: "God has no place on earth more suitable to
Him than a pure soul." For the soul as the true temple of God, see also Philo, On the
Cherubim 97-102. There is a striking resonance between Philo and Psellos on this
matter. For a contrasting Orthodox position, see St Germanos, Ecclesiastical History
and lvfystical Contemplation I: "The Church is an earthly heaven in which the super-
celestial God dwells and walks about."
167 Galen, De Usu Partium 3.237. Psellos, himself an accomplished student of med-
icalliterature, knew Galen's works, including the one cited here.
16R "You are more likely to escape detection, as you shift from one thing to its oppo-
site, if you proceed in small steps rather than in large ones," Plato, Phaedrus 262a.

cific church. In criticizing Romanos' actions, he subordinates pious
benefactions to political, social, and economic considerations. He
then piously questions the religious value of the material objects that
accompany Christian worship, and suggests that the most important
components of true religiosity are morality and philosophy, more
important, therefore, than the ritual acts demanded by the estab-
lished religion. 169 He concludes that a pure mind is temple enough
for the Lord. But why have churches at all if that is the case?170
One has to admire the insinuating charm of Psellos' impiety. At
first sight, his proposals seem to be nothing more than religious and
moral commonplaces. A casual reader, awed by Psellos' expert use of
profound philosophical terms, may accept his views without realizing
that they are based on extremely controversial premises. Therein lies
their beauty, and their poison. It is only by searching beneath the
surface of the text, by closely following its rhetorical 'drift' and
unspoken assumptions, that one can fully grasp his subversive intent.
The modern reader is in particular danger of missing or denying this
radical novelty, for modern instincts about religious expression have
been decisively shaped by the Reformation, which shattered the
identity between Christianity and the Church, and the Enlighten-
ment, which broke the connection between Christian morality and
the Christian faith. The modern view of piety is a universalized and
hence highly rarefied version of a concept which in past ages desig-
nated very specific practices and beliefs. We must consider the impli-
cations of Psellos' claims for eleventh-century Constantinople, a city
dominated by the Orthodox Church and its ceremonies, official his-
tory, traditions, art, and ideology. Psellos implicitly excludes all of
this from his new definition of the "sufficiently" pious life. He osten-
sibly demands only intellectual worship and a moral life, by implica-
tion rejecting priests, 17I churches, councils, creeds, ceremonies, mys-
169 Cf. Porphyry, Ad Marcellam 16-17: "You will honor God best when you make
your mind similar to His. And this likeness can only be effected through virtue ... He
who exercises wisdom exercises the knowledge of God, not through constant litanies
and sacrifices, but by exercising his piety toward God in his virtuous actions."
170 Cf. Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, who criticized the building of
temples in honor of the Gods on the grounds that no building could be a worthy·
receptacle of divinity (fr. 264). His argument is quoted by many authors whom Psel-
los could have read.
171 Cf. Porphyry, Ad Marcellam 16: 'The only [W)vo~] priest is the wise man; only
he is loved by God and only he knows how to pray" = Hierokles, In aureum F)thagare-
arum carmen cammentarius I .18.

teries, etc., not to mention all the trappings of Orthodox religious

practice: icons, incense, altars, candles, crosses, etc. The social
supremacy of any established Church rests on the continual propaga-
tion of its ideology and symbols of power. To omit them from a
direct discussion of religion is to challenge them, even if only tacitly.
The superiority of philosophical virtue over the partisan demands
of specific religions was championed by two of the greatest enemies
of sectarianism, the satirists Lucian and Voltaire. Psellos has often
been compared to Voltaire, though on superficial grounds, and only
by French scholars. The comparison is generally meant as a compli-
ment; 172 in fact, Psellos was the more profound and independent
thinker. There are, however, some significant similarities. Voltaire
and Lucian, like Psellos in section 3.15, promoted a universal moral-
ity that was not based on explicit metaphysical or religious doctrines.
"There is no morality in superstition, it is not in ceremonies, it has
nothing in common with dogmas. It cannot be too often repeated
that all dogmas are different, and that morality is the same among all
men who use their reason."173 The writings of both men remain
highly subversive to established religion, and draw their power pre-
cisely from the fact that they praise morality and sometimes religion
in general terms, while condemning and ridiculing the particular
beliefs and power structures of individual religions. Because many of
their contemporaries were sympathetic to their ideas, Lucian and
Voltaire could be more explicit, and their views achieved consider-
able notoriety. Psellos, on the other hand, had to be much more
careful, so that we cannot be sure that he ever revealed the full
extent of his dissident views, for any philosopher writing in an age of
persecution may be suspected of being more revolutionary than his
published works suggest.
172 E.g., A. Rambaud, 'Michel Psellos. Philosophe et homme d'etat byzantin,' pp.
243-244; G. Schlumberger, L'epopee byzantine ii la fin du dixibne siecle, pt. 3: Les porphy-
rogenetes ?,oe et Yheodora, pp. 349-350, quoting Rambaud; C. Diehl, Figures byzantines,
p. 249; E. Renauld, in the introduction to his edition of the Chronographia, pp. 20-21.
173 Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, p. 322; cf. Lucian, On Sacrifices and On Funerals.
These two works are satires of Greek religious practices, which Lucian equated with
superstition, while his insistence on the superiority of simple virtue over metaphysi-
cal speculation, outward appearance of virtue, ceremony, and custom can be found
in Nigrinus, passim; Yhe Symposium or the Lapiths 34; Hermotimos or Concerning the Philosoph-
ical Sects 18, 22-24, 82; Menippos or the Descent into Hades 5, 21; Timon or the Misanthrope
54-55; Dialogues of the Dead 20.8.

THE SECULAR IMPERIUM 77
9. THE SECULAR IMPERIUM
Psellos argues that Emperors should spend Imperial funds only on

secular departments of the State, such as the army and the civil
administration. Accordingly, the financial support of religion is com-
pletely absent from his account of Basil, the greatest Emperor in the
Chronographia. Weare never told that he gave money to the Church,
or that he built and endowed churches and monasteries, or that he
was fervent for the aggrandizement and expansion of the True Faith
in general. Apart from his use of the Virgin's icon at the battle of
Abydos, which concealed his treacherous murder of Phokas, Basil's
only action in the religious sphere was his malicious demolition of a
monastery dedicated to St Basil the Great - hardly an expression of
pious zeal (1.20; cf. § 10). Overall, Psellos gives an irreligious slant to
the reign, which sets the Chronographia apart from other works of
Byzantine historiography.l74 Leo the Deacon, for instance, has one
of his heroes, the Emperor John Tzimiskes, declare that "I acknowl-
edge two authorities in this lower life, the priesthood and the
Empire. The Creator has entrusted the first with the care of souls,
the second with the governance over bodies."171 There is no compa-
rable declaration on the role and importance of the priesthood in
the Chronographia. We begin to wonder whether an Emperor can
execute the functions of his office in the most able way while utterly
disregarding the Church. Contrary to the assumptions of modern
scholars, Psellos not only could, but did contemplate the separation
of politics and religion. 176
If Basil's religiosity was questionable at best, the incompetent
Emperors who succeeded him are explicitly criticized for their reli-
gious benefactions, which, of course, pious contemporaries would
171 Contrast the very different portrayal of Basil I by Constantine VII Porphyro-
gennetos (in Theophanes Continuatus 321-344 and De Administrando Imperio 29.68 If,
50.75-76), or of Alexios I Komnenos by his daughter Anna (Alexiad 14.9.8 and con-
text, and 15.7-10). Accordingly, Psellos entirely suppresses Basil's conversion of the
Rus' prince Volodymyr to Orthodox Christianity, an achievement with far-reaching
consequences.
175 Leo the Deacon, History 101-2. This view was forcefully stated by Justinian,
Corpus Iuris Civilis, Novellae 6: preface; it was repeated by Psellos' friend and teacher
John Mauropous, Poem 87.
176 For the assumption, without argument or proof, that he could not, see R.
Anastasi, Studi sulla "Chronographia" di Michele Psello, p. 132.

78 THE SECULAR IMPERIUM
have regarded as completely praiseworthy. \Ve have already exam-

ined Psellos' condemnation of Romanos' efforts to build a church in
honor of the Virgin. Like Romanos, Constantine IX Monomachos
also "was inflamed by certain passions to rival all the other buildings
that had ever been built and to surpass them by far" (6.185.9-12).
Yet for the construction of the church of St George the Martyr "the
gold flowed in a stream from the public treasury as though from
inexhaustible springs" (6.185.19-21). Psellos claims that the eflart to
build this church "destroyed and wiped out everything, and in the
end included even Constantine himself among its ruins" (6.185.3-4).
In short, Psellos disapproved of Emperors who spent too much mon-
ey, or indeed any money at all, on churches and monasteries (cf.
7.59). Such edifices could not protect the Empire from its enemies,
from the collapse of a powerful and centralized government, or from
the weakening of the "body politic."
Psellos, however, is interested in more than just the financial
aspects of Imperial religion. In his view, Emperors must be capable
of occasionally transgressing the ethical ru1cs of Christianity, and
they cannot do so if they adhere inflexibly to its doctrines. In his
account of the sole reign of Theodora, Psellos carefully implies that
rulers who pay less attention to "heavenly things" tend to be more
effective. This conclusion arises from a curious discrepancy in his
presentation of the Empress' ethos.
Near the beginning of his account, Psellos gives Theodora's sole
reign a ringing endorsement. Apart from the fact that there was not
a man at the helm,
the State was ruled properly and magnificently. No one at all rebelled
against the regime or scorned its decisions and decrees. The seasons
were favorable for everyone and the harvest was abundant. No foreign
nation raided or looted our territory, much less declared war on us.
No section of the body politic was discontented, and equality for all
was preserved (6A.4.4-l2).
In our discussion of the concept of ethos in the Chronographia (§ 1), we

noted that Theodora's behavior changed when she became sole ruler
after the death of Constantine IX Monomachos. She had also ruled
together with her sister Zoe in 1042, before Constantine's accession.
According to Psellos, at that time "neither woman possessed the
mental faculties required of a ruler. They neither knew how to
administrate the public finances, nor could they make cogent argu-

THE SECULAR IMPERIUM 79
ments about government affairs" (6.5.3-5). But after the death of
Constantine, Theodora seized the initiative.
Henceforth this Empress openly took charge of all State affairs, and
without requiring any mantelet, so to speak, for protection, she began
to behave boldly and confidently, like a man. She could be seen
choosing her own officials and dispensing justice from her throne with
a grave voice. She exercised her vote in court, arbitrated disputes, and
issued decrees (6A.2).
Whereas before she could not argue about politics, Theodora now
managed to convince her subjects that her accession did not require
a new distribution of court honors and promotions. She argued that
she had in effect been an Empress since 1042 and that "she was
again assuming her paternal heritage of which she had been
deprived by later claimants ... This seemed plausible to the crowd,
and even all those who were sharpening their tongues against her
earlier now fell silent" (6A.3). Whereas before she was not fit to gov-
ern, now "she was quite capable of expounding her views at great
length. She anticipated some problems beforehand, and dealt with
the rest on the spot. She could ably express herself in clear and
ordered speech" (6A.5). What caused this change in Theodora's abil-
ities?
Psellos does not answer this question directly. He does, however,
give us a single hint, which involves religion. Theodora, according to
the ostensibly outraged historian, began to show disrespect for
important Church ceremonies.
I was amazed, knowing her to be most reverent for holy things. But
love of Imperial rule persuaded her to commit certain crimes. Her
respect for heavenly things was accordingly diminished, and she no
longer preserved her compassion of soul. I do not know whether she
was reverting to her implanted nature, to show that her past conduct
up to now had been a piece of theater, or whether her recent behavior
was deliberately cultivated, lest she become vulnerable to her subjects,
by giving in to their tearful entreaties (6A.16).
Psellos' professed inability to solve this problem is a diversion. The

answer is irrelevant, for the real point of the section has already been
made. "Love of rule," which was integrally connected to Theodora's
emergence as a competent ruler, led her to hold "heavenly things" in
less reverence. Recognizing that she could not rule according to the
dictates of Christian charity, she began to suppress her feelings of

80 THE REPUDIATION OF MONASTICISM
sympathy for her subjects' "tearful entreaties." Like her uncle Basil
II, she realized that "compassion of soul" is not an Imperial virtue.
As Machiavelli has Cosimo de Medici say, "states are not held with
paternosters in hand." 177
According to Psellos, effective Imperial rule is incompatible with
at least some of the ethical demands of the Church. The issue here is
not doctrine per se. Belief in a crucified tripartite man-God will prob-
ably not handicap a statesman, for it will probably not influence his
policies. Psellos focuses on the ethical implications of religious belief,
the acceptance of certain values that shape conduct and behavior.
Rulers who place their trust in icons, or spend inordinate amounts
on the construction of churches and monasteries, or are prone to
pity, charity, and compassion, do not understand the realities of their
position.1 78 Their values and priorities make them unfit for the diffi-
cult and morally compromising tasks that lie before them (cf. §23).
Psellos is not concerned here with rulers who are 'Christian' in the
manner of Basil II, who may have worn the mask of piety, but other-
wise flagrantly disregarded the ethical code of the Church. Those
who merely pretend to be Christians in order to gain political advan-
tage will not find a critic in Psellos, but a comrade. For he too,
although not as successfully as Basil, "was cautious lest he incur the
charge of impiety" (1.20.16-17; cf. §10, 18).
10. THE REPUDIATION OF MONASTICISM
The greatest ascetic in the Chronographia, the Emperor Basil II, was
not a monk, far less a holy man. Basil's rejection of the immediate
pleasures of earthly life did not stem from his devotion to Christian
ideals, or to any other ideals. It was rather an expression of his
implacable will to power. In this sense Basil can also be called the
177 Niccolo Machiavelli, Florentine Histories 7.5-6.

178 Cf. §5, esp. section 7B.42 of the Chronographia, and the enigmatic praise of Con-
stantine X Doukas in 7A. 3.8-11: "Of all Emperors he was the most pious, and even
though he surpassed all others in this respect, he often managed wars without much
effort and garlanded his head with the crowns of victory." Even though?

THE REPUDIATION OF MONASTICISM 81
most worldly of men. He ruled over himself in order to dominate

others. His worldly ambition and asceticism were concurrent expres-
sions of his nature. Yet even after we recognize the non-Christian
nature of his ethos, we must still acknowledge that his asceticism was
more sincere and profound than that of any professional monk
described in the Chronographia. Monks lay claim to a supernatural
authority, but utterly failed to live up to its demands. They were sur-
passed by a man who aimed at merely human authority. As the
greatest enemy of orthodox Platonism later put it, "with some,
chastity is a virtue, but with many it is almost a vice. These people
abstain, it is true: but the bitch Sensuality glares enviously out of all
that they do."179
Every mention of monks in the Chronographia contributes to the
same indictment. Romanos III added a monastery to his grand
church, but in order to support its idle inhabitants, "another world
was explored, and the sea outside the Pillars of Hercules was investi-
gated; the former was to furnish delicious sweetmeats, the latter large
fish and even whales" (3.16.10-13). The monastery founded by
Michael IV Paphlagon is deliberately described in highly sensual lan-
guage, to emphasize the irony of the virtual paradise created by
nature and art for the habitation of alleged ascetics (4.31). Psellos
highlights the bodily appeals of Byzantine religious art, which his
contemporaries would have been loath to acknowledge. He employs
the same technique to describe the church and monastery built by
Constantine IX Monomachos (6.185-188).180 This description is the
most extravagant yet, and purposefully seeks to arouse the readers'
senses by the evocative use of language so voluptuous that it mirrors,
perhaps even rivals, the attractions of the edifice itself.
The entire building was constructed in a very artistic way; gold-leaf

gilded the ceiling, while bright green gems both paved the ground and
were affixed to the walls one above the other, either juxtaposed, or in
alternating patterns of contrasting colors ... The church was like some
heavenly dome adorned with golden stars, but the natural sky is mere-
ly studded with their golden lights: every part of this dome was entire-
ly covered with gold ... All around, the grounds were lined with flower-
beds, some surrounding the buildings, others running along the center
179 Nietzsche, 7hus Spoke Zarathustra, 'On Chastity.'

180 For this complex and its history, see R. Janin, us eglises et les monasteres, pp. 70-
76.

of the complex. There were springs of running water that filled foun-
tains, while of the gardens some were hanging, the rest arranged on
the level ground; there was a bath of indescribable beauty and grace ...
No one could easily survey all of those gardens, either with his eyes or
even with his imagination. For it was not just that the entirety was of
exceptional beauty as it was composed of beautiful parts; each of those
parts was no less capable of arresting the spectator's attention ... Each
passionately admired a separate detail: the size of the church, the
beauty of its symmetry, the harmony of its components, the mix and
variety of its graces, the streams of water, the surrounding grounds,
the flowery lawns, the dewy grass, always sprinkled with water, the
shade provided by the trees, the gracefulness of the bath.
Yet the construction of such monasteries, - "for this was the name
they gave to these buildings," Psellos wryly comments elsewhere
(7.59.12-13) - imposed a severe burden on the treasury (cf. § 10).
Imperial funds were wasted "so that those men, who were idle by
nature and contributed nothing to the support of the commonwealth,
could live in luxury and disgrace the name and practice of virtue,
while our armed forces were being diminished and weakened"
(7.59.19-22).181 In this passage faith is again subordinated to political
necessity. The suggestion that men should be judged by their contri-
butions to the commonwealth reveals Psellos' rejection of the other-
worldly values of Christianity, whose chief concern is the closeness of
one's soul to God.
Far from indicating hostility to the pleasures of art and nature,
Psellos' magnificent description of Constantine's church shows his
appreciation for the attractions of both. Elsewhere he openly admits
that sensory experience is essential to human life, so much so that
"the affections of the soul are fitted to our bodily life" (6A. 7 .15-16;
cf. §23). Even sensual experience has its place, although it should not
be allowed to dominate (6A.8.1 0-11). Thus Psellos does not attack
monks out of hostility to the pursuit of bodily goods, believing that
they had failed to renounce them sufficiently. Instead, the point of
his attack is to emphasize that sensual experience, and all the affec-
tions of bodily life, necessarily shape the lives of so-called otherworld-
181 For a scholarly confirmation of Psellos' position (although it is not offered as

such), see R. Morris, Monks and laymen in Byzantium, part II. Morris demonstrates that
by the eleventh century many monasteries had expanded their land-holdings at the
expense of the lay population, compromised their spiritual calling, and eventually
managed to accelerate and exacerbate the problems faced by the State.

ly ascetics, whether they like it or not. Psellos aims to refute the very
principles of the monastic ideal: since bodily goods cannot by their
nature be renounced, any effort to do so will inevitably result in
hypocrisy and failure (cf. §12).
This critique is prominent in his account of a group he calls "our
Naziraioi" [AEym of: '"Coue;!Cae' llJ..lae; Na~tpaioue;], which is really a sar-
castic reference to Byzantine monks in general (6A.18.5).182 This
word had a respectable Biblical pedigree, and was associated with
positive values by many important Christian authors. According to
Eusebios of Caesarea it had connotations of such holiness and purity
that it could be applied to Jesus himself.183 Gregory of Nazianzos
referred to "those who have separated themselves from the world
and consecrated their life to God" by using exactly the same phrase
employed by Psellos [AEym of: '"Coue; Ka8' llJ..lae; Na~tpaioue;J.184 Psellos'
hostile and sarcastic tone indicates his complete rejection of the val-
ues upheld by those authors:
Even before they have escaped the bounds of human nature, they
behave as though they were demi-gods dwelling among us ... Some of
them claim to be able to alter the limits imposed on our existence, sus-
pending some while extending others, to immortalize our limited
nature, and to halt the process of natural change. They prove these
claims by saying that they always 'wear iron' [crl()T\POqJ0poucrw], like
the ancient Acarnanians, and that they can walk in the air for long
periods of time ~ but they hurry down very quickly when they smell
the odor of savory meat! (6A.18. 7-8, 14-20)
In Christian monastic literature, the word <HOTJP0<P0POU(HV was

applied to monks who wore heavy iron chains in order to highlight
their voluntary endurance of pain and disregard for personal com-
fort. 18s Yet Psellos' brief mention of the Acarnanians undermines the
word's positive connotations. In Thucydides (1.5), whom Psellos fol-
182 For a brief history of this word and its irreverent use by Psellos, see the note on
this passage in the Italian edition of the Chronographia (Imperatori di Bisan;:.io, v. 2, pp.
425-6, n. 600).
183 Eusebios of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica 7.2.46-51.
184 Gregory of Nazianzos, Or. 43.28; cf. also Ors. 18.35, 42.26; cf. Nikephoros,
Short History 83: Constantine V "insulted the sacred habit of the Nazeraioi," referring
to Orthodox, i.e., iconodule, monks; Theodore of Stoudios, Oratiofonebris in Platonem
17: "which one of our Naziraioi did [Constantine V] not eliminate?" referring again
to iconodule monks.
185 E.g., Theodoret, Historia Religiosa 29.4.1; for this practice in times closer to Psel-
los, see the Vita S. Lucae Stylitae 5; and Eustathios, De simulatione 35.

lows here, the same word is used to describe the 'armed' bands of
Acarnanians who terrorized the Greek countryside with piracy and
brigandage. It is extremely unlikely that Byzantine hagiographers
intended to draw a comparison between their subjects and the
ancient Acarnanians, or knowingly cited Thucydides. Instead, Psellos
has found a derogatory classical meaning of the word and has used it
to delegitimize a positive Christian one (cf. §19). But only the reader
who knows Thucydides will catch the double meaning. The allusion
casts monks as holy terrorists.
Psellos calls them "hypocrites" because they "imitated the outer
form of angels" and yet could not "put the passions within us to
sleep" (6A.18.1-10). As we have seen, Psellos believes in a relatively
fixed human nature (as did nearly everyone until the advent of the
so-called social sciences and of post-modernism). It is precisely this
which he accuses monks of being unable to overcome: nature is more
powerful than religion in the Chronographia (cf. § 12, 23). Monasticism
in eleventh-century Byzantium is thereby presented as a complete
failure. Psellos' accusations of hypocrisy, greed, and lack of discipline,
anticipate by almost a century the criticisms of monasticism by the
learned and urbane men of the twelfth century such as Eustathios,
Theodore Balsamon, and Niketas Choniates. 186
The attack on the monks in the Chronographia has obvious political
ramifications. Emperors are discouraged from squandering resources
to gratify the abstainers' bodily needs, and are urged to protect the
State from the total failure of Christian ideals. They should devote
their attention to the army instead, and, to the extent that Basil II
constitutes an Imperial role-model, are even encouraged to confis-
cate the accumulated wealth of monasteries - for the good of both
the State and the monks. For Basil's sole action relating to the
Church in the Chronographia is the methodical demolition of a
monastery constructed by his former benefactor and victim, Basil the
parakoimomenos, and dedicated to St Basil the Great. IS7
IBfi For their criticisms, see P. Magdalino, The Byzantine Holy Man in the
Twelfth Century,' and on the attitude of Eustathios in particular, A. Kazhdan (with
S. Franklin), 'Eustathius of Thessalonica: the life and opinions of a twelfth-century
Byzantine rhetor,' pp. 150-4. For Choniates, see esp. his Annal, 206-208. For Psellos'
fascinating descriptions of the ribald monk Elias, see G. T. Dennis, 'The Byzantines
as Revealed in the Letters,' pp. 162-165.
187 For this monastery and its history, see R. Janin, us eglises et les monasteres, pp.
58-59.

It had been built on a magnificent scale, and at a great cost of labor it

had been beautified in the most diverse manner. An abundance of
funds, far in excess of what was required, had been provided for its
construction. Basil now wanted to tear it down to its foundations, but
he was cautious lest he incur the charge of impiety. So he removed one part at
one time, destroyed another part later, and acted similarly with the
furniture and the mosaics, and indeed with the rest of the building. He
would not stop, he playfolly [xapt£v'ttaa~£vo~] remarked, until the
monastery [<ppov'tta'tl] PlOv] became a house of thought [<ppoV'ti()o~] -
the thought which those who lived inside would have to take to secure
the necessities for life! (1.20.11-22, my italics).
The account of this prudent demolition occurs in the very middle of

Book I, the book on the reign of Basil.
Besides giving another example of Psellos' opposition to the con-
struction of expensive churches, this passage offers valuable insight
into the motivation of his favorite Emperor. In the first place, the fact
that Basil wanted to avoid the charge of impiety does not at all mean
that he was pious, only that he was prudent. ISS Psellos does not deny
that the action was impious, and had Basil wished to avoid acting in
an improper way, he would not have destroyed the monastery. His
caution and methodical approach were an attempt to forestall not
the substance of impiety, but only its appearance.
Why did he demolish the monastery at all? At first it seems that he
wanted to destroy everything that glorified his teacher and victim,
Basil the parakoimomenos. Yet during the course of section 1.20 his
motivation is significantly altered, and the original context of his
action is forgotten. At the end of the passage he seems to be acting
out of hostility to the monks themselves. Specifically, the Basil who
emerges at the end of section 1.20 despised monks for exactly the
same reasons that Psellos did. 189 He realized that the destruction of
their little palace would force them to live in poverty, thus ensuring
that they pursued their ostensible calling, which their own insincere
renunciation of earthly goods could not do. Yet the fact that he justi-
fied his action in a "playful" manner indicates his cynicism. He did
not really care whether the monks fulfilled their vows, but rather
took pleasure in forcing despicable hypocrites to live up to their own
exalted principles of abstinence and poverty. His "playfulness" mani-
ISH Pace J. P. Thomas, 'A Disputed Novel of Basil II,' p. 278.

189 This incident is recorded only by Psellos and may well be fictional. The allu-
sion to it in Zonaras (Epitome 17.7) is entirely derivative.

fested more cruelty than genuine concern. He was an enemy, not a

reformer.
Basil's action stands in contrast to the famous novel de monasteriis
issued in 964 by the Emperor Nikephoros Phokas, even though the
two converge on many important points. Nikephoros sought to cur-
tail the flow of property which was transforming some monasteries
into powerful landowners, and to curb their concomitant greed and
ambition. There is nothing "playful" in the dour tone of the pious
general:
Observing what is happening in the monasteries and other holy hous-

es, I note an obvious disease, for it is only by disease that I can
describe this greediness ... They have turned all the attention of their
souls to the care of acquiring daily thousands of measures of land,
superb buildings, innumerable horses, oxen, camels, and other cattle,
making the life of the monk no different from that of the layman with
all its vain preoccupations ... I do not know why I should not call all
this an empty theatrical show invented for the derision of the name of
Christ ... Piety has become a screen for vanity. 190
Nikephoros feared that the accumulation of land by monasteries

would have a negative effect on the State's ability to control and
exploit its resources. But he was also a very pious man who devoutly
believed in the superiority of the monastic life - so long as it was
practiced sincerely. He was worried that economic and social devel-
opments were jeopardizing the conditions that made asceticism pos-
sible. This explains the reforming zeal of his novel. 191 In contrast,
Psellos' attitude exhibits no respect whatsoever for the ideals of the
monastic life. There is no indication that he, or Basil, would be
opposed to its thorough abolition.
A figure closer to Psellos' Basil than Nikephoros Phokas is the
Emperor Julian (ruled 361-363), a passionate enemy of Christianity,
who also enjoyed making Christians live up to their own impossible
190 For the text of this novel see J. and P. Zepos, Jus Graecoromanum v. I, pp. 249-
252; for the translation and a historical discussion, see P. Charanis, 'The Monastic
Properties and the State in the Byzantine Empire,' pp. 56-61.
A novel is extant which claims to be by Basil II and which repeals Nikephoros' de
monasteriis. Scholarly consensus has rejected it as spurious, but the last word on the
subject G. P. Thomas, 'A Disputed Novel of Basil II') argues forcefully that it is gen-
uine. M. Kaplan's more recent work (Les hommes et la terre II Byzance du VI' au Xl'siecle,
p. 440) rejects the novel as inauthentic but does not answer Thomas' arguments.
191 See also R. Morris, 'The two faces of Nikephoros Phokas,' pp. lOO-III, for his
monastic connections and personal ascetic aspirations.

principles. We mention briefly his controversial edict which prohibit-

ed Christians from teaching the Greek classics on the grounds that
their professed religious beliefs were incompatible with the texts'
explicit polytheism. 192 According to the ecclesiastical historian
Socrates (3.13), Julian also forbade Christians from being provincial
governors, claiming that they were not allowed by their own faith to
inflict capital punishment. His concern for their salvation is doubtful.
Yet the Emperor most famous for the destruction of monasteries
and hostility to the monastic way of life was the notorious Constan-
tine V (ruled 741-775). This arch-iconoclast Emperor and theolo-
gian, who was reviled in shrill tones for centuries by his iconophile
enemies, converted churches and monasteries into armories and bar-
racks, ordered his minions to auction monastic property, and appro-
priated their assets for the State. Like Psellos' Basil, he tore down
monasteries out of sheer hostility to the monks who dwelled in
them. 193 Also like Basil, "Christ's enemy Constantine proved to be a
new Midas, who stored away all the gold."194 Psellos' "precious trea-
sure and glory of the Roman Empire" raises uncomfortable memo-
nes.
The Emperor with the closest ties to the monastic community in
the Chronographia is Michael IV Paphlagon. Psellos, who recognizes
his many positive qualities, does not criticize him too harshly for this.
Nevertheless, the nuances of his account reveal that Michael did not
benefit from the favor he showed to the monks. The trusting Emper-
or constructed a magnificent church for them, but they neglected his
most elementary needs after he had joined them there as a monk in
the final days of his sickness (4.54). He poured money into their cof-
fers, but many of them, on the basis of some unfounded rumors,
refused to pray for the forgiveness of his sins (4.36-37). He placed his
trust in these men who allegedly "spoke directly with God and hence
192 I intend to examine this edict elsewhere. For Psellos highly favorable view of
Julian, see J. N. Ljubarskij, 'Some Notes on the Newly Discovered Historical Work
by Psellos,' p. 219.
1!J3 See Theophanes the Confessor 440, 443, 445-6 (cf. 489: the attitude of
Nikephoros I); for Constantine V's religious policies see the excellent treatment by S.
Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of Constantine V, esp. pp. 138-9 for the lai-
cization of monasteries. Gero maintains that there is no proof that "the confiscation
of monastic property and the forcible secularization of monks was the aim, rather
than just a welcome by-product of the anti-monastic campaign" (,Byzantine Icono-
clasm and Monachomachy,' p. 246). I find this distinction difficult to maintain.
19+ Nikephoros, Short History 85.

were all-powerful" (4.37.3-4), but they could do nothing at all to heal

his epileptic seizures (§12). In order to save the prostitutes of the City,
he built a "grand, beautiful, and magnificent nunnery," and pro-
claimed that "if anyone of them were willing to renounce her trade
and live in luxury ... she would no longer fear a life of privation, as
everything would bear fruit for her without her ever having sowed or
plowed" (4.36.14-15, 17-21; cf. 7A.3.4-5). Many prostitutes rushed to
accept the offer and became nuns: "a youthful army in the service of
God enrolled in the military lists of virtue," adds Psellos sarcastically
(4.36.24-25). This "army" was exempt from fighting battles. Their
new "virtue" was really "luxury" provided by the State.
The extent of the moral weakness of the monastic community was
revealed to Michael's nephew and successor, Michael V Kalaphates.
Forced by an angry mob to abandon his throne, he fled with his
uncle Constantine to the monastery of Stoudios where both were
tonsured and became members. They begged the monks, and God,
not to allow them to suffer harm at the hands of the mob. But the
monks "did not dare to oppose the course of events at all. They
received pledges from the mob and trusted in the sworn word of its
leader" (5.45.9-12). That word was quickly broken, as most are in
the Chronographia, and both men were blinded. The monks of
Stoudios, who had once proudly defied the iconoclast Emperors and
fought zealously for the restoration of the icons, were now too timid
to protect an Orthodox Emperor seeking asylum among them. 19.'i
Psellos demythologizes the monastic vocation just as he exposes
the ugly truths that hid behind, or sat upon, the Imperial throne. But
the Empire needed an Emperor; it is doubtful whether it needed any
monks. Their prayers were utterly ineffectual. They consumed the
resources of the State and gave trusting rulers false hopes. Psellos
instructs Emperors like Isaac Komnenos, who wished to emulate the
success of Basil II (cf. §24), not to be deceived by the so-called practi-
tioners of virtue. Though their eyes appeared to be fixed on eternity,
their hearts craved petty pleasures.
vVhen Isaac Komnenos triumphantly entered Constantinople in
I Y.J Yet among some Byzantines the Studites still had a reputation for being obsti-
nate and fierce defenders of their belie(~ and independence. Even in the early
eleventh century, the Patriarch Sergios could reply to the irrepressible monk Syme-
on, the so-called New Theologian, by saying, "you are truly a Studite, master Syme-
on ... " (Niketas Stethatos, Life if ,)meon the New Theologian 108).

THE LIBERATION OF PHILOSOPHY FROM CHRISTIANITY 89
1057, with the philosopher Psellos at his side, a large number of peo-
ple came out to greet him. Psellos emphasizes that the crowd consist-
ed mostly of
those who pursued a higher philosophy, and those who lived on the
mountain-tops, or who lurked in caves; all of them had now left their
common dwellings, whether coming down from their position mid-
way between the heavens and the earth, or coming out of their homes
in the rock (7.40.12-16, my italics; cf. §23).
But Isaac, Psellos' new patron and student, "had a quick mind, and
was neither deceived nor elated by this vain display" (7.41.1-2). Pow-
er and influence had now passed away from the hermits and into the
hands of a true philosopher, who was more interested in the reality
of political affairs than in attaining a "position mid-way between the
heavens and the earth."
11. THE LIBERATION OF PHILOSOPHY

FROM CHRISTIANITY
Psellos presents Michael IV Paphlagon as a sincere if naive Christ-

ian, in contrast to Romanos III, whose faith was blemished by vanity
and false sophistication. The philosophers of Michael's court differed
accordingly from those of his predecessor's. Psellos digresses on their
nature and habits ostensibly in order to defend Michael from the
charge of denying God in secret rites, in which supernatural entities
had promised him the throne. But in his digression, he surreptitious-
ly introduces a highly revolutionary contrast, which is irrelevant to
his main argument and serves a purpose that is not immediately dis-
cernible.
I know that the man displayed absolute piety after he gained the
throne. Not only did he regularly attend church, but he was also
devoted to philosophers and took very good care of their needs. By the
word 'philosophers' I do not here mean those who investigate the
natures of beings and seek the principles of the universe, and who neglect
the principles qf their own salvation. I mean those who despise the world
and live in the company of supernatural beings (4.34.1-8, my italics).

90 THE LIBERATION OF PHILOSOPHY FROM CHRISTIANITY
By describing their "dust-covered feet" and "ragged clothes" Psellos

leaves no doubt that these "philosophers" were really Christian
monks. A few sections later he tells us directly that Michael "entrust-
ed himself to those men who were devoted to God and had grown
old in the ascetic life" (4.37.2-4).
Every major reign of the Chronographia contains a digression in
which Psellos discusses some aspect of the nature of philosophy and
its relationship to Imperial power and the established religion. Each
of these discussions is a step in the gradual unveiling of his wider pro-
gram, which was possibly the most ambitious enterprise ever
attempted in all of Byzantine history.l96 One of its central compo-
nents was the liberation of philosophy from the dominion of Christ-
ian doctrine. Having dismissed the theologians who passed for
philosophers at the court of Romanos III (cf. §4), he now turns to a
different, but equally false, conception of the philosopher, which had
prevailed in the Christian world since the fourth century: the monk.
Whereas philosophy had originally designated a search for the
truth that was unfettered by social conventions and established reli-
gious beliefs, during the first Christian centuries a slow but far-reach-
ing cultural transformation had led to its usurpation by narrow-
minded sectarians who sometimes were even illiterate or hostile to
advanced learning. This momentous change was possible because,
under the Roman Empire, Greek philosophy had gradually devel-
oped a distinctively dual character: Its votaries included not only
those who, in Psellos' words, searched for "the natures of beings and
the principles of the universe," but also those who lived according to
the ethical pronouncements of a particular philosophical doctrine.
The latter were not always intellectually sophisticated, yet their
uncompromising adherence to demanding ethical principles attract-
ed attention and even compelled respect. In this regard they were
like the Christian monks, who were always admired for their renun-
ciation of the world, but rarely, if ever, for their understanding of it.
For them the nature of the universe was ultimately a settled issue,
certainly as far as all the big questions were concerned. 'When monks
196 This statement is certainly controversial; but cf. A. Kazhdan and G. Constable,
People and Power in Byzantium, p. 21: "small scholarly groups in Constantinople, with
their harmless discussions of ancient authors, may have had a greater effect on the
future of mankind than the intrigues of palace eunuchs and military upheavals." To
which I would add that, as Xiphilinos and others realized, what Psellos was doing
was hardly harmless.

THE LIBERATION OF PHILOSOPHY FROM CHRISTIANITY 91
turned to theology, their inquiries may have assumed an air of

methodological impartiality, but their conclusions were always
known well in advance.
Aristokles of Pergamon, to take a non-Christian "philosopher" of
the second century A.D., began as a Peripatetic and ended up as a
sophist.
So long as he was a philosopher he was slovenly in appearance,

unkempt and squalid in his dress, but now he began to be fastidious,
discarded his slovenly ways, and admitted into his house all the plea-
sures that are afforded by the lyre, the flute, and the singing voice
(Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 567).
Philostratos identifies Aristokles as a philosopher exclusively on the

basis of his personal habits and way of life. A similar assumption
underlies Dio Chrysostomos' description of how he himself became a
philosopher (in Or. 13). Facing a life of exile imposed by the Emper-
or Domitian, he grieved for all the worldly joys he would lose, but
finally came to the conclusion that none of them were truly valuable.
He donned humble clothes and wandered through the Balkans like a
beggar. Yet some of the people he encountered began to call him a
philosopher and his opinion was sought out on matters of good and
evil (l0-13). By the end of the speech, Dio reaches the conclusion
that "if a man strives earnestly to be good and honorable, that is
nothing but being a philosopher" (28). In these two examples we see
how an ascetic regime, if chosen at least in part voluntarily and cou-
pled with a degree of self-awareness, could be judged the basis for
the philosophical life.
Since the Christian establishment of the Byzantine Empire was
never eager to encourage any unfettered search for "the natures of
beings and the principles of the universe," it reserved the name
philosopher for those who lived the most Christian life. The ascetic
side of the philosophical tradition of antiquity was thereby preserved
under the banners of Christian monasticism. The term philosophy
was henceforth applied to men and women who were unable to give
any justification for their beliefs and actions other than through
Scriptural quotation. 197 Ironically, many of them were notoriously
197 See F. Dolger, 'Zur Bedeutung von qnA6cro<po~ und <plAocro<pta im byzantini-
schen Reich,' for some general remarks to this effect. For a more recent survey, cit-
ing later literature and passages from the Church Fathers that equate monasticism

92 THE LIBERATION OF PHILOSOPHY FROM CHRISTIANITY
anti-intellectual. Learned champions of classical culture, like the

philosopher-Emperor Julian and the historian and doctor Eunapios,
had nothing but contempt for the black-robed tribes of misanthropic
and ignorant solitaries,198 while, for their part, some desert saints
retaliated by summoning the power of their God to refute and con-
fute the silly and vain learning of the Grceks. 199
It was these Christian philosophers who enjoyed the patronage of
Michael IV Paphlagon. After describing the various ways by which
the naive Emperor honored his rugged and ungrateful guests, Psellos
draws a curious distinction into which he slyly introduces his most
impious statement yet. He divides philosophers into two groups,
those who search for the "the natures of beings and the principles of
the universe, and who neglect the principles of their own salvation,"
and "those who despise the world and live in the company of super-
natural beings." Many scholars have concluded from this passage
that he accepted the equation of philosophy and monasticism. 20o Yet
Psellos unquestionably belonged to the former group of philosophers,
namely those who "neglect the principles of their own salvation" and
do not "despise the world." In the first place, we have already seen
that he is thoroughly contemptuous of monks (cf. §10), and later we
will examine his polemic against those who "stand in the company of
angels" and have "separated themselves from men and renounced
human society" (6A.8.16-18; cf. §23). More importantly, however, in
his intellectual autobiography (6.36-43) Psellos tells us in his own
voice that true philosophy, his brand of philosophy, "searches for the
natures of beings" (6.41.9-10). Accordingly, he values "dialectic and
with philosophy, see H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, v. I,
pp. 4-10; and for a discussion of the cultural context of this transformation, see R.
~Iacl'vlullen, Enemies of the Roman Order, pp. 110-111, 320-321. In order to avoid the
uncomfortable fact that genuine philosophy and orthodoxy of any kind are mutually
incompatible, some recent studies resort to vague historicist declarations (e.g., B. N.
Tatakis, ·H Bvt;avTlV11 rl>zAoao<p{a, preface to the Greek translation, p. 8: "philosophy
is manifested in time and expressed in various ways" - thus Christian dogma is
transformed into yet another "manifestation" of Greek philosophy), or endow a
metaphysical entity called 'Hellenism' with a continuous and monolithic existence.
1')8 E.g., Julian, Fragment of a Letter to a Priest 288A-C; Eunapios, Lives of the Philoso-
phers and the Sophists 476.
I')') See the encounters in Athanasios, Life of Anthony 72 fr.; Socrates, Ecclesiastical
History 4.23; 77ze Bohairic Lifo of Pachomius 55; Theophanes the Confessor 23.
100 See, e.g., F. Dblger, 'Zur Bedeutung von (jllAOOO<PO<; und (jllAocro<pia im byzanti-
nischen Reich,' p. 199; G. Misch, 'Die Bruchstucke einer Autobiographie des byzan-
tinischen Hofphilosophen Michael Psellos,' p. 765, Il. 41.

THE TRIUMPH OF NATURE OVER FAITH 93
proof by argument" (3.3.5), and has studied carefully all the different
kinds of argumentation (6.36).
Therefore, whereas Psellos draws the distinction between the two
kinds of philosophers in Book 4, it is not until Book 6 that he openly
tells us which group he himself belonged to. The reason for this reti-
cence emerges when we consider that in the latter discussion he
omits to mention that those philosophers "neglect the principles of
their own salvation." Psellos has split his confession of unbelief in two
halves, and placed each in a different part of his work. Scholars who
have studied his view of philosophy have failed to reunite them, and
have thus missed the highly subversive nature of their combined
effect: Psellos was a philosopher who knowingly neglected the princi-
ples of his own salvation. In his account of Michael's spiritual associ-
ates, therefore, Psellos does more than attack the ignorance of monks
and the credulity of their patron. He attempts to revive the ancient
tradition of independent inquiry, while implicitly rejecting the theol-
ogy of salvation. The latter could henceforth be ignored by genuine
philosophers who sought knowledge of the universe.
Psellos closes his description of Michael's court "philosophers"
with an attempt to disguise his genuine philosophical perspective: "I
say these things not in order to eulogize anyone, but simply to state
what happened." By pretending to refute the charge of eulogy, he
deflects attention away from his hostile bias. 20J
12. THE TRIUMPH OF NATURE OVER FAITH
Psellos' description of Michael IV Paphlagon's epilepsy is a moving

account of a young ruler's suffering. 202 Michael struggled nobly
against this debilitating disease to perform the tasks for which "he felt
201 This technique is ably used today by the major news media, which affect to
deny that they are biased in Javor of the official enemies of the State which, in reality,
they serve obediently. This mock defense deflects attention from other, more sub-
stantial, accusations. R. Anastasi believed that the monks are presented favorably in
this section (Studi sulla "Chronographia" di Michele Psello, pp. 44-48).
202 For Psellos' account of Michael's sickness and death, see R. Volk, Der medizini-
sche Inhalt der Schrifien des Michael Psellos, pp. 389-395.

94 THE TRIUMPH OF NATURE OVER FAITH
responsible before his fellow man and God" (4.42.11-12). However,

Psellos is not as sympathetic towards Michael's vain efforts to combat
his affiiction.
Like Romanos III and Constantine IX Monomachos, Michael
built, or rather greatly expanded and adorned, the church of a
monastery dedicated to the Sts Anargyroi (4.31).203 Psellos does not
criticize him as severely as he does Romanos and Constantine for the
financial burden this imposed on the State. Michael probably
restrained himself in this regard, and elsewhere Psellos tells us that he
was the most prudent manager of Imperial finances between Basil II
and Isaac Komnenos (7.54). Whereas other Emperors used Imperial
funds to build churches and neglected the army (7.59), Michael was
observant of the needs of the soldiers, the "nerves of the Roman
Empire" as Psellos calls them (4.19.19-20). Those Emperors were led
by vanity to construct expensive tombs and sarcophagi for them-
selves, whereas Michael was content to receive humble burial within
the grounds of the church he had rebuilt (4.55). For these reasons,
perhaps, Psellos does not outright condemn his religious expenses.
Nevertheless, he reveals the personal interest that prompted the
Emperor's devotion. The young ruler "had employed various means
to fight the disease, such as prayers and purifications, and he even
built a grand church in honor of the Anargyroi" (4.3l.3-5). Psellos
notes that he constructed the church, not only to honor God,
but also because he wished to gain the favor of God's servants, in the
hopes that they might heal his swollen body. But it was all for nothing,
as he had fulfilled the measure of his life and the decay of his body
had progressed (4.32.2-5).
All of Michael's prayers, purifications, and gifts to the monastic com-

munity proved futile.
Throughout the Chronographia, the physical aspects of human nature
remain impervious to religious intervention. Piety can never alter the
course of events decreed by nature, not even when rulers shower
favors upon the clergy and the monks. 204 It was only Michael's vigor-
2m For this monastery and its history, see R. Janin, Les eglises et les monastires, pp.
286-289.
20+ Examples from Byzantine literature of the opposite point of view can be
adduced at will; see, e.g., Genesios, On the Rezp,ns 4.2. For the kinds of cures adminis-
tered by monks in the Byzantine Empire see, in general, R. Morris, ,Honks and laymen
in Byzantium, pp. 114-116.

ous constitution and resoluteness that enabled him to prosecute the

Bulgarian war in the advanced phases of his sickness; but there was
nothing he could do to "prevail over nature indefinitely" (4.51.1-2; cf.
4.55.3-4). Similarly, Constantine VIII's death was caused by the
"withering made necessary by nature" (2.9.8-9). And when monks
predicted the Empress Theodora's immortality on the grounds that
they could suspend natural laws through their spiritual powers,205
Psellos notes that "she had in fact drawn near to the end decreed by
Fate. I use this expression merely figuratively, for I really mean that
she had reached the limit of her life" (6A.19.2-4). In short, Psellos,
whose polymathy encompassed the medical literature of antiquity
(7.74),206 consistently asserts the irrevocable jurisdiction of biology
over sickness and death. Despite the best efforts of the most angelic
holy men, "no one has ever entirely triumphed over nature" (6A.8.18-
19).
Just as the course of human nature is unaffected by wishful think-
ing, so too the natural world should not be interpreted through the
distorting prism of religious faith. In a fascinating passage of Book 6,
Psellos shows how miracles are 'witnessed' by those who want to
believe in them,207 and what mechanisms of social and political pow-
er ensure that they are subsequently accepted as 'authentic' by every-
one else. The Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos, who lavished
more attention upon his numerous mistresses than upon his wife,
grieved deeply for the death of the Empress Zoe and sought to hon-
or her posthumously.
He deemed her worthy of divine honors. Now one of the little silver-
plated columns that surrounded her tomb became somewhat moist in
a spot where the precious metal had cracked and, in accordance with
the laws of nature ['tOue; <pUCHKOUe; AoyoUe;], a small mushroom sprang
up there. Constantine was transported with excitement and cried
aloud in the palace that God had performed a miracle upon the tomb
20; Cf. the monks, "who don the habit dear to God and chase after royal ban-
quets," who promised the blind and dying Emperor Isaac Angelos a long reign, a
cure for his blindness, and a transformation into a "godlike" form (Niketas Choni-
ates, Annals 558, 562).
206 For an exhaustive treatment, see R. Yolk, Der medi;:inische Inhalt der Schrijien des
Michael Psellos.
207 Cf. Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourses on Li1(Y 1.12.1: "being men full of religion ... it
appeared to them they heard the response to their question that they had perhaps
presupposed."

96 THE TRIUMPH OF NATURE OVER FAITH
of the Empress, so that all might know that her soul was now num-
bered among the angels. No one was ignorant of what had really hap-
pened, but all encouraged his belief, some out of fear, while others
seized the chance to enrich themselves (6.183).
This important passage refutes the notion that Psellos, as 'a man of
his times,' could not distinguish clearly between natural science and
supernatural explanations ("miracles"). He rejects Constantine's mir-
acle explicitly and primarily because he understood its natural caus-
es, and less because its advocate was completely deranged (we can
easily imagine Psellos and other skeptical courtiers inspecting the site
to discover the truth). From a mushroom one can infer the presence
of water, not the angelic status of Zoe's soul. Yet this is not an isolat-
ed observation on his part, based on a partial and superficial under-
standing of Greek science. In his philosophical works he consistently
tried to give scientific explanations for occurrences that were consid-
ered miraculous by his contemporaries. 21J8 In contrast, other Byzan-
tine authors, very much men of their times, could temporarily
become rationalists to refute the miracles of their enemies, and then
revert back to supernatural explanations for events that supported
their own cause. 209
Besides attesting to Psellos' scientific rationalism, the passage quot-
ed above also informs us about the intellectual circumstances in
which the Chronographia was composed. Psellos lived and wrote in an
environment that required him to dissemble his views and refrain
from openly attacking official doctrine. Courtly prudence dictated
two possible options: join the chorus out of fear, or exploit the oppor-
tunity for personal gain. 210 Elsewhere Psellos recognizes that in dan-
gerous circumstances individuals must resort to deception and lies in
order to survive: "I cannot praise such behavior, but neither can I
20H In one of his lectures, Psellos complains with dismay that his students would
attribute natural events to God, and not seek to discover their natural causes (He
reproaches his studentsfor neglecting their work = Oratoria Alinora 24.48-55). See, in general,
B. N. Tatakis, 'H Bv(avTlvr, rJ>lAocro<pza, pp. 163, 167-168; and S. A. Sophroniou,
'Michael Psellos' Theory of Science,' esp. pp. 86-89, although the latter often con-
fuses Proklos and Psellos, and implausibly attributes theological motives to Psellos'
scientific inquiries; for Psellos' medical writings, see R. Volk, Der medi;;.inisclze Inhalt der
Schrifien des Alichael P,ellos, p. 116. More work needs to be done in this area.
20<j See e.g., Nikephoros, Short History 59-60; but cf. 67: a similar miracle that sup-
ports Nikephoros' religious convictions is neither questioned nor rationalized away.

210 Note the same two responses by courtiers to the affair between Zoe and
Michael Paphlagon in section 3.23.

condemn it" (4.6.5). Accordingly, in a panegyric of Constantine writ-
ten soon after Zoe's death, he had offered an entirely different
account of the growth that appeared on her tomb. He had then
described it as occurring "against nature" and "without the presence
of water."211 Also, it was not a mushroom that had sprouted forth
but a rose. In other words, at the time of Zoe's death Psellos had
openly endorsed the miracle.
A comparison of these two passages yields interesting conclusions.
Obviously, as a courtier Psellos was prepared to respect and even
endorse the ridiculous beliefs of those who held power over his life
and fortune. But more importantly, we must realize that it is he him-
self who encourages us to draw that very conclusion. For when he
wrote the Chronographia, he deliberately alluded to his earlier, pane-
gyrical account (by specifying, for example, the relevance of moisture
and natural law), thereby inviting the careful reader of his works to
compare the two versions. 212 It then emerges that he knew that the
panegyrical account was false (even when he composed it), and also
that he himself acted out of fear or petty opportunism. Yet Psellos
was under no obligation to record the truth about the incident in his
Chronographia. He could easily have suppressed the circumstances and
motives that prompted the earlier panegyric. Instead, he chose to
make a powerful statement, partly at his own expense, about the pro-
duction of courtly rhetoric and the intellectual constraints of Byzan-
tine society. The Church was not alone in demanding that its mira-
cles and doctrines be accepted by all. Psellos thus reveals some of the
factors that compelled him to exercise great caution in criticizing
established beliefs and expounding his own. The latter are sometimes
exposed only when his deliberately dispersed and often contradictory
statements are reunited and their hidden assumptions brought to
light.
211 Oration before the Emperor Monomachos (= Orationes Panegyricae 4) 479 ff. The dis-
crepancies between the two accounts have already been noted by C. Chamberlain,
'The Theory and Practice of Imperial Panegyric in Michael Psellus. The Tension
Between History and Rhetoric,' pp. 25-26.
212 That Psellos expected the readers of his Chronographia to be familiar with his
rhetorical compositions is clear from sections 6.25-26. For a detailed discussion of
these passages, see §20.

98 VIRTUAL DIVINE GRACE
13. VIRTUAL DIVINE GRACE
Nothing was more conventional in Byzantine political discourse than

the claim that an Emperor was appointed to rule by God ('crowned
by God,' etc.).213 According to Byzantine political thinkers, legitimate
Emperors enjoyed God's direct protection and support; conversely,
Emperors sought to legitimize their rule by invoking divine favor.
Yet in his account of Zoe's rush to seize power after the murder of
her husband Romanos in 1034, Psellos says that she acted "as though
she had inherited Imperial rule from above" (4.1.4), clearly implying
that she had not in fact "inherited Imperial rule from above." He
ascribes that belief to Zoe, without endorsing it himself. In fact, he
does not express any opinion of his own regarding the legitimacy of
her claim, even though he knows that according to the traditional
standards of succession she was the rightful heir to the throne. For he
has John the Orphanotrophos tell his brother Michael IV Paphlagon
"that the Imperial title belongs by right of succession to the Empress
Zoe" (4.22.12-13; the City's women held the same belief: 5.26.11-
12). Psellos does not believe that she inherited the throne by God's
grace, and mentions that belief because he wishes to comment on the
psychology of those who hold it.
He uses the same guarded expression elsewhere. The deluded
Emperor Romanos III imprudently ignored his wife Zoe's disaffec-
tion, "as though he had made a contract with a higher power regard-
ing his possession of the throne" (3.6.17-20). His belief in divine pro-
tection was yet another aspect of his misapprehension of reality (cf.
§2). After his murder, three brothers of the new Emperor Michael IV
Paphlagon took advantage of their new position and acted "as though
they had been given from above the rights to both the land and the
sea" (4.11.13-14). The phrase emphasizes their grasping nature, and
highlights their arrogance and lust for power. Not surprisingly, they
are presented as conceited criminals throughout Books 4 and 5. The
belief in the closeness of Emperors to God emerges in its most
extreme and absurd form in section 5.3.4-5, when the same brothers
of Michael IV rush to greet his nephew and successor Michael V
2):1 For citations from the eleventh century, some of which draw very close connec-
tions between Emperor and God, see S. Vryonis, 'Byzantine Imperial Authority:
Theory and Practice in the Eleventh Century,' pp. 154-156.

VIRTUAL DIVINE GRACE 99
Kalaphates "as though they were about to meet God" (cf. 7.40.1-6).
Psellos uses the same cautious qualifier to characterize the divine
right of Zoe's succession that he uses elsewhere to highlight the mis-
placed confidence of Romanos and the criminal arrogance of
Michael IV Paphlagon's upstart brothers. The reason for this
emerges from a consideration of the sordid realities of Zoe's tempo-
rary seizure of power. Psellos has insinuated that she murdered her
husband with the help of her significantly younger lover, whom she
then raised to the throne (4. 1-2) . Yet even in the midst of such crime
and immorality, she could still believe that she enjoyed God's favor.
Despite her conviction, however, the youth who benefited from her
favors soon removed all power from her hands and confined her to
the women's quarters of the palace (4.16). Likewise, Romanos' faith
that a higher power would protect him proved to be utterly ground-
less, just as the brothers of Michael IV Paphlagon realized that God
had nothing to do with their sudden rise to power, when their family
was overthrown and their fortunes wrecked by the violence of a mob.
At the beginning of Book 7, in order to expose the flaws in the
policies of the new Emperor Michael VI Stratiotikos, Psellos consid-
ers it necessary to analyze the social dynamics of Imperial power. He
discusses the various supports that an Emperor may obtain for his
rule, including divine favor. Some Emperors, he informs us, believe
that if they honor the civil administration and it responds favorably,
then "they need to secure no other bases of support, as though they
had already received divine assistance" (7.1.8-9). Belief in "divine
assistance" is thus revealed to be the mistaken presumption of rulers
who neglect the true pillars of a secure reign: the people, the Senate,
and the army. Psellos never invokes God's true sanction in this pas-
sage, or anywhere else in the Chronographia. We never hear of any
Emperor who truly enjoys God's favor, nor does Psellos ever tell us
what an Emperor must do to obtain it. Thus faith in its efficacy, and
even its reality, remains the unjustified conceit of rulers whose lack of
egregorsis inevitably leads them to ruinous miscalculation. Michael VI
Stratiotikos was swiftly overthrown by the army he neglected to hon-
or. In the Chronographia, Emperors who understand the realities of
Byzantine politics, and take the effective measures to secure their
hold on power, have no need for divine support.
This skeptical use of a traditional and hallowed concept casts
doubt on the religious basis of Byzantine Imperial power, for it
amounts to a subtle rejection of the doctrine of election by God.

100 VIRTUAL DIVI:-.fE GRACE
Instead of challenging it openly, Psellos questions the motives and

competence of those who rely on its false promises. vVe have already
examined his sarcastic statement that an Emperor, "who has
received Imperial rule from God" (6.27.12; cf. §5), cannot live a
blameless life because of the very nature of his position. And the sar-
casm is again heavy in his satirical account of the Senate's formal
acceptance of Skleraina, the mistress of Constantine IX Monoma-
chos: "they praised the document as though it had been sent down
from the heavens" (6.58.10-11).214 That foolish monarch believed
that God had given him the throne, and that consequently he did
not need to take precautions against assassins. Psellos vainly protest-
ed this decision's lack of wisdom (6.132-133). A few attempted assas-
sinations restored Constantine to his senses and he temporarily post-
ed a guard (6.138). When he later removed it, he was almost assassi-
nated again. 21 'i
An agile courtier and politician, Psellos knew that what kept
Emperors in power had little to do with God's grace. He also under-
stood the means by which they were raised to the throne and why
they occasionally fell from power. The contrast between those reali-
ties and the official rhetoric of Church and State is the target of the
final irreverence of the original edition of the Chronographia. In section
7.88, at the end of a highly panegyrical account of Constantine X
Doukas' background and rise to power, Psellos claims that his eleva-
tion to the throne in 1059 was the work of divine Providence. We
know that it was in fact largely the work of Psellos himself~ who hints
at the truth in section 7.91.1-2: "And if I contributed anything to his
rise, it would not be for me to say SO."216 Employing a classical
rhetorical device, Psellos reveals the truth in the very process of
promising to withhold it. 217 Indirectly, he also offers us a cynical view
of the true workings of Providence. vVe may now turn to his other
211 For Sklcraina in general, see ,,1. D. Spadaro, 'Note su Sclerena.'

21; For these conspiracies, sec K. Bourdara, Kaeo(J{(J)(n~ 1\"ai Tvpavvi~ 1\"anx rov~
ME(JOV~ Bvr;avnvov~ Xp6vov~, pp. 124-126. Cf. Niketas Choniates, Annals 423: "The
cause of these frequent rebellions was the feeble manner in which Isaac [Angelos]
governed the empire. He was absolutely convinced that he had received the throne
from God, who alone watched over him" ... A persistent mistake.
21<; Psellos fleshes out his providential (for Doukas) role in 7A.8-14. The irony is
appreciated by G. Misch, 'Die Bruchstlicke einer Autobiographic des byzantinischen
Hofphilosophcn Michael Psellos,' p. 810.
217 Cf. Demosthenes, Or. 8.70-71; Cicero, Against Catilina 1.14. For another good
example of this technique in Psellos, see his Encomium in Praise of his }vIather 266-271.

THE UNSPEAKABLE MYSTERIES OF PROVIDENCE 101
declarations on this exalted topic, which have misled many scholars

who have studied his work.
14. THE UNSPEAKABLE MYSTERIES OF PROVIDENCE
Section 5.24, located in the very middle of Book 5, the book that
deals with the brief reign and chaotic fall of Michael V Kalaphates,
begins with a lie, or at least a highly implausible and therefore suspi-
cious claim. About to describe Michael's fall, Psellos warns us that
"no words [logos] could adequately describe the events that occurred
at that time" (5.24.1-2). Yet could he sincerely believe that anything
was beyond his descriptive powers?21S For he boasts often and quite
openly in the Chronographia of the power of his rhetorical abilities
(e.g., 6.36, 41, 44-46, 7.26), and his literary skill is evident on every
page. His entire career was based on his exceptional ability to
manipulate the power of logos. Indeed, the reader soon discovers that
Psellos' description of "the events that occurred at that time" is high-
ly adequate and leaves little to be desired.
This suspicious disclaimer is followed by an explanation which
only heightens the reader's incredulity: "the human mind cannot
comprehend the measure of Providence" (5.24.2-3). The last sen-
tence of this section again directly ascribes the events that "no words
could adequately describe" to Providence: "those events were
brought about by divine Justice" (5.24.20-21). Thus at both the
beginning and the end of this section Psellos ascribes the fall of
Michael V to Providence, and prefaces his attribution by proclaim-
ing the inadequacy of his speech to reflect the workings of that
incomprehensible power. Let us now see what lies between his two
pious claims.
Psellos does not stop with a mere declaration of his own inadequa-
cy. He proceeds to explain, in a single very long sentence, why each
21B It has been said of Byzantine rhetoric in general that "there were no theoreti-
cal limits to the rhetor's power with words. He could rebuild the entire kosmos
according to the dictates of logos" (P. Magdalino, TIe empire if Alanuel 1 Komnenos,
1143-1180, p. 335).

102 THE UNSPEAKABLE MYSTERIES OF PROVIDENCE
of three different kinds of author would fail in the task that faces him
now in his capacity as a historian of the reign of Michael V. But his
explanation contains a subversive dynamic hidden just beneath the
surface of the text.
For no poet whose soul was inspired by God and whose tongue itself
was possessed by Him, nor any orator fortunate to possess an extreme-
ly clever and eloquent soul, who had adorned his implanted power
with that of cultivated art, nor any philosopher who had studied care-
fully and knew exactly the workings of Providence, or who had
learned other things that surpass human wisdom through the great-
ness of his intelligence, none of them could ever adequately relate the
events that occurred then, even if the one dramatized his account and
varied his language, if the other endowed his speech with genius,
arranged it harmoniously, and tried to make it equal to the impor-
tance of the event, and the last one denied that they happened sponta-
neously, but adduced the rational causes that lay behind that great
and most public mystery (for that is the proper word for it) (5.24.3-16).
Psellos denies that anyone of these three kinds of author could "ever
adequately relate the events that occurred," and he is probably right.
What he does not deny, indeed what he conspicuously leaves open to
possibility, is that an author who combined the skills and knowledge
of all three, namely the poet, the orator, and the philosopher, could
succeed where each individually fails. Psellos himself was a poet, an
orator, and above all a philosopher. An abundant corpus of his
works in each field survives. But we need look no further than the
Chronographia, or even his account of the events that "no words could
adequately describe," to find Psellos combining these diverse skills to
produce a narrative informed by philosophy, embellished by oratory,
and dramatized by poetry. Not coincidentally, perhaps, it is in the
midst of the turmoil and confusion of Michael's fall that Psellos him-
self first becomes an active participant in the narrative.2l'I His entry
onto the stage of history is thus marked by the full deployment of his
manifold skills.
The functions attributed in this passage to the poet and the orator
are unambiguous. The role of the philosopher, however, brings us
closer to the esoteric argument being developed in the folds of Psellos'
219 Noted by G. Schlumberger, L'epopee byzantine a lafin du dixieme siecie, pt. 3: Les
porphyrogenetes Zoe et 7heodora, p. 348.

THE UNSPEAKABLE MYSTERIES OF PROVIDENCE 103
prose. In the declaration on the philosopher's skills, we learn that he

has "studied carefully and knows exactly the workings of Providence ,"
and that he "has learned other things that surpass human wisdom
through the greatness of his intelligence." This claim directly contra-
dicts, or at least entirely bypasses, Psellos' initial disclaimer that "the
human mind cannot comprehend the measure of Providence." The
human mind might not, but the philosopher's apparently can,
because his wisdom "surpasses human wisdom." The philosopher in
question is obviously Psellos himself, but what are the secrets of divine
Providence that he has uncovered? He indirectly tells us later in the
passage, when he describes the contribution of each kind of author to
the whole of the description of the event. The philosopher will deny
that these events occurred spontaneously (OUK uu'tol.HX'ttSIDV 'to YEYOVOC;),
and will rationally explain their causes. 220 Thus we find that the
philosopher has penetrated the mysteries of Providence only to deny
it any explicit role in the unfolding of events.22I
Psellos mentions the poet, the orator, and the philosopher, but does
not mention the historian, the most obvious candidate. This oversight
is too significant to be accidental. Through his silence, Psellos suggests
that the historian's task constitutes a combination of poetry, oratory,
and philosophy. Whereas philosophical sophistication improves the
reliability of a historical account, the success of its presentation
depends on poetry and rhetoric. Contrary to a prevalent modern mis-
conception, the use of poetry and rhetoric does not necessarily detract
from the truth value of a narrative. Instead, it enables historians to
capture the complexity of the human element, which, according to
Psellos, dominates historical events. 222 His magnificent account of the
fall of Michael V relies heavily on dramatic and rhetorical devices
no There may be an allusion here to the rationalist and scientific principles under-
lying some of the texts of the Hippocratic corpus, esp. On the Art 6, whose author dis-
misses the idea that anything is really at)'tO!!CUOY, and argues instead that every event
has a natural cause. I note this passage because its explicit purpose is to attack reli-
gious and magical explanations (for its intellectual and cultural context, see G. E. R.
Lloyd, Magic, Reason and Experience, pp. 26-36). We have already seen (§ 12) that Psel-
los' view of human diseases was very similar, in many cases identical, to that of the
Hippocratic writers (for his treatment of epilepsy, e.g., see R. Volk, Der medizinische
Inhalt der Schriflen des Michael Pselios, p. 116 ff.). Volk's monograph proves that Psellos
was very familiar with the medical literature of antiquity.
221 Spinoza's similar dismissal of Providence in the Theologico-Political Treatise has
been exposed by Leo Strauss (Persecution and the Art if Writing, p. 171); cf. Niccolo
Machiavelli, The Prince c. II.
222 Cf. §I, and Lucian, How History Should be Written 45.

104 THE UNSPEAKABLE MYSTERIES OF PROVIDENCE
(esp. 5.25, 28, 40). "Few pages in Byzantine history are more vivid
and more colorful."223 But it also leaves no doubt as to the causes of
that "great and most public mystery." We can "follow in Psellos the
entire progress of the revolt."224 Michael's ethos was the cause of his
actions, which made him unpopular with the city populace, and his
expulsion of Zoe from the palace incited his subjects to overthrow his
weak regime. Psellos' literary skills successfully capture the nature and
stages of the ensuing riot, and his analysis never falls back on super-
natural aids. On one occasion he uses a familiar figure of speech: "it
was as though they were all possessed by some Higher Spirit" (5.28.1-
2). That is Psellos the poet speaking. And later the divine makes a
comical entrance: Zoe is brought back to the palace in the midst of
the riotous turmoil that had engulfed the capital, "not entirely pleased
with what was being wrought by God for her benefit" (5.32.2-3). After
all of Psellos' grand pronouncements on the responsibility of Provi-
dence for the fall of Michael and his family, its role in the ensuing
logos is confined to a poetic image and a joke. 225
\Ve must always be suspicious when an author of Psellos' caliber
says that he will do one thing and then does another. His practice as a
historian effectively contradicts his posture of awe before the inde-
scribable mysteries of Providence. As a result, he fails to convince us
that he really believed in divine intervention. We may also disbelieve
him when he says that words do not suffice to describe some "mys-
tery": his entire life and intellectual career were based on the assump-
tion that they can do exactly that.
221 C. Diehl, Byzance, grandeur el decadence, p. 141.

221 ibid. pp. 141-142. PseUos' account of this event has impressed a number of his
readers, as he certainly knew it would (e.g., G. Schlumberger, ap. cil., p. 347 If.; N.
Iorga, 'MedaiUons d'histoire litteraire byzantine. 13. Constantin PseUos,' p. 272; K.
Svoboda, 'Quelques observations sur la methode historique de Michel PseUos,' p.
389). For the element of tragedy in his account of Michael V's fall, see A. Dyck,
'PseUus Tragicus: Observations on Chronographia 5.261f.'
225 Nevertheless, R. Anastasi tries to extract Psellos' aUegedly "Neoplatonic" view
of Providence from the account of Michael's faU (Sludi sulla "Chronographia" di Michele
PseUa, pp. 124-127). His attempt is indicative of the methodological imprecision that
characterizes many modern discussions of Psellos: brief passages are taken complete-
ly out of their context and run together to produce a seemingly consistent world-
view. In the first pages of his analysis (p. 121 If.), Anastasi quotes in this manner (a)
one of Psellos' platitudes (acknowledged as such by Anastasi himselD, (b) a belief of
the foolish Michael VII Doukas (mentioned by PseUos), and (c) one of the prophetic
delusions of Constantine IX Monomachos. Anastasi discusses that delusion at some
length (pp. 121-124), hut does not convincingly establish its relevance to PseUos' own
VIews.

PROVIDENCE: PIETISM OR PRUDENCE? 105
15. PROVIDENCE: PIETISM OR PRUDENCE?
Whereas in section 5.24 Psellos lies about the ultimate causes of

Michael V's fall, in section 4.30 he lies about the historical method-
ology that underlies the Chronographia.
It is my custom to ascribe the governance of great events to divine

Providence, or rather I make all events depend on Providence, so long
as human nature is not diverted from its course ['Eyw bE £iwaw~ £i~ 'tl]v
"COu aEiou 7tPOVOtaV 'ta~ 7tEpt 'tWV IlE1SOVWV bt01KftcrEt~ uvayEtv, 1lllaAAOV
Kat 'taAAa fKEiVll~ f~ap'twv o7tocra, Ill] 7tapa'tpa7tEicrll~ iW'iv 'tft~ Ka"Ca qHJcrtv
E~EW~, yiVE'tat].
Yet this is definitely not Psellos' custom. In the Chronographia, as we

shall see, only a handful of events are ascribed to Providence, and
even then equivocally. The intelligibility of the narrative does not
depend upon divine intervention.
First, however, let us note that in another passage, where Providence
is not mentioned, Psellos attributes some of "the greatest disasters" to
"trifling causes" (6.97.4), effectively refuting the claim of section 4.30
that he "ascribes the governance of great events to divine Providence."
We are thus faced with a direct contradiction on the causes of great
events, which spans three books of the Chronographia. Imposing their
own standards of writing upon the past, many modern scholars refuse
to consider the possibility that such a discrepancy may be deliberate
and ascribe it instead to the alleged limitations of the 'Byzantine mind.'
Disregarding the external constraints of medieval society, they attribute
unclear writing to unclear thinking. If this is correct, we must conclude
that Psellos was grotesquely confused about the most basic assumptions
of his historical methodology and, indeed, of his philosophical orienta-
tion. However, the views of a subtle and intelligent author, who pro-
pounds in a single work both the official beliefs of his society and their
direct opposites, may not be evident upon the surface of his text.
Instead of seeking to expose contradictions, we should examine the
function and rhetorical form of Psellos' declarations. On the one hand,
those which contain his genuine views are often inconspicuous, hidden
~way in some subordinate clause in a digression from the narrative. 226
226 Cf. the declarations on the use of reason in Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince c. 6
and Discourses on Livy 1. 18.1.

106 PROVIDENCE: PIETISM OR PRUDENCE?
They reveal the author's mind, but quietly and cautiously. By attribut-
ing "great disasters" to "trifling causes," Psellos suggests that events
which drastically alter the fortunes of men are often caused from below,
not above. Perhaps, then, the universe takes little notice of human
affairs. On the other hand, those declarations which flaunt his Ortho-
doxy take the form of grand pronouncements which catch the eye and
ostentatiously conform to pious prejudices. Nevertheless, they are
revealed as hollow when compared to the realities of the text. We
should not confuse the rhetorical form of a statement with its sincerity.
Let us also note that Psellos ascribes the belief in the governance of
the world by Providence to the Empress Zoe, who "depended entire-
lyon God, and ascribed all things to Him" (6.157.10-11 ). Now
throughout the Chronographia, Psellos satirizes and savagely ridicules
Zoe's religious beliefs and practices, which he brands as pure supersti-
tion (cf. §16). Can we believe that he conceptualized his role as a his-
torian on the basis of beliefs he found altogether laughable in others?
The pious declaration of section 4.30 is designed to fulfill the
expectations of the religious reader and lull him into a false sense of
security. A close examination of the controversial passage itself, how-
ever, reveals curious incongruities. What does the "diversion" of "our
human nature" have to do with the workings of divine Providence?
Viewed as a logical proposition, this sentence indirectly claims that
when human nature is "corrupted," divine Providence should not be
seen as the cause of events in the world. Those commentators who
suppose that Psellos is saying that Providence functions (e.g., to
impose punishment) only when human nature is corrupted (e.g., by
vice) are reading the sentence in exactly the wrong way.n7 They are
227 E.g.,]. Hussey, 'Michael Psellus, The Byzantine Historian,' p. 88, n. 3 (erro-
neously citing section 5.30, instead of 4.30). For another confused reading, see K.
Svoboda, 'Quelques observations sur la methode historique de Michel Psellos,' p.
386: everything should be attributed to Providence, "unless our natural state is cor-
rupted; that is to say, unless one is opposed to Providence."
R. Anastasi's interpretation of this passage is sophisticated but untenable (Studi suL-
La "Chronographia" di A1ichele Psello, pp. 126-127). According to him, Psellos believed
that so long as men act in accordance with nature, Providence does not hinder their
designs, which it does only when they transgress natural boundaries. The rise of
Michael V to the throne constituted such a transgression, and Psellos, allegedly loyal
to the established dynasty, invokes Providence to explain his downfall. Anastasi is
oblivious to the problematic nature of Psellos' declarations on religious themes. In
addition, the fundamental premise of his narrative of Michael's fall is precisely that
the unlucky monarch acted fully in accordance with his own nature (cf. §I). And
Psellos was far from being a proponent of dynastic legitimacy. According to my

PROVIDENCE: PIETISM OR PRUDENCE? 107
trying to reconcile the implicit contradiction between Psellos' affir-

mation of the absolute responsibility of Providence and his well-
known "custom" of ascribing human causes to the events he nar-
rates. According to section 4.30, however, Providence operates only
when human nature is functioning normally. The logical implications
of this claim should begin to unsettle the pious reader. A search of
the entire Chronographia does not reveal a single event ascribed to
Providence that cannot also be given (and almost always is) a purely
human cause. In other words, God is entirely unwilling, or unable, to
change the course of non-human nature. In his account of the naval
battle between the Byzantines and the Rus' in 1043, Psellos turns
down a perfect opportunity for such an interpretation: a wind sud-
denly blew up against the barbarian invaders giving the victory to
the Byzantines (6.95). There is no hint of Providence in the entire
passage. 228
Providence apparently needs a properly functioning human
nature. One wonders, however, whether human nature needs Provi-
dence. The rise of Michael V Kalaphates and the eventual fall of his
family, which the pious declaration of section 4.30 ostensibly aims to
explain, is presented in the ensuing narrative entirely in terms of the
personalities involved. Michael's elevation to the rank of Caesar was
the arche ('beginning' or 'first cause') of the later misfortunes of his
family (4.24.1). His hate-filled imagination conceived the downfall of
his family (4.28), and his uncle John the Orphanotrophos failed to
take quick and effective action against his designs (4.29). The events
of Michael's reign are explicitly presented as the products of his ethos,
which is extensively described in an important digression, for,
according to Psellos, one cannot understand those events before
grasping the inner nature of the monarch (5.9; cf. § 1). Within this
purely human narrative, divine Providence is invoked only once, to
explain the fall of John the Orphanotrophos, but the ascription is
vague, platitudinous, and openly qualified as a "euphemism," or an
"elegant figure of speech" (5.14.15-17; cf. 7A.23). There is no theolo-
gy here, only imagery. Far from governing the world, Providence is
interpretation of the Chronographia, he believed that only those with the ability to rule
had the right to do so (cf. §25). Anastasi complicates and confuses his interpretation
by juxtaposing human "Iiberta" and Providence, and when he later claims that the
limits of "Iiberta" are those of human reason (p. 137), llose track of his argument.
nn Cf. Theophanes the Confessor 399, for a very different approach to a similar
event.

108 PROVIDENCE: PIETISM OR PRUDENCE?
nothing but a rhetorical tool used by the historian to make his

account more "elegant."
On rare occasions, Psellos does ascribe events to Providence. But
he always couples those ascriptions with explanations that rely entire-
lyon human agency. He thereby compels the reader to wonder
whether all events are not simply the result of natural or human
causes. In section 6.84, for instance, he ascribes the death of the
rebel Maniakes to God (which is peculiar in itself, since Maniakes is
also presented as the Empire's potential savior). Yet Psellos then
immediately explains exactly how the rebel was killed in battle. In
the next section he dismisses the "fabricated" legends that sprung up
around the great warrior's death. Later, after rejecting Constantine
IX Monomachos' outrageous boast that he possessed prophetic abili-
ties, Psellos declares that "the course of events must be ascribed to
the will of God" (6.98.5-6). But he then immediately gives a detailed
account of the "origins and causes" of Leo Tornikios' rebellion. Even
when he utters such platitudes as that "there is above us a greater
authority that directs our lives in whatever manner it wishes" (6.72.7-
9), he immediately claims that he could still "specify exactly what the
causes and outcomes of events were" (6.73.1-2).
If the Chronographia invokes Providence to explain individual events
only rarely and unconvincingly, it never once claims that the fall of
the Byzantine Empire during the eleventh century constituted divine
punishment or was a manifestation of divine wrath. This silence
becomes significant when we note that other contemporary histori-
ans, e.g., Michael Attaleiates (96-97, 141, 193-198) and Skylitzes
Continuatus (140-141), believed and stated exactly that. 229 Both even
claimed that the elements themselves rose up in anger against the
Romans. Psellos was fully aware that his contemporaries had strayed
from the word of God and lived highly immoral and irreligious lives
(cf. §16). Yet throughout the Chronographia, whenever he poses the
problem of the Empire's decline, his answers are confined exclusively
to the realm of politics and human action (cf. 6.5-10, 6.29, 6.48,
229 Churchmen instinctively attributed all misfortunes to God's anger that the
Empire was not being managed according to their own wishes. In his Oration to the
Emperor Alexios Komnenos, john Oxeites urged Alexios to rely more on God's favor and
less on his armies. This is the intellectual background against which Psellos' attitude
must be measured (cf. Epiktctos, Discourses 2.16.13-14 and Plotinos, Ennead 3.2.8.37-
52 with Origen, Contra Celsum 8.69-70, 8.73 and the sources cited by M.
McCormick, Eternal Victory, p. 241 If.).

THE DEGENERACY OF THE OFFICIAL RELIGION 109
7.52-59). He never attributes misfortune to sin. His rejection of tradi-

tional Byzantine beliefs about historical causation and the moral
world-order was thorough and conscious.
If we still have doubts about the complete inutility of Providence
in the Chronographia, Psellos provides us with one final cynical view of
it. Constantine IX Monomachos believed that since God had given
him the throne, he did not need to take precautions against assassins
(6.132-133).
He was utterly contemptuous of human protection. But I often raised
the examples afforded by captains and builders, and finally even of
lieutenants and generals. 'None of these men,' I said, 'carries out his
proper duty without placing hopes in God, but the one will arrange
his construction with a ruler, the other will steer the ship with the
helm, and in war all carry a shield and a sword' (6.133; cf. Plato, Laws
709a-d).
What is true of builders and soldiers is also true of historians and
philosophers, especially those who "know exactly the workings of
Providence" (5.24'.7-8; cf. §14).
16. THE DEGENERACY OF THE OFFICIAL RELIGION
Devoted to earthly affairs, secular and even amoralist in its politics,

dismissive of theological metaphysics, contemptuous of miracles,
indifferent to salvation, openly hostile to monks and their ideals,
skeptical of Providence and the divine right of kings, Psellos' philoso-
phy represents a serious challenge to the religious Orthodoxy of
Byzantium. We will gradually unveil his strategy for overthrowing
the supremacy of the Church and establishing the rule of the philoso-
phers over religion and intellectual culture. But a war cannot succeed
without a preliminary appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of
the enemy. According to the Chronographia, the power of the estab-
lished religion over the hearts and minds of eleventh-century Byzan-
tines was extraordinarily weak. The Church could partially enforce
compliance, but it had failed to foster genuine and widespread alle-
giance to its official doctrines.
One quickly notes the prominence of the occult in the society

110 THE DEGENERACY OF THE OFFICIAL RELIGIO:-.f
depicted by Psellos. Surprisingly, it is the members of the aristocracy

and the Imperial family, and not the uneducated masses, who persis-
tently seek out diviners, astrologers, and prophets, and never turn to
God's authorized representatives for spiritual succor and guidance.
Bardas Phokas, for example, scion of a distinguished and powerful
family, had soothsayers in his army, who actually performed sacrifices
on his behalf before he engaged in battle with Basil II. He did not
heed their dire predictions, on whose verity Psellos does not care to
comment, and consequently met his death (1.15). Phokas' war-time
behavior seems to belong to a pre-Christian historical context.
The childless Romanos III was convinced by his court soothsay-
ers that his dynasty would rule for many generations (3.5). Psellos
has nothing but contempt for the amulets, charms, and ointments
used by the Empress Zoe in a vain effort to enhance her fertility
(3.5). Not even the pious Michael IV Paphlagon escaped the suspi-
cion that he had participated in "secret rites" in which "spiritual
apparitions that are cloaked in the air" urged him to seek the
throne. The anti-Christian nature of these ceremonies is revealed by
the ghosts' demand that in return for their help Michael had to
renounce Christianity (4.33). Psellos does not believe the story, but
claims that if it were true only those who "fabricated the appari-
tions" would know what had really happened. One way or another,
his discussion offers us a glimpse into the shadowy activities of other
anti-Christian agitators.
vVhen Michael V Kalaphates was trying to decide whether to ban-
ish Zoe from the capital, he turned to astrologers for advice (5.18-
20). This sets the stage for one of Psellos' many autobiographical
digressions. He tells us that he himself had dealt with astrologers in
the past, but had quickly realized that their knowledge was shallow
and their methods inaccurate. They did not even bother to master
the demonstrative and scientific skills demanded by their own craft.
I myself am acquainted with this science, having studied it extensively.

I have benefited many of those who practice it by teaching them the
arrangements of planetary bodies. But I am not at all persuaded that
our lives are influenced by the movements of the stars (5.19.12-16; cf.
Encomium in Praise of his Mother 1766-1780).
Psellos thus draws a clear distinction between astrology and astrono-

my. Although admitting his familiarity with both, he defers a thor-
ough refutation of the former to another occasion, because too many

THE DEGENERACY OF THE OFFICIAL RELIGION III
might contest his arguments and he does not wish to be sidetracked

from his main discussion (5.19.16-17). This statement implies that a
number of his learned contemporaries, and not just Emperors, had
fallen under the spell of this misdirected and bogus science.
Psellos' glowing description of the piety of the Empress Zoe offers
some hope for the state of contemporary spirituality. In his account
of the reign of Constantine IX Monomachos, he claims that
I do not have many good things to say about her, but one thing con-
tinues to amaze me: she was surpassed in piety by no other woman,
and indeed by no man. For just as those who attain union with God
through contemplation, and even more, those who go beyond such an
experience and are filled with God and, being possessed by the perfec-
tion of the object of their desires, are held suspended there, so too it
was with her: the warmest reverence for the divine had united her, if I
may say so, with the first and purest light. For the name of God was
never absent from her lips (6.65).
Yet the very extravagance of this praise should caution us against

taking it seriously. It is in fact pure satire. The language is far more
appropriate to a Neoplatonic philosopher than to the ignorant
Empress, and the technical language of mystical contemplation
which Psellos employs would have been wholly unknown to her.
Accordingly, we learn in the next section that Zoe's spiritual life dur-
ing the reign of Constantine IX had not improved at all from the
days of Romanos. She had constructed "her own Jesus," a decorated
statuette of the man-God that answered her questions about the
future, especially in times of difficulty. Psellos mercilessly ridicules
her devotion to this idol: "she hugged the divine icon and regarded it
with affection, spoke with it as though it were alive and called it the
most endearing names, and all the while she lay on the ground,
watering the earth with her tears" (6.66.10-13). This language
reminds us of Romanos' affection for the icon of the Virgin (3.11),
but also of Zoe's lust for her lover Michael Paphlagon (3.20). Psellos,
of course, does not deign to comment on the efficacy of the idol's
prophetic powers. He does, however, designate Zoe's religious prac-
tices as "neither Hellenic in manner, nor derived from any other for-
eign style. Rather, she displayed the passion of her own soul and
consecrated to God the most precious and revered of those things
that we value" (6.67.8-11). Ifher religious practices were neither Hel-
lenic nor foreign, they could only have been Christian, or Byzantine.
Why else would Psellos claim that Zoe "consecrated to God the most

112 THE DEGENERACY OF THE OFFICIAL RELIGION
precious and revered of those things that we value"? Is Psellos imply-

ing that the average Christian devotion of his contemporaries was
essentially no different from Zoe's contemptible superstition? Did
Orthodox Christians revere their God in the same way that Zoe
revered "her own Jesus"?
However that may be, Psellos discusses Zoe's exceptional piety
again when he sums up her character in an epitaph. He begins by
praising her piety, although this time the irony is rather more trans-
parent.
I will not say that it was excessive, but nobody could surpass her in
this virtue. For she depended entirely on God, and ascribed all things
to Him, thinking that He determined all. I have bestowed upon her
the proper praise for this earlier in my book (6.157.8-13).
His earlier "praise" includes the contemptuous description of her

prophetic idol. Later in the epitaph, Psellos emphasizes the superfi-
ciality of her piety, which managed to avoid completely the soul-
searching and personal sacrifice ostensibly demanded by the Church.
One thing claimed all her attention and she devoted all her efforts to
it: to offer sacrifice to God. I am not referring so much to the sacrifice
of prayer, thanksgiving, and confession, but rather to the sacrifice of
aromatic herbs and of all such things that are imported into our coun-
try from the lands of the Indians and the Egyptians (6.159.5-9).
So much for Zoe's piety. We turn now to her third husband, Con-
stantine IX. He had employed magical means to seduce his mistress
Skleraina (6.50.9-10), and wanted to honor Zoe as a goddess after
her death (6.183). He also spread rumors about himself implying that
he had prophetic powers and would be protected against all dangers
by a higher force (6.96). He supported these claims with the evidence
of his own visions and the predictions of soothsayers. Psellos, in this
case remarkably open-minded, "examined Constantine's claims care-
fully and found that neither science nor any general principle sup-
ported the prophesy" (6.96.3-5). Our philosophical historian also
derides the prophesies made about the young Leo Tornikios, accord-
ing to which "he was destined for a glorious fate" (6.99.7-9), suggest-
ing that such nonsense was standard fare for the children of the
upper classes (cf. 6.12.4-6). Even Theodora and her court were
duped by the extravagant predictions of the Empress' immortality
made by the unruly and hypocritical Naziraioi (6A.18-19). The trust

THE DEGENERACY OF THE OFFICIAL RELIGION 113
they placed in these sham "oracles" delayed the designation of a new

Emperor, with harmful consequences to the State.
The turn to exotic and non-Christian superstition, Of, alternately,
the conversion of Christianity itself into occultism and superstition,
was complemented by the utterly cynical and disrespectful treatment
of traditional religious practices. Of the many oaths made in the
Chronographia, some even invoking the Holy Relics, only two are kept:
that of Psellos and his friends to become monks (really a pretext to
flee the crumbling administration of Constantine IX230), and that of
John Vatatzes to remain loyal to his commander Leo Tornikios,
which led to the Empire's loss of a good soldier (cf. §5). After
Tornikios' defeat, even the rebel's Macedonian followers, described
earlier as fiercely loyal to their sworn word (6.102.6-7), conveniently
forgot the oaths of allegiance that they had sworn to him upon the
Holy Relics (6.121.10-14).231 Constantine IX broke his oath not to
harm Tornikios and Vatatzes (cf. §5), and was even persuaded by
Psellos to release the blasphemers he had imprisoned, in contraven-
tion of his previous oaths never to forgive them (cf. § 17). The most
disgraceful instance in the Chronographia is the "unspeakable oaths"
jokingly made by the vulgar man presented by Psellos as Constantine
IX's court jester, who swore that he was really a son of the Empress
Theodora and could remember being pushed out of his mother's
womb (6.144.4-8).
The monastic vocation was also cynically manipulated in the polit-
ical struggles of the eleventh century. No one in the Chronographia
210 As Psellos confesses in sections 6.191 and 200 (though gushingly overlaid with
pious rhetoric about leaving an inferior life to pursue a higher calling). He expresses
severe misgivings about joining the monastic life in a letter to John Xiphilinos, who
had already moved to Mt Olympos slightly before Psellos himself joined him there
(Letter KD 191). He alludes to the political motivation behind his monastic retreat in
his subsequent Letter to Xiphilinos (lines 185-187). And in his Letter to Keroularios (lines
188-189) he states explicitly (although the context is not without ambiguity) that "I
did not take up the yoke of the Lord voluntarily." For the political motives behind
Psellos' monastic retreat, see G. Misch, 'Die Bruchstiicke einer Autobiographie des
byzantinischen Hofphilosophen Michael Psellos,' pp. 792-795; R. Anastasi, Studi sul-
la "Chronographia" di Michele Psello, pp. 31 if., 129. Some scholars, however, have tak-
en Psellos' rhetoric at face value and disregarded his severe attack on the fundamen-
tal principles of monastic life. According to P. Stephanou ('Le temoignage religieux
de Michel Psellos,' pp. 271-272) "the ideal of the monastic life continued to exercise
its austere charm and seduction on him."
201 "Because religion and fear of God have been eliminated in all, an oath and
faith given last only as long as they are useful" (Niccolo Machiavelli, Florentine Histo-
ries 3.5).

114 THE DEGENERACY OF THE OFFICIAL RELIGION
shows the least respect for it, including the monks themselves. In
order to marry his daughter to Romanos Argyropoulos, whom he
had chosen as successor, Constantine VIn pretended to have him
arrested, thus causing Romanos' first wife to become a nun out of
fear (2.10).232 The couple's marriage vows were then conveniently set
aside, and Romanos was married to Zoe. John the Orphanotrophos,
placed in charge of important departments of State by his brother
Michael IV Paphlagon, was really a monk, but he only paid lip-ser-
vice to the duties of that calling (4.14.8-12). Throughout the Chrono-
graphia, many are forced to become monks purely for reasons of polit-
ical expediency, which affords Psellos numerous opportunities for
sarcasm. For example, Theodora was forced into a "most distin-
guished prison" (5.34.16). But the mob that later overthrew Michael
V Kalaphates showed no respect for her desire to remain a nun
when they forced her to assume the throne (5.37). Michael and his
uncle fled from the palace and became monks, but, against the rights
of asylum, they were dragged out of the church where they had
sought refuge and blinded (5.45). This was done in spite of the oaths
they had received that they would not be harmed (5.44). Before his
revolt, Leo Tornikios was forced to adopt the monastic habit: "he
who was previously clothed in glorious garments was now dressed in
rags" (6.101.14-15). But his new state did not hinder his affair with
Euprepia, Constantine IX's sister, and did not stop him from becom-
ing the leader of a large revolt against that Emperor.
The higher clergy was not exempt from the general decline in reli-
gious sentiment. Psellos ridicules the Patriarch Alexios (1025-1043)
for recognizing the validity of the marriage between Zoe and Con-
stantine Monomachos, even though the rules of the faith and "the
Roman laws" explicitly prohibited it (6.20, 50, 153). A century and a
half before, many monks and churchmen had zealously opposed the
serial marriages of the Emperor Leo VI (ruled 886-912). m But the
Patriarch Alexios
made concessions to the demands of the moment - or shall we say to

the will of God? He did not perform the marriage ceremony himself,
232 For this dynastic arrangement and its problems, see A. E. Laiou, 'Imperial
Marriages and Their Critics in the Eleventh Century: The Case of Skylitzes,' pp.
167-169.
233 For the most recent treatment, see S. Tougher, TIe Reign if Leo VI (886-912):
Politics and People, c. 6.

PATRON OF BLASPHEMERS 115
but embraced the couple afterwards. I do not know if his behavior was
worthy of a priest or whether it was an act of flattery that served expe-
dient ends (6.20).
Psellos seized the delicious opportunity to attack a Patriarch on
canonical grounds. 234 Yet he also digs deeper into the psychology of
religious power in general and hints that for Alexios "the will of
God" sanctioned "the demands of the moment" and "expedient
ends." His opportunist attitude was shared by Skleraina, the mistress
of Constantine Monomachos, who had hoped that when her lover
became Emperor his authority could override all the laws of the
Church and permit their marriage (6.51).
The Church as an institution does not appear as a historical agent
in the Chronographia. 235 Christianity is presented as wholly unedifying.
The ranks of the monastic orders were filled with feeble sensualists. A
complete indifference to the rules of the faith prevailed. Religious
practices were cynically manipulated in the political struggles of the
court. Those in power had turned to non-Christian superstitions and
ridiculous exotic rites. 236 From the perspective of a true Platonic
philosopher, eleventh-century Byzantium was a society ripe for the
plucking. "Since the opinions of human beings about the gods have
changed, it is necessary that the laws change too" (Plato, Laws 948d).
17. PATRON OF BLASPHEMERS
The vivid narrative and fascinating character portraits of the Chrono-

graphia fully engage the reader's attention and leave him with a decep-
tive sense of satisfaction. Closer inspection reveals a number of obscure
and confusing passages, which are difficult to penetrate, even by those
234 This corrupt Patriarch had also been bribed by Michael IV Paphlagon to
accept the validity of his marriage to Zoe; see John Skylitzes, !fynopsis 39O-39\. For a
discussion of these marriages and their irregularities, see A. E. Laiou, op. cit.
235 Accordingly, Psellos entirely suppresses the events that led up to the so-called
Schism of 1054, when the Patriarch Keroularios acted independently and influenced
the Empire's foreign policy.
236 Judging from the Annals of Niketas Choniates, this process accelerated during
the twelfth century.

116 PATRON OF BLASPHEMERS
trained to decipher the rhetorical conventions of Byzantine literature.

One is often left with the impression that Psellos is not being entirely
straightforward or honest. In the historical narrative, for instance, he
suppresses the names of important individuals and is silent about some
of the controversies in which he himself was involved. 237 But his most
puzzling and obscure expressions are reserved for discussions of reli-
gion, especially of his own personal belief~ (cf. §18). This would cer-
tainly not have been the case were his views entirely Orthodox, or, for
that matter, Christian. We must always ask why Psellos chose to
include a particular story or observation, or use a particular phrase or
word. For he often indicates his sympathies and hostilities in the least
expected places and in the most indirect ways.
In all of Book 6, the longest book of the Cnronographia and one in
which the author frequently appears as a character in the narrative,
Psellos the courtier successfully intervenes only once to change the
mind and policy of the Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos.
When Constantine realized that certain men went so far as to malign

the Lord Himself, he either exiled them, or confined their movements
to a narrow area, or placed them in chains from which there was no
escape. He then bound himself with secret oaths never to pardon them.
I once told him that it would not be easy for him to keep those oaths,
but he tried to convince me that this was the only way to keep the ten-
dencies of these most evil men in check. He did not change his mind for
a few days (for righteous anger still burned inside him), but when his
determination flagged (this would happen whenever he heard anyone
praising elemency and celebrating the Emperors of the past who dis-
played it), he would then remember those men and their imprisonment
and would weep for he did not know how to best handle the situation.
By using me as an advisor in his inner conflict, he eventually chose
clemency, in this way appeasing God by other means (6.167-168).
Under the dubious guise of appeasing God, Psellos persuaded the
Emperor to liberate His enemies. The Emperor's oaths to punish
blasphemers had to be broken so that those who had "maligned the
Lord Himself' could go free. If Theophanes the Confessor was right
that "perjury is a denial of God" (466), then Constantine's change of
heart constituted a twofold denial.
m A thorough historical commentary on the Chronographia would expose many of

the names and events that Psellos has suppressed or shrouded in obscurity; for now,
see the suspicions of Ph. S. Ioannides, 'H "Xpovoypu<piu" 'tou MlXU~A 'I'EAAou w~
tCHOPl1(111l11~ YlU 'tllV E1l0X~ 'tou Mlxa~A L',' na<pAuyovU.'

PSELLOS' ENIGMATIC CONFESSION OF FAITH 117
The blasphemers were lucky indeed that a courtier happened to

praise clemency at just that moment! This is probably another veiled
reference to the author himself, whom Constantine used "as an advi-
sor in his inner conflict." Significantly, Psellos did not propose that
they should be released on the condition that they repent, and, even
though he undermined Constantine's resolution to punish them, he
did not suggest an alternative deterrent for their attacks against the
Lord. In effect, under the guise of clemency, he persuaded the
Emperor to tolerate and pardon blasphemy. As has already been
remarked, this is Psellos' only political action in all of Book 6, i.e., it
is the only occasion upon which he decisively influences Imperial
policy. Our suspected blasphemer turns out to be the patron of blas-
phemers at court. Yet this passage simultaneously informs us of the
fate that awaited those who openly and imprudently attacked or
ridiculed the objects of Orthodox faith.
A very cautious blasphemy occurs in Book 3, and is directed against
the most maligned holy person in the Chronographia, the Virgin Mary.
Romanos' church in her honor was given the name Peribleptos ('Cele-
brated'). The Emperor, Psellos tells us, "did not notice that the name
was more suited to a human being than a church, if in fact the word
Peribleptos also means peribleptos" (3.15.39-41). The Italian and modern
Greek translators have caught the double meaning. Celebrated has a
connotation of infamy: 'she is the subject of everyone's gossip. '238
18. PSELLOS' ENIGMATIC CONFESSION OF FAITH
By his own admission, Psellos had "an uncontrollable paSSIOn for

every form of knowledge." 239 He confessed that
I am by nature insatiable for every kind of knowledge and I would not

want any of it to escape me ... I even studied the methods of disciplines
238 Could this be an allusion to the disputed paternity of her son? "Psellos never
misses any occasion to ridicule Christian piety" (B. Karalis, in the introduction to his
translation of the Chronographia, p. 29).
239 Encomium in Praise ofhis Mother 1802-3, cf. also 1692 If.

118 PSELLOS' ENIGMATIC CONFESSION OF FAITH
that have no validity, so that I may thereby be capable of arguing

against those who specialize in them. 2+o
Surrendering to his passion, Psellos openly sought to excel in every

field of learning, regardless of its merits or shortcomings. In this he
actually succeeded, and became the most learned man of his age by
far. 241 Yet more important than the manifold nature of his expertise
and the vastness of his knowledge was his profound understanding of
Byzantine culture, which enabled him to question its traditions and
satirize its dominant pieties. Instead of confirming him in the
received and established wisdom, his studies enabled him to create
an independent and original mode of thought. Whereas Byzantine
literature is on the whole humorless, boring, and dogmatic,242 Psellos'
prose is playful, enticingly allusive, and often irreverent, for at its
core lies a highly subversive teaching.
Psellos' intellectual ambitions inevitably carried him into realms of
knowledge where the light of religion shines dimly. He subjected the
arts of divination and astrology to a thorough examination and, even
though he found them to be without scientific or philosophical merit
(cf. § 16), his inquiries into the occult allowed his enemies to question
his allegiance to Christianity. They were, of course, looking in the
wrong place.
A timely retreat from the court of Constantine IX Monomachos,
dictated by purely political considerations, acquired a sinister aspect
when the Emperor died soon afterwards. Did Psellos have prior
knowledge of the event? He adamantly denies that he could have
predicted the Emperor's death with such precision, and supports his
denial with a personal confession of Christian faith, which is couched
in almost impenetrable language. By now we should not be surprised
that the text becomes opaque at the very moment when Psellos pre-
pares to reveal his religious beliefs. Accordingly, his pious declaration
2+0 On Incredible Reports (= Philosophica Minora v. 1 32) 10 I-I 03. Cf Plato, Republic
475c: "But the one who is willing to taste every kind of learning with gusto, and who
approaches learning with delight, and is insatiable, we shall justly assert to be a
philosopher, won't we?" and Francis Bacon, Letter to Lord BU~l!,hley: "I have taken all
knowledge to be my province."
211 Acknowledged by some of his contemporaries: Michael Attaleiates, History 21.
m See thc severe but just appraisals of H. F. Tozer, 'Byzantine Satire,' p. 233,
and R. Jenkins, 'The Hellenistic Origins of Byzantine Literature,' p. 40. Things
change after Psellos.

is located in the very middle of Book 6.A, the book that deals with
the reign of the Empress Theodora. Psellos begins by admitting that
he had in the past studied the science of horoscopes,
enough to know something of the nonsense that it involves (for the

arrangements of my lectures and the questions of my students led me
to investigate every form of knowledge; I am entirely unable to pre-
vent others from questioning and pestering me about such matters 243 ).
I confess that I investigated every aspect of science, but I have used
none of the arts forbidden by the Church Fathers. I do know about
the Wheel of Fortune and the Evil Genius, but I do not believe that
sublunary events are directed by the position and the movements of
the stars (6A.Il.l-1O).
He then offers some preliminary arguments against the basic assump-

tions of astrology, suggesting that the stars, which are lifeless beings
that lack reason, cannot in any way control the course of human life.
But instead of developing those arguments at length, he turns to a
confession of Christian faith, a grotesquely obscure and ambiguous
passage, which is in fact the culmination of yet another digression (cf.
6A.13.1-2).
No reasonable person would condemn a man who knew these things

but did not believe them. On the other hand, if someone were to
reject our Christian faith in order to believe in those other things, he
should be pitied for the futility of his pursuits. But as for myself, to
speak the truth, it was not scientific reason [0 f1ttcr'tTjIlOV1KO~ A6yo~]
that caused me to renounce these things; rather, I was restrained by
some more divine force [8£lo'tEpa o{JValll~]. I heeded neither logical
arguments nor any other form of proof: but rather that which led
greater and more learned souls than myself down to the acceptance
of the Hellenic logos, presses me upwards to accept and have faith in
our Christian logos [aX)'&' 'to Ka'taplpacrav Ild~ou~ Kat yvrollovlKo)'tEpa~
\IIUX&.~ 7tpO~ 't~v 'tOU i:UTjV1KOU A6you 7tapaOOX~v EIlI: 7tlE~OV uvaY£l 7tpO~
243 The maJonty of Psellos' 'philosophical' works are in fact answers to the
inquiries of his students: cf. B. N. Tatakis, 'H Bvt;avTlvry l/JIAocroq>ia, p. 160, and]. A.
Munitiz, 'Review of P. Gautier and D.]. O'Meara,' p. 229. For the encyclopedic
range of questions posed to Psellos by his contemporaries, see his Encomium in Praise
if his Mother 1865-1918. For astrology, cf. M. Sharratt, Galileo, p. 67: "One of
Galileo's regular professorial tasks was to give an elementary course in cosmogra-
phy, an exposition of the rudiments of astronomy and geography, which was part of
a general education and would be of special interest to medical students, who would
need it if they were to make use of astrology in their professional work" (see also p.
80).

fJ~ET£poU A6you 1tlO"TtV TE Kat [3E[3uiooO"tv]. Hence the Mother of

Tl,V '"COD
the Logos and her Son born of no earthly father, His sufferings, the
crown of thorns, the reed and the hyssop, and the cross on which he
stretched His hands, may these things be my reverence and boast,
even though my deeds were not always in accordance with my con-
fession (6A.12).
No one can read this passage without feeling thoroughly mystified.

Psellos is obviously not telling us the whole truth, and the least of our
concerns is his surprising admission that "my deeds were not always
in accordance with my confession." That he abandons clarity and
candor as soon as he sets out to prove the sincerity of his faith is even
more disquieting, or delightful. Yet so far no scholar has even tried
to explain what is going on here.
First of all, we want to know what the "divine force" was that
"restrained" Psellos. How likely is it that he would have submitted to
a "divine force" and not relied on "logical arguments"? And why
does he tell us that he abandoned astrology without regard for the
arguments that may be brought against it right after he shows us that
he was quite capable of arguing against it rationally?
Second, we want to know the identity of "that which led greater
and more learned souls than myself down to the acceptance of the
Hellenic logos," but "presses me upwards to accept and have faith in
our Christian logos." This unknown thing cannot be the "divine
force" of the previous sentence, for it is implausible that a "divine
force" would have led "greater and more learned souls" than Psellos
to accept "the Hellenic logos," while leading Psellos himself to
embrace Christianity. If the "divine force" represents some kind of
Christian power, as it must, it would have led the "greater and more
learned souls" not to "the Hellenic logos" but to "our Christian logos."
That the "divine force" is not that thing can also be seen from the
gender of the two entities in the Greek text: "force" is, as always, a
feminine noun, but that thing, occurring only in active participial
form, is a neuter. If Psellos intended it to be the "divine force," he
would have made it feminine to match its proper antecedent. In
order to understand Psellos' confession, we must uncover the identity
of that thing which led him to embrace Christianity, as well as of the
"divine force" which "restrained" him.
Another ambiguity in the passage may point us in the right direc-
tion. What is "the Hellenic logos" to which the "greater and more
learned souls" were led? One scholar has taken it to mean Greek cul-

ture and learning (paideia),244 which Psellos advocated in general and

which, along with Christian learning, constituted the basis of all
Byzantine education (e.g., Romanos III in section 3.2.1-2). But it
makes little sense to say that "greater and more learned souls" were
led to Hellenic paideia while Psellos was led to Christianity, for the
two were generally understood to be compatible, whereas in the pas-
sage under consideration some kind of tension clearly exists between
them. The context strongly implies that those who accept the former
do not have faith in the latter. We must therefore look for a different
interpretation of "the Hellenic logos." vVe are probably dealing here
with the other meaning of the word "Hellenic" in Byzantine thought,
that which today is called paganism, and which often included astro-
logical beliefs. It is well known that the Church Fathers designated as
"Hellenic" all non-Judeo-Christian religions, regardless of the ethnic
composition of their followers. This usage persisted throughout the
Byzantine centuries, though the efforts of men like Psellos gradually
revived the broader cultural meaning of the word. 245 The interpreta-
tion of logos as religion is supported by the explicit contrast between
"the Hellenic logos" and "the Christian logos," namely Christ himself,
who is invoked along with his Mother in the next sentence.
Therefore, there is something that once led "greater and more
learned souls" than Psellos down to the acceptance of paganism, but
that now leads Psellos himself up to Christianity. Who were these
"greater and more learned" men? The best way to answer this ques-
tion is by asking whether they lived before or after the establishment
of Christianity. Were they ancient Greek or Byzantine thinkers? A
number of considerations suggest that the former solution is the cor-
rect one.
First of all, it is unlikely that there was any Byzantine thinker who
was "greater and more learned" than Psellos, or whom Psellos would
have recognized as such. He certainly knew that his own age, and at
least the previous century as well, had produced no one who could
rival him in originality, profundity, and erudition. In his own boast-
ful words,
244 R. Anastasi, Studi sulla "Chronographia" di Michele Psello, p. 36: "cultura greca."
215 Cf. Evagrios Scholastikos, Ecclesiastical History 6.22, designates an Arab chieftain
as "an accursed and utterly abominable Hellene," i.e., a non-Christian; for an intro-
ductory treatment of the problem, see K. Lechner, Hellenen und Barbaren im Weltbild
der Byzantiner; Psellos' contribution: pp. 46-49.

I found philosophy only after it had breathed its last, at least as far as
its practitioners were concerned, and I alone revived it with my own
powers, having found no worthwhile teachers, nor even a seed of wis-
dom in Greece or the barbarian lands, though I searched everywhere
(6.37.5-9).
Psellos apparently did not believe that Orthodox Christianity, or, for
that matter, Islam and Judaism, contained even "a seed of wisdom."
He sees wisdom purely in terms of philosophy, which he differenti-
ates entirely from Church doctrine. However that may be, a few sec-
tions later he claims that he felt humility before the orators and
philosophers of the past, clearly referring to the great orators and
philosophers of non-Christian antiquity (6.42). There is no question
that some of them were "greater and more learned" than him, and it
is plausible that they accepted "the Hellenic logos."
Second, we know of no Byzantine thinker before Psellos, and in
particular a "greater and more learned" one, who renounced Chris-
tianity in favor of Hellenic religion. Besides, it is impossible to make
sense of the statement that great Christian thinkers were led to
renounce Christianity by the very thing that pressed Psellos to accept
it. Third, the participle which signifies that thing's lowering effect on
the "greater and more learned souls" is in the past tense, while that
which signifies its elevating effect on Psellos is in the present tense.
This temporal discrepancy may imply a contrast between classical
antiquity and the Christian Roman Empire, for this was the major
division of the past that the Byzantines recognized.
We must therefore look for something that led the great philoso-
phers of non-Christian antiquity to accept non-Christian religions,
but which also leads Psellos, the philosopher of Christian Byzantium,
to accept the Christian religion. By formulating the dilemma in this
manner we have come close to solving it, for it seems that philoso-
phers tend to conform, at least outwardly, to the prevailing religions
of their societies. There is only one thing that can make them do this:
prudence. If something "presses" Psellos to accept Christianity, it
cannot be the fact that Christianity is true, because that would not
have also led "greater and more learned souls" to accept Hellenic
religion. For the same reason, it cannot be a Christian supernatural
force. That which leads philosophers to accept the religions of their
societies has nothing to do with whether those religions are true.
Psellos does not really accept Christianity, just as the great
philosophers of antiquity did not really accept ancient religion. This

conclusion is strengthened by the logical implication of another pas-

sage of the Chronographia. In section 6.67 Psellos tells us that he had
studied a "Hellenic logos" concerning the movements of good and
evil spirits. "I did not accept that logos when I first read it, and after
this I gave no credence to the rites associated with it, but rejected
them and threw them out of my mind" (6.67.5-7). Once again logos
represents religious belief. But if Psellos could dismiss this "Hellenic
logos" as nonsense, then surely "greater and more learned souls"
could have done so as well.
Psellos' acceptance of "our Christian logos" goes no deeper than
the equivocal and exoteric confession of section 6A.12, which appar-
ently allayed the well-founded suspicions of his contemporaries, and
has confirmed the historicist assumptions of modern scholars.246 As
for Psellos' claim about the philosophers of antiquity, abundant evi-
dence demonstrates that many of them also conformed outwardly to
the pieties of their age, but rejected them in their esoteric teachings.
The origins of this duplicitous practice, of course, lay in the execu-
tion of Socrates for impiety, the most momentous event in the histo-
ry of philosophy. His trial and death revealed once and for all the
essential conflict between philosophy and the religion of the city. It
was Plato's historic achievement to dampen those tensions by deploy-
ing his considerable rhetorical and poetic skills to effect a stable and
mutually beneficial reconciliation. 247
When studying the philosophers of antiquity, we must be careful
not to confuse practice with belief, actions with "things deliberated in
silence."248 For despite their skepticism regarding the Greek gods,
ancient philosophers generally respected the higher virtues and val-
ues of popular religion, and even participated in the religious cere-
monies of their cities. They endorsed the faith of the masses when it
helped to maintain public order,249 and also because religious mar-
246 See also A. Garzya, 'On Michael Psellus' Admission of Faith,' for a separate
occasion. G. Misch, among many other scholars, accepts the confession of 6A.12 at
face value as proof of Psellos' sincere piety ('Die Bruchstiicke einer Autobiographie
des byzantinischen Hofphilosophen Michael Psellos,' p. 797).
247 Cf. Plutarch, Lift qf Nikias 23.
248 Cf. Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.1.19 and 1.1.20.
249 Cf. Edward Gibbon, 1he Decline and Fall qf the Roman Empire, v. 1, pp. 25-26:
"The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all con-
sidered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by
the magistrate, as equally useful." Note that philosophers and magistrates generally
came from the same class.

tyrdom was no part of the philosophical ethos. 250 It was widely

believed that when Aristotle was accused of impiety, he fled "rather
than let Athens sin twice against philosophy."251 He bequeathed
money to Zeus and Athena in his will,252 but only because he
believed that religion served "legal and utilitarian purposes."253 Sex-
tus Empiricus, a Skeptic of the second-century A.D., drew an explic-
it contrast between a philosopher's beliefs and actions at the begin-
ning of his discussion of the question 'Do the Gods Exist?'
The Skeptic will be found in a safer position, if, in conformity with the
ancestral customs and the laws, he declares that the Gods exist, and
performs everything which contributes to their worship and venera-
tion, but, as far as philosophical investigation is concerned, declines to
commit himself rashly.2'i+
Similar attitudes, which differentiated between the utility and the

truth of religion, were shared by a wide variety of ancient thinkers.
"Varro," wrote Arnaldo Momigliano of the first-century B.C.
Roman thinker,
was not the man to conceal his preferences and convictions, but one of
his convictions was precisely that there are truths which should remain
unknown to the ordinary man and there are falsehoods which should be
spread among the mob as truths ... It was even useful that people should
consider themselves descended from gods, however false that might be,
if it added to their self-confidence in undertaking great things.2\:-'
The Christian agitator Tertullian complained to the pagan authorities

because they did not also persecute philosophers who "openly destroy
2:;0 Cf. Marcus Aurelius, Aieditations 11.3.

2il The incident is related in a number of ancient sources: Aelian, Varia Hi.ltoria
3.36; Origen, Contra Celsum 1.65; Diogcnes Laertios, Lives and Opinions qf the Eminent
Philosophers 5.5; and in various lives of Aristotle, cited by G. E. R. Lloyd, Magic, Rea-
son and Experience, p. 260, n. 150.
252 Diogeues Laertios 5.16 (the will is authentic).
2jj Aristotle, Metaphysics 1074b5.
2)1 Sextus Empiricus, Against the Physicists 1.49, and cf. Sextus' prudence in Outlines
of Pyrrhonism 3.2. "Conformity with the opinions of the religious community in which
one is brought up is a necessary qualification for the future philosopher" (Leo
Strauss, Persecution and the Art qf Writing, pp. 16-17, 182).
2.\.\ A. Momigliano, On Pagans, Jews, and Christians, p. 63. On this theme, see also P.
A. Brunt, 'Philosophy and Religion in the Late Republic,' and the similar attitudes
of the historians Polybios 10.2.9-13, 10.5.6-8, 10.9.2-3, 16.12, and Diodoros Siculus
1.2.2,34.2.47.

your gods and attack your superstitions in their treatises."256 What he

did not say (although he certainly knew it) was that those philosophers
did not seek to give offense by attacking the gods of the State in pub-
lic and terrorizing their fellow citizens to abandon their ancestral rites.
T ertullian and other Christians, driven by the overriding importance
that they placed on the truth of their own doctrines, could not under-
stand how men who did not believe in the existence of the gods and
the efficacy of ancient ceremonies could still endorse the many reli-
gions of the Roman Empire. In his Exhortation to Martyrdom (6), Origen
attacked the non-Christian who "does not believe, but pretends to
worship through cowardice, which he calls an accommodating tem-
per, so that he may seem to be religious like most other people." Such
a person "does not worship idols but only bows down to them." Of
course, the public persona assumed by most philosophers after the
execution of Socrates was designed precisely to deflect charges of
impiety and forestall religious martyrdoms. 257 For Origen, on the oth-
er hand, martyrdom was a blessed state.
Ironically, the same philosophers who privately rejected the beliefs
of the masses were often staunch defenders of civic religion against
the threat of "atheism." The Platonist Celsus, for instance, attacked
Christianity in part because he believed that it subverted the stability
of the Roman order,258 an order which, it must be noted, had proven
very accommodating to philosophers in his time and had even pro-
duced a bona fide philosopher-king. The religion of that Emperor,
Marcus Aurelius, whom Psellos calls "most philosophical" (3.2.7), has
aptly been characterized as "intermittent half-belief."259 In order to
portray Marcus as a deeply religious man, many modern historians
have downplayed or, in some cases, entirely suppressed the many
skeptical passages of his Meditations. Marcus often expresses deep
reservations about the Providential view of the cosmos that his Stoic
teachers upheld. 260 If he could not commit himself with a clear philo-
2.56 Tertullian, Apology 46.4; cf. the similar complaints ofOrigen, Contra Celsum 7.66;
Augustine, Ci!y of God 6.1, 6.10.
257 This strategy is outlined in Plato's Phaedo and Republic (for its success, see
Lucian, Demonax, and the comments on that work by Eunapios, Lives of the Philosophers
and the Sophists 454).
258 In Origen, Contra Celsum 8.68-71.
259 P. A. Brunt, 'Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations,' p. 16.
260 He often gives due consideration to both alternatives: Meditations 2.11 ("if there
are gods ... if there are no gods ... "), also 3.3, 4.3.2, 6.24, 8.17, 8.58, 9.40, 11.18,

sophical conscience to the highly abstract and rarefied religion of

Stoicism, he must have approached the many religious ceremonies
that he dutifully conducted as Emperor with a completely pragmatic
attitude. Such events were designed to uphold the State, express its
majesty and antiquity, etc. We should not discount Marcus' rever-
ence for tradition or deny his civic pride, but in the end "the overt
performance of cult acts in itself implied no conviction."261
Thus prudence, or fear, or politics, leads philosophers to accept
the dominant religions of their societies, though always exoterically.
Psellos apparently saw through the mask of piety worn by the ancient
philosophers, and decided to wear it himself. His affirmation of
orthodoxy thus contains a guarded declaration of radical heterodoxy.
We may now return to his confession and the "divine force" that
compelled him to abandon astrology. A plausible interpretation of
this phrase is readily available: this force was the coercive power of
the Church. A few pages later, in section 6A.l7.3, Psellos calls the
Patriarch Alexios "divine," even though, as we have seen, he had
great contempt for him as a person (cf. §l6). The designation
"divine" is here clearly attached to the office of the Patriarch, and
not necessarily to the individual, a practice which was, after all, in
accordance with Byzantine conventions. The "divine" force turns out
to be a human force, though one which cloaks its politics in the lan-
guage of religion. Psellos' use of the term is again sarcastic. 262
Both Psellos and the Church were opposed to astrology, but for
different reasons. Psellos preferred to argue against it logically, but
the Church preferred to use "force" instead of reason, and this elicits
Psellos' veiled complaint. For "force" can render "logical arguments"
powerless. He thereby implies that his acceptance of the official doc-
trine was a response to threats, and not an expression of inner con-
viction. 263 His true attitude is partially revealed in the second sen-
tence of the passage we have been examining: "if someone were to
reject our Christian faith in order to believe in those other things, he
should be pitied for the futility of his pursuits." Hardly the reaction
12.14. The precise significance of these passages is debatable. There is no parallel to

them, however, in Christian, Neoplatonic, etc., literature.
261 P. A. Brunt, 'Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations,' p. 17.
262 As it is in his Letter to Keroulanos line 205.
263 Psellos' alludes to the Church's ability to enforce doctrinal compliance through
the threat of physical punishment in his Letter to Xiphilinos lines 33-35; cf. Niceolo
Machiavelli, Discoums on Livy 1.58.1.

PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC 127
of a true Christian! No mention is made of imperiling one's eternal

soul, or of sliding towards evil and damnation. Psellos merely sug-
gests that such a conversion would be a waste of time and effort, a
turn from one falsehood to another.
19. PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC
Our discussion has so far concentrated on Psellos' polemic against

the various components of the dominant ideology of Byzantium.
Though he occasionally offers alternatives to the theories and prac-
tices that he attacks, his positive aims involve less a replacement of
old truths than the creation of new order, based on a new set of val-
ues and representing a revival of ancient philosophical politics.
Although Psellos' program had many enemies, it also had allies and
positive goals. In order, therefore, to reconstruct his vision for the
future of Byzantium, we must turn to the very heart of the Chrono-
graphia, which lays the foundations for the realization of his ultimate
ambitions. Psellos' intellectual autobiography (6.36-43) is set in the
very middle of the first edition of the work. 2M More specifically, the
section on the relation between philosophy and rhetoric (6.41) is
placed in the exact middle of the first edition of the Chronographia.
Psellos begins his intellectual autobiography by stating that he was
interested primarily in two disciplines: rhetoric and philosophy (6.36.2-
5). Rhetoric made his expression elegant, while philosophy "cleansed
his mind." He does not say exactly from what philosophy "cleansed his
mind." However that may be, the ensuing sections (6.37-40) leave no
doubt that Psellos considered himself primarily a philosopher, and only
secondarily an orator. In the digression, Psellos casts himself as a
philosopher who employed rhetoric in order to attain his ends, even
though modern scholars have insisted on seeing him primarily as an
orator who merely dabbled in philosophy (cf. §4). Yet his true masters,
according to these crucial pages, were Plato, Aristotle, and the Neopla-
tonists, not Lysias, Isocrates, and the authors of the Second Sophistic.
264 The Platonic dialogue with an intellectual autobiography of Socrates in the
middle is the Phaedo.

128 PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC
Even Psellos' knowledge of natural science, mathematics, geometry,

music, and astronomy, took second place to his pursuit of wisdom
itself "It is not beyond our natural abilities to make one of all the sci-
ences our own particular field, and to make excursions from there for
the sake of research and become knowledgeable in the other sciences,
and then to return whence we came" (6.40.7-12).
Psellos then returns to the starting-point of his discussion, and
clarifies the relationship between rhetoric and philosophy.
I have detennined that all of literature falls into two categories: the one
is comprised of rhetoric, the other has been claimed by philosophy. The
first, since it knows nothing of the more important matters, merely bub-
bles with a mighty torrent of words. It is concerned with the arrange-
ment of the parts of speech and organizes the composition and catego-
rization of speeches on political affairs. It beautifies language and lends
distinction especially to political discourse. Philosophy, on the other
hand, pays less attention to the beauty of the language by which it is
surrounded, but investigates the natures of beings and presents before
the mind insights that should not be revealed. Its sublime doctrines do
not merely extend to the heavens, but if there should be another uni-
verse beyond that point, they praise it '.vith a great variety of expres-
sions. Now as for myself, I did not think that I should do what most oth-
ers have done or suffered, namely either to possess the art of rhetoric
while neglecting science, or to study science and to enrich myself by the
marvelous knowledge it offers while neglecting the beauty of words and
the art of their arrangement and distribution. Hence, and I have been
attacked by many for doing this, when I am composing an oration from
time to time I will gracefully introduce some scientific proof into it, or,
on the other hand, when I am pursuing a philosophical theme I will
adorn it with the graces of artistic composition (6.41).
To the casual reader it might seem as though Psellos is proposing

something quite trivial: although he intends to keep rhetoric and phi-
losophy separate as disciplines, he will sometimes use the one to
embellish or enlighten the other. His philosophy will be "adorned"
through rhetoric and his rhetoric will be made more serious through
the admixture of philosophical insights.
The symmetry of this scheme gives a deceptive sense of the rela-
tive value of the two disciplines. There is no question that Psellos
wants to bring them closer together, perhaps in order to create a
more beautiful philosophy and a more philosophical rhetoric. 265 But
265 Cf. also his discourse on a passage of Gregory of Nazianzos (= 77ze%gica 98).

to truly understand the precise ends of this alliance, we must exam-

ine his statements with the same care with which he composed them.
The first half of the passage makes two subtle but very important
points about rhetoric: first, "since it knows nothing of the more
important matters, it merely bubbles with a mighty torrent of
words," and second, its context is entirely "political."266 Rhetoric is a
political instrument, but by itself it can only "bubble" without pur-
pose because it is ignorant of "the more important matters." Unless
it is guided by some higher wisdom, it can serve only the interests of
the moment. 267 However, precisely that which rhetoric lacks, namely
knowledge of "more important matters," is what the philosopher
possesses and can contribute to the practice of political oratory. In
other words, the essential deficiency of rhetoric can be overcome
only by the guidance of the philosopher. Consequently, only the
philosopher can employ rhetoric properly.268 However, he is limited
by the nature of rhetoric itself to a political context. He can therefore
either make philosophy political, or make political rhetoric philo-
sophical.2 69 But why should the philosopher want to rescue political
oratory from its meaningless "bubbling"? Would such an effort not
entail the rescue of the entire political process? Surely a philosopher
has better things to do. That is, after all, one of the great dilemmas of
Plato's Republic.
However that may be, we must also note that philosophy by itself
is capable of speaking "sublimely" about its own subject matter, and
even without the aid of rhetoric it can use "a great variety of expres-
sions" to describe "the natures of beings" (cf. §11). In other words,
philosophy does not need rhetoric in order to pursue its own goals,
but does require its assistance when it enters the world of politics.
Therefore, only when philosophy addresses itself to non-philoso-
266 C. Lord, 'The Intention of Aristotle's 'Rhetoric',' pp. 333-334.

267 Cf. Plato, Gorgias 459d.
268 C[ Plato, Phaedrus 25ge, 261a; C. Lord, op. cit., p. 338.
269 Cf. Encomium in Praise ofJohn the Metropolitan of Euchaita (= Orationes Panegyricae 17)
226-230, on the combination of philosophy and rhetoric: "and the man who knows
both, but is ignorant of political affairs, is like a clashing cymbal, as the Apostle says,
unless he wants to remove himself far away from the State, for then only the one will
suffice for him, and I speak of philosophy, of course." Much can be said concerning
Psellos' use of the passage from I Corinthians 13.1 here. For philosophy and politics
see also When He Renounced the Dignity of Protoasecretis (= Oratoria Minora 8) 121 ff., esp.
131-134. Cf. C. Haas, Alexandria in Late Antiqui~y, pp. 310-311, for a less ambitious
example from antiquity of such "political" philosophy.

130 PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC
phers, to the city, must it adorn itself "with the graces of artistic com-
position." Psellos' program is not the alliance of two equals. 270 Philos-
ophy remains the dominant partner, but requires rhetoric in order to
descend to the world of men from the universe beyond the heavens,
"if there should be" such a thing. This is the central teaching of the
Chronographia, and its far-reaching implications unfold beneath the
surface of the narrative and in the many digressions. In connection
with Psellos' views on the proper spheres of philosophy and rhetoric,
we might recall the judgment of antiquity, eloquently expressed by
Cicero, that "Socrates was the first to call philosophy down from the
heavens and set her in the cities of men."271 He was also the first
philosopher to be executed by his city on a charge of impiety. And to
create for philosophy the positive image that it has enjoyed since
then, his student Plato had to employ the most seductive and decep-
tive rhetoric.
As an afterthought, Psellos speaks briefly of Christian philosophy
(6.42.1-8). He claims that he had studied it more than its non-Chris-
tian counterparts, but the very brief mention it receives in his intel-
lectual autobiography (one sentence) belies his pious assertion. Even
if he had studied it more than ancient philosophy, which is unlikely,
we could still not conclude that he gave it any credence. For we
know that he had studied certain other disciplines extensively, only to
reject them as completely unfounded (cf: §18). In addition, he claims
that before his own revival of philosophy one could not find "even a
seed of wisdom in Greece or the barbarian lands" (6.37.7-8; cf: §18).
This statement does not reflect well on Orthodox theology, which
one could find in his time throughout the Greek lands, and in many
barbarian ones as well.
After this grudging inclusion of Christian "philosophy" among his
disciplines of expertise, Psellos quickly returns to his discussion of
Hellenic learning and implicitly discounts the importance of Chris-
tianity for his program of intellectual rebirth.
If I gathered a small part of wisdom, it came from no living fount;

finding the sources choked up, I had to open them and clean them out
270 For an example of the view that for Psellos rhetoric was "the equal partner of
philosophy," see H. Maguire, Art and Eloquence in Byzantium, p. 3.
271 Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 5.4.10.

myself, drawing out with great effort the stream [vii/-Lu] which had lain
in the depths (6.42.13-17).272
The word nama enjoyed an exalted position in the Christian vocabu-

lary, and could refer to the Gospel, the wine of the Eucharist, and
even baptism. 273 Yet in this passage it refers to the treasures of
ancient Greek culture that "had lain in the depths" for centuries.
One immediately wonders how their "sources" had come to be
"choked up." However that may be, Psellos bestows the word's posi-
tive connotations upon Hellenic culture, completely suppressing or
abandoning its specifically Christian uses. He thereby appropriates
the word for his own subversive purposes. We have to wonder, there-
fore, what he means exactly when he says in his Letter to Keroularios
(lines 102-3) that students from around the world came to imbibe the
nama that he imparted in his lectures. 274
This is not the first time that we have seen him alter the meaning
of words that had strong religious connotations. In his attack on the
monks, he uses the term "Naziraios" as a pejorative, whereas Christ-
ian authors had used it in a highly positive sense (cf. §10). These sub-
tle changes are in fact signs of Psellos' effort to propagate a new set
of values. The greatest transformations in society are signaled by
changes in the meanings of words. 275 In order to adapt his revolu-
tionary message to the beliefs and expectations of his contempo-
raries, and to make his values intelligible to them, he continues to
employ familiar language and images, but radically changes their
content. This shows that it was only the expression of his thought,
and not its essence, that was shaped by the culture he lived in. The
"innermost sanctuary" of his new temple contained neither cross nor
Bible, but only the nama of resurrected Hellenic wisdom (cf. §20).
272 Cf. Lecture to his Students, who could not follow the interpretation if the On Interpreta-
tion (= aratoria Minora 23) 29-30: "The labors of Plato and Aristotle suffice for me
for my theoretical creations. They gave birth to me and shaped me."
273 See G. W. H. Lampe ed., A Patristic Greek Lexicon, p. 897; cf. also my Introduc-
tion.
274 Also in an Oration bifore the Emperor Monomachos (= Orationes Panegyricae 6) 261-
264, 278-279. Cf. Plato, Timaeus 75e: "the nama of discourse that flows out and min-
isters to the mind is the most beautiful and excellent of all."
275 See J. H. Hexter, 'The Loom of Language and the Fabric of Imperatives,' for
a study of such reversals, and, of course, Thucydides 3.82-84. Psellos was aware of
their significance (cf. his Encomium in Praise if his Afother 59 If., citing Aristotle, Topics
lI2a32).

132 THE TRUE ~ATURE OF RHETORIC
20. THE TRUE NATURE OF RHETORIC
In his intellectual autobiography, Psellos indicates that he is primarily

a philosopher and secondarily an orator. \Vhen the narrative resumes,
he describes the manner of his introduction to the court of Constan-
tine IX Monomachos, in the early 1040's. At that time, however, he
did not reveal his true philosophical self. The friends who brought
him to the attention of the frivolous monarch had "emphasized the
grace of my language" (6.44.4-5). Psellos attributes the favorable
impression that he made upon the Emperor to his natural ability with
words: "I am told that my speech is beautiful, even when I am mak-
ing simple pronouncements, and, without my trying, certain natural
delights spring forth from there" (6.45.1-3). In other words, his great
rhetorical ability is a natural part of his ethos. He stresses the fact that
the favor he found with the Emperor was entirely due to his "beauti-
ful speech," while simultaneously re-affirming that in his own mind
rhetoric was secondary to something else: "It was this quality that first
[nponov] recommended me to the Emperor, and the grace of my
tongue became the forerunner of his initiation and a lustral sprinkling
before his entry into my innermost sanctuary ['tow £IlWV u(1)'tO)v]"
(6.45.5-8). The language of this passage, rich in religious and symbol-
ic meaning, offers us further insight into the aims of Psellos' program.
His introduction to the court is the most important move in his
career so far in the Chronographia. When speaking before the Emper-
or, Psellos hides his true philosophical nature behind a display of
rhetorical virtuosity. Nevertheless, he still calls rhetoric the "forerun-
ner" (npoopoIlO<;) of Constantine's "initiation," which is the same
word used by the Orthodox Church to describe John the Baptist, the
Forerunner of the Christ.27fi Just asJohn paved the way for someone
who was greater than himself, rhetoric prepares the "initiation"
(npo'tEAEW) of the Emperor into philosophy.277 Whereas John bap-
276 For the importance ofJohn the Baptist in the Byzantine Empire, see in gener-
al I. Kalavrezou, 'Helping Hands for the Empire: Imperial Ceremonies and the Cult
of Relics at the Byzantine Court,' pp. 70-72. For the playful use of Gospel words,
including the name of Prodromos, by twelfth-century authors, see P. Magdalino, TIe
empire rifManuel I Komneno5, 1143-1180, pp. 428-430.
m The same term is used by Psellos to describe his own first steps toward higher
education: Encomium in Praise rif his ,\father 338.

THE TRUE NATURE OF RHETORIC 133
tizedJesus before the latter began his ministry, rhetoric provided the
"lustral sprinkling" that preceded the Emperor's entry into Psellos'
"innermost sanctuary," his philosophical wisdom. 278 We thus see that
philosophy employs the rhetoric of religion when it speaks before
secular power. Consequently, in his first encounter with Psellos, Con-
stantine failed to understand the many-layered man before him.
':Just as the source of the excitement of those who are possessed by
God is invisible to other men, so too did he, through some sponta-
neous pleasure, almost kiss me; to such a great extent was he hanging
from my lips" (6.46.3-6; cf. 6.161). Both Psellos and the reader know
that he was primarily a philosopher. Yet h~ initially presented him-
self to the court as an orator. What was the purpose behind this
small deception? The digression on the relationship between rhetoric
and history (6.22-28) may help us to understand his strategy better.
To the casual reader, the digression encompassing sections 6.22-
28 appears to be nothing more than an extravagant apology for the
ensuing condemnation of a past patron and benefactor. Though dis-
tasteful, its sheer ingratitude is perhaps reassuring to the historian:
Psellos will not allow personal relationships and past favors to cloud
the objectivity of his narrative. Yet something more sinister lurks
between the lines of this apology.
Psellos begins by telling us that he had often been urged to write a
history of contemporary events. But he had always hesitated, alleged-
ly because he could not choose among the following distasteful cours-
es of action: he would either suppress the actions of certain individu-
als, or distort them in the telling and thus write fiction, or reveal the
truth about them and invite the accusation of being a "scandalmon-
ger" (6.22.15-20). Right from the start, therefore, Psellos implies that
whatever scandals he happens to relate are true. He then tells us that
the individual whose scandals he might want to keep secret is the
Emperor Constantine IX .Monomachos, who had greatly benefited
him in the past and was therefore worthy of an encomium on the
grounds of gratitude (6.23). In other words, the moral demands of
gratitude, which call for the arts of rhetoric, and the scholarly or
philosophical demands of history seem to be at odds. Whereas histo-
ry seeks to expose and record the truth, however scandalous, the pur-
278 Note that ltEPlppaVnlPla can refer to baptism (cf. G. W. H. Lampe ed., A Patris-
tic Greek Lexicon, p. 1070).

134 THE TRUE NATURE OF RHETORIC
pose of encomium is something different, perhaps entirely differ-

ent.279
Psellos continues his apology by noting that he had already written
a number of encomia in praise of Constantine. 2So In the following
passage he attempts to defend their veracity, although, as we shall
see, he really does exactly the opposite.
Before I undertook the composition of this work I had written many

beautiful speeches in his honor. The majority admired the richness of
those encomia, and there were no lies among my praises. But I failed
to achieve the same success with the others. For they, given that Impe-
rial affairs arc a mixture of things, as an Emperor's worse and better
deeds arc always intertwined, neither know how to condemn unam-
biguously nor how to praise with sincerity, because the conjunction of
the opposites leads them astray ... But when I compose encomia, I am
not accustomed to using everything indiscriminately, but setting aside
the worse, I choose the best and arrange it in proper order (6.25.6-18).
We must look at this passage very carefully, for the surface argument
in defense of Psellos' encomia really contains the seeds of its own
demise. Psellos claims that "the majority admired the richness of
those encomia," yet he neither refutes nor denies the argument of
"the others" against the praiseworthiness of his encomia. Their major
premise, "that Imperial affairs are a mixture of things," is in fact one
of the pillars of Psellos' own wicked doctrine. Accordingly, he states it
as though it were a fact, and not merely the view of a confused and
marginal group of people. Not only does he not refute their premise,
two sections later he develops it at greater length and gives it his full
support (6.27; cf. §5). Furthermore, it is not at all clear who these
"others" are. The notions that Psellos ascribes to them seem foreign
to the way Byzantines thought about Imperial rule, but very similar
to his own way of thinking about it. According to him, those "others"
can neither "condemn [\jIEynv] unambiguously" nor "praise
[E1tatW:tV] with sincerity." But was it not Psellos himself who said
about the crimes of the ambitious and able Michael Paphlagon, "I
279 By late antiquity, many authors held this view. The key text in the Greek tra-
dition was Lucian's How History Should be rl1ritten, but the view became commonplace:
see, e.g., Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 1.1; Agathias, The Histories, preface 17-20. For
the distinction between the aims of encomium and history in the Latin literature of
that period, see S. MacCormack, 'Latin Prose Panegyrics,' pp. 152-153; for Cicero,
see P. A. Brunt, 'Cicero and Historiography,' pp. 184, 199-202.
2HO These are still extant: Orationes Panegyricae 1-10.

cannot praise [E1tmVEtv] such behavior, but neither can I condemn

['I'£YEtv] it"? (4.6.5)
It seems that Psellos may secretly endorse the view of the critical
few against that of the admiring many. In a later passage, when
denying that he could have known the date of Constantine IX's
death in advance, Psellos specifically tells us that "the many" gave
him more honors than he deserved (6A.1O.6-7).281 By supporting the
argument of the few, Psellos thereby condemns his own encomia as
unworthy of admiration by those who understand the true natures of
rulers hip and rhetoric. The defense of his own encomia is a smoke-
screen, behind which philosophy can again assert control over its
indispensable but dangerous tool, Greek rhetoric.
Let us then scrutinize his argument for the veracity of his encomia,
and compare it to statements he makes elsewhere on the topic of
praise. For Psellos would have us believe here that the composition
of a eulogy involves nothing more than the separation of good and
bad qualities, and the "weaving" of the former "into praise of the
highest quality" (6.25.18-19). According to this theory, one could not
write a eulogy of a thoroughly bad subject, while, on the other hand,
the contents of a eulogy are true but merely one-sided. Psellos, mas-
ter of the art of rhetoric and high priest of logos, who did indeed write
encomia of thoroughly bad subjects,282 ought to know better. In fact,
he later tells us that he does.
His argument for the veracity of his encomia stands or falls with
the assumption that distortion can arise only from the selection of the
material. He claims that this rhetorical strategy creates true praise,
though not a complete picture of the subject. But Psellos is perfectly
aware that even this technique can lead to absurd and laughable
results. In section 6.131 he tells us that despite all of his physical suf-
fering, Constantine IX "never once cried out blasphemously against
God ... And if someone set aside everything else that this Emperor
did and considered only this aspect of his character, surely he would
pronounce him a divine r8EtOV] man." Without directly lying, and
simply by picking the right things to say, rhetoric can transform a
281 Cf. Lucian, op. cit. 10-11, on the distinction between "the many" who uncriti-
cally praise false encomia and the critical "few" who see through the lies.
282 Cf. Oratoria Minora 27-29, esp. 28.120-122: "It was not my intention to com-
pose an encomium in praise of lice (I am not that crazy!), but rather to show to you
the power of logos."

frivolous hedonist into a holy man. 283 Psellos weaves this cautionary
note into the narrative of the Chronographia to warn us against taking
his own panegyrical and hagiographic works too seriously. An
alleged saint may turn out to be a mediocrity like Constantine
Monomachos.
Biased selection of the material, however, is hardly the sole cause
of rhetorical distortion. Psellos' defense of his own encomia is weaker
still, for it was widely recognized in antiquity and Byzantium that
rhetoric could even make the bad look good. "Making the weaker
speech appear the stronger" was the main charge directed against
the new art when it made its appearance in the Athenian court-
rooms. 284 By the later Roman period, when the conventions of
Byzantine rhetoric assumed their final form, the chief function of the
encomium was to exalt men who held power by enumerating their
many virtues in a highly ornate and artificial language. Professional
manuals explained how to praise and flatter in proper form. But the
final products rarely contained anything beyond mere propaganda,
and were usually just lies. The orators themselves knew exactly what
they were doing, as is attested by abundant sources. 28 '> No one con-
fused courtly panegyric with the truth, least of all Psellos, who was
fully aware of the controversial nature of his rhetorical skills. Not sur-
prisingly, later in Book 6 he gives us an expanded presentation of the
powers of rhetorical deceit.
The encomiast sets aside all the bad qualities of his hero, and weaves
his encomium by using only the best of his deeds. And even if bad
qualities are in the majority, it is enough for the orator that the person
he is praising conducted himself nobly on only one occasion: this will
suffice for a eulogy. Through sophistic devises he can even misinter-
pret base deeds and create an occasion for praise out of them
(6.161.6-12).
2113 "Indeed, encomium is, in all important respects, secular hagiography" (R.
Jenkins, 'The Hellenistic Origins of Byzantine Literature,' p. 51).
2114 Cf. G. E. R. Lloyd, l\1agic, Reason and Experience, p. 99, with citations to ancient
sources.
211, Our best extant manuals ofpaneg-yrical composition from late antiquity are the
treatises of Menander, who "seems to have a cynical view of how to manipulate fact,
fiction and rhetoric to present the optimum picture of the subject" (S. N. C. Lieu
and D. Montserrat, From Constantine to]ulian, p. 161). Cf. Augustine, Confossions 6.6.9,
and On Christian Doctrine 4.2, for some candid and revealing comments on the rhetor-

At this point Psellos' defense of his encomia in praise of Constantine

completely collapses. The reader who collates his statements on the
topic of rhetorical distortion realizes that works of a rhetorical nature
cannot be trusted at all. Psellos has withdrawn all nobility from the
art of rhetoric by revealing that its very purpose is to distort the
truth, often in the pursuit of servile ends (cf. 1.29). He thus indirectly
confesses that as an orator at the court of Constantine IX he was no
better than all those who went to flatter the Emperor Michael IV
Paphlagon on the day of his ascension "with false praises" (4.2.20-
21). But perhaps his ends justified the use of such disgraceful means.
However that may be, Psellos concludes the digression on rhetoric
and history with a highly rhetorical passage, which exhibits all the
unedifying characteristics of the art that produced it.
Forgive me, divine soul, if I speak immoderately about your reign,

revealing everything and telling the truth. You must pardon me for
this. For I will hide none of your noble deeds, but will lead them all
out into the daylight (6.28.4-8).
None of the alleged noble deeds of Constantine are related in Book

6, whereas accusations of incompetence and petty immorality
abound. The first words of the next section set the tone of the ensu-
ing historical narrative: "When this man took control of the state, he
behaved with neither moderation nor caution ... " (6.29.1-2). It has
ical tradition that Byzantium inherited from late antiquity; Basil of Caesarea, To
Young Men, On How Thf!Y Can Benefit From Greek Literature 4, on the orators' "art of
lying"; and Agathias, The Hiftories, preface 17-20. We know that the EmperorJulian
was thoroughly insincere when he wrote orations in honor of his cousin Constantius,
whom he hated as the murderer of his family (P. Athanassiadi, Julian: An Intellectual
Biography, p. 61 If.). Also compare Prokopios' Buildings, a thoroughly rhetorical piece,
with his Secret History, which reveals his true sentiments. For an attack on the men-
dacity of rhetoric, see Lucian, How History Should be Tl1ritten, from before our period,
but still a widely read work. From Byzantium, we have the similarly cynical views of
Tzetzes, Michael Choniates, and Constantine Manasses, described in P. Magdalino,
'Byzantine Snobbery,' pp. 61, 66, 69; idem. 'The Fourth Kingdom and the Rhetoric
of Hellenism,' pp. 119-120. G. T. Dennis can also "question the sincerity of these
orators," especially Psellos and Manuel Holobolos ('Imperial Panegyric: Rhetoric
and Reality,' p. 134); cf. also John Mauropous, Poem 96; and perhaps Kekaumenos,
Strategikon 20. This pervasive cynicism is completely ignored by S. G. MacCormack
in her otherwise brilliant study on Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity. This is because
she wants to use the evidence of the panegyrists "to enter into the minds of men in
the past" (p. 14), and those minds are not supposed by the current axioms of cultur-
al studies to have been disenchanted and cynical like our own. Note how she dis-
misses the explicit testimony of Augustine ("Augustine's prejudice") as though he
were a modern scholar! (pp. 1-2).

often been noted that despite the conciliatory words of sections 6.22-
28, Book 6 contains a stinging indictment of Constantine's reign. 286
This is not the first promise that we have seen Psellos break.
The disclosure of the dishonest nature of rhetoric casts a sinister
light on Psellos' actions at the court of Constantine IX. For, as we
have seen, he became that Emperor's most trusted confidant only
through the beauty of his logos: "other men had access to him only on
limited occasions and for limited amounts of time, but the gates of
his heart were opened for me, and after a short while he began to
reveal all his secrets to me" (6.46.6-9). Psellos has already moved
very close to the center of political power. His own rise and the polit-
ical narrative of the Chronographia are beginning to converge. But are
these recollections merely the colorful memoirs of an ambitious
courtier? In the words that immediately follow, he hints that some-
thing more than mere autobiography is at stake.
And let no one blame me if I have digressed just a bit from the main
purpose of my history, or consider that this digression is nothing but
autobiography. This has been done to some extent, but everything I
say contributes to the theme of my work (6.46.9-13, my italics).
We are left wondering whether the "theme" of the Chronographia is

the succession of Byzantine Emperors and their policies, which lies
on the surface of the text, or the rise of Psellos himself and the rela-
tionship between rhetoric and philosophy in his thought and career.
It is no coincidence that many of the text's theoretical digressions,
which have so perplexed modern commentators, are of an autobio-
graphical nature. 287 For at a time when philosophy lay moribund (cf.
6.37.5-9), the rise of Psellos and the revival of philosophy, i.e., the
philosopher's intellectual biography and the restoration of the proper
balance between nous and logos, constitute the same narrative. 28B For
2Rfi Cf. esp. R. Anastasi, Studi sulia "Chronographia" di Michele Pselio, c. I.

287 E.g.,j. M. Hussey, 'Michael Psellus, The Byzantine Historian,' p. 87: "it is this
intrusion of the personal element which leads him into such long digressions"; cf.
also G. Misch, 'Die Bruchstiicke einer Autobiographie des byzantinischen Hof-
philosophen Michael Psellos,' p. 773 on the importance of the digressions for the
overall understanding of the work. Psellos himself has a digression on the impor-
tance of his own digressions, which, he implies, are more important than the digres-
sions of other historians (6.70). This passage repays careful study.
288 Cf. the middle of Plato's Phaedo, and the relationship between philosophy and
the person of Socrates in his Apology: T. G. West, Plato's Apology of Socrates. An
Interpretation, p. 160.

the first time in Greek literature, the Chronographia unites autobiogra-

phy and political narrative, and it does so under the auspices of the
highest philosophical concerns. 289
But why is the theme of rhetoric so prominent in Psellos' digres-
sions? After all, we have seen that in its essence it is nothing but a
mendacious instrument that serves the courtier's selfish aims, or those
of his master. Yet what if those aims are not merely selfish? Psellos,
the herald of a new political philosophy, repeatedly advertises the fact
that it was his rhetorical skills that gained him the affection of mon-
archs. Not only that, he actually gives advice on how to use those
skills most effectively to manipulate powerful people at court. Perhaps
he is making a deeper point about the purpose of the alliance between
rhetoric and philosophy, while simultaneously instructing his future
philosophical followers on how to gain influence and power.
The supreme principle of the successful orator, and consequently
of the successful courtier, is first presented in a simile in Book 4. The
Empress Zoe adapted to her new life under Michael IV Paphlagon
just as good orators should be willing and able "to adapt to different
persons and different conditions" (4.16.23-25).290 This theme is
developed extensively in Book 6, with continual reference to the rise
of Psellos himself and the activities of other unnamed courtiers (who
may well turn out to be Psellos himself, incognito). Our author notes
that in order to gain the ear of Constantine IX,
those who spoke with him had to accommodate themselves to his

desires and views. If someone wanted to present a serious matter, he
did not raise it immediately, but prefaced it with some jokes, or mixed
his serious concern with such playful remarks (6.33.10-13).
As Psellos surely realized from his knowledge of classical literature,

the value of this advice is not limited to the circumstances of the
289 A. Kazhdan has claimed that it is only in the History of the fourteenth-century
Emperor John Kantakouzenos - by no means a philosopher .~ that "the active inter-

vention of the author attains its apogee" ('L'Histoire de Cantacuzene,' p. 285). The
Chronographia, in my view, takes priority. Xenophon's Anabasis is still a mystery to me.
A number of scholars have already regarded the Chronographia as a primarily or
mostly autobiographical document, e.g., R. Anastasi, Studi sulla "Chronographia" di
Michele Psello; and G. Misch, 'Die Bruchstiicke einer Autobiographie des byzantini-
schen Hofphilosophen Michael Psellos.'
290 Cf. Plato, Phaedrus 271 d-272b; Cicero, Orator 8.24, 35.123, and Eunapios' com-
ments on the character of the greatest orator of late antiquity, Libanios (Lives if the
Philosophers and Sophists 495-6).

Byzantine court. Witness Francis Bacon, aspiring courtier and mas-

ter rhetorician, and, along with Machiavelli, co-founder of modern
philosophy:
When you have anything to obtain of present dispatch, you entertain

and amuse the party with whom you deal with some other discourse,
that he be not too much awake to make objections. I knew a counselor
and secretary that never came to Queen Elizabeth of England with bills
to sign, but he would always first put her into some discourse of estate,
that she might the less mind the bills (TIe Essays, 'Of Cunning,' p. 126).
Psellos lists some of the other techniques employed by his kind to

gain the Emperor's favor (6.55), and gives general advice on how to
flatter rulers (6.74). The Senators knew how to please the empty-
headed Constantine: they "used all those very pleasant words that
flatter, or deceive, a superficial and vain soul" (6.58.12-13). But the
court was more than just the Emperor. Psellos explains what one had
to do in order to win over the Empress Zoe (6.157-158). The most
impressive incident he records concerns an unnamed courtier, "a
subtle flatterer" (6.61.8), who whispered one half of a Homeric verse
to the Emperor's mistress Skleraina.
Surely there is no blame ...

He received his reward when Skleraina later asked him to recite the
remainder of the flattering quotation:
... on Trojans and strong-greaved Achaeans

if for long time they suffer hardship for a woman like this one
(Iliad 3.156-157; Lattimore tr.).
The "subtle flatterer" may well have been Psellos himself, who claims
that he was present on the occasion. Note that both the flatterer and
Psellos assume that their audience can complete the quotation from
memory (the Chronographia, unlike the present discussion, does not
give the conclusion of the verse).2'l1 And, we may note, Psellos tells us
openly that "my narrative has passed over in silence many absurd
events, which would bring shame upon the author" (6.150.10-12).
Book 6 is ostensibly about the reign of Constantine IX Monoma-
291 cr. P. Careios, 'Die Autoren der zweiten Sophistik und die Chronographie des
Michael Psellos,' p. 134.

A RHETORICAL PERFORMANCE 141
chos. In reality, it is about the complex relationship between the art

of rhetoric, courtly politics, and the pursuit of truth through philoso-
phy and history. For as in philosophy, "truth is of the greatest impor-
tance in history" (6.26.4, also 6.161), even though both may contain
their truths hidden and disguised. But for this, rhetoric is indispens-
able. Accordingly, in Book 6 resurgent philosophy exposes the truth
about its necessary and mendacious ally, before their alliance is con-
summated in the establishment ofPsellos' new order at the Byzantine
court.
21. A RHETORICAL PERFORMANCE
Having exposed the truth about rhetoric, Psellos gives us in Book 6 a

practical demonstration of its methods and the degree of fraudulence
that it can attain.
Section 6.161 begins with a bald lie: "it was not my desire to write
a history, nor to be called a lover of truth because of any such work,
but rather I wanted to write encomia for this Emperor." This state-
ment directly contradicts the aims declared in the important digres-
sion of sections 6.22-28, which introduce Psellos' historical account
of the reign of Constantine IX. At the end of that digression, he
promises to "reveal everything and tell the truth" (6.28.6), and what
he records afterwards about Constantine's reign is far from flattering.
The beginning of section 6.161, which now promises an encomium,
serves to signal a change in approach. Psellos is about to compose a
eulogy, but he will do so in a manner that exposes its secret work-
ings, the ugly entrails that lay concealed beneath the polished and
beautiful surface. He will show us exactly what rhetoric really is by
giving us a practical demonstration of it, though his effort will be
half-hearted. He will leave the edifice incomplete, with the scaffold-
ing still attached to one section, the mere framework finished III
another. And the foundations are left weak, for Psellos intends to
condemn even as he pretends to praise. 292
292 R. Anastasi, Studi sulla "Chronographia" di Michele Psello, p. 14 ff.

142 A RHETORICAL PERFORMANCE
He begins by again contrasting history and encomium. History

must be impartial and truthful, whereas encomium is not bound in
this respect at all (6.161.6-17). Psellos audaciously adduces the con-
demnation of his Imperial benefactor as a sign of the objectivity of
the Chronographia. In the next section (6.162), he claims openly that he
cannot compose an encomium in praise of Constantine based on his-
torical fact. But at this point, Psellos the philosophical historian falls
silent and Psellos the orator begins to weave his web of lies. He com-
poses a eulogy for the man whom his history has just condemned.
We are invited to compare the praises contained in that eulogy with
the indictments and accusations contained in the history.
Constantine, Psellos tells us now, may have lagged behind the
great men of history in the few respects in which they surpassed
mankind, but he outdid them in all other respects, where they were
generally given over to vice (6.163-164). In other words, he could not
compete with their virtues, and it was only his mediocrity that pre-
vented him from having comparable vices. Yet the virtues that Psel-
los adduces to prove that Constantine was not as bad as those heroes
at their worst directly contradict his evaluation of that Emperor in
the historical narrative. He now calls Constantine sharp-witted, alert,
and capable of controlling his anger (6.164.4-6), but earlier he had
called him a "fool" (6.141.9), "superficial and vain" (6.58.13), and
claimed that he was totally indifferent to everything that went on
around him (6.97). As for his alleged ability to control his anger, it
failed him in the most decisive moment, when he ordered the blind-
ing of Leo Tornikios and John Vatatzes, in direct violation of the
powerful oaths he had sworn previously that he would pardon both
men (6.122-123).
Section 6.165 is a model of rhetorical verbiage that says absolutely
nothing, but encomia frequently depend on such passages, especially
when the subject matter is not promising. Though ostensibly praising
Constantine for indulging and rewarding both parties in legal dis-
putes, Psellos implies that he could not render clear verdicts, thus
leaving both sides unsure as to who had won. Section 6.166 depicts a
travesty of the virtue of Imperial mercy. Although ostensibly praising
the Emperor's compassion, Psellos really condemns his habit of par-
doning men who had conspired to kill him. The Emperor's coun-
cilors advised him to punish those (presumably unrepentant) individ-
uals, and warned him that he might otherwise end up being mur-
dered. We know that Psellos himself urged Constantine to take more

A RHETORICAL PERFORMANCE 143
effective measures for his own protection against assassins (6.132-

133). But the Emperor did not take the trials of his bitter political
enemies at all seriously.
Psellos then recounts Constantine's hollow determination to pun-
ish blasphemers, which was undermined by Psellos' own tactful inter-
vention (6.167-168; cf. §17). He praises Constantine's liberality, but
elsewhere reveals that that very liberality was responsible for the ruin
of the Roman State (see, e.g., 6.29, 48, 62-64, 7.55). He also relates
an episode in which the Emperor took it upon himself to pay a large
fine imposed upon a man for embezzling State funds- "a decision
by Themis" indeed! (6.170-172; cf. 7C.2.7-l3)
Psellos then interrupts his half-hearted encomium to ensure that
the reader understands what is going on: "One could say such things
about this Emperor. A historical account might reject them, but a
powerful orator whose goal is to praise the man would not leave
them out of his encomium" (6.173.1-5). We are again reminded that
whereas history has nothing favorable to say about Constantine IX,
rhetoric, which is not limited by the truth, can invent praise whole-
sale. Our instructor of rhetoric gives us more examples of what an
orator might say. Constantine took gardening very seriously and
devoted much of his time and energy to it (6.173-174).293 Psellos
declares that he himself considers such activities unworthy of a ruler,
but
another man, one who admired their outward beauty, might praise
the Emperor's magnificence and say whatever else is necessary to con-
vince his audience, for instance that Constantine's mind was so flexi-
ble that he could divide his life between work and play (6.175.4-8; cf.
also 6.181: what an orator might say to present Constantine's dismissal
of Constantine Leichoudes in a good light).
Psellos proceeds to develop the arguments of that "other man," who

is of course the orator. He praises Constantine's frivolous activities,
and compares his landscape designs to the works of the Creator God
in Plato's Timaeus ...
In these passages Psellos cleverly shifts between many different
voices, those of the courtier and the orator, the historian and the
293 For Imperial gardens, including those of Constantine, see in general A. R. Little-
wood, 'Gardens of the Palaces.'

144 A RHETORICAL PERFORMANCE
philosopher. 294 He knows the capabilities of each well, but also their
limitations. Philosophy seeks the truth, although circumstances often
constrain it to teach it in a secretive and obscure manner. Rhetoric
enables clever men to lie in order to persuade others, or to win the
favor of rulers. By interweaving them together, Psellos instructs us
about the different levels of discourse that structure the Chronographia.
Even though he based his worldly success and social status on his
rhetorical skills, and used them extensively to disguise the true nature
of his philosophy, Psellos was nevertheless perfectly clear in his own
mind about his ultimate allegiance. He brings this section of his work
to a close by speaking in what can only be his most sincere voice,
that of the philosopher.
When I say things like this I am hardly exerting the full power of the
art of rhetoric and persuasion. If one were willing to perfect such a
presentation, he could then be able to convert every listener and every
soul to his point of view. But I do not consider the deeds that I have
mentioned to be worthy of praise, and I hate the arts of speech that
distort the truth (6.176).291
This rare moment of candor is our only indication that Psellos' con-
science was not entirely at ease with the intellectually compromising
demands of the life he had chosen to lead. There are many lies in the
Chronographia and there must have been many more in his life.
He then returns to "true history" and to more condemnations of
Constantine (6.177.1). Thereafter, "truth" is openly contrasted to
"rhetoric" (6.203.9).296
Psellos gives us two versions of Constantine IX Monomachos in
the Chronographia, one historical and negative, the other rhetorical
and positive. He tells us to believe the former, but includes the latter
for reasons central to the main theme of his narrative. He wants to
teach us about the true nature of rhetoric before he proceeds to con-
summate its alliance with his newly revived political philosophy.
2Y4 G. Misch, probably confused by the alternating presence of multiple genres in

the Chronographia, arrives at the completely mistaken view that Psellos never fully dif-
ferentiated the task of the historian from that of the encomiast (,Die Bruchstilcke
einer Autobiographic des byzantinischen Hofphilosophen Michael Psellos,' p. 778).
295 Cf. Lucian, How History Should be Written 7.
296 C[ A. Rambaud, 'Michel Psellos. Philosophe et homme d'etat byzantin,' p.
281: "Ministre de plusieurs empereurs, illes adule dans ses panegyriques et les traite
severement dans ses memoires."

THE REDEMPTION OF RHETORIC 145
22. THE REDEMPTION OF RHETORIC
Near the end of Book 6, in a passage we will examine shortly, Psellos

recapitulates some of the main themes of the Chronographia. He
repeats that despite his posture at court he was really a philosopher,
more so than others who were merely students of philosophy.
Immodestly contrasting himself to his friends John Xiphilinos and
John Mauropous, he claims that they were only "lovers of philoso-
phy" while he "was a genuine philosopher" (6.192.7-8).297
Nevertheless, the purity of Psellos' philosophical vocation was
compromised by his life at court, which required him to rely heavily
on his rhetorical abilities, including "artful insinuations and tech-
niques, persuasions, and deceits" (7.39.4-6). Instead of contemplating
"the natures of beings," he was forced to entertain foolish monarchs
with the elegance of his speech. However, there was nothing selfless
about his decision to stay at court and accept that consequence. For
we soon realize that he used the influence which rhetoric gave him to
promote his philosophical agenda.
Even if it means boasting a little about my natural abilities, I can say

that I became all things to the Emperor, and although I lived as much
as was possible the life of philosophy, I used the art of rhetoric to har-
monize myself to him. For he tired quickly of all the things that seized
his fancy, and constantly sought new diversions ... For this reason, I
would expound philosophical theories to him, discoursing on the First
Cause and the Universal Good, on virtue and the soul... When I saw
that he was growing tired of such lectures and desirous of more pleas-
ant diversion, I would pick up the lyre of rhetoric and enchant him
with the harmony of my words; through the rhythm of the art of
rhetoric I would lead him to a new conception of virtue ... Rhetoric
does not merely adorn itself with plausible lies and ambiguous argu-
ments, it is also inspired by an exact Muse. On the one hand, it phi-
297 Modern scholars have unanimously disagreed, e.g., L. Clucas, TIe Trial qfJohn
Italos and the Crisis qf Intellectual Values in Byzantium in the Eleventh Century, p. 129: "Psel-
los was more of an enthusiast for philosophy and philosophical ideas than a philoso-
pher in the true sense" (also pp. 167, 172-173). But the standards employed here are
those established by modern professors of philosophy: "Italos, on the other hand,
was primarily a philosopher in the sense that the issues which he addressed were
almost entirely philosophical issues, and the method he applied to explore or resolve
them was primarily syllogistic" (p. 139). By these standards, the majority of Plato's
works are not philosophical.

146 THE REDEMPTION OF RHETORIC
losophizes with abstract concepts, and yet it also beautifies language,

thus winning over the listener by these two means (6.197).
The first sentence of this passage may contain an allusion to St Paul's

claim that in order to convert the world to the new faith he had "to
become all things to all men" (1 Corinthians 9.22).298 If so, the com-
parison highlights the revolutionary nature of Psellos' aims, but also
reveals how his strategy differed from Paul's, in that it was more
focused tactically: Psellos had "to become all things" to only one
man, the Emperor, for he controlled the resources of the highly cen-
tralized Byzantine State. No intellectual movement could hope to
succeed in Byzantium if the Imperial administration firmly opposed
it, whereas success in the capital and Imperial patronage promised,
though without guaranteeing, great influence over the culture of the
Empire as a whole. Psellos was not interested in converting the peo-
ple; he merely sought to gain the support of those who possessed the
power to protect and promote the life of true philosophy in Byzan-
tium. And, like Socrates, he also wanted access to the impressionable
minds of the nobility's sons.
The interests of ancient philosophy could not be advanced by pop-
ular appeals. Socrates ultimately failed to convince a majority of
Athenian citizens to tolerate his absolute and uncompromising devo-
tion to the philosophic life. 299 But in private conversation, he could
persuade ambitious men to abandon their most cherished ancestral
traditions, and even to establish the rule of the philosophers, in order
to found the most perfect kind of new city.300 Accordingly, the
Athenian Stranger in Plato's Laws argues that a philosopher who
wants to introduce a new political order is most fortunate if he
encounters a strong and able tyrant and manages to convert him to
the new cause. For
if a tyrant wishes to change a city's habitual ways, he doesn't need to

exert great efforts or spend an enormous amount of time. What he has
298 Michael Choniates applied this same passage from St Paul to his brother Nike-
tas, the famous historian (Monody for his brother Niketas Choniates 51): "Thus he became
all things to all people: a protector of the unprotected, a guardian husband to wid-
ows, a father to orphans," etc. For a more conventional use of the passage, see Igna-
tios the Deacon, Lift if the Patriarch Tarasios 63.
299 Cf. Plato, Apology if Socrates 29c ff.
300 Cf. Plato, Gorgias 474a-b. The motives of the founders are different from the
motives of the philosophers who guide them.

to do is first proceed himself, along the route he would like the citizens
to turn toward, whether it be toward the practices of virtue or the
opposite. He need only first trace out a model in his own conduct of
all that is to be done, praising and honoring some things while assign-
ing blame to others, and casting dishonor on anyone who disobeys in
each of the activities ... There will never be a quicker or easier way for
a city to change its laws than through the hegemony of all-powerful
rulers. This is the case now and it will always be so (Laws 71 Oe fT.).
The Roman Empire converted to the religion of the Christian bish-

ops only when the Emperor Constantine I championed their cause
by granting them extraordinary honors and initiating the persecution
of their opponents. The success of Psellos' plan, unlike that of Paul,
depends on the conversion of a single man, which begins in the
Chronographia with the seduction of the Emperor Constantine IX by
means of rhetoric. As the poetic nature of Plato's works suggests, if a
philosopher wants to rule over the city he must first learn how to
charm its rulers. 3Dl Thus the highest purpose of rhetoric is to pave
the way for the nama of Psellos' "innermost sanctuary," the radical
teachings of his philosophy, which a mediocrity like Constantine
Monomachos was unlikely to heed in their unadorned form. It
seems, therefore, that Psellos' rhetoric combines the qualities of two
great propagandists of Christ (in the original sense), John the Baptist
and St Paul. It is the "forerunner" of his philosophy, and heralds the
resurrection of a new truth. But this is a truth that has been brought
back from "the depths" by the philosopher himself.
In the passage quoted above, taken from the end of the account of
Constantine's reign, we see Psellos employing the skills and insights
of classical rhetoric to teach the Emperor philosophy. Perceiving his
fickle character, he alternates between abstract philosophical dis-
course and entertaining rhetorical exhibitions. Is he not, as an orator
must, "adjusting to different persons and different conditions"?
(4.16.24-25) In order to adapt to Constantine's character, he mixes
serious business with playful remarks and pleasant discourse (cf.
6.33). Yet at the same time, as a true Platonist, he suggests that the
art of persuasion and deception is redeemed only by serving philo-
sophical ends, especially by changing the attitude of the powerful
301 Cf. the same approach recommended by the Cardinal Bessarion, a student of
Plethon and a Platonist (translated and discussed in J. Hankins, Plato in the Italian
Renaissance, pp. 231-2).

toward philosophy itself. For the art of rhetoric by itself is incapable

of generating societal or individual values. It can only advance caus-
es whose status as desirable goals has already been established by
other means. Psellos knows that the majority of courtiers used their
rhetorical skills to pursue only their own selfish advantage (1.29).
There is no doubt that he too belonged to that group, and he was
willing to acknowledge that many of his activities at court were self-
serving. But at the same time his own advantage was identical to that
of philosophy itself, for when he began his career he found it in a
state of complete ruin and neglect (6.37, 42-43). Thus the surface
narrative of the Chronographia and its hidden subtext converge. Psel-
los' transition from court orator to court philosopher is made openly
for the first time, in yet another "digression" of an autobiographical
nature.
This interpretation resolves one of the major apparent contradic-
tions of the Chronographia. In Book 6 rhetoric is presented as both
ignorant "of the more important matters" and capable of "philoso-
phizing with abstract concepts," both "adorned with plausible lies"
and "inspired by an exact Muse." In some passages it is disparaged
while in others it is praised. It has been suggested that these various
statements were designed to serve the needs of the moment, as Psel-
los tailored his views to justify his changing political positions. 30 2 I
have argued instead that even though his views on rhetoric in the
Chronographia are never straightforward or unambiguous, they are
ultimately coherent, and evolve in accordance with the dramatic
context of the narrative. Psellos exploits the opportunities provided
by the historical narrative to reveal one aspect of the truth at a time,
and it is only after he has drawn a clear line between the deceitful-
ness of rhetoric and the aims of philosophy that he brings the two
together in the only possible alliance: philosophy must guide the
responsible deployment of rhetoric, but, on the other hand, it is con-
strained to adopt the techniques and language of rhetoric if it is to
become effective as "political" philosophy.303
It is in any case impossible to believe that Psellos could have been
1m C. Chamberlain (The Theory and Practice of Imperial Panegyric in Michael

Psellus. The Tension Between History and Rhetoric,' esp. pp. 17-18) speaks of the
"special interests" which "biased" Psellos' divergent views on the methods and pur-
pose of his rhetorical compositions.
101 Cf. C. Lord, The Intention of Aristotle's 'Rhetoric',' pp. 336-337.

SO thoroughly confused about the nature and function of rhetoric, an

art in which he excelled and which he had studied extensively from a
theoretical point of view. My analysis proceeds on the assumption
that the thoughts of an intelligent philosopher on "the more impor-
tant matters" should not be considered contradictory unless all other
possibilities have been exhausted. For apparent contradictions may
point toward hidden or implied teachings.
Psellos' flight from the court and the death of Constantine IX soon
afterwards temporarily interrupted his campaign of philosophical
conversion. Court factions prevented him from gaining ascendancy
over the regime of Theodora (6A.14). But her successor, Michael VI
Stratiotikos, an incompetent fool (6A.20, 7.56), apparently offered an
easy target to the seductive skills of the courtier. Psellos is found
"standing right next to the Emperor" (7.3.5) at the beginning of the
reign, when the delegation from the army arrived at court. Later,
when Michael realized too late that he was in danger of losing his
throne to the rebel Isaac Komnenos, he summoned his advisers to an
emergency council of State, including Psellos, "pretending that I had
been an old friend of his all along" (7.9). According to the Chrono-
graphia, that council was dominated by Psellos, who specified exactly
what Michael had to do in order to preserve his hold on the throne
(7.10). Even though his advice was not followed, this council repre-
sents a significant advance for all that Psellos represents, for it seems
that by this time he was considered a competent advisor on the most
important matters of State.
His greater political involvement in the abortive regime of
Michael VI Stratiotikos was complemented by a heightened appreci-
ation for his rhetorical skills. Constantine IX had been content to
receive flattering and eloquent encomia. On the single occasion
when he allowed Psellos to apply his skills to the practical business of
government (by delegating to him the composition of the official cor-
respondence with the ruler of Egypt: 6.190), he was displeased by the
obscurity that resulted from Psellos' sophistic attempts to secretly
exalt the Byzantine Emperor over his Egyptian counterpart (cf. §4).
Constantine eventually removed this responsibility from Psellos'
direction. But in his moment of greatest need, Michael VI sought the
assistance of those very rhetorical abilities, the extent of whose power
Constantine IX had failed to grasp. Michael entrusted to Psellos the
most serious political responsibility: "by my eloquence and sophistic
power I was to placate Isaac's soul and induce it to look upon

Michael favorably" (7.15.3-5).304 As was said of the fourteenth-centu-

ry humanist and statesman Coluccio Salutati, the power of one of his
letters "was worth a troop of horsemen."305 But even Michael VI did
not fully understand Psellos' true vocation and purpose. He sought
his help only because he too had been charmed, as the Emperor
himself put it, "by the honey of your lips" (7.16.7-9).
Thus begins Psellos' great adventure, his moment of danger and
triumph in the Chronographia. His narrative persona no longer merely
observes events, but henceforth participates fully at the highest lev-
el.3°6 During the embassy to the rebel leader Isaac Komnenos, all of
Psellos' skills are put to the test, and the ultimate failure of the
embassy's political objectives signals the success of his philosophical
mISSIOn.
The embassy is presented as fraught with danger. Psellos uses all
his literary skill to describe the disciplined arrangement of the rebel
troops and the fearsome way in which they chanted their war cries
when Michael's ambassadors entered Isaac's tent. One of Isaac's offi-
cers 307 "suddenly threw open the entrance in order to stun us with
the unexpectedness of the sight. For everything inside indicated that
this was a truly magnificent rebel force, and the sight was capable of
overawing anyone" (7.23.4-6). Isaac ordered that only one of the
three ambassadors should conduct the negotiations with him, and
the other two unhesitantly chose Psellos to do the talking, thus con-
travening their earlier resolution to "ask our questions together and
in the same way to receive his replies" (7.21.16-17).
Psellos dramatically sets the stage for his own performance. "I
quickly calmed the pounding of my heart and stepped into the mid-
dle, collected my wits, and ... began my speech" (7.26.5-8). That
speech, he tells us, was invested with all the subtlety of his rhetorical
powers. Once again, it was not the philosopher who stood forth, but
the student of Lysias. This was the crucial moment when his rhetori-
cal skills would attempt the seduction of yet another Emperor, only
:104 Cf. John Skylitzes, !iJnopsis 496.

305 Said by the Duke of Milan; in Epistolario di Coluccio Salutati, v. 4, pt. I, pp. 247-
248.
306 On the significance of this embassy for the narrative of the Chronographia, see G.
Misch, 'Die Bruchstilcke einer Autobiographic des byzantinischen Hofphilosophen
307 This was the rebel's brother John Komnenos, the father of the future Emperor
Alexios I Komnenos, who was born around this time.

now under the most dangerous circumstances. Although the other

members of the embassy offered to help him should he encounter
difficulties (7.26.4-5), their assistance was in fact never required. The
ensuing dramatic performance ultimately leads to the conversion of
Isaac on two levels. First, although he stood in a position of military
strength (emphasized before the account of the embassy: 7.15-17), he
agreed to the Emperor's terms, thus vindicating the political power
of Psellos' rhetorical skills. Second, he was persuaded to implement
Psellos' wider program, the details of which unfold later, in the
account ofIsaac's sole reign (cf. §24). Isaac thereby becomes the first
Emperor to accept Psellos as a philosopher.
After Psellos' introductory remarks, some soldiers began to shout
angrily in favor of Isaac's elevation to the throne, saying that they
would settle for nothing less than the full Imperial position. The
clamor they raised frightened their officers and even the rebel leader
into openly consenting to the demand. Only one man remained
unmoved: "I was in no way disturbed, for I had expressed myself
with the most sound logic, and besides I am the sort of man who
never quits a fight once it has started" (7.28.1-3). Undaunted, Psellos
repeated his main arguments and answered all the objections that
were raised against a compromise solution. His speech quieted the
troops and dominated the entire assembly. The turning point of his
victory occurs at the end of section 7.30, when Isaac "fell silent, for
he began to pay less attention to persuasive words and listened care-
fully to the truth." Isaac thus becomes the first Emperor in the
Chronographia to realize, however unselfconsciously, that Psellos was
more than just a persuasive orator. But even while he was signaling
his assent to Psellos' arguments, a few of his followers sought to ter-
rorize the ambassador by threatening to kill him. Yet he again with-
stood the commotion, and established his ascendancy over the
assembly and the new Emperor by "smiling at their words" (7.31.14-
15). Through his arguments and oratory, Psellos eventually gained
control of the army and its leader.
The embassy at first achieved a complete victory. Isaac accepted
the subordinate title of Caesar (7.32), while Michael VI in turn con-
ceded the terms requested by Isaac as preconditions for his coopera-
tion (7.33). Section 7.34 represents the pinnacle of the embassy's suc-
cess. It depicts both sides as having committed themselves to a rea-
sonable compromise made in good faith.
Psellos' stunning performance before the rebel army and its leader

is unique in the Chronographia. He depicts himself as overcoming

tremendous odds by relying solely on his wits and rhetorical ability.
Besieged by adversity and threatened with imminent failure, even
violent death, he nevertheless emerges triumphant, subduing the
riotous troops by the power of his arguments and gaining personal
influence over the grim rebel leader. His brilliant performance under
such conditions of duress clearly places Psellos among that "third
kind of people" whom we encountered near the beginning of our dis-
cussion (§3). Psellos claims that his generation never produced any
such men, but when we set his description of them next to his spec-
tacular achievement in Book 7, we realize that his denial is a lie,
whose purpose is to moderate the truth about the exceptional power
of his ethos.
There is also a third kind of people, who possess a much better soul.
Should trouble sneak up on them surreptitiously, they are not shown
to be unprepared, nor are they shaken, distressed, or subdued, by any
outside commotions. \Vhen all others have surrendered, they take an
unshakeable stand against all difficulties, relying not on material sup-
ports, but on the steadiness of their reason and their superior judg-
ment. 30Il But I have never met any people of this kind among my con-
temporaries (6.97.15-22; cf. §3 and Plato, Republic 381a and context;
Laws 711 d-e and context).
By now Psellos has discreetly arrogated to himself a number of cru-

cial political virtues. We have seen that he understands the causes
and consequences of great events and can thus forestall the political
disasters caused by the incompetence of lesser men (cf. §3); he can
predict the outcome of policies; and he possesses a practical skill that
can achieve spectacular political success without costing the State a
single gold coin. This skill, political oratory, has been disparaged
enough in the pages of the Chronographia. Yet its tendency to serve the
petty and selfish goals of courtiers is compensated by its ability to
promote the cause of genuine philosophy among society's rulers, who
are almost never philosophers themselves.
Despite the self-exaltation implicit in the above conclusions, Psellos
never suggests or hints that he himself was the right man for the
throne. Though intelligent, ambitious, and capable of manipulating
30B Cf. the challenge of Kallikles in Plato, Gorgias 484c-e; and the insightful com-
ments on this kind of man by Photios, Epistula 82.

others with ease, he never sought to elevate himself to the pinnacle of

political power. It was perhaps because he pursued the pinnacle of
human power instead that he undertook responsibilities vastly differ-
ent from those that were incumbent on an Emperor, and pursued dif-
ferent goals. In the first place, he knew that Emperors could not act in
secret, except with great difficulty (6.27.29-31). Furthermore, he
believed that the Empire required forceful military leadership in order
to survive and flourish. He could not be another Basil II, since war
was not one of his skills.309 It would therefore have been impractical
as well as unwise for him to seek the highest political position. Psellos
seems to have abandoned the ideal of the philosopher-kings advocat-
ed by Socrates in the Republic, in favor of a more subtle and indirect
form of philosophical rule. Throughout his political career, he
remained content to advise and influence Emperors on "the more
important matters," for the implementation of his wider program
required access to Imperial power, and, furthermore, his political
thought had serious implications for the exercise and proper function
of that power. The advertisement of his own political skills in deed
and in speech was designed to secure him that access. He invited
Emperors to use and even to exploit his skills for their own advantage.
Like Machiavelli, who also "desired to acquire favor with a Prince,"
Psellos placed his abilities at the service of the city's rulers, including
his "knowledge of the actions of great men, learned by me from long
experience with modern things and a continuous reading of ancient
ones."310 In a very important sense, therefore, the Chronographia is a
vast advertisement of Psellos' usefulness to the rulers of Byzantium. In
this connection, we can hardly exaggerate the importance of his abili-
ty to glorifY them with beautiful and ornate encomia, crowning their
reigns with the eloquence of Greek rhetoric. 77zat was a temptation
few Emperors could resist. 311 At the same time, however, he quietly
intended to manipulate them in turn in order to implement his own
goals. By gaining control of the ideology of the State he could shape
social policy and reform intellectual life. As Francis Bacon, one of the
philosophical founders of modernity, put it,
309 "For one cannot be a general and a mime at the same time" (Kekaumenos,
Strategikon 23).
Niccol6 Machiavelli, The Prince, dedicatory letter.
310
311Cf. W. Fisher, 'Beitrage zur historischen Kritik des Leon Diakonos und

154 THE REHABILITATION OF THE BODY
In civil actions he is far the greater and deeper politician that can
make other men the instruments of his ends and desires and yet never
acquaint them with his purpose (as they shall do what he wills and yet
not know that they are doing it), than he that imparts his meaning to
those he employs. 312
Perhaps Psellos had not abandoned the rule of the philosophers after
all.
The reign of Isaac in the Chronographia outlines the implementation
of Psellos' wider program, but before we can turn to it we must go
back and deal with a development in the text's broader philosophical
teaching. We may be forced to revise some of our earlier conclusions,
for, by the reign of Isaac, the balance of power in human affairs had
changed since the reign of Basil II. Philosophy had arisen from "the
depths," and secular power could not be allowed to ignore it.
23. POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY AND THE

REHABILITATION OF THE BODY
We have argued that the historical narrative of the Chronographia

envelops an esoteric teaching about the complex relationship
between rhetoric, philosophy, religion, and politics. Psellos' analysis
of that relationship is always oriented toward the eleventh-century
revival and consolidation of true philosophy, an event which corre-
312 Francis Bacon, OJ the Digniry and Advancement if Learning 3.4 (p. 511); cf.
Nietzsche, TIe Will to Power 998: "the highest men live beyond the rulers, freed from
all bonds; and in the rulers they have their instruments."
Scholars who have failed to appreciate the profound philosophical dimension of
Psellos' aims have understandably attributed the meanest motives to him; e.g., C.
Diehl, Byzance, grandeur et decadence, pp. 159-160: "he was the sycophant in every
regime ... he knew that his pen was a weapon, and he sold it," attributed to an
unnamed modern scholar, who is actually C. Neumann, Die Weltstellung des byzantini-
schen Reiches vor den KreuZZiigen, p. 92, cited often by other scholars, e.g., by G. Misch,
'Die Bruchstucke einer Autobiographie des byzantinischen Hofphilosophen Michael
Psellos,' p 764, n. 36. The accusation has been repeated often since, e.g., A. N. Dia-
mantopoulos, 'Review of E. Kurtz and F. Drexl,' p. 307: "he never managed to
transcend the narrow boundaries of personal self-interest." G. Ostrogorsky even
mentions his "abysmal moral depravity" (History if the Byzantine State, p. 327). I intend
to discuss the modern portrayal of Psellos' character at greater length elsewhere.

THE REHABILITATION OF THE BODY 155
sponded closely to his own rise to power. The consummation of the

esoteric argument of the Chronographia occurs in the account of the
reign of Isaac, with which the work originally ended. The various
threads of the subtext are there tied together. But before Psellos
describes the implementation of his ultimate aims, he slightly modi-
fies one of his previous positions. Before we proceed further, we must
examine this calculated revision, which allows the argument to make
the transition from Basil to Isaac, and to the reign of philosophy.
One of the most powerful officials in Theodora's administration
was Leo Paraspondylos.313 His title of synkellos314 indicates that he was
a churchman, and, like the monk John the Orphanotrophos (c£
4.14.8-12), he was also a highly ambitious politician. In his descrip-
tion of Leo's ethos, Psellos discusses the character traits that made him
undesirable as a top government official.
Most people found him unbearable, for he completely lacked the

political ethos, as I said earlier. There was nothing graceful about him,
and he was always awkward in conversation with those who came to
see him. All were made aware of the rudeness of his ethos, and he
turned down every petition ... His bad temper and fits of rage made
him vastly unpopular (6A. 7.2-8). 3!5
It seems that Psellos is criticizing nothing more than the inflexibility

and "bad temper" of one man. But just as in Book 3 where he moves
from a criticism of Romanos Ill's constructions to a wider attack on
the established religion (cf. §8), he now moves from a criticism of one
rude and arrogant minister to an attack on the zealous religiosity that
infected the "body politic" at the highest levels. 316 The religious
imagery he employs and the identity of the men he criticizes leave no
doubt that his true target is the religious aspect of Byzantine politics.
In the course of his attack on Leo, he subtly and ungraciously sug-
313 Or simply Spondylos; in any case, Psellos does not ever refer to him by name
in the Chronographia.
314 For which see John Skylitzes, ~nopsis 479-80; 486: protosynkellos; Michael
Attaleiates, History 52: uvopi 'ttVt tEpO)~EV<fl.
315 This view of Leo is shared by John Skylitzes, ~nopsis 486-7, but not by Michael
Attaleiates, History 52.
316 R. Anastasi also argued that the digression on Leo has a wider purpose than
the condemnation of one man's character (Studi sulla "Chronographia" di Michele Psello,
pp. 128-129). He suggested that Psellos' attack was the product not merely of politi-
cal factionalism, but of deeply held philosophical principles.

gests that individuals of inflexible faith should remove themselves

from the world of men.
Now I admire the firmness of such an attitude, but consider it more
suitable to eternity than to our times, to the afterlife rather than to the
present one. For I locate this absolute freedom from emotions [to yap
a1ta9E<;] and this implacability in a region beyond all the spheres and
entirely outside this universe. For the life of the body, since it is more
political in nature, harmonizes more easily with our present circum-
stances. I would go so far as to say that the affections of the soul are
fitted to our bodily life (6A.7.9-16).
Psellos' rejection of "implacable" spirituality and the concessions he

grants to "bodily life" in this passage remind us of Aristotle's effort to
strike a balance between the spheres of political activity and philo-
sophical contemplation. Is Psellos then rejecting the uncompromising
outlooks of Neoplatonism and Christianity, especially of their more
ascetic branches, which placed a supreme value on the mystical con-
templation of eternal truths and advocated an absolute detachment
from material life?317 After all, neither system of thought had much
to say about the civic virtues, or, as Psellos puts it, about how "the
life of body harmonizes with our present circumstances."
vVe must not hasten to draw such a conclusion, for Psellos may
simply be offering his thoughts on the proper mentality of the politi-
cian, while setting aside the question of whether the contemplative
life is in itself more valuable than the active life of politics. In other
words, his position may still be consistent with that of Socrates in
Plato's dialogue on the soul, the Phaedo. In that dialogue, Socrates
also acknowledges that the soul may be affected by the body (e.g.,
79c), but he nevertheless continues to regard it as imperative for any-
one who would strive for human perfection to rid himself of its affec-
tions. By entirely subduing bodily influences, such a man may sepa-
rate his soul from his body in a way that is reminiscent of death (64c-
65a). Socrates' morbid description of the life of the soul "by itself'
(65c-d) seems to resonate in Psellos' claim that Leo's attitude was
"more suitable to eternity than to our times, to the afterlife rather
than to present one." Psellos clearly argues that Leo's apatheia was
unsuitable to the "life of the body," which "is more political in
31i Cf. the first sentence of Porphyry's Lifo of Platinos: "he seemed ashamed to be in
the body." Psellos quotes this very passage in his Encomium in Praise of his Niother 1036-7.

nature."318 But what is the exact thrust of his criticism? Is he merely

arguing that the life of contemplative apatheia is incompatible with
effective political activity? Or is he making the much stronger argu-
ment that the kind of life Leo represented was inferior in itself to a
putative alternative which could accommodate the realities of man's
political, and hence bodily, experience? In the latter case, Psellos
would be rejecting the bodiless life advocated by Socrates as the ide-
al form of human life, and consequently as the ideal of the philo-
sophicallife.
Of course, the differences between contemporary Christian spiri-
tuality and the philosophical life advocated by Socrates were quite
obvious to Psellos (cf. §4, la, 11, 16). Leo's rude and inflexible per-
sonality was only a weak reflection, perhaps even a parody, of
Socrates' ideal. Nevertheless, Psellos' description of his ethos suggests
that the orthodox Platonic conception of the soul, transposed into
Christian doctrine, continued to dominate the religious mentality of
the Greek-speaking world. The "living death" of the Phaedo had been
incorporated into the definition of the highest Christian life. The soul
was still understood in terms of the unchanging, the eternal, and the
invisible, while the body was still characterized in every respect by
the opposite qualities. And this very understanding of the two entities
contained an implicit demand that the two be separated as much as
possible. 319 The two traditions, Platonic and Christian, had merged
completely by the time of Theophylaktos Simokattes, who, in the
early seventh century, described Christian monks as "men who
spend their lives in thought ... Their task is to anticipate departure
from the body, to be dead while living, and to transmigrate to higher
things through a sort of prudent madness."32o Behind the inflexible
31H Note that apatheia was considered a desirable state by some contemporary
exponents of the mystical life: Symeon the Theologian, Hymns 9.22: "For outside the
world and these bodies, there is not the appetite of the passion of the flesh, but a cer-
tain apatheia" (see also the index of the A. Kambylis edition, p. 503). As a virtue it
was strongly advocated by Evagrios Pontikos, who greatly influenced Symeon and
other Byzantine authors, in his Praktikos and Chapters on Prayer (see index of the Guil-
laumont edition), but was not confined to monastic circles; see, e.g., Ignatios the
Deacon, Lifo qf the Patriarch Tarasios 20: the Patriarch "was crowned by God with the
triumphal crown of impassivity."
319 Cf. Plato, Phaedo 79a-c; and Psellos' lecture On how some people become sensible and
others fools (= Philosophica Minora v. 2 19) 90.12-91.4, which emphasizes the religious
aspect of this dichotomy.
320 Theophylaktos Simokattes, History 1.14.8; for the view that Christian life is a
preparation for death, see, e.g., Gregory of Nazianzos, Or. 27.7.

official Leo, lies a far more important target: the highest virtue of
Neoplatonic and Christian ethics.
Judging from the sarcasm of Psellos' tone, we should attribute to
him the more revolutionary of the two alternatives suggested above,
namely that the life of the soul "by itself," as advocated by Socrates
in the Phaedo and perpetuated by Neoplatonism and Christianity, is
simply not the best kind of life. As we shall see, Psellos is highly dis-
missive and even contemptuous of those who claimed to have
renounced the world of the body altogether. He thus directs his
attack against the ideal of absolute contemplation itself, and not just
a few of its alleged practitioners, or those who inappropriately mixed
it with political activity. Additional evidence supports this conclusion.
The claim that "the life of the body, since it is more political in
nature, harmonizes more easily with our present circumstances"
(6A.7.13-15), must be construed as normative, since it comes from a
philosopher who was intensely interested in "our present circum-
stances" (cf. §3) and completely indifferent to the afterlife (cf. §ll). It
suggests that greater harmony is achieved in human life when the
demands of the body are taken into consideration. By denying them,
on the other hand, one encourages the growth of certain vices,
which, as we shall see, Psellos repeatedly ascribes to his religiously-
minded enemies. He then claims that "I would go so far as to say
that the affections of the soul are fitted to our bodily life ['tip
CHOIl<X'tUCip ~iql 'to 1taaxov K<X'taAAT]AOV 't1l~ "'UXll~]" (6A. 7.15-16). The
force of this statement is not entirely clear,:l2l but it certainly implies
that by nature the affections of the soul are compatible with bodily
life, perhaps that they are somehow even determined by it. Thus any
attempt to sever the soul's connections to the material world would
lead it into an unnatural state (cf. §12).
The next section of the Chronographia (6A.8) establishes conclusively
321 It may be an allusion to the kinds of arguments made, for instance, by Galen in
his treatise on TIe Soul's Dependence on the Body. Drawing upon Plato, Aristotle, and
Hippokrates, Galen tries to show that the soul cannot be understood apart from the
body, indeed that it is shaped and influenced by it in crucial ways, and, contrariwise,
that "the construction of the whole body is, in each kind of animal, especially fitted
to the characteristics and faculties of that animal's soul" (7.795). Galen identifies his
opponents as certain "self-styled Platonists" (9.805), who believe that the soul can
function independently of the body (except in extreme sickness). Note that his argu-
ment strongly implies that the soul cannot be immortal (ef. 3-4). Interestingly, the
answer given in Psellos' lecture On how some people become sensible and others fools (=
Philosophica Minora v. 2 19) 91.11 If, is taken from this very treatise of Galen.

that Psellos is in fact challenging the orthodox Platonic view of the

soul and of the best life. The arguments he develops there fully com-
plement the major revision of traditional Platonism we examined
earlier in our discussion (cf: §2-3). Following his attack on Leo's ethos,
Psellos proceeds to expound a theory concerning the "three kinds of
soul" (6A.8.1-2). His discussion initially appears to be of a metaphys-
ical nature, but it is really nothing of the sort. He begins with a direct
allusion to the Pheado: "the first kind of soul is that which lives by
itself, free of the body [arcoAu8£t(HX 'ton crcOIlU'tOC;]" (6A.8.2-3).322
According to Christian doctrine, such a soul would experience the
bliss of Heaven or the torments of Hell. The Neoplatonists had
developed analogous theories about the state of the soul "by itself"
and its relation to the body (cf. 6.197). But what follows in Psellos'
discussion has nothing to do with such theories. For we are immedi-
ately informed that this kind of soul is "unbending and not at all giv-
en to compromise" (6A.8.3-4). One wonders what kind of compro-
mises a bodiless soul can be expected to make. But it is not bodiless
souls that are being discussed at all; rather, it is individuals who wish,
or act as though, they were bodiless. 323 The real topic of section 6A.8
is the attitude of different kinds of people toward the body and mate-
rial existence. 324 Once again, Psellos abandons abstract inquiry into
metaphysical matters and turns to an analysis of the psychology of
believers. The soul as an entity that can actually be detached from
the body is never considered at all.
Scarcely veiling his sarcasm, Psellos returns to this "first kind of
soul" at the end of the section.
If some man should manage to surpass the body and take his stand at
an extreme [En' aKpov] of the intellectual life, what will he have in
122 Cf. Plato, Phaedo 65a: " ... qltA.6cro<po~ anoA:uwv on ~aAlcrm 'tflv '1l1JXflv ano 'tij~ 'tou
The intended contrast and target are thus made explicit (at
crffi~a'to~ KOlvwv(a~ ... "
least to readers familiar with Plato's work). For other allusions to the Phaedo in the
Chronographia, and their possible significance, see U. Criscuolo, 'Pselliana,' pp. 194-
196.
123 Cf. Ignatios the Deacon, Life of the Patriarch Tarasios 49: "those men who in their
goodness reached the lofty heights of sanctity, ascetical practice and contemplation
and who thus became almost bodiless and bloodless."
124 The same is true of Plato's Phaedo; cf. K. Dorter, Plato's Phaedo: An Interpretation,
p. 81 and passim; R. Burger, The Phaedo: A Platonic Labyrinth, pp. 87, 94-5, 98, 100,
204; H.-G. Gadamer, 'The Proofs ofImmortality in Plato's Phaedo, p. 29; for a simi-
lar interpretation of the activity of the soul in the Phaedrus, see C. L. Griswold, Self
Knowledge in Plato's Phaedrus, pp. 97, 122, 143-146, 148.

common with the affairs [npaY)lcxcrtv] of men?.. Let him go up to a

high and lofty mountain and stand in the company of angels, so that
he may shine with a heavenly light. 325 He will have thus separated
himself from men and renounced human society. But no one has ever
entirely triumphed over nature, and if such a person happened to be
entrusted with the direction of political affairs, he should handle mat-
ters in a political manner, and not pretend that he possessed the
straightness of a yardstick. For not everyone has been made perfect to
such a degree (6A.8.12-22).326
The suggestion that politicians should not strive to attain absolute
moral perfection leads Psellos to reaffirm his wicked doctrine: "hence
if such a man renounces all deviation, he will immediately reject all
that proceeds from it" (6A.S.22-24). We have seen why a ruler
should not want to renounce all the benefits of "deviation" from
moral perfection (cf. §5).'l27 But the minister Leo, to whom Psellos'
discussion now returns, foolishly tried to "act the philosopher in
unphilosophical circumstances" (6A.9.1-3). As Machiavelli later put
it, "a man who wants to make a profession of good in all regards
must come to ruin among so many who are not good."328
The exact opposite kind of soul, or human being, which is entirely
devoted to the pursuit of sensual pleasure, is mentioned by Psellos
only to be dismissed (6A.S.9-11). However, the soul which occupies
the middle position between extreme spirituality and total surrender
to the body truly captures his admiration. This "political man" fulfills
'32; C[ Gregory of Nazianzos, Or, 4,1. Psellos was very familiar with Gregory's
works,
126 Among many reactions against inflexible stands on absolute moral grounds, c[
Erasmus, 1he Praise of Folly, pp. 45-47: "But this is the sort of animal who is the per-
fect wise man. I ask you, if it were put to the vote, what state would elect such a man
to office?.,." and context; also Aristotle, Politics l288b36-39: "for one should study
not only the best regime but also the regime that is the best possible ... However,
some seek only the one that is at the peak [uKP01<XU1V l" Psellos develops similar
criticisms in his Letter to Keroularios, K. Svoboda ('Quelques observations sur la meth-
ode historique de Michel Psellos,' p, 387) seems to be aware of some of the implica-
tions of the passage quoted above,
327 Pace S. Ronchey, strictly speaking the main point of 6A.8.22-24 is not to con-
demn the opposite extremes of absolute moral inflexibility and utter immorality, but
rather to indicate that the political man must deviate from the former. I also see no
reason to amend the passage as she proposes (lndagini ermeneutiche e critico-testuali 5ulla
Cronografia di Psello, pp. 43-46; 'Ancora sulla Cronografia di Psello,' pp. 372-374), In
this matter I agree entirely with R. Anastasi, 'Review of Michele Psello, lmperatori di
Bisanzio, S, Impellizzeri ed,,' pp. 432-434, Cf. also the discussion of this passage of
U. Albini, 'Artifizi del diplomatico Psello,' pp, 261-262, whose proposed translation
is not, in my view, significantly different from my own.
'\2<3 Niccolo Machiavelli, TIle Prince c. 15.

Aristotle's ethical doctrine of the mean by moderating the total

renunciation of the body preached by the Neoplatonic and Christian
ethical tradition.
If the soul chooses the middle path, even though it experiences many
and powerful passions, as though it had chosen the exact center of a
circle, then it creates the political man. This soul is neither entirely
divine nor intellectual, but neither is it in love with material pleasures
and ruled by passion (6A.8.5-9; cf. 7.28.11-12).
Flouting the radical dualism of Plato's Phaedo, Psellos devises a geo-

metrical arrangement which postulates a middle position between
two diametrically opposed extremes. 329 Note, however, the peculiar
order of his presentation: he begins with the man whose soul lives
"by itself' (the first extreme), then moves to the political man (the
center), briefly mentions the man who has completely surrendered
himself to the pleasures of the body (the other extreme), and finally
returns to the religious ascetic who has renounced human society.
The order of Psellos' presentation does not strictly follow the order of
his spatial imagery, which distinguishes between one center and two
extremes.
However that may be, Psellos clearly prefers the "political man,"
who moderates the divergent demands of both body and soul. This is
implied by his sarcastic discussion of the aKpov of spirituality, upon
which he places some of his most bitter enemies. Furthermore, he
proceeds to praise a man who in his mind exemplified the political
state of the soul, and to condemn those who sought to practice the
extreme form of Christian virtue, not only for involving themselves in
politics, but in general. The contemporaries whom Psellos chiefly
had in mind when he composed his discussion of "the three kinds of
'329 We are not dealing here with a mere "literary echo." S. Linner has argued that
the doctrine of the three kinds of lives in the Chronographia was inspired by
Pythagorean teachings, via Aristotle and Iamblichos ('Literary Echoes in Psellus'
Chronographia,' pp. 226-7). But we must not forget that "literature composed on the
shoulders of a great tradition is capable of being mindless repetition or highly mind-
ful rethinking" (J. J. Winkler, 'The mendacity of Kalasiris and the narrative strategy
of Heliodoros' Aithiopika,' p. 134; for the importance of not dismissing Psellos' allu-
sions as mere rhetorical commonplaces, see U. Criscuolo, 'Pselliana,' p. 195). Even
"echoes" of previous philosophical doctrines may have crucial siguificance in the
context of a new teaching. Psellos' echo of the Pheado points toward his opposition to
its surface teaching. In this passage, he neither quotes nor echoes Aristotle, Iambli-
chos, or, for that matter, Pythagoras.

soul" were the Patriarchs Michael Keroularios (1043-1058) and his

successor Constantine Leichoudes (1059-1063). In the Chronographia
and elsewhere, Keroularios represents the extreme of spirituality, i.e.,
of intolerance, inflexibility, and unwillingness to compromise,330
whereas Leichoudes represents the moderate center, the adaptive
political man (cf. also §24).
Constantine brought together a brave political mindset and the priest-

ly office. For to some others it seems that virtue is just this, namely not
to yield to circumstance, not to control the tendency to speak freely
[nuPPTlaiuv], and not to subdue the shameless by your ethos. Hence
these men braved every ocean and sailed against every wind. Some of
them sank, seized by the waves, while others were rebuffed with great
violence (7.66.6-13).
The "others" referred to obviously included Leo Paraspondylos and

Keroularios, who both "sank, seized by the waves" of the political
struggles they fomented or mishandled by "not yielding to circum-
stance." In section 6A.l 7 we are told that Keroularios "was greatly
angered" because a woman (Theodora) ruled the State, and "spoke
his mind freely [nuPPll<HUS0J.lEVO<;]. He might indeed have been
removed from his position, had a longer life been granted to her."331
Later, during the reign of Isaac Komnenos, "he spoke his mind
freely to the Emperor [nuPPll<HuCHIJ.lEVOVJ, and the tone of his voice
was insolent" (7.65.2-3).332 Isaac, with Psellos' active support, eventu-
ally deposed Keroularios and sent him into exile where he died (7.65;
cf. §24).
Section 6A.8 of the Chronographia, on its surface a taxonomy of
souls, is in reality an argument for the banishment of zealous religios-
ity from the management of public affairs. Uncompromising virtue
should be confined to the realm of private life, or even better, to the
afterlife, the world of the dead. Psellos argues that those who transfer
dogmatic attitudes and mystical modes of thought into the realm of
politics render themselves incapable of ruling over others and direct-
ing the affairs of a State. If their minds cannot abandon the absolute
certainties of an unchanging beyond, they can never understand the
ambiguities and complexities of moral and political compromise.
310 See below for Psellos' Letter to Kerouianos.

:m Cf. §9 for Theodora and the Church.
332 For Keroularios' attitude toward Isaac, see also Michael Attaleiates, History 62.

Intolerant theocrats not only bring about their own downfall, but
also threaten the stability of the "body politic" by rejecting diploma-
cy and taking absolute stands against their perceived enemies.
Despite his otherworldly source of authority, the Patriarch Keroular-
ios lusted after temporal power, affected the role of an Emperor, and
involved himself as a major player in the political conflicts raging
within the Byzantine State. Psellos elsewhere accuses him of "making
the sign of the cross with his hand, while his mouth issued Imperial
commands. "333
The argument of section 6A.8 fully complements Psellos' new view
of Imperial politics, which dissolves the tra.ditional Byzantine union
of the secular and the sacred (cf. § 5, 6, 8, 9). But its implications
extend well beyond politics and into the realm of ethical discourse.
Psellos' rehabilitation of the body constitutes an attack on two of the
most entrenched spiritual teachings of his age, Christian mysticism
and orthodox Platonism. The first emerges most clearly in his hostile
Letter to Keroularios, wherein Psellos presents himself as a being com-
posed of both divine and animal elements, and trying to preserve a
balance between the two. Keroularios, on the other hand, addressed
in line 4 as ~u(J'ta Kat SEroPE, is depicted (sarcastically) as a being of
pure thought, even more inflexible and unpleasant than Leo
Paraspondylos.334
I confess that man is an animal, subject to change and alteration, a

logical soul making use of a material body, a novel compound of dis-
cordant components. 331 Sometimes, when I can, I lighten the burden
on the better part of my being by removing the burdensome weight of
the nature conjoined with it (to a reasonable extent), while on other
occasions ... - but I am not about to slander myself! You alone, howev-
er, are of all people unchangeable and unmovable, as though some
nature, different from our regular human one, had taken its stand
upon itself and become utterly inflexible,336 indifferent to anyone mak-
ing peaceful overtures or atoning with tears! Who would envy you for
that? (lines 32-41, my italics).
333 Accusation qf the Archpriest Before the ~nod (= Orationes Forenses 1) 2420-2422.
m On the similarity between Psellos' attacks on Leo and Keroularios, see R.
Anastasi, Studi sulla "Chronographia" di Michele Psello, pp. 131-132.
335 Notc that in section 6A.7.1S-16 of the Chronographia (discussed above), Psellos
clearly implies that body and soul are not discordant entities.
:13fi Cf. Synesios, Dion 8 (47a): "For I know that I am a man, and not a God, that I
should be inflexible [a1CA.tvlj~] toward every pleasure ... "

The Letter to Keroularios is a complex and difficult document, which

makes a number of unique arguments of its own that deserve to be
treated separately. Nevertheless, it still reinforces our analysis of sec-
tions 6A. 7-8 of the Chronographia, and illuminates some of the grounds
of Psellos' rejection of Christian mysticism. Since he obviously did
not believe that Keroularios' nature was "different from our regular
human one," his sarcastic description exposes the Patriarch's lack of
self-knowledge, as well as his overweening arrogance. According to
Psellos, these two flaws were linked. Whereas his own philosophical
self-awareness leads him to confess unflattering facts about himself
(over which, however, he casts a discreet rhetorical veil), Keroularios
could act like God only by forgetting that he had a "material body."
Psellos suggests that by repudiating the body, Keroularios aimed to
transcend mortal bounds and become assimilated to the Godhead
itself: "your strength is bestowed by God and your will inspired by
divinity" (24-25); "to us you have plainly appeared to be, as you
would say, absolute science and wisdom itself' (65-66);:l37 and "in you
everything is supremely perfect and beyond the boundaries of our
nature!" (173-174)
As we have already seen, by rejecting the call for a complete
renunciation of the body and the practice of a "living death," Psellos
also proves that he was no orthodox Platonist. But of course, neither
was Plato. In the Philebus, he explicitly asks which is the best life for
human beings, that devoted to pure bodily pleasure, or that of
absolute thought uncontaminated by material concerns. He quickly
chooses a middle life as best, a "mixture" of thought and pleasure
(e.g., 22a). A life of pure pleasure is appropriate and possible only for
animals with no intelligence, like jellyfish (21 c), whereas pure thought
is a prerogative of the gods (22c, 33b). "The particular question
raised in the Philebus is the extent to which the passion of our drives
and our consciousness while thinking can be harmoniously balanced
in life."33B In the tenth book of his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explic-
itly discusses the arguments of the Philebus and reaches a substantially
similar conclusion: eternal contemplation is possible only for the
:m autE1ttcH11~1l1(al auwcro<pta. For the latter as a Christian concept, see G. \V. H.

Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon: it designates the absolute wisdom of God (cf. also
Themistios, Or. 6.73a).
:ns H.-G. Gadamer, TIe Idea of the Good in Platonic-Aristotelian Philosophy, p. 30. The
dialogue explores the interdependence of thought and pleasure. For the Phaedo, see
the discussion in my Introduction.

gods, while the best life for human beings is a mixture of philosophy
and political activity. 339
The position which Plato's Socrates repeatedly has to challenge in
his conversations on the best life is the belief in the superiority of
bodily pleasure. Therefore, Plato perceived this and not its opposite
as a major threat to the philosophical life in democratic Athens. He
never confronts Socrates with proponents of total abstinence from
bodily life and of hermetic retreat from political affairs. Yet in his
effort to draw men away from the pleasures of the body and to
acquaint them with those of the soul, he ultimately succeeded all too
well, even if in the process he may have deliberately exaggerated the
role of contemplation in the best human life. The various schools of
Platonism, and later Christianity, taught the world to scorn the body
and seek otherworldly redemption. In the age of Psellos, philosophy
was therefore confronted by the opposite challenge, the pervasive
denial that the affections and passions of the body had any worth. It
is therefore possible that Psellos' attack on the surface doctrines of
the Phaedo is really an attempt to lead philosophical discourse back
down to the compromise position to which Plato had tried to elevate
his readers. That is why Psellos occasionally pays mere lip-service to
the ideal of absolute contemplation, while simultaneously affirming
his own intention to practice a philosophy that mixed the virtues of
both body and soul. A few of his letters explicitly reflect this outlook.
For I am a man, a soul attached to a body. Therefore I take pleasure

in both thoughts and sensations. Should someone establish his soul
above his body, he will be happy and blessed. Although I only half-
live in the body, I must still love it (Letter KD 160, p. 187, lines 12-16).
As far as I am concerned, philosophy is divided into two parts. One

part of it seems free from emotion [(muSes] and harsh, and only the
mind can imagine it, while the other seems sociable and philanthrop-
ic. Of these, I praised the first one, but did not love it; the second one,
however, although I admire it less, I emulate it more (Letter S 17).
To my knowledge, Psellos was the first European thinker to attempt

to rehabilitate the life of the body in explicit opposition to the inher-
339 Aristotle always wanted to present his own conclusions as original and inde-
pendent. For the fundamental agreement between the Philebus and the Nicomachean
Ethics on the chief issue, see H.-G. Gadamer, op. cit., pp. xx-xxi (introduction by P.
Christopher Smith) and passim; and Plato's Dialectical Ethics, pp. 1-2 and passim.

ited Platonic-Christian tradition, which was dominated by concern

for the state of one's soul. A similar reaction would not attain philo-
sophical status in the west until Montaigne, instigated by Machiavel-
li's teachings, decided to overhaul the ethics of both ancient philoso-
phy and Christianity. Although he had more success than Psellos in
the long run, the fundamental basis of his position was not greatly
different from that pioneered by the eleventh-century philosopher.:Ho
Psellos' ethical teaching, which is integrally connected to his argu-
ment for the banishment of religious attitudes from political life, rais-
es certain problems for his broader political thought, and in particu-
lar for his Imperial model, Basil II. For the vices bred by extreme
virtue, and even the contempt for rational discourse which accompa-
nies the acceptance of absolute divine standards, can apparently have
non-religious causes. Psellos' criticisms of the theocrat Keroularios
are equally applicable to Basil. For both men were arrogant, inflexi-
ble, tyrannical, and unwilling to compromise. Both ruled by coercion
and force rather than through persuasion and reason, and lay claim
to a higher source of authority that dictated their policies and
brooked no disagreements. Basil "governed the State [politikon] not
by the written laws, but by the unwritten laws of his soul," even
though that soul "was most naturally suited for that task" (l.29.9-11).
His own decisions were for him a "divine standard" (1.34.17). Basil
may have been a highly effective ruler, but by Book 7 Psellos has
introduced certain factors that call for more than mere efficiency. He
is no longer prepared to justify and even embrace the harsh aspects
of Basil's ethos for the sake of Imperial security and stability. What
has caused this change? \Vhy does Psellos now consider supreme
arrogance to be a flaw in a ruler? The answer will emerge from our
discussion of Isaac's reign. For now we may note that Psellos men-
tions Basil's arrogance especially in connection with the scholars and
philosophers of his age (1.29), while the greatest event in the narra-
tive of the Chronographia between the reigns of Basil and Isaac was the
resurrection of true philosophy by Psellos himself.
14() Cf. Montaigne, Essays 3.13 (esp. pp. 855-856, D. M. Frame tr.); and D. L.
Schaefer, the Political Philosophy if Montaigne, pp. 236-245: The Problem of
"Extreme" Virtue.'

PSELLOS AND ISAAC KOMNENOS 167
24. PSELLOS AND ISAAC KOMNENOS
The success of the embassy to Isaac Komnenos, and consequently the

vindication of Psellos' abilities as an orator, depended upon Isaac's
sincere acceptance of the nominally subordinate position of Caesar.
Therefore, Psellos cannot portray Isaac as both assenting to Michael's
terms and simultaneously plotting against him. Accordingly, he claims
that Michael and Isaac reached an agreement in good faith (7.33-34).
Neither of them could foresee or control the events which soon ren-
dered it obsolete. Psellos attributes the fall of Michael to a group of
Senators who conspired with the Patriarch Keroularios to overthrow
the aged and feeble monarch (7.35-36; cf. 7.10). They were neither
instigated nor encouraged to do so by Isaac.
It is easy to question the historicity of this narrative. The contem-
porary historian John Skylitzes claims that according to anonymous
but trustworthy sources, all three of Michael's ambassadors urged
Isaac to reject the agreement and continue the fight for sole posses-
sion of the throne. 341 They assured him that the city populace would
support his cause and accept him as sole Emperor. Yet it also
emerges from Skylitzes' account that the insurgents in the capital
who actually forced Michael to abdicate acted not at the rebel's insti-
gation, but in response to Michael's intention not to honor his agree-
ment with Isaac. 342 Michael Attaleiates, who wrote his history during
or soon after the reign of Nikephoros III Botaneiates (ruled 1078-
1081), postulates a close connection between the city insurgents and
Isaac. 343 But the lack of detail in his account hampers its value as a
corrective to the ambassador's own version of events 344 (Attaleiates
never mentions the embassy or the agreement it produced).
In any case, it is possible that Psellos' philosophical or "autobio-
311 John Skylitzes, Synopsis 497, accepted by J.-C. Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations, p.
344, n. 36: "The account of this embassage is of nothing but a barely disguised act
of treason"; the same verdict in G. Misch, 'Die Bruchstticke einer Autobiographie
des byzantinischen Hofphilosophen Michael Pselios,' p. 80 I. Yet Psellos had fore-
seen that it would be interpreted in that way by some (7.17: why else the desire to
avoid secrecy?).
342 John Skylitzes, Synopsis 498-500.
• 343 Michael Attaleiates, History 56-59.
344 The same is generally true of Aristakes of Lastivert (History if Armenia 20.112)
and Matthew of Edessa (Chronicle 2.5). Zonaras (Epitome 18.2-3) merely combines
Skylitzes and the Chronographia.

168 PSELLOS AND ISAAC KOMNENOS
graphical" agenda has distorted the portrayal of events at this point.

In general, when philosophical arguments take the form of narratives
they tend not to place an overriding importance on historical accura-
cy.3+1 The overall argument of the Chronographia requires that the ora-
tor and future court philosopher persuade the rebel general, against
overwhelming odds, to consent to the Emperor's terms. It would sim-
ply not do to have Isaac manipulate Psellos instead, in order to lull
the weak Emperor into a false sense of security by making an insin-
cere agreement with him; or to have Psellos merely betray his mas-
ter's interests in order to protect and possibly promote his own. Our
discussion will therefore limit itself to the way events are presented in
the Chronographia, and set aside the question of the text's historical
veracity. Psellos may be blowing his own horn, but it is his tune that
we want to hear.
Though an official ambassador, Psellos personally had no objec-
tions to the fall of Michael per se. However, he was worried that his
open association with that Emperor's regime would bring him into
disfavor with the new military rulers, and he feared that his own ene-
mies would seize the opportunity to destroy him (7.38). But these
fears proved groundless, for during the dramatic negotiations that
took place in Isaac's tent, the future Emperor had already been con-
verted to Psellos' cause. The next time the two men met,
he set aside all that I had said earlier, my rhetorical propositions, bal-
anced arguments, refutations, artful insinuations and techniques, per-
suasions, and deceits. Instead he entrusted me with his secret plans
and made me a partner in the decision-making process about Imperi-
al affairs. He asked me to tell him how he might rule best, and what to
do in order to rival the greatest Emperors of the past. I took courage
at his words, my spirits revived, and I expounded long speeches on
these topics for his benefit. As a result I was highly esteemed by him,
for the Emperor respected all that I said. Hence he often consulted me
and challenged my responses until he had received a clear and ade-
quate answer to his questions (7.39.4-14).
1+; Cf. the useful comments of J. Weinberger in the introduction (pp. 6-9) to his
edition of Francis Bacon's TIe History of the Reign of King Henry the Seventh; also, H. C.
Mansfield's introduction to the translation of Machiavelli's Horentine Histories, and D.
L. Schaefer's discussion of the "autobiographical" sections of Montaigne's Essays
(TIe Political Philosophy of Montaigne, c. I); for other Byzantine historical texts, see A.
Kaldellis, 'The Historical and Religious Views of Agathias: A Reinterpretation'; and
J. N. Ljubarskij, 'Some Noles on the Newly Discovered Historical Work by Psellos,'
pp. 224-225.

Isaac again cuts through Psellos' rhetorical fa<;ade. He is the first

Emperor to address Psellos as a "philosopher," and specifically seeks
his philosophical advice at the very beginning of his reign (7.41.5). At
the end of the reign, the Empress Catherine again calls him a
"philosopher" (7.81.6-7), which indicates that this was his recognized
role at the first Komnenian court. Mter more than a decade of pos-
turing as a court orator, Psellos has finally found an Emperor who
perceives and appreciates the philosophical core of his ethos. In due
course, Isaac appoints him the chief of his confidants and President
of the Senate 346 (7.42.5-6). As an official advisor, Psellos now has the
opportunity to influence the policies of the new regime, even though
he still intends to maintain a discrete silence on certain esoteric issues
(cf. 7.64.7 and §26). The Chronographia is inspired not by the impossi-
ble ideal of the philosopher-kings of Plato's Republic, but by the real-
ism of the Laws (cf. 746b-c), which advocate an indirect form of
philosophical rule.
The ideal of the king's philosophical adviser was hardly new.
Ancient literature and history are replete with examples, whether
genuine, affected, or merely invented. 317 What is significant, howev-
er, is the historical context of Psellos' revival of that ideal, which once
again reveals his subversive intentions. For in the fourth and fifth
centuries A.D. monks and bishops had gradually displaced philoso-
phers in their effort to gain power and influence over the conscience
of rulers.348 By disassociating himself from Romanos Ill's theologians
and Michael IV's monks, Psellos signifies that his rise to power rep-
resents a revival of the political aspirations of authentic ancient phi-
losophy.349
346 This was an honorary title, not an office with duties. It had been created by the
Emperor Nikephoros Phokas to honor Basil the parakoimomenos, and Psellos else-
wbere calls it "the highest dignity in the Roman Empire" (1.3.7-8). In the reign of
Isaac there were about half a dozen such proedroi (see in general C. Diehl, 'De la sig-
nification du titre "proedre" a Byzance').
'H) See E. Rawson, 'Roman Rulers and the Philosophic Adviser.'
143 On some aspects of this transformation, see P. Brown, Power and Persuasion in
Late Antiquiry: Towards a Christian Empire, p. 110fT.; cf. the relationships between the
Studite monks (esp. Theodore) and Michael I, John the Grammarian and Leo V,
Methodios and Theophilos, Euthymios and Leo VI, various monks (esp. Athanasios)
and Nikephoros II Phokas, etc.
• 34'1 In his Letter to Keroularios lines 122-128, Psellos casts himself as a philosophical
advisor to Isaac Komnenos, in the tradition of Arrian, Rusticus, and others, He
draws this list from the fourth-century philosopher and statesman Themistios (Or.
34.8), whose attempt to influence political power in the direction of philosophy

Yet Psellos does not divulge the content of the advice he gave to
Isaac during their first meeting after Michael's abdication, or there-
after during Isaac's brief reign. This would be a severe disappoint-
ment to his readers, if he had not already disclosed the main points
of his philosophy in the previous books of the Chronographia. In other
words, we suspect that Psellos exhorted Isaac to rule according to the
values of his own political philosophy. For what other reply would he
have given to the new Emperor's demand to know "how he might
rule best, and what to do in order to rival the greatest Emperors of
the past"? Psellos certainly had a lot to say on that topic. Thus we
are not surprised to discover that, with two crucial exceptions which
we will examine shortly, Isaac's conduct as Emperor resembled that
of Byzantium's greatest autocrat, Basil II. The similarity between the
characters of the two rulers was made evident on the very first day of
Isaac's rule.
After he gained the throne, Komnenos, a man energetic in all his pur-
suits, immediately made himself complete master of the entire Empire
and began to rule without delay. For in the very evening that he
entered the palace, before even shaking off the dust of battle or chang-
ing his clothes, or ordering a bath for the next day, he began to issue
instructions to the army and the civil administration. He devoted what
was left of the day and the entire night that followed to the cares of
the State (7.44).
Isaac imposed a rigid discipline on his soldiers and kept them firmly
under control. Unlike the palace-based Emperors of the generation
since Basil's death, he planned extensive military campaigns against
the Empire's enemies (7.45). According to Psellos, his ferocious rep-
utation as a warrior thoroughly intimidated them (7.63, 67, 71). His
foreign policies were realistic and shrewd, and based on a careful
consideration of the State's economic resources (7.7, 50). He devel-
oped an astute plan to employ buffer states against the more power-
ful hostile nations. As a military strategist, he was similar to Basil in
that he relied on the discipline and high quality of a small trained
army, rather than on sheer force of numbers (cf. 7.8 with 1.32-
through the exercise of rhetoric Psellos clearly aspired to revive (the best account of
Themistios' circumstances and goals remains G. Dagron, 'L'empire Romain d'ori-
ent au IVe siecle et les traditions politiques de I'Hcllenisme: Ie temoignage de
Themistius'). Interestingly, the twelfth-century writer and churchman Michael Cho-
niates compared Psellos to Arrian and Themistios (Epistula 28).

33).350 On campaign, he slept little and closely supervised even the

smallest detail of operations (7.8). In public, he was "abrupt and
hard ... His eyes flashed, and his brow, to speak metaphorically,
hung like a dark cloud over the bright light of his soul" (7.46.9, 21-
22). His presence inspired terror in the hearts of his officials (7.47).
Lest the reader neglect to make the obvious comparison, Psellos tells
us later that Isaac used to regale his companions with tales about
the Emperor Basil, the son of Romanos (7.76.5-7).351 This is the first
and only instance in the Chronographia of an Emperor citing the
deeds and sayings of another Emperor whose reign is also described
in the text. It is no coincidence that Isaac is also the only Emperor
in the Chronographia to ask Psellos for advice on how to imitate the
great Emperors of the past. Isaac apparently received a clear answer
from his advisor on this matter, and immediately put it into prac-
tice, or discovered that it already conformed to his own ethos.
The most important respect in which Isaac differed from Basil was
not his great political flaw, imprudent rashness, which we will discuss
later; rather, it was his affability to Psellos and respect for philosophy
and its teachings, as advocated and interpreted by its official repre-
sentative at his court. The reader will recall that Basil II "completely
dispensed with the advice of wiser men ... He paid no attention to
scholars, indeed he even utterly despised such people" (1.29.7-8, 12-
13). Michael IV Paphlagon, the only other competent Emperor
between Basil and Isaac, was also devoid of Hellenic paideia and con-
sorted with ignorant monks rather than true philosophers (cf. §6, 10,
12). But whereas Isaac emulated Basil in all other respects, he broke
with Basil's precedent by favoring and patronizing philosophy at his
court. In contrast to his fierce public persona, Isaac was mild and
relaxed before the members of his household and his intimate advis-
ers (7.46). \Ve have seen that he consulted Psellos' opinion on various
occasions and we are explicitly told that he admired "the philosophi-
cal life" (7.58.1). The first Emperor to call Psellos a philosopher is
also the first to be called philosophical by Psellos. But we should not
think that Psellos cast his new patron as a philosopher-king on the
350 It should be noted in this connection that throughout the Chronographia Psellos
disdains the use of large armies, which almost always lose their battles in his narra-
tive: e.g., 1.7, l.ll, 3.7-9, 4.43, 6.82-83, 7.11; cf. 7B.16.
351 According to Nikephoros Bryennios (Materials for a History l.l), Isaac's upbring-
ing and education had been entrusted to Basil II by his father, who died when Isaac
was very young.

model of Plato's Republic. According to the more realistic assessment

of the Chronographia, the closest that political rulers can get to the
philosophical life is the support and patronage of real philosophers
(cf. 7.49.1-2, 7.64.7, and §25).
This difference between Basil and Isaac can be explained by the
momentous event that occurred between their two reigns, which
called for a partial revision of Imperial priorities. This was Psellos'
discovery that there was not a seed of wisdom in the Greek lands and
that "philosophy had breathed its last," which ultimately led him to
release it from "the depths" to which it had been confined for cen-
turies: "I alone revived it with my own powers" (6.37.5-8). He liber-
ated it from all Christian accretions, including Orthodox theology,
monasticism, and ecclesiastical control. Philosophy and Hellenic
paideia were no longer to be the mere hand-maidens of faith, as St
Basil of Caesarea and others had argued in the fourth century,
though on dishonest grounds. For in order to abolish the indepen-
dence of Hellenic culture and subvert its virtues to his own designs,
St Basil had deliberately misrepresented the teachings of the great
classical texts and lied about their fundamental incongruity with
Christian doctrine. 352 The Church, following his lead, had preserved
only those aspects of Hellenism which served its own interests, while
"choking up the sources" of its "living fount" (6.42.13-15). Now, in
the mid-eleventh century, and through the rise of its patron at court,
philosophy was again assuming its proper and independent position,
with claims of its own on the power structure of the Empire and with
doctrines at odds with the mystical superstition that had dominated
spiritual life for so many centuries.:l):l If the subversive claims of this
';,2 There is an enormous literature on the relationship between Hellenism and

Christianity, especially as it is manifested in the texts of the fourth century, but most
of it is highly biased, taking the Christian point of view for granted \vithout critical
examination. An exception is E. L. Fortin, 'Christianity and Hellenism in Basil the
Great's Address ad Adulescentes,' who exposes the Saint's "web of complicated lies" (p.
200). St Gregory of Nazianzos' reply to the arguments of the Emperor Julian is out-
right deceitful and dishonest. I plan to examine it on another occasion.
'1,,1 Cf L. Clucas, The Trial ofJohn Italos and the Crisis of Intellectual Values in Byzantium
in the Eleventh Century, p. 93, who speaks of a "continuous theme" of "fundamental

opposition to philosophical speculation on dogmatic issues," also pp. 37, 69, 154-
155, and 152: "Psellos and halos appeared in the eyes of conservative churchmen to
be carving out a possibly independent sphere of authority for pagan learning, and
especially philosophy, at the supposed expense of Christianity." I take issue, howev-
er, with the word "supposed." It is possible that "conservative churchmen" have a
better grasp on what is at the "expense of Christianity" than modern secular schol-

new philosophy could not be broadcast openly in the theocratic soci-

ety of eleventh-century Constantinople, its power was to be felt by
successive Emperors through the eloquent and seductive logos of its
greatest champion.
The first edition of the Chronographia ends with the reign of an
Emperor who sought to rule after the example of the first and great-
est Emperor depicted in the work. He did so under the influence of
his philosophical advisor, who also happens to be the author of the
text. Perhaps the starting-point of the Chronographia was not chosen
simply because that was where the History of Leo the Deacon had
ended. However that may be, we soon discover that Isaac's policies
and preferences with respect to religion were also fully consistent
with the teachings of the Chronographia. When he first entered the city
in triumph, he was unimpressed by the crowd of monks that had
gathered to greet him, and sought Psellos' philosophical guidance
instead (7.41; cf. §26). As Emperor, he confiscated ecclesiastical and
monastic funds and used them for secular purposes, a policy which
understandably aroused considerable opposition. Significantly, the
cynical anti-monastic motivation that Psellos ascribes to him is iden-
tical to the motivation that he ascribes to Basil II, when he makes the
latter demolish a monastery built in honor of St Basil of Caesarea
(l.20.20-22; cf. §10). The new Emperor, solely concerned about the
welfare of the State, affected the pious desire to rectify the abuses of
the faithful and redeem the practice of genuine virtue.
He added the priests to the list of his victims. For he trimmed most of
the funds that were stored in their churches, and gave it over to the
public revenues. He calculated the amount that would suffice for their
expenses, and thus vindicated the name of 'asceticism' on their behalf
(7.60.14-19).
The need for this particular reform was also felt by individuals out-
side of Psellos' circle. The historian Michael Attaleiates outlines
Isaac's policies and is highly sympathetic to his aims. According to
him, Isaac's first concern was to strengthen the armed forces and
ensure that the Empire's defenses were sound. To raise the necessary
funds, he curtailed the distribution of honors and even confiscated
the property of certain private individuals.
ars, who have perhaps been persuaded by less conservative churchmen that philoso-
phy and Christianity are perfectly compatible.

He put his hands also on some of the monasteries whose large and
rich properties were in no way inferior to those of the crown. He took
away much of their property, justifying himself by saying that he left
enough for the monks and the monasteries, and thus added to the
Imperial belongings. This act, which seemed to be unlawful and dis-
honest and to the pious directly equivalent to sacrilege, had no bad
results in the ryes qf the people who looked at things with seriousness ... By free-
ing the monks from the worries which did not correspond to their way
of life, it turned away from gain those who have been trained to live in
poverty without depriving them of the indispensables for life. At the
same time it freed the neighboring peasants from a heavy burden, for
the monks, relying upon their extensive and wealthy estates, were
wont to force them to abandon their lots. The monks were sick with
satiety which reached the point of passion (History 60-62, my italics)J1+
This policy was entirely consistent with the anti-ecclesiastical and

anti-monastic principles of the author of the Chronographia. Isaac's
rejection of another aspect of traditional piety is mentioned by a
number of contemporary historians. In order to announce to his sub-
jects that he had won his position through his own efforts and not by
the grace of God, the first Komnenos Emperor portrayed himself on
his coins with a drawn sword. TiS Later, when he fell sick, he turned to
medical doctors for help, including Psellos himself, rather than to
monks, priests, and prayers (7.73-78). But what probably pleased
Psellos the most was Isaac's elimination of the Patriarch Keroularios
(7.65). The arrogant theocrat, who had begun to act as though he
were a second Emperor,356 and naturally opposed the new regime's
economic policies, was swiftly deposed and exiled, and died soon
afterwards. The announcement of his death is viciously called "good
news" by Psellos (£1)ayydia: 7.65.11-12), the word translated as
'Gospel' in English,357 even though his passing supposedly grieved
)0+ Translated and discussed in P. Charanis, The Monastic Properties and the
State in the Byzantine Empire,' p. 68; for Isaac's policies in general see E. Stanescu,
'Les rHormes d'Isaac Comnene.' There arc many troubling aspects of Attaleiates'
text that require explication.
35" Michael Attaleiates, History 60; Skylitzes Continuatus 103; Zonaras, Epitome
18.4; Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle 2.5.
:15" For Keroularios in general see F. H. Tinnefeld, 'Michael 1. Kerullarios, Patri-
arch von Konstantinopel (1043-1058),' and the extensive bibliography cited there.
For his affectation of Imperial power, see pp. 107, 121. cr the comment by the
Emperor Nikephoros I in Theophanes the Confessor 489.15-16.
m EuaYYEA(SO~at was sometimes used to refer to one's recovery from a state of mor-
tal peril (cf. Genesios, 011 the ReigllS 4.2). .

Isaac. Psellos participated actively in Keroularios' deposition and

even wrote a long speech containing many accusations against
him,358 which he was prevented from delivering by the Patriarch's
timely death. The pinnacle of Psellos' success in the Chronographia
thus coincides with the downfall and death of Keroularios.
The ethos of Keroularios' successor was in as much agreement with
Psellos' wider program as the deposition of the intolerant Patriarch
itself. Constantine Leichoudes has already been described to us asa
highly competent civil official, trained in rhetoric and law (6.178-
181), and possessing a "most practical mind" (6.178.12). He was the
opposite of the narrow-minded Keroularios, and, incidentally, the
only Patriarch of the eleventh century who was not previously a
monk. Psellos contrasts the qualities of the two men in such a way as
to leave no doubt that Leichoudes represented the ascendancy over
the Church of worldly and educated tolerance.
Constantine brought together a brave political mindset and the priest-

ly office ... The temperament of his life sufficed for every kind of care-
ful analysis and temporizing [OiKovol.Liav], and he handled affairs not
rhetorically, but philosophically ... And should someone examine him
in his capacity as a politician, he would find him ornamented by the
priestly dignity; while if someone approached him as an archpriest,
even if in great fear and dread, he would find him shining brightly
with the political graces, coupled with a sturdy ethos and a smiling
solemnity (7.66.6-7, 13_21).359
Whereas Isaac was a "philosophical" Emperor (cf. 7.41), in that he

honored philosophers at his court, Leichoudes was a "philosophical"
Patriarch, who represented the triumph of political compromise over
the inflexible adherence to doctrine in decisions about public poli-
cy.360 Psellos, who had some influence over Isaac and was in any case
personally involved in Keroularios' deposition, may have promoted
the candidacy of his associate and friend Leichoudes. Perhaps he
hints at this when he claims that "I had often predicted to him,
before he attained the Patriarchal position, that he would one day be
Patriarch. His manner of life allowed me to forecast the future"
15HAccusation if the Archpriest Bifore the Synod (= Orationes Forenses I).

159For Leichoudes as a foil for Psellos' ideal of the political life, see §23 and G.
Misch, 'Die Bruchstiicke einer Autobiographie des byzantinischen Hofphilosophen
360 Historically, this may not have been true of Leichoudes' stance toward the
monophysites; see]. M. Hussey, TIe Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, p. 138.

176 PSELLOS Al"ID ISAAC KOMNENOS
(7.66.24-27). We scarcely need to note that Psellos is being sarcastic

when he then says that "the Emperor honored the deceased by
appointing such a man to succeed him" (7.67.1-2).
Despite these spectacular victories, however, the reign of philoso-
phy did not fully materialize. Ultimately, the Chronographia does not
offer us more than a mere outline or glimpse of Psellos' plans for the
political, intellectual, and religious future of Byzantium. As a histori-
an he could select events and interpret them so as to point his disci-
ples in the right direction, but except for a few scattered digressions,
he could not abandon history altogether and enter the realm of
abstract theory. The sober truth was that a number of circumstances
and accidents conspired to cut short this unique alliance of military
power and anti-Christian philosophy. As a statesman, as an instru-
ment, Isaac was flawed in a way that Psellos reveals without hesita-
tion, and which constitutes his second great difference from Basil II.
The zealous reformer rushed to change overnight everything that
was wrong with the Empire. He acted "not as though he were nego-
tiating government policies, but cleaning out the stables of Augeas"
(7.61.8-9). Psellos criticizes excessive haste in effecting policy changes
elsewhere in the Chronographia (3.6, 4.8), and devotes numerous sec-
tions of Book 7 to criticism ofIsaac's lack of prudence and caution. It
is important to note, however, that he never attacks Isaac's ultimate
objectives (7.57-61).
Had this Emperor chosen the right moments to act, tearing one thing
down, while allowing another to remain standing, and destroying that
one later, then relaxing his efforts after its destruction and before he
made an attempt on yet another, had he thus taken small steps toward
the elimination of corruption, without attracting attention, he would have led
the whole from chaos into order and introduced real harmony into polit-
ical affairs, just like the Demiurge of Plato, who also received the gover-
nance of a world in chaotic and random motion (7.62.1-9, my italics).
This time the comparison of an Emperor to the Demiurge of the

Timaeus does not appear to be sarcastic (cf. 6.175). But it remains
hypothetical, for the desired ruler never materialized. No Emperor
ever introduced the "order and harmony" associated with "the
Demiurge of Plato."
Psellos' thoughts on how Isaac should have implemented his
reforms remind us curiously of another passage of the Chronographia
that we have examined. When Basil II demolished the monastery
constructed by his namesake the parakoimomenos,

he was cautious lest he incur the charge of impiety. So he removed

one part at one time, destroyed another part later, and acted similarly
with the furniture and the mosaics, and indeed with the rest of the
building (1.20.16-19).
Psellos says that Isaac, like Basil, should have acted "without attract-
ing attention" (7.62.4-5). The contextual resonance between these
two passages and the pervasive comparison that Psellos draws
between the two rulers, give a sinister and impious aspect to "the real
harmony in political affairs" advocated in section 7.62. For they sug-
gest that the main enemy to be methodically and quietly demolished
was the Byzantine religion. Careful readers will have noticed that the
advice given to potential reformers in section 7.62 accurately
describes the cautious and methodical procedure of Psellos himself in
the Chronographia. We have seen him slowly but steadily question the
most fundamental beliefs of his contemporaries, and quietly replace
them with the teachings of his own philosophy. He distributes his
attacks and arguments throughout the text "without attracting atten-
tion," often by hiding them in digressions. "It were good that men in
their innovations would follow the example of time itself, which
indeed innovateth greatly, but quietly and by degrees scarce to be
perceived."361 Perhaps Psellos himself tried to succeed where Isaac
had failed.
However that may be, at the time Isaac's failure constituted a set-
back to the realization of Psellos' aims, yet not so great that the latter
could not still hope that the future would prove more fruitful. This
hope is expressed strongly at the end of the first edition of the Chrono-
graphia, after Isaac's abdication and the selection of Constantine X
Doukas as his successor. The continued increase of Psellos' power
and influence is indicated by his suggestion that the new Emperor
owed to him his elevation to the throne (7.91). Psellos divulges the
reason why he chose Doukas in surprisingly unambiguous language.
This man could boast of many noble achievements, but for me one
consideration outweighed all others, namely that this man, who both
was and seemed to be admirable, cared little for others, but either
because he saw something more wise in my opinions as opposed to
those of other men, or because my ethos was pleasing to him, paid so
361 Francis Bacon, 'Of Innovations,' in The Essays, p. 132; cf. Niccolo Machiavelli,
Discourses on Livy 1.18.4 on the perils of renewal "little by little."

178 PHILOSOPHY AND THE THRONE
much attention to me and loved me so much more than the others

that he came to depend on my speech and my soul and entrusted his
deepest concerns to me (7.86, my italics).
Psellos gained Doukas' trust and affection through the wisdom of his
opinions and the pleasant nature of his ethos, i.e., by once again com-
bining rhetoric and philosophy. The final sections of the Chronographia
contain an outline of an encomium in honor of the new Emperor
(7.83-88). But the reader is by now used to these games and postures.
We know exactly what Psellos has to do to win Doukas over to his
cause. Another act of the main theme of the Chronographia begins, just
as the work itself comes to a close.
With the accession of a new Emperor, the surface narrative of the
text comes to an end. But its central theme has also run its course.
We have learned what Psellos plans to accomplish and how. His own
rise, essentially linked to the revival of a liberated and conquering
philosophy, has reached its apogee. There are therefore no philo-
sophical reasons for the narrative of the Chronographia to continue any
further.
25. PHILOSOPHY AND THE THRONE
The true theme of the Chronographia is the revival of genuine philoso-

phy and its rise, after centuries of neglect, to a position of power at
the Imperial court. In a certain sense, therefore, the Chronographia
contains a history of philosophy. Yet this history assumes narrative
form only during the reign of Constantine IX Monomachos, in the
middle of the first edition of the book. Before that it is manifested in
a series of philosophical typologies, as different conceptions of philos-
ophy are discussed and for the most part discarded. We have seen
Psellos ridicule the ignorance of the pedantic theologians of
Romanos III (§4), and reject the philosopher-monks of Michael IV
Paphlagon (§ 10-12). Although both groups enjoyed Imperial favor
and support, Psellos proves that neither included any true philoso-
phers. The conceptions of philosophy that were accepted by the
Church are thereby presented as degrading to the true pursuit of wis-
dom and deserving of abandonment. In those early discussions, Psel-

PHILOSOPHY AND THE THRONE 179
los sets the stage for the revival of true philosophy, for which he
claimed to be solely responsible.
The "philosophers and orators" who appeared during the reign of
Basil II seem to constitute an exception to this pattern (l.29), an
exception presented in Psellos' first digression from the main narrative
(cf. l.30.1). Although he neither comments on the quality of their
work, nor tells us any of their names, he claims that a significant
"movement" occurred at that time in those two disciplines. It is
important to note that in contrast to Romanos III and Michael IV,
Basil did not patronize the philosophers who appeared during his
reign. In fact, he ignored and scorned them. This peculiarity in Basil's
attitude, which may ultimately account for the inclusion of these
unidentified men in the Chronographia, is exploited by Psellos to explain
the difference between past and present devotees of the Muses:
The men of that time did not cultivate the study of letters for any oth-
er reason, but pursued these studies as ends in themselves. But the
majority today do not approach education with this attitude, but
believe that the prime purpose of literature is profit (1.29.18-23).
Psellos presumably exempts himself from this common criticism,

which he may have written with some of his own pupils in mind.
Later he states explicitly that he never received payment in exchange
for teaching (6.43.11-12). Although this policy was certainly noble,
his claim is probably an allusion to the well-known practice of
Socrates, which many ancient authors used as a standard to differen-
tiate between sophists and philosophers. Whereas sophists, i.e., pro-
fessional teachers of rhetoric, accepted money in return for their ser-
vices, genuine philosophers who followed Socrates' example taught
for free, simply to enlighten and morally improve their fellow-citi-
zens. In later centuries, self-styled philosophers who charged fees
were often scorned and ridiculed as hypocrites. 362 Psellos is thereby
emphasizing his role as a philosophical educator, as opposed to a
hired teacher of verbal skill. Even though he ruthlessly exploited the
power of the Muses to advance his career and further his political
362 Cf. Plato, Apology 19d-20a; Republic 337d, etc.; Xenophon, Apology 16. Against
philosophers taking money: Lucian, Menippos 4-5; Nigrinus, passim; Timon 54-57;
Plutarch, Stoic Self-Contradictions 20 (= Moralia 1043e); cf. also Pius in Corpus furis
Civilis, Digesta 27.1.6.7; Diocletian and Maximian in Codex fustinianus 10.42.6; Anony-
mous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy 1.5.24-25; for the fees of the sophists see
Philostratos, Lives qfthe Sophists 519,525,527,538,591,604.

180 PHILOSOPHY A.'ID THE THRONE
interests,363 his ultimate goal was clearly not one of personal enrich-
ment.
When considering the anonymous philosophers of Basil's reign we
must remember that they lived before Psellos' revival of learning,
and therefore cannot be construed as true philosophers. They are
probably not named because they are supposed to represent another
philosophical type. 16f As with the anonymous court philosophers of
Romanos III and Michael IV, Psellos wants to teach us something
about the nature of philosophy as such and the significance of its
political context. In this case, one lesson at least appears to be clear:
true learning is attained only by those who are not guided by ulterior
motives, especially by the desire for personal enrichment. Generaliz-
ing from the example of his own career, we might say that Psellos
allows philosophers to gain power in the State in order to combat the
enemies of true philosophy, thus making its practice safer and more
respectable, so long as they realize that the pursuit of wisdom is an
end in itself that should not be subordinated to other goals. In other
words, it is unacceptable for philosophers to study literature in order
to enrich themselves, but acceptable for them to seek political power
in order to enhance the social and political standing of philosophy.
Yet the discussion of the intellectual "movement" that flourished
under Basil also contains an implicit lesson: the Emperor's indiffer-
ence and scorn allowed the thinkers of his age to pursue their work
without hindrance or temptation. Having witnessed the massive
incursions that Psellos' philosophy was prepared to make into the
domain of secular power, we might now wonder about the reciprocal
effects of that relationship. The reign of Basil shows that genuine phi-
losophy can thrive when rulers ignore it, but what happens when
they do not? What does Psellos have to say about the personal
involvement of Emperors in "the study of letters"? First of all, he tells
us explicitly and approvingly that Isaac, like Basil, "left the study of
literature to us who were his subjects, and to private citizens"
30.1 As Psellos himself makes abundantly clear, his entire political career was based
on his rhetorical ability (cf. §20, and G. Misch, 'Die Bruchstiicke einer Autobiogra-
phie des byzantinischen Hofphilosophen Michael Pselios,' p. 775). See, for example,
his Oration bifore the Emperor Monomacho5 (= Orationes Panegyricae 2) 798 If.
%4 Psellos' claim about the "movement" that occurred during Basil's reign has not
been substantiated by modern scholarship: "In the years around 1000 Byzantine lit-
erary activity paused to some extent after its period of revival" (W. Treadgold, 'The
Maeedonian Renaissance,' p. 96).

(7.49.1-2). Not only that, Psellos would not even reveal some of phi-
losophy's secrets to the inquiring Emperor (7.64.7). It seems that phi-
losophy may interfere with secular power, but not the other way
around. According to a not unjustifiable double standard, the separa-
tion of philosophy and the throne cuts in only one direction.
This conclusion requires that Emperors respect, or at least not
infringe upon, the sovereignty of philosophy over its own affairs.
Psellos, as a lover of his city and country (6.154.3,6.190.6-7), desires
an effective ruler and a strong State, but he also longs for a free,
powerful, and genuine philosophical movement. How can he ensure
or legitimize the co-existence of both?
We must first note that none of the Emperors described in the
Chronographia possessed Hellenic paideia in any profound sense. Cer-
tainly none of them came close to being philosophers. Romanos III
had some pretensions in this respect, but Psellos quickly exposes their
hollowness and vanity (cf. §4). Furthermore, judging from Isaac's lack
of higher culture, it seems that Psellos has no objections to the persis-
tence of this trend. Not only does he gives us no sign whatsoever that
he wants to see actual philosophers on the throne, we are left with
the impression that in his view an Emperor did not even have to be
gready educated in order to carry out his proper functions. We real-
ize now just how far the argument of the Chronographia is from the
false ideal of the philosopher-kings of Plato's Republic. For as Socrates
teaches in that dialogue, the realization of that ideal can only be due
to chance, and would probably be short-lived and unsuccessful, if not
downright disastrous for both the State and philosophy.
According to Psellos, Emperors should manage the finances pru-
dendy, preserve a stable social order, and, above all, wage war on
the frontiers. 365 They should be ambitious, pragmatic, and even ruth-
less individuals, for worldly success is the overriding standard of their
worth. Psellos' portrayal of the imperious and uncouth Basil II
depends entirely on this perspective (cf. §5-7). Basil's most trusted
subordinates were also practical in oudook, rough in character, and
poorly educated (1.30). One of his later confidants was John the
Orphanotrophos (3.18), Michael IV's sinister and ruthless brother,
who was actually hostile to anyone who adorned his soul with the
365 Cf. Psellos' Oration before the Emperor Monomachos (= Orationes Panegyricae 2) 123-
132, 170-174, for Basil II's warlike nature and his overriding concern for matters of
war, and Psellos' exhortation in line 145.

paideia of the ancient Greeks (4.14). Michael IV himself, although

also ignorant of Hellenic paideia, worked hard in the administration
and paid special attention to the military (4.7-10), thereby earning
Psellos' praise (cf. §6).
The Chronographia is heavily biased in favor of the military. Where-
as Psellos encourages Emperors to reduce the size of the bloated civ-
il administration (7.51-60), he strongly criticizes them when they
ignore the needs and demands of the army (e.g., 7.1). Accordingly,
the greatest Emperors described in the work, Basil, Isaac, and to a
certain extent even Michael IV, were military Emperors. This does
not necessarily mean that they rose through the ranks, but rather
that they devoted a fair amount of attention to the army and even
campaigned in person against the Empire's enemies. In his account
of the revolt of Leo Tornikios against Constantine IX Monomachos,
Psellos notes that the people of Constantinople wanted a military
Emperor to rule them, a man "who had risked his life on their
behalf' (6.104.27). Of course, the powerful military families of the
provinces (the stratiotikon, in Byzantine parlance) had always wanted
to place one of their own on the throne (7.6).366 But Psellos does not
criticize this ambition. On the contrary, his praise for Isaac's rebel-
lion and the many generals who supported it is effusive (7.3, 5-8, 22,
24). For a scholar and courtier, he is remarkably sympathetic to the
tough commanders who led the Byzantine army on the field of bat-
tle. 367 He has nothing but praise for the two warriors who rebelled
against his hero Basil, Bardas Phokas and Bardas Skleros, and for
their soldiers (1.5, 7, 10, 11, 15, 24-26). He admires their martial
virtue and bodily vigor, and criticizes only their tactical mistakes
(e.g., 1.9), while completely overlooking their disloyalty to the legiti-
mate regime. Psellos leaves us with the impression that both would
%6 The distinction between the stratiotikon and the politikon was an important one
for writers of this period. Although the terms highlight a broad structural cleavage
within the Byzantine State, they should not be used to identify the allegiances or
interpret the political behavior of individuals or particular families. j.-C. Cheynet
(Pouvoir et contestations) has shown that there was considerable fluidity, overlap, and
pure opportunism in these matters.
:167 Psellos' preferences in this respect are similar to those of the later historian
Nikephoros Bryennios, a soldier and aristocrat, who viewed history as the contest
between proud warriors descended from noble families (cf. A. P. Kazhdan and A.
Wharton Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture, p. 106). We know that Bryennios made
extensive use of the Chronographia and was certainly influenced by it. \Vas his attitude
therefore the product of his social position or of his reading?

have made competent and effective Emperors, perhaps as capable of

protecting and strengthening the State as Basil himself turned out to
be. Mter all, the maxims on which Basil based his autocracy were
allegedly given to him by Skleros (1.28). There is no ideology of
Imperial legitimacy in the Chronographia. Only the strong have the
right to rule, since only they have the ability to do so.
Psellos' account of the revolt led by the general George Maniakes
(6.75-77, 82) has even convinced some modern historians that that
fierce rebel would have reversed the Empire's steady decline had he
managed to overthrow the last remnants of the Macedonian
dynasty.368 Maniakes was an awesome monster of a man, and yet
Psellos seems to admire him all the more for that. This is because he
understands the physical basis of military virtue, as is shown by his
highly sympathetic account of the "brave soldier" John Vatatzes, the
steadfast supporter of the rebel Leo Tornikios: "in the physique of his
body and the strength of his arms was equal to the celebrated heroes
of old" (6.122.2-4). In the end, Psellos leaves no doubts that he too,
along with the people of the City, prefers strong military Emperors,
Homeric heroes even, over the slothful and irresponsible Epicureans
of the palace. 369
368 E.g., W. Treadgold, A History qfthe Byzantine State and Society, p. 611. For Psellos'
two views of Maniakes, the one rhetorical, the other historical, see R. Anastasi, Studi
sulla "Chronographia" di Michele Psello, p. 48 ff. Cf. Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourses on
Livy 1.30.1.
369 Based purely on the contingencies of his career, and more or less disregarding
his expressed preferences in the Chronographia, most scholars have placed Psellos
within the camp of the 'City bureaucrats,' who allegedly struggled with the 'military
aristocracy' for control of the Empire in the eleventh century (e.g., E. Stanescu, 'Les
reformes d'Isaac Comnene,' pp. 63-65; and F. H. Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik
in der by::,antinischen Historiographie, p. 130, who argues that Psellos' solicitude for the
army in the Chronographia cannot have been sincere precisely because he belonged to
the 'Civil Party at court'!). Yet the intricacies of Psellos' position cannot be under-
stood properly through such distinctions.
Scholars who have examined the gradual 'militarization' of the Imperial image in
the late eleventh and twelfth centuries have not even mentioned Psellos' central role
in that transformation (A. Kazhdan, 'The Aristocracy and the Imperial Ideal,'
bypasses the Chronographia entirely; P. Magdalino, the empire qf Manuel I Komnenos,
1143-1180, pp. 418-421, claims that the militarization began and developed under
the Komnenoi). In fact, every aspect of the fully developed ideal is already present in
the Chronographia, including the negative view of "stay-at-home emperors" and the
use of the language of asceticism to depict an Emperor's ability to withstand hard-
ships on campaign. Yet his application of heroic ideals to Emperors may have been
preceded by the rise of heroic literature among the noble families of the Empire in
the tenth century: see C. Roueche, 'Byzantine Writers and Readers: Storytelling in
the Eleventh Century,' pp. 127-129.

We should not view this preference cynically. Psellos did not

endorse the stratiotikon's claim to the throne because he believed that
brawny and uncultivated soldiers could be manipulated more easily
by his insidious brand of courtly rhetoric. It was in fact far more dif-
ficult for him to prove his worth to Isaac Komnenos than to Con-
stantine IX Monomachos or Michael VI Stratiotikos. By advocating
a military regime, Psellos was effectively jeopardizing the very cir-
cumstances that had favored his own rise to power. Obviously, there-
fore, his choice was not made for selfish reasons. He must have
believed that military leadership offered the best solution to the prob-
lems facing the Empire in the eleventh century.370 This justifies his
claim to be philopatris and philoromaios (6.154.3). But as a true
philosophos he also had to ensure that military leaders respect the val-
ue of higher wisdom. In other words, he had to transform the Basil
of the Chronographia into the Cyrus of Plato's Laws, who "spent his
whole life, from youth on, preoccupied with military matters" (694d),
but "if someone among his subjects was prudent and capable of giv-
ing counsel, the king was not jealous but allowed freedom of speech
and honored those capable of giving counsel" (694b). Accordingly,
the Chronographia begins with the supremely arrogant Basil and ends
with the stern but open-minded Isaac, who was eager to benefit from
the advice of his courtly philosopher.
It seems, therefore, that Psellos' political thought was not entirely
subservient to the political interests of philosophy, or perhaps consid-
ered those interests in the long run. He tried to accommodate his
revival and aggrandizement of genuine philosophy to policies that
would preserve and strengthen the Empire. He desired a strong cen-
tralized State to patronize and protect a genuine philosophical move-
ment. 371 This was not a mere abstract ideal, or the utopian hope of
an ambitious theorist dissatisfied with the state of the real world. The
370 Another Byzantine scholar, the sickly and reclusive Emperor Constantine VII
Porphyrogennetos, also knew that "the army is to the State what the head is to the
body ... whoever does not pay a great deal of attention to it, risks his own demise"
(preface to his novel defundis militaribus, in]. and P. Zepos,]us GraecoTomanum, v. I, p.
222). _
171 For a later period, see I. Sevcenko, 'The Palaeologan Renaissance,' p. 162:
"Assuming an uninterrupted tradition of education, quite small groups can produce
impressive revivals. All they need are structures that will provide them with a mini-
mum of support - that is, a chance to gravitate around a powerful elite that shares
with their proteges the conviction that culture and learning increase the social pres-
tige of both producer and patron."

WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF THE 'CHRONOGRAPHIA'? 185
Chronographia is instead the record of a careful policy deliberately pur-

sued by a most extraordinary and patient man, who devoted his con-
siderable abilities to the task of restoring and preserving the science
and philosophy' of antiquity. The pen was by no means his only
weapon: his political agility and perspicuity enabled him to wield
considerable influence over the highest levels of government. Of
course, the ultimate success of his program would have to be entrust-
ed to his intellectual disciples, and the degree of his success has yet to
be determined. Perhaps the 'Komnenian' revival of letters will have
to be renamed. However that may be, Psellos could not have fore-
seen that the military dynasty of the Komnenoi would save the
Byzantine Empire while simultaneously assuming a relatively hostile
attitude towards intellectual freedom and favoring the stagnant but
already established religion. Psellos did know, however, that a State
did not need philosophical guidance in order to be militarily and
economically strong. Book 1 is clear proof of that.
26. WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF THE CHRONOGRAPHIA?
Can any of Psellos' religious or metaphysical beliefs be recovered

safely from the Chronographia? Until now scholars have generally
accepted his scattered declarations on those issues at face value, and
have thereby constructed the well-known if trite image of Psellos the
Christian Neoplatonist. But any attempt to uncover his personal
beliefs must henceforth proceed with extreme caution. In particular,
the distinction between esoteric and exoteric truths must not be
ignored or treated lightly, for it is a central component of Psellos'
political conception of philosophy. After all, what is the likelihood
that he would publish doctrines that he would not even reveal to the
Emperor Isaac, his warm supporter, in private conversation? (7.64.7)
The problem is aggravated by Psellos' habit of using religious and
metaphysical language metaphorically, in order to embellish his nar-
rative, which renders literal readings extremely hazardous. One com-
mentator, for instance, has suggested that in section 7.62 Psellos
more or less equates the Demiurge of Plato's Timaeus with the Cre-
ator God of Moses, which is somehow supposed to reveal the Neo-

186 WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF THE 'CHRONOGRAPHIA'?
platonic roots of his thought. 372 But Psellos neither says nor implies
anything of the sort. He merely uses the creative activity of God as
an analogy for the reform of the State by a strong-willed ruler. The
Demiurge of the Timaeus is cited as a model for the creation of order
out of chaos. The God of Moses is mentioned because it took Him
six days to create the world, whereas Isaac Komnenos wanted to
accomplish everything in only one. It is not entirely clear what kind
of religious syncretism or philosophical teaching one can extract
from such a lightweight passage, especially since Psellos elsewhere
sarcastically compares the activity of the Timaeus' Demiurge to the
gardening of Constantine IX Monomachos (6.175; cf. the use of
Hercules in 4.27). It is sometimes difficult to know when this author
is being serious. And the inability to recognize a jesting treatment of
serious matters can produce great confusion. 373 We must come to
terms with the possibility that none of Psellos' positive metaphysical
or religious views are divulged in the entire Chronographia.
Perhaps more reliable results can be obtained from an examina-
tion of his intellectual autobiography (6.36-43). Yet those pages con-
tain only a summary of his philosophical studies, and not a confes-
sion of his personal beliefs.374 He oudines his intellectual interests and
reading habits, but we may not infer that he believed everything he
read. In fact, we have already encountered some explicit evidence to
the contrary (cf. 5.19, 6A.I0-12; and §18). He begins by telling us
that as a student of philosophy he mastered natural science and the
arts of reasoning, and "aspired to metaphysical knowledge [rcpOltTJV
qnAo()O<piuv] through a study of mathematics" (6.36.12-14, my ital-
ics). But before telling us which metaphysical doctrines he accepted
as true, Psellos abrupdy changes the topic and boasts about how he
single-handedly resurrected true philosophy (6.37). After a succession
of worthless teachers, he eventually turned direcdy to Plato and Aris-
tode, and from them moved on to study the works of Plotinos, Por-
phyry, Iamblichos, and Proklos (6.38.1-5). Proklos in particular
offered him "science and conceptual precision."
372 B. Karalis, in v. 2, p. 301, n. 34, of his modem Greek translation of the text.
173 Cf. Plato, Philebus 30e, Sixth Letter 323c-d.
374 This fact is not noted by many scholars who have written on "Psellos' philoso-
phy" and who take these passages as straightforward expositions of metaphysical
principles; see, e.g., B. N. Tatakis, 'H BvSavTlv~ IPIAoaoqJra, pp. 173-174.

After this I intended to elevate myself to first philosophy and to be initi-

ated into pure knowledge. But first I studied the theories that are
known as mathematical and which concern the abstract entities that
hold a middle position between the nature of material bodies and the
thought that has nothing to do with them, as well as the beings them-
selves, which pure reason apprehends. I hoped from all of this to grasp
something that lay beyond even them, something beyond mind or
beyond being (6.38.5-12, my italics).375
Psellos is completely silent in this passage about the actual fruits of

his intellectual, or rather supra-intellectual, labors. He tells us about
what he "aspired," "intended," and "hoped" to achieve, but reveals
nothing about what he actually perceived or understood. The same
reticence characterizes section 6.40, which is also concerned with the
higher truths of the Neoplatonists.
Since I had heard from the greatest philosophers that there is a wis-
dom that lies beyond proof, which only a prudent and inspired mind
can know, I did not neglect it, but, by studying some mystic books, I
appropriated as much of it as my nat~re permitted (6.40.1-5).
But this is more of a book report than a declaration of philosophical

conviction. We know the kind of theories that Psellos is referring to,
and we possess some of the books that he may have read, but we
cannot ascertain from his statements which, if any, of their doctrines
he personally accepted. A similar reticence characterizes his claim
that philosophical investigations "do not merely extend to the heav-
ens, but if there should be another universe beyond that point, they
praise it with a great variety of expression" (6.41.11-12, my italics).
Furthermore, according to most Neoplatonic thinkers, one cannot
acquire from books the highest wisdom that lies "beyond mind or
beyond being." Books can merely point one in the right direction.
Only direct mystical contemplation and personal union with the
divine provide access to that highest truth.376 But Psellos does not
m This course of studies, including the conception of mathematics as standing

midway between natural science and metaphysical speculation, was in fact the stan-
dardized Neoplatonic curriculum; see L. Siorvanes, Proclus: Neo-Platonic Philosophy and
Science, pp. 115, 119.
:l76 The return to the One in Plotinos, and his successors, involves the transcen-
dence ofIntellect: R. T. Wallis, Neoplatonism, p. 59: "all theoretical discussions of the
One are finally inadequate, since its true nature is revealed only in the mystical
union," also pp. 85, 88. According to Iamblichos, who heavily influenced the sub-

ever say that he went beyond the reading of books in his efforts to
attain that elusive "wisdom that lies beyond proof." We can rule out
the possibility that this silence was due to a fear of appearing too per-
sonally involved in the religion of the Neoplatonists. Proklos' meta-
physical system had been thoroughly Christianized and thus sani-
tized by the hugely influential writings of pseudo-Dionysios: "By an
undivided and absolute abandonment of yourself and everything,
shedding all and freed from all, you will be uplifted to the ray of the
divine shadow which is above everything that is.":l77 Psellos' own cen-
tury also produced thinkers who preached the values of mystical con-
templation and unification with an unknowable transcendent deity.
Symeon the Theologian, following earlier Orthodox writers like
Maximos the Confessor, claimed that the mystic "will receive the
reward of the vision of God and will participate in the divine
nature."378 The Christian Neoplatonism of pseudo-Dionysios and his
successors demonstrates that Psellos could easily have cast his mysti-
cal experiences, if he ever had any, in terms acceptable to the most
Christian reader. In fact we know that he could describe them in a
language that was quite neutral between Neoplatonism and Chris-
tianity:
those who attain union with God through contemplation, and even
more, those who go beyond such an experience and are filled with
God and, being possessed by the perfection of the object of their
desires, are held suspended there (6.65.5-8).
Yet he never says anything comparable about himself. The above

passage is a satire of the piety of the Empress Zoe! (cf. § 16)
Psellos' two notices on the supra-intellectual wisdom of the Neo-
platonists (6.38.11-12 and 6.40.1-5) are separated by a passage (6.39)
that deals with the way in which he arranged the many scientific dis-
sequent course of Neoplatonic speculation, this union could be achieved through rit-
uals in which the presence of reflexive thought was precluded (cf. in general, G.
Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus, esp. c. 10).
177 pseudo-Dionysios, The Mystical Theology 1.1; cL 2.1: "If only we lacked sight and
knowledge so as to see, so as to know, unseeing and unknowing, that which lies
beyond all vision and knowledge."
378 Symeon the Theologian, Theological Orations 2.312-314; cL The Discourses 2.12:
"He who is united to God by faith and recognizes him by action is indeed enabled
to see him by contemplation. He sees things of which I am not able to write ... He
sees himself wholly united to the light ... " The bibliography on Symeon and pseudo-
Dionysios is extensive, and I cannot do justice to it here.

ciplines that he studied. Its purpose is to show how Psellos ostensibly

subordinated them to the attainment of that highest, supra-rational,
wisdom.
For this purpose, I applied myself to arithmetical methods and learned
geometrical proofs, which some call 'necessities.' I then studied the
musical and astronomical sciences, as well as any others that may
depend on these, ignoring none. I first examined each by itself, and
then brought them all together, in the belief that when unified they
would all lead to one, as the Epinomis would have it. In this way I
approached higher things (6.39).
The Epinomis is the only book cited by its title in the entire Chrono-
graphia. It is cited in the middle of the first edition of that work, in a
discussion that is important for the understanding of the author's per-
sonal beliefs. Psellos, who was so fond of indirect allusions to other
texts, would not cite this one explicitly if he had not intended the read-
ers of his Chronographia to take its contents into serious consideration.
As its title indicates, the Epinomis is an appendix to Plato's Laws,
although it was certainly not written by PlatoY'l The identity of its
true author is irrelevant here. The work seeks to supplement the
Laws by answering the question 'What is wisdom?' More specifically,
"what would a mortal man have to learn in order to be wise?" (973b,
also 974b) The main speaker of the dialogue concludes by postulat-
ing a hierarchical arrangement of the sciences, the ascent through
which leads to true wisdom. One begins with the science of numbers,
proceeds to geometry and stereometry, and finally attains true wis-
dom with astronomy, which ultimately grants "the most beautiful
and divine of all the things that God has given to men to see" (991 b).
Thus the Epinomis seems to support and substantiate Psellos' program
of higher philosophical studies.
But this conclusion is tenable only if one completely disregards the
main doctrines of the dialogue, for there are profound philosophical
differences between its conception of the world and that of the Neo-
platonists, which are revealed even by a superficial comparison. The
major thesis of the Epinomis is that wisdom is piety (cf. 977c-d and
989a-b), and piety is equated with astronomy (98ge-990a). The
author can make this equation because he believes that the stars and
379 See in general L. Tanin, Academica: Plato, Philip if Opus, and the Pseudo-Platonic
Epinomis.

the cosmos that contains them are the only existing divinities. Thus
piety is identical to astronomy because both constitute knowledge of
the divine. He implicitly denies the existence of the Platonic
Forms,38o thereby abandoning the supremacy of dialectic, and seeks
to establish a new astral religion. There is nothing in the universe but
body and soul (cf. 983d), and the stars, which are gods (982c), are
composed of these two elements just as human beings are, with the
difference that the stars are far more intelligent and powerful.
The Epinomis effectively decapitates the spiritual ascent of Neoplaton-
ic mysticism, because it denies the existence of anything "beyond mind
and beyond being," i.e., beyond the world of the Forms. In fact, the
ontology of the Epinomis does not even accept the existence of the
Forms. It never transcends the astral level of being, whereas Plato's
Socrates explicitly recommends the study of astronomy as only a prepa-
ration for the study of true reality.381 Psellos was very familiar with Neo-
platonic texts and teachings, and could not possibly have been unaware
of these implications when he cited the Epinomis as his guide to the
attainment of higher wisdom. Proklos himself explicitly rejected the Pla-
tonic authorship and credentials of the text, as even ancient textbooks
on Neoplatonic thought acknowledged. 382 In one of his major works,
which Psellos knew well, Proklos claimed that "the E,pinomis is full of
forgery" and that it "deceives childish and old-fashioned minds."383
Setting aside the fundamental differences between the Epinomis
and Neoplatonism, there are also major incongruities between that
work and other passages of the Chronographia. The Epinomis teaches a
form of astral Providence, according to which the cosmos, through
the motion which it imparts to the divine and intelligent stars, pro-
vides all people with nourishment, understanding, "and all other
good things" (977b; cf. 978c-979b). The same function is later
ascribed to the stars themselves (982e, 983c, 991 d). But we have
already seen Psellos repeatedly deny that the stars influence the
course of events on earth. Although his immediate opponents are
those who believe that the course and position of heavenly bodies
can reveal the future (i.e., they are astrologers), Psellos' statements
380 ibid. pp. 24-32.

381 Cf. Plato, Republic 529d-e, 534e.
382 See the Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy 10.25.1-10, 10.26.5-6.
383 In Platonis rem publicam commentarii 2.134.5-7. Unfortunately, due to the loss of cer-
tain of Proklos' works we do not know all the reasons for which he rejected the work.

against them still undermine the basic assumptions of the Epinomis: "I
am not at all persuaded that our lives are influenced by the move-
ments of the stars" (5.19.14-16; repeated in 6A.11.9-1O). And he
claims in particular that the stars are "without reason" (aA6you~:
6A.ll.14-15).384 Furthermore, whereas according to the Epinomis wis-
dom is ultimately given to men by the gods, Psellos does not ascribe
his intellectual achievements to anything but his own personal genius
and study of ancient literature. Not only does he never equate piety
with wisdom, he never even mentions piety in his intellectual autobi-
ography, not even in the single sentence which he devotes to his pro-
found knowledge of Christian "philosophy" (6.42.1-8).
Therefore, whereas Psellos' citation of the Epinomis undermines his
allegiance to Neoplatonic metaphysics (which was uncertain to begin
with), other passages of the Chronographia in turn undermine the basic
teachings of the Epinomis. Psellos has constructed a labyrinth of mutu-
ally contradictory doctrines which contains no passages to the center
of his own beliefs. We could suppose that his citation of the Epinomis
was merely careless. In this case, we would have to conclude that he
did not pay close attention to the teachings of the single text that he
cites to explain the logic behind his philosophical studies. The discus-
sion of his views thereby loses all philosophical interest. On the other
hand, it is possible that he has deliberately concealed himself in a
philosophical maze from which there is simply no way out.
There is another passage from which we might still hope to extract
some of Psellos' true beliefs. But in examining it we must not fail to
consider the importance of the dramatic context and the immediate
audience of Psellos' statements. As Isaac Komnenos was triumphant-
ly entering the City for the first time as Emperor, he turned to Psel-
los, who was at his side, and expressed his concerns about the future.
"It seems to me, 0 philosopher, that this extreme of good fortune is

fragile, and I do not know if all will turn out well for me." I said,
"Your thought is truly philosophical, but neither do good beginnings
always result in bad ends, nor would such a limit [opOC;] be unsurpass-
384 However, the passage in which this last claim occurs is unquestionably corrupt.
The majority of interpreters and translators have construed "without reason" with
"the stars," which seems to me the most plausible reading, but S. Ronchey has pro-
posed an emendation and interpretation that splits the two words apart (Indagini
ermeneutiche e critico-testuali sulla Cronografia di Psello, pp. 47-56; 'Ancora sulla Crono-
grajia di Psello,' pp. 388-393).

able if it had been decreed by Fate [Ka9dlluptat]. For I have learned

from very wise books and propitiatory prayers that if someone
changes his life for the better, he immediately defeats the ordinances
of Fate [to ElIlUpt6v]. I say these things on the basis of Hellenic teach-
ings. But according to our beliefs nothing is destined [£t!l<xpmt] for us,
nor absolutely necessary [KUtTlVaYKucrtat], but outcomes correspond to
our previous actions. If you change your philosophical disposition, and
allow your soul to exult in these grand things, divine justice will swift-
ly oppose you. Otherwise, take heart, for the divine is not jealous of
anything that it bestows upon us, but to many men it has often grant-
ed a straight and unbroken path of glory" (7.41.4-19).
Psellos tries to dispel Isaac's apprehensions and restore his confi-

dence by offering him two optimistic views on the destiny of man.
The first view is ostensibly Hellenic and the second ostensibly Chris-
tian, and although these explicit designations suggest that the two
views conflict, in reality they do not, for both generally argue that if
a man leads a good life, he will be able to attain, or be rewarded
with, lasting prosperity and success. Psellos is perfectly neutral
between the two views, and it is interesting that he would openly take
such a neutral stance before the ruler of the Byzantine world (d.
7B.42.1-3). According to the Hellenic view, leading a good life
enables one to conquer the decrees of Fate even when those seek to
thwart continued success. Similarly, the Christian view, although
couched in relatively obscure language, essentially contains a com-
monplace exhortation based on the promises of Providence: nothing
is preordained for divine justice will reward the good man with last-
ing success. If these were Psellos' true beliefs, they were conventional
enough. But is he telling Isaac the truth?
The Christian view requires Isaac to preserve his "philosophical
disposition," a condition which he in fact fulfilled. He refused to be
awed by the magnificent spectacle of his own entry into the City and
did not exult in vain and hollow displays, an attitude which Psellos
immediately labels "philosophical." He later informs us that Isaac
"was a lover of the philosophical life, and turned away in disgust
from everything sick and corrupt in life" (7.58.1-2). Furthermore,
Psellos repeatedly points out that Isaac's aims were good and noble,
and that it was only his excessive haste and zeal that aroused opposi-
tion to his reforms and discredited them. 385 Yet even though Isaac
lBi Cf. 7.58.17-19, 7.59.29-31, 7.61.4-5, 7.62.20-22.

conformed entirely to Psellos' Christian advice, all his efforts were

ruined when he suddenly became ill and suffered an untimely death.
Placing his faith in Christian Providence did him litde good in the
long run, although perhaps it did not harm him either. Isaac's
"philosophical disposition" may have made him a better ruler, from
Psellos' point of view, so that his philosopher's litde sermon may
have had a positive effect on him even if it lacked any real metaphys-
ical basis. However that may be, the eventual outcome of Isaac's
reign blatandy contradicts Psellos' encouraging forecast in section
7.41.
Did Psellos believe the Christian advice that he gave to Isaac? We
must differentiate here between the author of the Chronographia and
the philosophical courtier who speaks to Isaac in section 7.41. Even
though the former knew that the doctrines expounded in that section
by the latter would be proven false by subsequent events, he never-
theless chose to include them in his narrative anyway. Furthermore,
Psellos the philosophical courtier concludes his exhortation to Isaac
by noting that "the divine is not jealous of anything that it bestows
upon us, but to many men it has often granted a straight and unbro-
ken path of glory" (7.41.17-19). However, Psellos the historian has
already told us that
it might be possible to find some private citizen who has followed one and
the same path throughout his life from the very beginning all the way
to the end ... but a man who has received Imperial rule from God,
especially if he lives for many years, would never be able to maintain
the highest standards of excellence throughout his reign (6.27.8-14,
my italics; also compare 7.41.7-8 with the more realistic 6.27.2-8).
In short, the historian gives us sufficient evidence to suspect that the

religious sermon of section 7.41 was a deliberate fraud. But why
would Psellos the philosophical courtier lie to Isaac, and why would
Psellos the historian want to reveal that he did?
Psellos' ostensibly Hellenic teaching apparendy derives from philo-
sophical discussions on the power of Fate and the ability of man to
overcome its ordinances. Its exact sources are not revealed. The word
for Fate [to EillaptOv] appears twice in the Chronographia outside of sec-
tion 7.41. On both occasions it is nothing more than a colorful way of
~eferring to death, an event necessitated by human nature (cf §12). In
section 6A.19.2-4 Psellos tells us that the Empress Theodora "had
drawn near to the end decreed by Fate [EyyU<; E'Y£yOVEt t01HlllaptOu]. I

use this expression merely figuratively [tn <pOlVn lCataxpffil1€vo~], for I

really mean that she had reached the limit [opov] of her life" (cf. the
use ofopo~ in 7.4l.9). Similarly, Michael IV Paphlagon "died when he
had fulfilled the fated length [tOY Eil1apl1EVOV ai&va] of his life" (5.35.9).
In the Chronographia, therefore, "Fate" signifies nothing more than "the
limit" of death, which means that no matter how good a man might
become, ultimately he can never really "defeat the ordinances of
Fate." Not surprisingly, it was precisely mortal sickness that caused the
sudden demise of Isaac Komnenos. Without any regard for the virtue
of his life or the soundness of his policies, a disease struck him down
and ended his reign along with his life (7.73). 386 Not only did Isaac's
"philosophical disposition" fail to "defeat the ordinances of Fate" in
the long run, he in fact succumbed to them within a period of only two
years. Thus the course of Isaac's reign again directly contradicts the
moralistic advice offered by the philosophical courtier, so much so in
fact that other contemporary historians could quite plausibly assume
that Isaac's sickness was a form of divine punishment. 387
The exchange between Isaac and Psellos on human fortune in sec-
tion 7.41 clearly alludes to the legendary conversation between Solon
and Kroisos on "the lot of man" in the first book of Herodotos
(l.32.1). Kroisos was proud of his great wealth and believed that it
made him supremely happy (l.30.1), but when Solon, who had
already given the Athenians a new code of laws, refuted the equation
of wealth and happiness, Kroisos was greatly displeased and sent the
Athenian traveler away thinking him a fool (1.33). Solon, who had
nothing to gain from his royal host, had spoken his mind freely. In
contrast to Kroisos, Isaac showed from the beginning of his reign a
more "philosophical" attitude toward his great prosperity, and
immediately praised the wise words of his philosopher (7.42.1-3). In
contrast to Solon, Psellos had not yet given his countrymen a new
code of laws, and clearly desired to gain Imperial patronage. Accord-
ingly, his advice was bogus, but nevertheless calculated to please and
edify Isaac, who immediately appointed him his chief advisor. Both
Kroisos and Isaac came to grief, the former in accordance with the
386 Other contemporary sources offer the same explanation for his fall: Michael
Attaleiates, History 68-69; Nikephoros Bryennios, Materials for a History 1.4-5;
Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle 2.6. For Isaac's sickness and death, as depicted by Psel-
los, see R. Volk, Der medizinische Inhalt der Schriften des Michael Pselios, pp. 412-417.
387 See E. Stanescu, 'Les reformes d'Isaac Comnene,' pp. 47, 59, 61.

wisdom of Solon, the latter in direct violation of the false precepts of

his philosopher.
There is also a subde blasphemy contained in the allusion. If Psel-
los' sermon is entirely false, so too is his statement that "the divine is
not jealous of anything that it bestows upon us, but to many men it
has often granted a straight and unbroken path of glory." We have
already seen that Psellos did not believe this to be quite true. Instead
of contradicting it openly, however, he alludes to Solon, who, pre-
dictably, affirms the exact opposite point of view: "I know that the
divine is entirely envious and loves to stir up trouble ... For to many
God has given some prosperity and then completely destroyed them"
(1.32.1, 9). Readers of the Chronographia who wish to hear the whole
truth about God, or Fate, or "the lot of man," are referred to the
Hellenic wisdom of Solon. Instead of a world governed by just Prov-
idence, Psellos ultimately leaves us with "a world in chaotic and ran-
dom motion" (7.62.1-9).
Even though we have failed to extract any of Psellos' personal reli-
gious beliefs from his sermon to Isaac, we may at least wonder why
that is so. Why did Psellos lie to Isaac about the benevolence of Prov-
idence and its ability to overcome "Fate"? Unfortunately, the Chrono-
graphia does not address this question either. I believe, however, that
part of the answer lies in Plato's Laws, the text most closely relevant
to the overall enterprise of the Chronographia, for it encourages
philosophers who are founding new cities to lie in exacdy the way
that Psellos does in section 7.41. It is important to consider the dra-
matic context of Plato's last dialogue. An Athenian Stranger has trav-
eled from his city to Crete, where he hopes to persuade a Cretan leg-
islator and a Spartan nobleman that the laws of a city about to be
founded there should be based not on ancestral traditions or religious
beliefs, but on philosophically examined principles. Yet in Book 2,
the Athenian Stranger declares that
if I were a legislator I would try to compel the poets and everyone in

the city to speak in this way: I would lay down almost the gravest
penalty for anyone in the territory who should say that there are some
human beings who were once wicked but live in a pleasant way, or
who said that some things are profitable and gainful while others are
more just (662b-c).

The Athenian Stranger clearly distinguishes between the truth and

the utility of the beliefs that the lawgiver should encourage.
Even if that which the argument has now established were not the
case, could a lawgiver of any worth ever tell a lie more profitable than
this (if, that is, he ever has the daring to lie to the young for the sake of
a good cause), or more effective in making everybody do all the just
things willingly, and not out of compulsion? .. This myth [the tale of
Kadmos] is a great example for the lawgiver of how it is possible to
persuade the souls of the young of just about anything, if one tries. It
follows from this that the lawgiver should seek only the convictions
which would do the greatest good for the city (663d-664a).
And one of the lies which he should propagate among the citizens of
the new city is that
anyone who is puffed up with boastfulness, or who feels exalted

because of riches, of honors or of good bodily form accompanied by
youth and mindlessness, anyone whose soul burns with insolence and
hence regards himself as needing neither ruler nor any leader but
rather considers himself capable ofleading others, is left behind, aban-
doned by the god (7l6a).
This is precisely the notion that Psellos imparts to Isaac when the
two men enter Constantinople in triumph. And the ensuing narrative
of Isaac's reign supports the Athenian Stranger's contention that the
belief in a transcendent moral order is a highly doubtful one.
In our effort to understand the religious and philosophical back-
ground of the Chronographia, we have once again been led away from
the dominant ideology of Byzantium and back to Plato's Laws. Yet
we have come no closer to Psellos' positive religious beliefs. Never-
theless, the Chronographia may not be entirely aporetic after all. There
are a few passages of heartfelt candor, which may be appropriate
starting points for future studies of this peculiar man and his extraor-
dinary life. To understand Psellos correctly, we may ultimately have
to abandon or suspend the search for beliefs and doctrines and turn
directly to their source. We may have to accept his own principles
and use the method that enabled him to understand others: we must
try to fathom his ethOS. 388 This brings us back to the starting point of
our discussion, which may prove to have only a preliminary quality,
188 Cf. Psellos, Letter to Keroularios line 95, and context.

for we have examined a single text from a corpus of thousands of

pages, which contain a multitude of different Psellos'.
In a passage that introduces the account of the revolt of Maniakes,
we find the most personal confession of the author of the Chrono-
graphia, wherein he reveals what can only be an essential aspect of his
own ethos. It indicates that Psellos recognized the greatest danger that
philosophers face when they decide to go back down into the cave
that is the city.
I want to add a head to the body I am weaving. 389 'Good things are
hard to come by,' say those who speak in proverbs,390 but even though
it is true, envy creeps against the few. So if somewhere a flower should
blossom (and I mean among all people and for most of the time), or a
creative nature [<pU<H:w~] should sprout forth, or a discerning intelli-
gence, or a noble character, or a strong and brave soul, or some other
excellent man, the one who cuts it down immediately shows up. And
when this noble growth has been destroyed, the dry and barren shrubs
sprout up and thrive, and everything is overgrown with thorns. And it
is not hard to believe that when someone feels inferior before all won-
drous natures [<pU<JEWV], he usually ends up hating them (6.74.4-15).39)
389 cr. Plato, Gorgias 505c-d, Phaedrus 264c.

390 Plato, Republic 435c.
391 cr. Plato, Gorgias 483b-484c; Nietzsche, TIe Anti-Christ 4-5.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbreviations
PG Patrologiae cursus completus, Series graeca, ed.J.-P. Migne, Paris, 1857-.
I. Works by Psellos
On the Character if Certain Texts, text in J. F. Boissonade ed., Michael Psellus De operatione
daemonum, Nuremberg, 1838 (reprint, Amsterdam, 1964), pp. 48-52.
Chronographie, ou histoire d'un siecle de Byzance (976-1077), text and French translation
by Emile Renauld, 2 vols., Paris, 1926-28.
'El(arovraE'r17pic; BvsavTlvijc; 'Iarop{ac;, in K. Sathas ed., Mt:aaWJV1KT, Bl{3AlOBrjICT/, v. 4,
Athens-Paris, 1874 (reprint, Athens, 1972), pp. 1-299.
Encomium in Praise if his Mother, text, Italian translation, and commentary by Ugo
Criscuolo: Michele Psello, Autobiogrqfia: Encomio per La madre, Naples, 1989.
The ESsays on Euripides and George if Pisidia and on Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius, texts and
English translations by A. R. Dyck, Vienna, 1986.
Funeral Oration in Honor if the Most Blessed Patriarch Michael Keroularios, in K. Sathas ed.,
Mt:aazwV1KT,Bl{3AlOBrjICT/, v. 4, Paris, 1874 (reprint, Athens, 1972), pp. 303-387.
Historia Syntomos, text and English translation by W. J. Aerts, Berlin, 1990.
The History if Psellus, edited with critical notes and indices by Constantine Sathas,
London, 1899 (reprint, New York, 1979).
Imperatori di Bisanzio (Cronogrqfia), introduction by Dario Del Como, text ed. by Sal-
vatore Impellizzeri, notes by Ugo Criscuolo, Italian translation by Silvia Ronchey,
Fondazione Lorenzo Valla, 2 vols., 1984.
Letters KD, ed. E. Kurtz and F. Drexl, Michaelis Pselli Scripta Minora, v. 2: Epistulae,
Milan, 1941.
Letters S, in K. Sathas ed., Mt:aalWV1KT, Bl{3AlOBrjICT/, v. 5, Paris, 1876 (reprint, Athens,
1972).
Letter to Xiphilinos, text, Italian translation, and commentary by Ugo Criscuolo:
Michele Psello, Epistola a Giovanni Xiphilino, Naples, 1990.
Letter to KerouLarios, text, Italian translation, and commentary by Ugo Criscuolo:
Michele Psello, EpistoLa a Michele Cerulario, Naples, 1990.
De Omnifaria Doctrina, ed. L. G. Westerink, Utrecht, 1948.
Orationes Forenses et Acta, ed. G. T. Dennis, Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1994.
Orationes Panegyricae, ed. G. T. Dennis, Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1994.
aratoria Minora, ed. A. R. Littlewood, Leipzig, 1985.
Philosophica Minora v. 1, ed. J. M. Duffy, Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1992.
Philosophica Minora v. 2, ed. D. J. O'Meara, Leipzig, 1989.
Poemata, ed. L. G. Westerink, Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1992.
Scripta Minora, ed. E. Kurtz and F. Drexl, v. I: Orationes et Dissertationes, Milan, 1936.
Theologica vol. 1, ed. P. Gautier, Leipzig, 1989.
Xpovoypmp{a, text (a photoduplication of the S. Impellizzeri edition) and Greek
translation by B. Karalis, 2 vols., Athens, 1992-93.

200 BIBLIOGRAPHY
2. Ancient and Byzantine Works
(Ancient authors who can be found in the Loeb Classical Library, or whose works
have been published often and have standardized internal numbering systems, are
not cited here, unless I have quoted published translations of them in my text or
notes.)
Agapetos, Ekthesis if Hortatory Chapters, text and German translation in Agapetos

Diakonos, Der Furstenspeigel fiir Kaiser Iustinianos, ed. Rudolf Riedinger, Athens,
1995.
Agathias, The Histories, ed. R. Keydell, Agathiae Afyrinaei Historiarum Libri Quinque,
Berlin, 1967.
Alexios Konmenos, De sacris uasibus et quod ea nullo deinceps tempore prifanem in usum con-
verti debeant, in PC 127, cols. 921-925.
Anonymous, Scholia on the Ideai if Hermogenes, in C. Walz ed., Rhetores Graeci, v. 7, pt.
2, London-Paris, 1834, pp. 861-1087.
Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy, introduction, text, and translation by L. G.
Westerink, Amsterdam, 1962.
Arethas, Choirosphaktes or Wizard-Hater, ed. in L. G. \Vesterink, Arethae scripta minora, v.
I, Leipzig, 1968, pp. 200-212.
Aristakes of Lastivert, Recit des malheurs de la nation Armenienne, French translation with
introduction and commentary by Marius Canard and H. Berberian, Brussels,
1973.
Aristotle, The Politics, translated and with an introduction, notes, and glossary by
Carnes Lord, Chicago, 1984.
Attaleiates, Michael, Historia, ed. \V. Brunet de Presle and 1. Bekker, Bonn, 1853.
Basil of Caesarea, Aux jeunes gens sur la maniere de tirer profit des lettres helleniques, text and
French translation by Fernand Boulenger, Paris, 1935.
The Bohairic Lifo if Pachomius, translated by Armand Veilleux in Pachomian Koinonia, v.
I (== Cistercian Studies Series, v. 45), Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1980.
Bryennios, Nikephoros, ivfaterials for a History, text and French translation by Paul
Gautier: Nicephori Bryennii Historiarum Libri O!!attuor, Brussels, 1975.
Choniates, Michael, Monody for his brother Niketas G7lOniates, in Mlxa~A ·AK"Ojlzvarov roi!
Xwvzarov TlX aw\:ojl£va, ed. Syridon P. Lampros, Athens, 1879-80 (reprint, Gronin-
gen, 1968), v. I, pp. 345-366.
- Epistula 28, in ibid., v. 2, pp. 43-46.
Choniates, Niketas, Annals, tr. by Harry J. Magoulias, 0 City if Byzantium, Annals if
Niketas Choniates, Detroit, 1984.
Cicero, De Officiis, text and translation by W. Miller, Loeb Classical Library, Har-
vard,1913.
- Tusculan Disputations, text and translation by J. E. King, Loeb Classical Library,
Harvard, 1945.
Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De Administrando Imperio, Greek text edited by G.
Moravcsik, English translation by R. J. H. Jenkins, new, revised edition, Dumbar-
ton Oaks, 1967.
Corpus Iuris Civilis, v. I: Digesta, ed. Theodore Mommsen, Berlin, 1872; v. 2: Codex
Iustinianus, ed. Paul Krueger, 1895; v. 3: Nouellae, ed. R. Schoell and G. Kroll,
1899.
Demetrius, On Style, text and translation by D. C. Innes, based on the previous edi-
tion by W. R. Roberts, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard, 1995.
Dio Chrysostomos, The First Oration on Kingship, text and translation by J. W.
Cohoon, in v. I of Dio's works, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard, 1932.
Eusebios of Caesarea, Demonstratio Euangelica, ed. Ivar A. Heikel, in Euesbius Werke v. 6,
Leipzig, 1913 (== Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte v. 23).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 201
Eustathios, De simulatione, in T. L. F. Tafel ed., Eustathii Metropolitae Thessalonicensis

Opuscula, Frankfurt, 1832 (reprint, Amsterdam, 1964), pp. 88-98.
Evagrios Pontikos, Traite Pratique au le Moine, introduction, text, and French transla-
tion by Antoine and Claire Guillaumont, 2 vols., Paris, 1971.
Evagrios Scholastikos, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius, with the scholia, ed. J. Bidez
and L. Parmentier, London, 1898.
Galen, The Soul's Dependence on the Body, translated by P. N. Singer: Galen, Selected
Works, Oxford, 1997, pp. 150-176.
- De Usu Partium, ed. G. Helmreich, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1907-9 (reprint, Amsterdam,
1968).
Genesios, Regum Libri 0fattuor, ed. A. Lesmiiller-Werner and 1. Thurn, Berlin, 1978.
Germanos of Constantinople, Ecclesiastical History and A1ystical Contemplation, text and
English translation by P. Meyendorf: St Germanus of Constantinople, On the
Divine Liturgy, Crestwood, New York, 1984.
Gregory of Nazianzos, Discours 4-5 contre Julien, text and French translation by Jean
Bernardi, Paris, 1983.
- Discours 27-31 (Discours theologiques), text and French translation by Paul Gallay,
Paris, 1978.
- Discours 42-43, text and French translation by Jean Bernardi, Paris, 1992.
Heliodoros, An Ethiopian Story, translated by J. R. Morgan, in B. P. Reardon ed., Col-
lected Ancient Greek Novels, University of California, 1989, pp. 349-588.
Hierokles, In aureum Pythagoreorum carmen commentarius, ed. F. G. Koehler, Leipzig,
1974.
Ignatios the Deacon, Lift of the Patriarch Tarasios, introduction, text, translation and
commentary by Stephan os Efthymiades, University of Birmingham, 1998.
John of Damascus, Contra imagimum calumniatores orationes tres, text ed. P. Bonifatius
Kotter in Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, v. 3, Berlin-New York, 1975; Eng-
lish translation by David Anderson: St. John of Damascus, On the Divine Images:
Three Apologies Against Those f1lho Attack the Divine Images, Crestwood, New York,
1980.
John Mauropous, Poems, text in Paul de Lagarde ed., Iohannis Euchaitorum metropolitae
quae in Codice Vaticano Graeco 676 supersunt, Gbttingen, 1882 (reprint, Amsterdam,
1979), pp. I-51.
John Oxeites, Patriarch of Antioch, De monasteriis laicis non tradendis, text and French
translation by Paul Gautier, 'Requisitoire de patriarche Jean d'Antioche contre Ie
charisticariat,' Revue des etudes byzantines 33 (1975) 77-132.
- Oration to the Emperor Alexios Komnenos, text and French translation by Paul Gautier,
'Diatribes de Jean l'Oxite contre Alexis I" Comnene,' Revue des etudes byzantines 28
(170) 5-55.
Kataskepenos, Nikolaos, La vie de saint Cyrille Ie PhiUote moine byzantin, introduction,
text, and French translation by Etienne Sargologos, Brussels, 1964 (= Subsidia
Hagiographicae 39).
Kekaumenos, Strategikon, text and Greek translation by D. Tsougarakis, Athens,
1993.
Komnene, Anna, Alexiade, text and French translation by B. Leib, 4 vols., Paris,
1937-76.
Leo the Deacon, Historia, ed. C. B. Hase, Bonn, 1828.
Luidprand of Cremona, The Embassy to Constantinople and Other Writings, ed. John
Julius Norwich, translated by F. A. Wright, London, 1993.
Manasses, Constantine, Breviarium Chronicum, ed. O. Lampsides, 2 vols., Athens,
1996.
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, text and translation by C. R. Haines, Loeb Classical
Library, Harvard, 1916.
Matthew of Edessa, in Armenia and the Crusades, 10th to 12th centuries: The Chronicle of

202 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Matthew of Edessa, translated from the original Armenian with a commentary and
introduction by Ara Edmond Dostourian, University Press of America, 1993.
Maximus the Confessor, A1ystagogia, in PC 91, cols. 657-718.
Menander Rhetor, edited with translation and commentary by D. A. Russell and N.
G. Wilson, Oxford, 198!.
Mesarites, Nikolaos, Description of the Church of the Hofy Apostles in Constantinople, Greek
text edited with translation, commentary, and introduction by Glanville Downey,
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 47.6 (1957) 855-924.
Musonius Rufus, text and translation by C. E. Lutz, 'Musonius Rufus: "The Roman
Socrates",' Yale Classical Studies JO (1947) 3-147.
Niketas Stethatos, Vie de Symeon le Nouveau Theologien, introduction, text, and French
translation by Irenee Hausherr, Rome, 1928 (= Orientalia Christiana 12).
Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantiople, Short History, text, translation and commen-
tary by Cyril Mango, Washington, D.C., 1990.
Onasander, Stratigikos, tr. Illinois Greek Club, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard,
1928.
Origen, An Exhortation to Martyrdom, translated by R. A Greer, New York, 1979.
Philostratus, Flavius, Lives of the Sophists, text and translation by W. C. Wright, Loeb
Classical Library, Harvard, 192!.
Photios, The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, English Translation, Intro-
duction and Commentary by Cyril Mango, Harvard, 1958.
---- The Letter to Boris, tr. by D. S. White and J. R. Berrigan in The Patriarch and the
Prince: The Letter of Patriarch Photios of Constantinople to Khan Boris of Bulgaria, Brook-
line, Mass., 1982.
- Epistulae 64 and 82, in B. Laourdas and L. G. Westerink ed., Photii Patriarchae Con-
stantinopolitani Epistulae et Amphilochia, v. I: Epistularum pars prima, Leipzig, 1983.
Plato, Laws, translated by Thomas L. Pangle, The Laws of Plato, with notes and an
interpretive essay, Chicago, 1988.
- Phaedo, text and translation, H. N. Fowler, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard,
1914.
- Phaedrus, translated with introduction and notes by Alexander Nehamas and Paul
Woodruff, Indianapolis, 1995.
- Republic, translated by Allan Bloom, The Republic of Plato, with notes, and interpre-
tive essay, and a new introduction, Basic Books, 199!.
Porphyry, Vie de Eythagore, Lettre Ii Marcella, text and French translation by Edouard
des Places, Paris, 1982.
Proklos, Jn Platonis rem publicam commentarii, ed. G. Kroll, 2 vols., Amsterdam, 1965.
pseudo-Dionysios, The A1ystiwl Theology, translated by C. Luibheid, The Complete
Works, Paulist Press, New York, 1987, pp. 133-141.
Robert de Clari, La Conquete de Constantinople, ed. Philippe Lauer, Paris, 1924.
Sextus Empiricus, Against the Physicists, text and translation by R. G. Bury, in v. 3 of
Sextus' works, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard, 1936.
Skylitzes Continuatus, ed. Eudoxos Tsolakes, 'H l"uvEXEla Tijc; Xpovoypmpzac; mil 'lmav-
vou l"1(lJllir01) (Joannes Slrylitzes Continuatus), Thessalonica, 1968.
Skylitzes,John, ~nopsis Historiarum, ed. I. Thurn, Berlin, 1973.
Socrates, Kirchengeschichte, ed. G. C. Hansen, Berlin, 1995.
Stobaios, John, Anthologium, ed. Curtius Wachsmuth and Otto Hense, 5 vols., Berlin,
1884-1912.
Symeon the Theologian, The Discourses, translated by C. J. de Catanzaro, Paulist
Press, New York, 1980.
- Hymnen, introduction, text, and indexes by Athanasios Kambylis, Berlin-New
York,1976.
- Traites Theologiques et Ethiques, text and French translation by Jean Darrouzes, 2
vols., Paris, 1966-67.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 203
Synesios, Dion, in N. Terzaghi ed., Synesii Cyrenensis Opuscula, Rome, 1944, pp. 233-
278.
Synodikon if OrthodoJ9i, text, French translation and commentary in Jean Gouillard,
'Le Synodikon de l'Orthodoxie: edition et commentaire,' Travaux et Mhnoires 2
(1967) 1-316.
Tertullian, Apology, text and translation by T. R. Glover, Loeb Classical Library,
Harvard, 193!.
Themistios, Orationes, ed. G. Downey and A. F. Norman, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1965-
1970.
Theodore of Stoudios, Oratio funebris in Platonem, in PC 99, cols. 803-850.
- Antirrhetici tres adversus iconomachos, in PC 99, col. 327-436; English translation by
Catharine P. Roth: St. Theodore the Studite, On the Holy Icons, Crestwood, New
York, 198!.
Theodoret, Historia Religiosa, text and French translation by P. Canivet and A. Leroy,
L'histoire des moines de Syrie: Histoire Philothee, 2 vols., Paris, 1977-1979.
Theophanes the Confessor, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, Leipzig, 1883; tr. into
English by Cyril Mango and Roger Scott, The Chronicle if Theophanes Corifessor:
Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284-813, Oxford, 1997.
Theophanes Continuatus, ed. Immanuel Bekker, Bonn, 1838.
Theophylaktos Simocattes, Historiae, ed. C. de Boor, revised by P. Wirth, Stuttgart,
1972.
- The History if Theophylact Simocatta: An English Translation with Introduction and Notes,
by Michael and Mary Whitby, Oxford, 1986.
Tzmarion, translated with introduction and commentary by Barry Baldwin, Detroit,
1984.
Vita S. Lucae Stylitae, in H. Delehaye ed., Les saints stylites, Brussels-Paris, 1923, pp.
195-237 (= Subsidia Hagiographica 14).
Xenophon, Memorabilia, translated and annotated by Amy L. Bonnette, with an
intorduction by Christopher Bruell, Cornell, 1994.
Yahya of Antioch, Histoire, v. 2, Arabic text and French translation by I.
Kratchkovsky and A. Vasiliev in Patrologia Orientalis 23 (1932) 349-520.
Zeno of Citium, fragments in H. von Arnim ed., Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, v. I:
Zeno et Zenonis Discipuli, Leipzig, 1905.
Zepos, J. and P., Jus Craecoromanum, v. I: Novellae et aurae bullae Imperatorum post Justin i-
anum; v. 2: Leges Imperatorum Isaurorum et Macedonum, Athens, 1931.
Zonaras,John, Epitome Historiiin (Books 16-18), in PC 135.
3. Modern Works
Aerts, W. J., 'Un temoin inconnu de la Chronographie de Psellos: Texte de la fin de

la Chronographie de Michel Psellos (Romain IV, XXXIII,18 - Michel VII,
XVII,14 ed. Renauld), retabli it I'aide d'un fragment conserve dans Ie ms. 1117
(no. 482) du monastere Ste Catherine du Sinal,' Byzantinoslavica 41 (1980) 1-16, I-
XXIV.
Agapetos, Panagiotes A., "H ElKOVU 't01) uu'toKpa'topu BUcrlAdoll A' O"'t~ qllAOj.lUKE()OV1~
YPuj.lj.lu'tdu 867-959,' 'EM1JV!K"a 40 (1989) 285-322.
Agati, Maria Luisa, 'Michele VII Parapinace e la Chronographia de Psello,' Bollettino
della Badia Creca di Crottaferrata n.S. 45 (1991) 11-3!.
Ahrensdorf, Peter J,. The Death if Socrates and the Lift if Philosophy, An Interpretation if
Plato's Phaedo, New York, 1995.
Albini, Umberto, 'Artifizi del diplomatico Psello,' Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica ser.
3,7 (1989) 261-264.
Alexiou, Margaret, 'Literary Subversion and the Aristocracy in Twelfth-Century

204 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Byzantium: A Stylistic Analysis of the Timarion (ch. 6-10),' Byzantine and Modern
Greek Studies 8 (1983) 29-45.
Anastasi, Rosario, Studi sulla "Chronographia" di Michele Pselio, Catania, 1969.
- 'Considerazioni sullibro VII della "Chronographia" di Michele Psello,' Orpheus 6
(1985) 370-395.
-- 'Review of Michele Psello, Imperatori di Bisanzio (Cronogrrifia) , S. Impellizzeri ed.,'
Orpheus 7 (1986) 432-438.
Angold, Michael, 1he Byzantine Empire 1025-1204: A Political History, London-New
York,1984.
Arbagi, Martin, The Celibacy of Basil,' Byzantine Studies 2 (1975) 41-45.
Athanassiadi, Polymnia, Julian: An Intellectual Biograpky, London-New York, 1992
(reprint).
Bacon, Francis, Of the Dignity and Advancement qf Learning, translated in James Sped-
ding, Robert Leslie Ellis, and Douglas Denon Heath ed., 1he Works qf Francis
Bacon, v. 8, New York, 1869.
- 1he Essays, ed. J. Pitcher, Penguin Classics, London, 1985, including 'Orpheus or
Philosophy,' from 1he Wisdom qf the Ancients, in Appendix 3.
- 1he History qf the Reign qf King Henry the Seventh, a new edition with introduction,
annotation, and interpretive essay by Jerry \Veinberger, Cornell, 1996.
- Letter to Lord Burghley, in Francis Bacon, A Critical Ellition o/the Afajor Works, ed. Bri-
an Vickers, Oxford, 1996, pp. 20-21.
Beck, Hans-Georg, Das byzantinische Jahrtausend, Munich, 1978.
Bourdara, Kalliope, Kaeoazw(Jli; /Cal Tvpavvl~ /Cara rov~ MEaov~ Bv':;avnvov~ Xp6vov~,
v.l: Ma/C£oovIK"TJ dvvaarera (867-1056), Athens-Komotene, 1981.
Braudel, Fernand, On History, translated by S. Matthews, Chicago, 1980.
Brokkaar, W. G., 'Basil Lecapenus,' in \V. F. Bakker, A F. van Gernert, and W. J.
Aerts ed., Studia Byzantina et Neohellenica Neerlandica, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1972, pp.
199-234.
Brown, Peter, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire, \Viscon-
sin, 1992.
Browning, Robert, 'Enlightenment and Repression in Byzantium in the Eleventh
and Twelfth Centuries,' in idem, Studies on Byzantine History, Literature and Education,
London, 1977, XV = Past and Present 69 (1975) 3-23.
Brunt, P. A, 'Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations,' Journal qfRoman Studies 64 (1974) 1-
20.
- 'Cicero and Historiography,' in idem, Studies in Greek History and 1hought, Oxford,
1993, pp. 181-209.
- 'Philosophy and Religion in the Late Republic,' in M. Griffin and J. Barnes ed.,
Philosophia Togata l' Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society, Oxford, 1997, pp. 174-198.
Burger, Ronna, 1he Phaedo: A Platonic Labyrinth, Yale, 1984.
- 'Socratic dpOlvEia,' Interpretation 13 (1985) 143-149.
Bury, John B., A History qf the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene (395 A.D. to 800
A.D.), 2 vols., London, 1889 (reprint, Amsterdam, 1966).
Cantor, Paul A, 'Leo Strauss and Contemporary Hermeneutics,' in Alan Udoff ed.,
Leo Strauss's 1hought: Toward a Critical Engagement, Boulder-London, 1991, pp. 267-
314.
Carelos, Pantelis, 'Die Autoren der zweiten Sophistik und die Chronographie des
Michael Psellos,' Jahrbuch der osterrcichischen Byzantinistik 41 (1991) 133-140.
Charanis, Peter, 'The Monastic Properties and the State in the Byzantine Empire,'
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 4 (1948) 51-118.
Chamberlain, Ch., 'The Theory and Practice ofImperial Panegyric in Michael Psel-
Ius. The Tension Between History and Rhetoric,' Byzantion 56 (1986) 16-27.
Cheynet, Jean-Claude, Pouvoir et contestations it Byzance (963-1210), Paris, 1990.
Clay, Diskin, 'Platonic Studies and the Study of Plato,' Arion n.s. 2 (1975) 116-132.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 205
Clucas, Lowell, Yhe Trial qfJohn Italos and the Crisis qf Intellectual Values in Byzantium in
the Eleventh Century, Munich, 1981.
Criscuolo, Ugo, 'Pselliana,' Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 54 (1982) 194-215.
Dagron, Gilbert, 'L'empire Romain d'orient au IV' siecle et les traditions politiques
de l'Helienisme: Ie temoignage de Themistius,' Travaux et Mbnoires 3 (1968) 1-242.
Dark(), Eugen, '\Virkungen des Platonismus im griechischen Mittelalter,' Byzantini-
sche Zeitschrifl 30 (1929-30) 13-17.
Davidson, Arnold 1. ed., Foucault and his Interlocutors, Chicago, 1997.
Dennis, George T., 'The Byzantines as Revealed in their Letters,' inJohn Dufl)r and
John Peradotto ed., Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies Presented to Leendert G.
Westerink at 75, New York, 1988, pp. 155-165.
- 'Imperial Panegyric: Rhetoric and Reality,' in Henry Maguire ed., Byzantine Court
Culture from 829 to 1204, Dumbarton Oaks, 1997, pp. 131-140.
Diamantopoulos, Ad. N., 'Review of E. Kurtz and F. Drexl, Michaelis Pselli Scripta
Minora, v. 2,' 'EJrETTfprq 'Erarpdaq Bvt;avTlvwv :EJrovowv 17 (1941) 303-507.
Diehl, Charles, 'De la signification du titre "proedre" it Byzance,' Melanges rifferts a
M. Gustave Schlumberger, v. I, Paris, 1924, pp. 105-117.
- Byzance, grandeur et decadence, Paris, 1924.
Dieterich, Karl, Byzantinische Characterkopfi, Leipzig, 1909.
Dolger, Franz, 'Zur Bedeutung von q)tA6crocpo~ und CPIAocrocpta in byzantinischer
Reich,' in idem, Byzanz und die europiiische Staatenwelt, Ettal, 1953, pp. 197-208.
Dorter, Kenneth, Plato's Phaedo: An Interpretation, Toronto, 1982.
Droysen, Johann Gustav, Grundriss der Historik, in Rudolf Hubner ed., Historik: Vor-
lesungen fiber En::,yklopiidie und Methodologie der Geschichte, Munich, 1967, pp. 316-366.
Duffy, John, 'Reactions of Two Byzantine Intellectuals to the Theory and Practice
of Magic: Michael Psellos and Michael Italikos,' in Henry Maguire ed., Byzantine
Magic, Dumbarton Oaks, 1995, pp. 83-97.
Dyck, Andrew, 'Psellus Tragicus: Observations on Chronographia 5.26ff.,' Nineteenth
Annual Byzantine Studies Coriference. Abstracts qf Papers, Princeton, 1993, p. 71.
Epistolario di Coluccio Salutati, ed. Francesco Novati, v. 4, pt. 1, Rome, 1905.
Erasmus, Praise qf Folly, translated by B. Radice, revised with a new introduction and
notes by A. H. T. Levi, Penguin Classics, 1993.
Felix, Wolfgang, Byzanz und die islamische Welt imfriiheren 11. Jahrhundert: Geschichte der
politischen Beziehungen von 1001 bis 1055, Vienna, 1981.
Fisher, William, 'Beitrage zur historischen Kritik des Leon Diakonos und Michael
Psellos,' Mittheilungen des Institutsfiir osterreichische GeschichtifOrshung 7 (1886) 353-377.
Flower, Michael Atttah, Yheopompus qf Chios: History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century
BC, Oxford, 1994.
Forde, Steven, Yhe Ambition to Rule: Alcibiades and the Politics qf Imperialism in Yhucydides,
Cornell, 1989.
Fortin, Ernest L., 'Christianity and Hellenism in Basil the Great's Address ad Adules-
centes,' in H. J. Blumenthal and R. A. Markus ed., Neoplatonism and Early Christian
Yhought: Essays in honour qf A. H. Armstrong, London, 1981, 189-203 = E. L. Fortin,
Yhe Birth qf Philosophic Christianity: Studies in Early Christian and Medieval Yhought, ed. J.
Brian Benestad, Lanham-London, 1996, 136-151.
- 'Basil the Great and the Choice of Hercules: A Note on the Christianization of a
Pagan Myth,' in E. L. Fortin, the Birth qf Philosophic Christianity: Studies in Early
Christian and Medieval Yhought, ed.J. Brian Benestad, Lanham-London, 1996, 153-
168.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg, 'The Proofs of Immortality in Plato's Phaedo,' in idem, Dia-
logue and Dialectic. Eight Hermeneutical Stuides on Plato, translated and with and intro-
duction by P. Christopher Smith, Yale, 1980, pp. 21-38.
- Yhe Idea qf the Good in Platonic-Aristotelian Philosophy, translated and with an intro-
duction and annotation by P. Christopher Smith, Yale, 1986.

206 BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Plato's Dialectical Ethics. Phenomenological Interpretations Relating to the Philebus, trans-

lated and with an introduction by Robert M. Wallace, Yale, 1991.
- Truth and Method, second revised edition, by J. Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall,
New York, 1996.
Gadolin, Anitra, A Theory of History and Society with Special Riference to the Chronographia of
Michael Psellus: 11th Century Byzantium, Stockholm, 1970.
Garzya, Antonio, 'On Michael Psellus' Admission of Faith,' 'Enl"rT/p{q 'EralPelaq
Bvsavnvwv .Lnovowv 35 (1967) 41-46.
Gero, Stephen, Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of Constantine V; with particular atten-
tion to the Oriental sources, Louvain, 1977 (= Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium
v. 384, Subsidia v. 52).
--- 'Byzantine Iconoclasm and Monachomachy,' Journal of Ecclesiastical History 28
(1977) 241-248.
Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 3 vols., Modem Library,
New York, 1932.
Glavinas, A. A., 'H eni AAE~{OV KO/lvTjvoV (lOBI-Ill B) nEpi iEPWV (JXEVWV, /W/lTjAelWV,
mi ay{wVEilc6vwv lplq (1 OB1-1 095), Thessalonica, 1972.
Goodenough, Erwin R., 'The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship,' Yale Clas-
sical Studies I (1928) 53-102.
Gouillard,jean, 'La religion des philosophes,' Travaux et Memoires 6 (1976) 305-324 =
idem, La vie religiuse aByzance, Variorum Reprints, London, 1981, III.
Grierson, Ph., 'A Misattributed Miliaresion of Basil II,' Zbornik Radova Vizantinoskog
Instituta8(1963) 111-116.
Griswold, Charles L., Se!fKnowledge in Plato's Phaedrus, Pennsylvania, 1996.
Guicciardini, Francesco, Dialogue on the Government of Florence, edited and translated by
Alison Brown, Cambridge, 1994.
- Maxims and Riflections (Ricordi), tr. Mario Domandi, Philadelphia, 1965.
Haas, Christopher, Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict, Baltimore,
1997.
Hankins, james, Plato in the Italian Rennaissance, 2 vols., E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1990.
Hexter, J. H., 'The Loom of Language and the Fabric of Imperatives: The Case of
Il Principe and Utopia,' The American Historical Review 69 (1964) 945-968.
Hunger, Herbert, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 2 vols., Munich,
1978.
Hussey,joan, 'Michael Psellus, The Byzantine Historian,' Speculum 10 (1935) 81-90.
- Church and Learning in the Byzantine Empire B67-11B5, Oxford, 1937 (reprint, New
York, 1963).
-- The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, Oxford, 1986.
Ioannides, Photios Sot., 'H "Xpovoypaq>ia" ~ou MlXaTJA '¥EAAOU 00<; lcr~OPtri] 1tllyTJ Yla ~llV
E1t0XTJ ~ou MlXaTJA tJ.' Oaq>Aay6va,' Nicolaus: rivista di teologia ecumenico-patristica 16
(1989) 219-229.
Iorga, N., 'Medaillons d'histoire litteraire byzantine. 13. Constantin Psellos,' Byzan-
tion 2 (1925) 270-273.
Irwin, Terence, Plato's Moral Theory: The Ear[y and Middle Dialogues, Oxford, 1977.
jaeger, Werner, Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, tr. Gilbert Highet, 3 vols., Oxford,
1965-1986.
janin, R., 'Une ministre byzantin: jean I'Orphanotrophe (XI' siecle),' Echos d'Orient
34 (1931) 431-443.
- Les eglises et les monasteres = La geographie ecclesiastique de l'empire byzantin, pt. I: IL siege
de Constantinople et le patriarcat oecumenique, v. 3: Les eglises et les monasteres, Paris, 1969.
jenkins, Romilly J. H., 'The Hellenistic Origins of Byzantine Literature,' Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 17 (1963) 37-52.
joannou, Perikies, Christliche Metaphysik in Byzanz, v. I: Die Illuminationslehre des Michael
Psellos und Joannes Italos, Ettal, 1956.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 207
Johnson, Gary ]., 'Constantine VIII and Michael Psellos: Rhetoric, Reality, and the
Decline of Byzantium, AD. 1025-28,' Byzantine Studies 9 (1982) 220-23l.
Kaegi, Walter E., Byzantium and the early Islamic conquests, Cambridge, 1992.
Kalavrezou, Ioli, 'Helping Hands for the Empire: Imperial Ceremonies and the Cult
of Relics at the Byzantine Court,' in Henry Maguire ed., Byzantine Court Culture
flom 829 to 1204, Dumbarton Oaks, 1997, pp. 53-79.
Kaldellis, Anthony, 'The Historical and Religious Views of Agathias: A Reinterpre-
tation,' Byzantion 69 (1999) forthcoming.
Kaplan, Michel, Les hommes et la terre aByzance du VI' au XI' siecle: propriete et exploitation
du sol, Paris, 1992.
Karayannopoulos,]. E., 'H JroAlnK'1] (JEwpta ,wv BvS"avnvwv, Thessalonica, 1992.
Karlin-Hayter, P., 'Arethas, Choirosphactes and the Saracen Vizir,' Byzantion 35
(1965) 455-48l.
Kazhdan, A P., 'L'Histoire de Cantacuzene en tant qu'oeuvre litteraire,' Byzantion 50
(1980) 279-335.
- 'The Aristocracy and the Imperial Ideal,' in Michael Angold ed., The Byzantine
Aristocrary, IX to XIII Centuries, Oxford, 1984, pp. 43-57.
- 'Some Problems in the Biography ofJohn Mauropous,, Jahrbuch der (jsterreichischen
Byzantinistik 43 (1993) 87-11l.
Kazhdan, Alexander, and Giles Constable, People and Power in Byzantium: An Introduc-
tion to Modem Byzantine Studies, Washington, D.C., 1982.
Kazhdan, Alexander, with Simon Franklin, 'Eustathius ofThessalonica: the life and
opinions of a twelfth-century Byzantine rhetor,' in idem, Studies on Byzantine Litera-
ture if the Eleventh and Twe!fih Centuries, Cambridge, 1984, pp. 115-195.
Kazhdan, Alexander P., and Ann Wharton Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture in the
Eleventh and T we!fih Centuries, Berkeley, 1985.
Kelly,]. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition, New York, 1978.
Kidd, I. G., 'Posidonius as Philosopher-Historian,' in M. Griffin and]. Barnes ed.,
Philosophia Togata l: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Socie!)!, Oxford, 1997, pp. 38-
50.
Koukoules, Phaidon, BvS"avnvwv Btor; K"ai llOAlT1ajlOr;, v. I, pt. 2, Athens, 1948.
Koutsogiannopoulos, D. I., "H 8fOAoyucn crKEljflC; "tau M1xanA 'PEAAOU,' 'EJrHTJPtr;
'E,wpdar; BvS"avnvwv LJrovowv 34 (1965) 208-217.
Kriaras, E., 'Psellos,' in Pauly-H1issowa ... Real Enryclopiidie der classischen Altertumswis-
senschaJt, Supp!. Bd. II (1968) cols. 1124-82; Greek translation in BvS"avnva 4
(1972) 53-128.
Krumbacher, Karl, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis zum Ende des
ostriimischen Reiches (527-1453), Munich, 1887 (reprint, New York, 1958).
Kustas, George L., Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric, Thessalonica, 1973.
Laiou, Angeliki E., 'Imperial Marriages and Their Critics in the Eleventh Century:
The Case of Skylitzes,' Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46 (1992) 165-176.
Lampe, G. W. H. ed., A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford, 1961.
Lechner, Kilian, Hellenen und Barbaren im Weltbild der Byzantiner: die alten Bezeichnungen
als Ausdruck eines neuen KulturbewujJtseins, Munich, 1954.
Leemans, E.-A, 'Michel Psellos et les ~O~at 1tEpt Ijfuxilc;,' L'antiquite classique I (1932)
203-21l.
Lefort, Jacques, 'Rhetorique et politique. Trois discours de Jean Mauropous en
1047,' Travaux et Mimoires 6 (1976) 265-303.
Lemerle, Paul, Cinq etudes sur le Xl' siecle byzantin, Paris, 1977.
Letsios, Dimitris G., 'H "'EK8EcrlC; KE<paAairov 1tapULVE'tlKWV" 'tou OtaKOVOU Aya1tTl'tou.
Mia crUVOIjfTl 'TIC; lOfOAoyiac; 'tTlC; E1tOX~C; 'tou Ioucrnvlavou yui 'to au"taKpa'topIKo a~iro~a,'
LlwOwvT/ 14 (1985) 175-210.
Leveque, Pierre, Aurea Catena Homen: Une etude sur l'all.egorie grecque, Paris, 1959.
Levine, Peter, Nietzsche and the Modem Crisis if the Humanities, New York, 1995.

208 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lieu, Samuel N. C., and Dominic Montserrat, From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and
Byzantine Views. A Source History, London and New York, 1996.
Linner, St., 'Literary Echoes in Psellus' Chronographia,' Byzantion 51 (1981) 225-231.
- 'Psellus' Chronographia and the Alexias. Some Textual Parallels,' Byzantinische
Zeitschrifl76 (1983) 1-9.
Littlewood, A. R., 'Gardens of the Palaces,' in Henry Maguire ed., Byzantine Court
Culture from 829 to 1204, Dumbarton Oaks, 1997, pp. 13-38.
Ljubarskij, Jakov N., 'Man in Byzantine Historiography from John Malalas to
Michael Psellos,' Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46 (1992) 177-186.
- 'Some Notes on the Newly Discovered Historical Work by Psellos,' in]. S. Lang-
don, S. W. Reinert,]. S. Allen and C. P. Ioannides ed., TOEAAHNIKON: Studies in
Honor if Spyros Vryonis, Jr., v. I: Hellenic Antiquity and Byzantium, New Rochelle, New
York, 1993, pp. 213-228.
IJubarskij, Jakov N., et al., 'Qyellenforschung and/or Literary Criticism: Narrative
Structures in Byzantine Historical Writings,' ~mbolae Osloenses 73 (1998) 5-73.
Uoyd, G. E. R., A1agic, Reason and Experience: Studies in the origins and development if Greek
science, Cambridge, 1979.
Lord, Carnes, 'The Intention of Aristotle's 'Rhetoric',' Hermes. Zeitschriflfiir klassische
Philologie 109 (1981) 326-339.
MacCormack, Sabine, 'Latin Prose Panegyrics,' in T. A. Dorey ed., Empire and After-
math: Silver Latin II, London-Boston, 1975, pp. 143-205.
- Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity, University of California Press, 1981.
Machiavelli, Niccolo, Discourses on Lil!J, translated by H. C. Mansfield and Nathan
Tarcov, Chicago, 1996.
- Florentine Histories, translated by L. F. Banfield and H. C. Mansfield, Princeton,
1988.
- 77ze Prince, translated by H. C. Mansfield, Chicago, 1985.
- .Machiavelli and his Friends: 77zeir Personal Correspondence, tr. and ed. by James B.
Atkinson and David Sices, Northern lIIinois Press, 1996.
Mac:VIulIen, Ramsay, Enemies if the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the
Empire, Harvard, 1966 (reprint, Routledge, 1992).
Magdalino, Paul, 'The Byzantine Holy Man in the Twelfth Century,' in Sergei
Hackel ed., 77ze Byzantine Saint: University if Birmingham Fourteenth Spring ~mposium if
Byzantine Studies, 1981, pp. 51-66.
- 'Aspects of Twelfth-Century Byzantine Kaiserkritik,' Speculum 58 (1983) 326-346.
'Byzantine Snobbery,' in Michael Angold ed., 77ze Byzantine Aristocrary, IX to XIII
Centuries, Oxford, 1984, pp. 58-78.
- 77ze empire if Manuel I Komnenos~ 1143-1180, Cambridge, 1993.
-- 'In Search of the Byzantine Courtier: Leo Choirosphaktes and Constantine Man-
asses,' in Henry Maguire ed., Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, Dumbarton
Oaks, 1997, pp. 141-165.
Magdalino, P., and Ruth Macrides, 'The Fourth Kingdom and the Rhetoric of Hel-
lenism,' in P. Magdalino ed., 77ze Perception if the Past in Twelfth-Century Europe, Lon-
don-Rio Grande, 1992.
Maguire, Henry, Art and Eloquence in Byzantium, Princeton, 1981.
Mango, Cyril, Byzantium: 77ze Empire if New Rome, New York, 1980.
- 'Diabolus Byzantinus,' Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46 (1992) 215-223.
McCormick, Michael, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium
and the Early Medieval West, Cambridge, 1986.
Misch, Georg, 'Die Bruchstiicke einer Autobiographie des byzantinischen Hof-
philosophen Michael Psellos,' in idem, Geschichte der Autobiographie, v. 3, pt. 2,
Frankfurt, 1962, 760-830.
Mitchell, Stephen, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, v. 2: 77ze Rise if the
Church, Oxford, 1993.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 209
Momigliano, Arnaldo, On Pagans, Jews, and Christians, Hanover, 1987.

Montaigne, Yhe Complete Essays of Montaigne, translated by Donald M. Frame, Stan-
ford, 1958.
Morris, Rosemary, 'The two faces of Nikephoros Phokas,' Byzantine and Modem Greek
Studies 12 (1988) 83-115.
- Monks and laymen in Byzantium 843-1118, Cambridge, 1995.
Munitiz, J. A., 'Review of Paul Gautier Michaelis Pselli thealogica, and D. J. O'Meara
Michaelis Pselli philosophica minora, v. 2,' Classical Review 41 (1991) 229-230.
Neumann, Carl, Die Weltstellung des byzantinischen Reiches vor den Kreuzziigen, Berlin,
1894 (reprint, Amsterdam, 1959).
Nietzsche, Friedrich, Yhe Anti-Christ, translated by R. J. Hollingdale, Penguin Clas-
sics, 1990.
- Daybreak, translated by R. J. Hollingdale, Cambridge, 1982.
- Yhus Spoke Zarathustra, translated by R. J. Hollingdale, Penguin Classics, 1969.
- Yhe Will to Power, translated by W. Kaufman and R. J. Hollingdale, New York,
1968.
O'Meara, DominicJ., Plotinus. An Introduction to the Enneads, Oxford, 1995.
Ostrogorsky, George, History of the Byzantine State, translated by Joan Hussey, fore-
word by Peter Charanis, revised edition, Rutgers, 1969.
des Places, Edouard, 'Le renouveau platonicien du XI' siecle: Michel Psellus et les
Oracles Chaldafques,' Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Comptes rendues des seances
1966, 313-324.
Pole mis, D. I., 'Notes on Eleventh-Century Chronology (1059-1081),' Byzantinische
Zeitschrift 58 (1965) 60-76.
Rambaud, Alfred, 'Michael Psellos, philosophe et homme d'etat byzantin au XI' sie-
cle: sa vie et ses oeuvres, d'apres les recentes publications de M. Constantine
Sathas,' Revue historique 3 (1877) 241-282 = idem, Etudes sur l'histoire lryzantine, Paris,
1919, pp. 109-171.
Rawson, Elizabeth, 'Roman Rulers and the Philosophic Adviser,' in M. Griffin and
J. Barnes ed., Philosophia Togata 1: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society, Oxford,
1997, pp. 233-257.
Reynolds, Susan, 'Social Mentalities and the Case of Medieval Scepticism,' Transac-
tions of the Royal Historical Society 6th ser., I (1990) 21-41.
Ronchey, Silvia, Indagini ermeneutiche e critico-testuali sulla Cronografia di Psello, Rome,
1985 (= Istituto Storico Italiano per il Media Evo, Studi Storici 152).
- 'Ancora sulla Cronogrcifia di Psello,' Istituto Starico Italiano per il Medio Evo, Bullettino
94 (1988) 367-393.
Rosen, Stanley, Plato's Symposium, second edition, Yale, 1987.
Roueche, Charlotte, 'Byzantine Writers and Readers: Storytelling in the Eleventh
Century,' in R. Beaton ed., Yhe Greek Novel AD 1-1985, London-New York-Syd-
ney, 1983, pp. 123-133.
Savvides, Alexis G. K., BvSavnva EracnaerrzK:a K:ai AVTOvoj./lernK:a Klvftj./am ma
LJuJ<51'K:&v1)era mi ern) MIK:pa ·Aerra 1189-c.1240 j./.x., Athens, 1987.
Sathas, Konstantinos, Ml'erm(J)vld] Bl/3A108ftK:1), v. 4, Athens-Paris, 1874; v. 5, Paris-
Venice, 1876 (reprint, Athens, 1972).
Schlumberger, Gustave, Un empereur lryzantin au dixieme siecle: Nicephore Phocas, Paris,
1890.
- L'epopee lryzantine ii la fin du dixieme siecle, pt. 2: Basile II, le Tueur de Bulgars, Paris,
1900; pt. 3: Les porphyrogenetes Zoe et Yheodora, Paris, 1905.
Schaefer, David Lewis, Yhe Political Philosophy of Montaigne, Cornell, 1990.
Sharratt, Michael, Galileo: Decisive Innovator, Cambridge, 1994.
Seibt, Werner, 'Der Bildtypus der Theotokos Nikopoios. Zur Ikonographie der
Gottesmutter-Ikone, die 1030/31 in der Blachernenkirche wiederaufgefunden
wurde,' BYZANTlNA 13 (1985) 549-564.

210 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sevcenko, Ihor, 'The Palaeologan Renaissance,' in W. Treadgold ed., Renaissances

BifOre the Renaissance: Cultural Revivals qf Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Stanford,
1984, pp. 144-171.
Shaw, Gregory, Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism qf Iamblichus, Pennsylvania,
1995.
Siorvanes, Lucas, Proclus: Neo-Platonic Philosophy and Science, Yale, 1996.
Snipes, Kenneth, 'A Newly Discovered History of the Roman Emperors by Michael
Psellos,' Jahrbuch der iisterreichischen Byzantinistik 32.3 (1982) 53-61 (= XVI. Interna-
tionaler Byzantinistenkongress, Akten II/3).
--- 'The Chronographia of Michael Psellos and the Textual Tradition and Transmis-
sion of the Byzantine Historians of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,' Zbornik
Radova Vizantinoskog Instituta 17-18 (1989) 43-62.
~ 'Notes on Parisinus Graecus 1712,' Jahrbuch der iisterreichischen Byzantinistik 41
(1991) 141-161.
Sophroniou, S. A., 'Michael Psellos' Theory of Science,' 'AfJryva 69 (1966-67) 78-90.
Spadaro, Maria Dora, 'Note su Sclerena,' Siculorum Gymnasium 28 (1975) 351-372.
Stanescu, Eugen, 'Les reformes d'Isaac Comnene,' Revue des etudes sud-est europeennes 4
(1966) 35-69.
Stephanou, Peiopidas, 'Le temoignage religieux de Michel Psellos,' IImpaypiva TOU
e' L1z£8vou, BvsavrzvoAoYZK"OU Lvvdjp{ov, Athens, v. 2, pp. 268-273 = 'EAA1)VlK"lX,
OapaptTJI.w. 9.
Strauss, Leo, Persecution and the Art qf Writing, Chicago, 1952.
- Thoughts on Machiavelli, Chicago, 1958.
~ VVhat is Political Philosophy? and Other Studies, Chicago, 1959.
Svoboda, K., 'Quelques observations sur la methode historique de Michel Psellos,'
Bulletin de la societe historique bulgare 16-18 (1940) 384-389.
Sykoutris, Johannes, 'Zum Geschiehtswerk des Psellos,' Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30
(1929-30) 61-67.
~ 'Review of E. Kurtz and F. Drexl: Michaelis Pselli Scripta Minora, v. I,' 'E1C£T1)pi,
'Emzpda, Bvsavrzvwv L1COVOWV 12 (1936) 511-520.
Tanin, Leonardo, Academica: Plato, Philip qf Opus, and the Pseudo-Platonic Epinomis,
Philadelphia, 1975.
Tatakis, B. N., 'H Bvsavrzvi) tPzAoaoqJ{a, tr. form the original French by E. K.
Kalpourtzi, bibliography updated by L. G. Benakis, Athens, 1979 (originally, La
philosophie byzantine, Paris, 1949; revised, 1959).
Tinnefeld, Franz Hermann, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik in der byzantinischen Historiographie
von Prokop bis Niketas Choniates, Munich, 1971.
~ 'Michael I. Kerullarios, Patriarch von Konstantinopel (1043-1058). Kritische
OberJegungen zu einer Biographie,' Jahrbuch der osterreichischen Byzantinistik 39
(1989) 95-127
Thomas, John Philip, 'A Disputed Novel of Basil II,' Greek, Roman and Byzantine Stud-
ies 24 (1983) 273-283.
Toland, John, Tetradymus, London, 1720.
Tougher, Shaun, The Reign qf Leo VI (886-912): Politics and People, E. J. Brill, Leiden,
1997.
Tozer, H. F., 'Byzantine Satire,' Journal qf Hellenic Studes 2 (1881) 233-270.
Treadgold, vVarren, 'The Macedonian Renaissance,' in idem ed., Renaissances BifOre
the Renaissance: Cultural Revivals qf Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Stanford, 1984,
pp. 75-98.
~ A History qf the Byzantine State and Society, Stanford, 1997.
Treu, M., 'Ein Kritiker des Timarion,' Byzantinische Zeitschrift I (1892) 361-365.
Volk, Robert, Der medizinische Inhalt der Schrijien des Michael Psellos, Munich, 1990.
Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, translated by T. Besterman, Penguin Classics, 1972.
Vryonis, Speros, 'Byzantine Imperial Authority: Theory and Practice in the Eleventh

BIBLIOGRAPHY 211
Century,' in G. Makdisi, D. Soudrel, and]. Soudrel-Thomine ed., La notion d'au-

toriti au Mqyen Age. Islam, Byzance, Occident, Paris, 1982, pp. 141-161.
Wallis, R. T., Neoplatonism, second edition, London-Indianapolis, 1995.
Weiss, Gunter, Ostro'mische Beamte im Spiegel der Schriflen des Michael Psellos, Munich,
1973.
West, Thomas G., Plato's Apology of Socrates. An Interpretation, with a new Translation,
Cornell, 1979.
West, Thomas G. and Grace Starry West, Plato and Aristophanes, Four Texts on Socrates:
Plato's Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito and Aristophanes' Clouds, Cornell, 1984.
Whittow, Mark, TIe Making if Orthodox Byzantium, 600-1025, California, 1996.
Wilson, N. G., Scholars if Byzantium, London, 1983.
Winkler,John]., The mendacity of Kalasiris and the narrative strategy of Heliodor-
os' Aithiopika,' Yale Classical Studies 27 (1982) 93-158.
\'Volska-Conus, Wanda, 'Les ecoles de Psellos et de Xiphilinos sous Constantin IX
Monomaque,' Travaux et Mbnoires 6 (1976) 223-43.
Zagorin, Perez, Ways if Lying: Dissimulation, Persecution, and CorifOrmiry in Ear!J Modem
Europe, Harvard, 1990.
Zervos, Christian, Un philosophe neoplatonicien du Xl' siecle: Michel Psellos, sa vie, son oeuvre,
ses luttes philosophiques, son influence, Paris, 1920.

INDEX OF PASSAGES
1.1 23 1.31.17 52
1.2-3 42 1.31.24-25 52
1.2 23 1.32-33 l70-17l
1.2.3 31 1.32.5-3 52
1.2.15-16 25 1.32.7-3 25
1.3 42-43 1.32.14-16 25 n.67
1.3.7-3 169 n.346 1.33-34 65
1.4 44 n.106 1.33.1-3 54
1.4.2-3 43 1.34 45
1.4.5-10 26 1.34.3 65
1.4.6-7 43 1.34.5 26 n.63
1.4.16-13 26, 52 1.34.13-15 25
1.5 132 1.34.17 166
1.7 171 n.350, 132 1.37.1-2 50
1.7.3 31, 33
1.9 132 2.1-2 23
1.10 132 2.1 56, 53
1.11 171 n.350, 132 2.5.3 26
1.12 64 2.6.1-2 25
1.15 65, 110, 132 2.6.2-6 51
1.16 62-66 2.6.13 26
1.13.3-5 43 2.7.2-4 25
1.19-20 42-43 2.3-9 56
1.20 77 2.9.3-9 95
1.20.11-22 34-37 2.10 114
1.20.16-17 30, 176-177
1.20.20-22 173 3.1 24
1.21.9-10 59 3.1.3-10 29
1.22 26, 43, 44 3.2.1-2 34, 121
1.22.1-3 51 3.2.5 34
1.22.3-4 52 3.2.7 125
1.24-26 132 3.2.9-10 34-35
1.24 65 3.2.10-11 34
1.26 65 3.2.14 26 n.63
1.23 133 3.3 35-33
1.23.6-9 65 3.3.5 92-93
1.23.13-13 44 3.4 29
1.29 44,137,143,166,179 3.5 29, 110
1.29.3-6 43 3.5.9-10 25
1.29.6-3 56, 171 3.5.17 29
1.29.9-11 166 3.5.20-21 29
1.29.11-13 56, 171 3.6 30, 176
1.29.13-23 179 3.6.7 31 n.77
1.30 131 3.6.17-20 93
1.30.1 179 3.7-9 171 n.350
1.30.1-7 43 3.7 29
1.31 44 3.3 29
1.31.1-2 65 3.3.5-6 29

214 INDEX OF PASSAGES
3.10.6-14 58 4.16.23-25 139, 147

3.10.23-27 63 4.19.19-20 94
3.11 63, III 4.22.12-13 98
3.11.1-7 63 4.24.1 107
3.13 29, 35 4.27 186
3.13.4 30 4.28 107
3.14 30 4.28.7-8 26 n.68
3.14.7-9 66 4.29 107
3.14.9-10 66 4.30 105-107
3.14.20-23 66 4.31 81,94
3.15 67-76, 155 4.31.3-5 94
3.15.1-8 67 4.32.2-5 94
3.15.9-11 67 4.33 110
3.15.15-18 71-72 4.34.1-8 89-93
3.15.18-23 72 4.36-37 87
3.15.23-25 34 4.36.14-15 88
3.15.24-25 74 4.36.17-21 88
3.15.26-30 68 4.36.24-25 88
3.15.39-41 117 4.37.2-4 90
3.16.10-13 81 4.37.3-4 87-88
3.17 30 4.38.4-8 24 n.65
3.18 181 4.39.3 43,64
3.20 III 4.42.5 26
3.21-23 30 4.42.11-12 54, 93-94
3.23 96 n.210 4.43 171 n.350
3.24.6-10 28 4.51.1-2 95
3.24.10-11 49 n.117 4.54 87
3.24.19-20 30 4.54.12 25-26
3.26 30 4.55 94
4.55.3-4 95
4.1-2 99
4.1.4 98 5.3.1-3 24
4.2.11 26 5.3.4-5 98-99
4.2.20-21 137 5.6.10-11 26 n.68
4.4 30 5.9 107
4.5.1-2 30 5.9.1-3 24
4.6 30 5.14.15-17 107
4.6.5 96-97, 134-135 5.18-20 110
4.7-10 182 5.19 186
4.7.5 56 5.19.12-16 110, 191
4.7.6-10 57 5.19.16-17 110-111
4.8 176 5.22 59
4.8.8-9 31 n.77 5.22.7-9 43, 64, 87
4.9 57 5.24 101-105
4.11 41-42 5.24.1-2 101
4.11.13-14 98 5.24.2-3 101
4.12-14 24 n.66 5.24.3-16 102-104
4.12.1 26 5.24.7-8 109
4.12.4 25 5.24.20-21 101
4.14 181-182 5.25 103-104
4.14.8-12 114,155 5.25.22 25
4.14.13-15 57 5.26.11-12 98
4.16 99 5.28 103-104
4.16.17 25 5.28.1-2 104

INDEX OF PASSAGES 215
5.32.2-3 104 6.36 93, 101

5.34.16 114 6.36.2-5 127
5.35.9 194 6.36.12-14 186
5.37 114 6.37-38 36
5.40 103-104 6.37-40 127
5.40.11-13 59 6.37 186
5.44 114 6.37.5-9 121-122, 130, 138, 148,
5.44.9 25 172
5.45 114 6.38.1-5 186
5.45.9-12 88 6.38.5-12 187
5.48.8 25 6.38.11-12 188
6.39 188-189
6.1.6-14 46 6.40.1-5 187, 188
6.4-6 24 n.66 6.40.7-12 128
6.5-10 108 6.41 101, 127-130
6.5.3-5 78-79 6.41.9-10 92
6.7.10-13 32 6.41.11-12 187
6.9 59 6.42-43 148
6.10 58 6.42 122
6.10.2-7 33 6.42.1-8 130, 191
6.10.2-8 60 6.42.13-17 130-131, I 72
6.12.4-6 112 6.42.16 15
6.15-16 49 n.117 6.43.11-12 179
6.20 114-115 6.44-46 101
6.22-28 133, 137-138, 141 6.44.4-5 132
6.22.15-20 133 6.44.6-9 26
6.23 133 6.45.1-3 132
6.24.3 25 6.45.5-8 132-133
6.25-26 97 n.212 6.46.3-6 133
6.25.6-18 134 6.46.6-9 138
6.25.10-14 49 6.46.9-13 138
6.25.18-19 135 6.46.16-18 32 n.80
6.26 41-42 6.47.1-4 60
6.26.4 141 6.47.2-3 54
6.26.12-13 25 6.47.3-4 31
6.27 134 6.47.13-14 25 n.67
6.27.1-4 49-50 6.48 108, 143
6.27.2-8 193 6.50 114
6.27.8-14 50, 100, 193 6.50.9-10 112
6.27.17 26 6.51 115
6.27.24-30 50 6.52.4-5 26
6.27.29-31 153 6.55 140
6.27.31-32 51 6.58.10-11 100
6.28.4-8 137 6.58.12-13 140, 142
6.28.6 141 6.61.8 140
6.29 59, 108, 143 6.62-64 143
6.29.1-2 137 6.65 III
6.29.2-6 57 6.65.5-8 188
6.30.9 32 n.80 6.66.10-13 111-112
6.31-34 49 n.117 6.66.11 25
6.33 147 6.67.5-7 123
6.33.10-13 139 6.67.8-11 111-112
6.34 57-58 6.72.7-9 108
6.36-43 27,38,92, 127, 186 6.73.1-2 32 n.80, 108

6.74 140 6.176 144

6.74.4-15 197 6.177.1 144
6.75-77 183 6.178-181 175
6.77.1 24 n.65 6.178.12 175
6.82-83 171 n.350 6.181 143
6.82 183 6.183 95-97, 112
6.84 108 6.185-188 81-82
6.89.5 31 6.185.3-4 78
6.95 107 6.185.9-12 78
6.96 112 6.185.19-21 78
6.96.3-5 112 6.190 39, 149
6.97 31,34, 142, 152 6.190.6-7 181
6.97.3 31 6.191 113 n.230
6.97.4 105 6.192.7-8 145
6.98.4 23 6.197 145-146, 159
6.98.5-6 108 6.200 113 n.230
6.99.7-9 112 6.203 49 n.117
6.101.14-15 114 6.203.4-5 49
6.102.6-7 113 6.203.9 144
6.104.27 182
6.121.10-14 113 6A.2 79
6.122-123 142 6A.3 79
6.122.1-8 48 6A.4.4-12 78
6.122.2-4 183 6A.5 79
6.123 48 6A.7-8 164
6.125-131 59 6A. 7.2-8 155
6.131 135-136 6A.7.9-16 156
6.132-133 48, 100, 109, 142-143 6A. 7.13-15 158
6.133.10-12 66 6A. 7.15-16 82, 158, 163 n.335
6.138 100 6A.8 158-159, 162-163
6.141.9 142 6A.8.1-2 159
6.144.4-8 113 6A.8.2-3 159
6.150.JO-12 140 6A.8.3-4 159
6.153 114 6A.8.5-9 161
6.154.3 181, 184 6A.8.9-11 160
6.157-158 140 6A.8.10-11 82
6.157.8-13 112 6A.8.12-22 159-160
6.157.10-11 106 6A.8.16-18 92
6.159.5-9 112 6A.8.18-19 26,95
6.161 133, 141 6A.8.22-24 160 (and n.327)
6.161.6-12 136 6A.9.1-3 160
6.161.6-17 142 6A.l0-12 186
6.162 142 6A.1O-11 32
6.163-164 142 6A.IO.6-7 135
6.164.4-6 142 6A.l1.I-10 119
6.165 142 6A.II.9-10 191
6.166 142-143 6A. I 1. 14-15 191
6.167-168 116-117,143 6A.12 119-127
6.170-172 143 6A.13.1-2 119
6.173-174 143 6A.13.10-11 39-40
6.173.1-5 143 6A.14 149
6.175 176,186 6A.16 78-80
6.175.2-3 54 n.128 6A.16.7-8 24
6.175.4-8 143 6A.16.9-11 24

INDEX OF PASSAGES 217
6A.17 162 7.42.1-3 194

6A.17.3 126 7.42.5-6 169
6A.18-19 112 7.44 170
6A.18.1-1O 84 7.45 170
6A.18.5 83 7.46 171
6.A.18.7-8 83 7.46.9 171
6A.18.14-20 83 7.46.21-22 171
6A.19.2-4 95, 193-194 7.47 171
6A.20 149 7.48.4-8 37
7.49.1-2 172, 180-181
7.1 182 7.50 170
7.1.8-9 99 7.51-60 182
7.3 182 7.51 11
7.3.5 149 7.52-59 32, 108-109
7.5-8 182 7.52 52, 56, 58
7.6 182 7.54 56, 94
7.7 170 7.55 143
7.8 170-171 7.56 149
7.9 149 7.57-61 176
7.10 149, 167 7.58.1-2 171, 192
7.11 171 n.350 7.58.17-19 192 n.385
7.15-17 151 7.59 78, 94
7.15.3-5 149-150 7.59.2-5 58
7.16.7-9 150 7.59.12-13 82
7.17 167 n.341 7.59.19-22 82
7.21.16-17 150 7.59.29-31 192 n.385
7.22 182 7.60.14-19 71 n.161, 173
7.23.4-6 150 7.61.4-5 192 n.385
7.24 182 7.61.8-9 176
7.26 101 7.62 177, 185-186
7.26.4-5 151 7.62.1-9 176, 177, 195
7.26.5-8 150 7.62.4-5 177
7.28.1-3 151 7.62.20-22 192 n.192
7.28.11-12 161 7.63 170
7.29.4-6 40 7.64.7 37,169,172,181,185
7.30 151 7.65 162, 174
7.31.14-15 151 7.65.2-3 162
7.33-34 167 7.65.11-12 174
7.32 151 7.66.6-13 162, 175
7.33 151 7.66.13-21 175
7.34 151 7.66.24-27 32,175-176
7.35-36 167 7.67 170
7.38 168 7.67.1-2 176
7.39.4-6 38, 145 7.71 170
7.39.4-14 168 7.71.2 24 n.66
7.40.1-6 99 7.73-78 174
7.40.12-16 89 7.73 194
7.41 173, 175 7.74 95
7.41.1-2 89 7.76.5-7 171
7.41.4-19 191-195 7.81.6-7 169
1.41.5 169 7.83-88 178
7.41.7-8 193 7.86 177-178
7.41.9 194 7.86.1-2 24 n.65
7.41.17-19 193 7.88 100

7.91.1-2 100, 177 7B.16 171 n.350

7B.42 80 n.178
7A.3.4-5 88 7B.42.1-8 46-47
7A.3.8-11 80 n.178 7B.42.1-3 192
7A.8-14 100 n.216 7C.2.7-13 143
7A.23 107

GENERAL INDEX
Abydos, 62, 64, 77 Balkans, 69-70, 91

Acarnanians, 83-84 Balsamon, Theodore, 84
Achaeans, 140 Bardas, Caesar, 46
Ademar of Chabannes, 55n Basil I, 42n, 46, 53n, 77n
Aelian, 124n Basil II, 8, 23-24, 26, 31-33, 42-46, 49,
Agapetos, deacon, 42n, 56n, 61n 50,51-58,60,62-66,68, 71n, 77,
Agathias, 134n, 137n, 168n 80-81, 84-87, 88, 94, 110, 153-155,
Akropolites, Constantine, 20 166, 170-173, 176-177, 179-184
Aleppo,29n Basil, Bishop of Caesarea, including
Alexander the Great, 29 church of, 35, 71n, 77,84-85,
Alexios I Komnenos, 69-71, 77n, 108n, 137n, 172, 173
150n Basil Lekapenos, parakoimomenos, 42-
Alexios, Patriarch of Constantinople, 43, 59, 64n, 84-85, 169n, 176
114-115,126 Bessarion, Cardinal, 147n
Ammianus Marcellinus, 52n Borgia, Cesare, 45
Anargyroi, Sts, church of, 81, 87, 94 Braudel, Fernand, 27
Anatolia, 69 Bryennios, Nikephoros, 171 n, 182n,
Anonymous Prolegomena io Platonic 194n
Philosophy, 179n, 190 Bulgarians, 95
Anthony, St, 92n
Antioch, 29 Cappadocia, 43n
Antonine Emperors, 34, 179n Catherine, wife of Isaak I, 169
Arabs, 69, 121n Celsus, anti-Christian writer, 125
Arethas, 21 n Charikleia, fictional character, 38
Aristakes of Lastivert, 64n, 167n Choirosphaktes, Leo, 21 n
Aristippos, companion of Socrates, 53 Choniates, Michael, 137n, 146n, 170n
Aristokles of Pergamon, 91 Choniates, Niketas, 19-20, 21n, 40n,
Aristotle/Aristotelian, 2, 33n, 35-38, 50n, 63n, 67n, 70n, 84, 95n, lOOn,
45n, 91, 124, 127, 129n, 131n, 115n, 146n
148n, 156, 158n, 160-161, 164- Cicero, 68-69n, lOOn, 130, 134n, 139n
165, 186 Constantine I, 42n, 147
Arrian,169-170n Constantine V, 83n, 87
Athanasios, Patriarch of Alexandria, 92n Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos,
Athanasios of the Great Lavra, 169n 77n, 184n
Athena, 124 Constantine VIII, 23-24, 42, 51, 53-54,
Athens/Athenians, 124, 136, 146, 165, 56, 58, 59n, 62, 64n, 95, 114
194-196 Constantine IX Monomachos, 8, 14n,
Athos, Mt, 50 23,31-33,39,47-49,57-60,78-79,
Attaleiates, Michael, 42n, 71n, 108, 81-82,94-97, 100, 104, 108, 109,
1I8n, 155n, 162n, 167, 173-174, 111-118, 132-147, 149, 178, 182,
194n 184, 186
Augeas, mythical owner of noxious Constantine X Doukas, 80n, 100, 177-
stables, 176 178
Augustine, 45n, 125n, 136-137n Constantine, uncle of Michael V, 88,
Avars,69 114
Constantius II, 137n
Bacon, Francis, 5n, 34, 52, 118n, 140, Crete/Cretans, 195
153-154, 168n, 177 Cyrus, Persian King, 184

220 GENERAL INDEX
Demetrios, author of On Style, 28n, Hermogenes, scholia on his Ideai, 39

37n, 40n Herodotos, 194-195
Demosthenes, lOOn Hierokles, N eoplatonist, 74-7 5n
Dio Chrysostomos, 54, 91 Hippocrates, 103n, 158n
Diocletian and Maximian, 179n Holobolos, Manuel, 137n
Diodoros Siculus, 124n Homer, 30, 46n, 54n, 66, 140, 183
Diogenes Laertios, 124n
Dionysios of Halicarnassus, 37n Iamblichos, 161 n, 186, 187 -188n
Diotogenes, political theorist, 55 Iconoclasm, 70-73,87-88
Domitian, Emperor, 91 Ignatios the Deacon, 146n, 157n,
159n
Egypt, ruler of, 39, 41, 149 Indians, 112
Egyptians, I 12 loannitzes, Bulgarian ruler, 21 n
Elias, monk, 84n Isaak I Komnenos, II, 37, 40-41, 71 n,
Elizabeth I, Queen of England, 140 88-89,94, 149-152, 154-155, 162,
Enlightenment, 75 166-177,180-182,184,185-186,
Epicurean, 7, 183 191-196
Epiktetos, 108n Isaak II Angelos, 95n, lOOn
Epinomis, 189-191 Isokrates, 40n, 127
Erasmus, 35, 160n Italikos, Michael, 40n
Eunapios, 5n, 92, 125n, 139n Italos, John, 21n, 145n, 172n
Euprepia, sister of Constantine IX, 114 Italy, 69
Eusebios of Caesarea, 83
Eustathios, Bishop of Thessaloniki, John I Tzimiskes, 23, 64n, 65n, 77
83n, 84 John II Komnenos, 63n
Euthymios, Patriarch of John VI Kantakouzenos, 139n
Constantinople, 169n John the Baptist, 132-133, 147
Evagrios Pontikos, 157n John of Damascus, 73
Evagrios Scholastikos, 67n, 121 n John the Grammarian, Patriarch of
Constantinople, 169n
Ficino, Marsilio, 5n John the Orphanotrophos, 24n, 57, 98,
Foucault, Michel, 27n 107, 114, 155, 181-182
John Oxeites, Patriarch of Antioch,
Gadamer, H.-G., In, 4n, 27n, 159n, 70n, 108n
164n, 165n Julian, Emperor, 2n, 52n, 86-87, 92,
Galen, 74, 158n 137n, 172n
Galileo, 119 Julius Caesar, 29
Genesios, 42n, 47n, 94n, 174n Justinian, 29, 67n, 77n
George the Martyr, St, church of, 78,
81-82 Kadmos, legend of, 196
Germanos, Patriarch of Kallikles, Platonic character, 152n
Constantinople, 72n, 74n Kataskepenos, Nikolaos, 40n
Gibbon, Edward, 123n Kekaumenos, v, 34n, 40n, 44n, 137n,
Gregory of Nazianzos, 4n, 83, 128n, 153n
157n, 160n, 172n Keroularios, Michael, Patriarch of
Guicciardini, Francesco, 47, 50 Constantinople, 115n, 161-164,
Guiscard, Robert, 69 166, 167, 174-176
Klein, Jacob, 2n
Hannibal, 44 Komnene, Anna, 49n, 59n, 70, 77n
Heidegger, Martin, In Komnenos, John, father of Alexios I,
Heliodoros, author of Aithiopika, 37-38 150
Herakleios, 69 Komnenos, Manuel, father of Isaak I,
Hercules, 53-54, 186 17ln
Hercules, Pillars of, 81 Kroisos, Lydian King, 194-195

GENERAL INDEX 221
Leichoudes, Constantine, Patriarch of Montaigne, Michel de, 3n, 16n, 50n,
Constantinople, 11,32, 143, 161- 51n, 166, 168n
162, 175-176 Moses, 16, 185-186
Leo V, 169n Musonius Rufus, 53n, 56
Leo VI, 114, 169n
Leo, Bishop of Chalcedon, 70-71 Naziraioi, 83, 112, 131
Leo the Deacon, 23, 31n, 42n, 43n, Neoplatonism/Neoplatonists, 5-8, 14,
64n, 65n, n, 173 36-37,73-75, 104n, Ill, 126n,
Leo Paraspondylos, 155-160, 162-163 127, 156-159, 161, 163-166, 185-
Libanios, 139n 191
Livy,44n Nietzsche, Friedrich, v, 19n, 81, 154n,
Lucian, 28n, 76, 103n, 125n, 134n, 197n
135n, 137n, 144n, 179n Nikephoros I, 87n, 174n
Luidprand, Bishop of Cremona, 21 Nikephoros II Phokas, 31-32, 42n, 55,
Lysias, 28n, 37, 127, 150 86, 169n
Nikephoros III Botaneiates, 42n, 167
Macedonian dynasty, 46, 183 Nikephoros, Patriarch of
Macedonians, 113 Constantinople, 69n, 72n, 83n,
Machiavelli, Niccol0, 15n, 27, 33,44- 87n, 96n
45, 47, 59, 60, 65-66, 80, 95n, Normans, 69
103n, 105n, 113n, 126n, 140, 153,
160, 166, 168n, 1nn, 183n 0lympos, Mt, 113n
Maleinos, Eustathios, 43n Onasander, military theorist, 54
Manasses, Constantin"e, 53n, 137n Origen, 108n, 124n, 125
Maniakes, George, 108, 183, 197
Manzikert, 46 Pachomios, 92n
Marcus Aurelius, 124n, 125-126 Panaetios, 69n
Matthew of Edessa, 21 n, 55n, 64n, Paul, St, 129n, 146-147
167n, 174n, 194n Pechenegs, 70
Maurice, Emperor, 43n Persians, 69
Mauropous, john, nn, 137n, 145 Phaedo, Platonic character, 3-4
Maximos the Confessor, 72n, 188 Phileotes, Cyril, 40
Medici, Cosimo de, 33, 80 Philo, 74n
Menander Rhetor, 136n Philostratos, 43, 91, 179n
Mesarites, Nikolaos, 19, 40n Phokas, Bardas, 33, 62, 64-66, n, 110,
Mesopotamia, 69 182-183
Methodios, Patriarch of Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople,
Constantinople, 169n 40n, 42n, 44n, 51n, 61, 72, 152n
Michael I, 72n, 169n Plato/Platonism, 1-8, 17, 29-30, 31 n,
Michael II, 47n 35-38, 45n, 56-57, 74n, 81, 109,
Michael III, 46 115, 118n, 123, 125, 127, 129-130,
Michael IV Paphlagon, 30, 31 n, 56-58, 131n, 138n, 139n, 143, 145n, 146-
81, 87-88, 89-90, 92-95, 96n, 98- 147, 152, 153, 156-159, 161, 164-
99, 110-111, 114, 115n, 116n, 134- 166, 169, 171-172, 176, 179n, 181,
135,137,139,169,171,178-182, 184, 185-186, 189-190, 195-196,
194 197n
Michael V Kalaphates, 24, 26n, 59-60, Plethon, George Gemistos, 147n
88,98-99, 101-105, 106n, 107, Plotinos, 5, 6n, 7, 73, 108n, 156n, 186,
110,114 187n
Michael VI Stratiotikos, 40, 99, 149- Plutarch, 123n, 179n
151,167-168,170,184 Polybios, 31, 124n
Michael VII Doukas, 9, II, 14, 104 Pompey,69n
Midas, legendary king, 87 Porphyry, Neoplatonist, 73-75, 156n,
Monophysites, 175n 186

222 GENERAL INDEX
Posidonios, 23n Symeon the New Theologian, 88n,

Priskos, Neoplatonist, 5n 157n, 188
Prodikos, Sophist, 53 Synesios, Bishop of Cyrene, 163n
Proklos,6, 14, 96n, 186, 187n, 188, 190 Synodikon if Orthodoxy, 21 n
Prokopios, 137n Syria, 29n, 69
pseudo-Dionysios, 6, 188
Pythagoreans, 3-4, 161 n Tarasios, Patriarch of Constantinople,
146n, 157n, 159n
Reformation, 75 Tertullian, 124-125
Robert de Clari, 63-64n Themis, 143
Romagna, region of Italy, 45 Themistios, 164n, 169-170n
Romanos II, 171 Theodora, 24, 32, 39-40, 49, 78-80,
Romanos III, 24, 28-31, 33-37, 48, 95, 112-114, 119, 149, 155, 162,
49n, 56, 58, 63, 66-68, 71, 74-75, 193-194
78, 81, 89-90, 94, 98-99, 110-111, Theodore of Stoudios, 73, 83n,
114, 117, 121, 155, 169, 178-181 169n
Romanos IV Diogenes, 46-47 Theodore of Sykeon, 55n
Rus', 77n, 107 Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 83n
Rusticus, 169n Theophanes the Confessor, 42n, 47n,
69n, 72n, 87n, 92n, !07n, 116,
Sabbaita, monk, 5n 174n
Salutati, Coluccio, 150 Theophanes Continuatus, 42n, 77n
Schleiermacher, F. D. E., In Theophilos, Emperor, 169n
Scriptural texts : Numbers, 46n; Proverbs, Theophylaktos Simocattes, 43n, 50n,
36n; Psalms, 47n; 1 Corinthians, 72, 157
129n, 146-147 Thomas the Slav, 47n
Seljuk Turks, 69 Thucydides, 23n, 33n, 83-84,
Septimius Severus, 44n 131n
Sergios, Patriarch of Constantinople, Tiberios Constantine, 43n, 47,
88n 50n
Sextus Empiricus, 124 Timarion, 20
Skleraina, and other mistresses of Toland, John, 16n
Constantine IX, 49, 95, 100, 112, Tornikios, Leo, 48-49,108,112-114,
115,140 142, 182-183
Skleros, Bardas, 44-45, 49, 64-65, 182- Trajan, Emperor, 54
183 Trojans, 140
Skylitzes Continuatus, 108, 174n Tzetzes, John, 137n
Skylitzes, John, 43n, 64n, 67n, 115n,
150n, 155n, 167 Varro, 124
Slavs, 69 Vatatzes,John,48-49, 113, 142, 183
Socrates, 2-4, 17,53,56, 123, 125, Virgin Mary, including churches and
127n, 130, 138n, 146, 153, 156- icons of, 29-30, 35-37, 48, 62-68,
158,164-165,179,181,190 77-78,81, III, 117, 120-121, 155
Socrates, ecclesiastical historian, 87, Vita S. Lucae Stylitae, 83n
92n, 134n Volodymyr, Rus' prince, 77n
Solomon, 29 Voltaire, 76
Solon, 194-195
Sparta/Spartans, 195 Xanthippe, wife of Socrates, 4
Spinoza, Benedict, 103n Xenophon, 53, 123, 139n, 179n
Stethatos, Niketas, 88n Xiphilinos, John, Patriarch of
Stobaios, anthologist, 55 Constantinople, 4-5, 16, 90n, 113n,
Stoudios monastery, 73, 88, 114 145
Strauss, Leo, 2n, 15, 16n, 39n, 45,
68n, 103n, 124n Yahya of Antioch, 55, 6411

GENERAL INDEX 223
Zeno, founder of Stoicism, 75n 79, 95-99, 104, 106, 110-112, 114,
Zeus, 124 115n, 139, 140, 188
Zoe, 24n, 29-30, 32-33, 49, 56, 59, 78- Zonaras,John, 64n, 85n, 167n, 174n

STUD lEN UND TEXTE
ZUR GEISTESGESCHICHTE
DES MITTELALTERS
3. Koch, J. (Hrsg.). Humanismus, Mystik und Kunst in der Welt des Mittelalters. 2nd. impr.
1959. reprint under consideration
4. Thomas Aquinas, Expositio super librum Boethii De Trinitate. Ad fidem codicis auto-
graphi nec non ceterorum codicum manuscriptorum recensuit B. Decker. Repr.
1965. ISBN 90 04 02173 6
5. Koch, J. (Hrsg.). Artes liberales. Von der antiken Bildung zur Wissenschaft des Mit-
telalters. Repr. 1976. ISBN 90 04 047387
6. Meuthen, E. Kirche und Heilsgeschichte bei Gerhoh von Reichersberg.1959. ISBN9004021744
7. Nothdurft, K.-D. Studien zum Eirifluss Senecas auf die Philosophie und Theologie des 12.
Jahrhunderts. 1963. ISBN 90 04 02175 2
9. Zimmermann, A. (Hrsg.). Verzeichnis ungedruckter Kommentare zur Metaphysik und Physik
des Aristoteles aus der Zeit von etwa 1250-1350. Band 1. 1971. ISBN 90 04 02177 9
10. McCarthy, J. M. Humanistic Emphases in the Educational Thought if Vincent if Beauvais.
1976. ISBN 90 04 04375 6
II. William of Doncaster. Explicatio Aphorismatum Philosophicorum. Edited with Annota-
tions by O. Weijers. 1976. ISBN 90 04 04403 5
12. Pseudo-Bocce. De Disciplina Sealarium. Edition critique, introduction et notes par
O. Weijers. 1976. ISBN 90 04 04768 9
13. Jacobi, K. Die Modalbegriffo in den logischen Schriflen des Wilhelm von Shyreswood und in
anderen Kompendien des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts. Funktionsbestimmung und Gebrauch
in der logischen Analyse. 1980. ISBN 90 04 06048 0
14. Weijers, o. (Ed.). Ies questions de Craton et leurs commentaires. Edition critique. 1981.
ISBN 90 04 06340 4
15. Hermann of Carinthia. De Essentiis. A Critical Edition with Translation and Com-
mentary by Ch. Burnett. 1982. ISBN 90 04 06534 2
17. John of Salisbury. Entheticus Maior and Minor. Edited by J. van Laarhoven. 1987. 3
vols. I. Introduction, Texts, Translations; 2. Commentaries and Notes; 3. Biblio-
graphy, Dutch Translations, Indexes. 1987. ISBN 90 04 07811 8
18. Richard Brinkley. Theory if Sentential Riference. Edited and Translated with Introduc-
tion and Notes by M.J. Fitzgerald. 1987. ISBN 90 04 08430 4
19. Alfred of Sareshel. Commentary on the Metheora if Aristotle. Critical Edition, Introduc-
tion and Notes by J. K. Otte. 1988. ISBN 90 04 08453 3
20. Roger Bacon. Compendium if the Study if Theology. Edition and Translation with Intro-
duction and Notes by T. S. Maloney. 1988. ISBN 90 04 08510 6
21. Aertsen, J. A. Nature and Creature. Thomas Aquinas's Way of Thought. 1988.
ISBN 90 04 08451 7
22. Tachau, K. H. Vision and Certitude in the Age if Ockham. Optics, Epistemology and the
Foundations of Semantics, 1250-1345. 1988. ISBN 90 04 08552 I
23. Frakes, J. C. The Fate if Fortune in the Early Middle Ages. The Boethian Tradition.
1988. ISBN 90 04 08544 0
24. Muralt, A. de. L'Enjeu de la Philosophie Medievale. Etudes thomistes, scotistes, occa-
miennes et gregoriennes. Repr. 1993. ISBN 90 04 09254 4

25. Livesey, S. J. 7heology and Science in the Fourteenth Century. Three Questions on the
Unity and Subalternation of the Sciences from John of Reading's Commentary on
the Sentences. Introduction and Critical Edition. 1989. ISBN 90 04 09023 I
26. Elders, L.J. 7he Philosophical 7heology if St 7homas Aquinas. 1990. ISBN 90 04 09156 4
27. Wissink, J. B. (Ed.). the Eternity if the World in the 7hought if 7homas Aquinas and his
Contemporaries. 1990. ISBN 90 04 09183 I
28. Schneider, N. Die Kosmologie des Franciscus de Marchia. Texte, Quellen und Unter-
suchungen zur Naturphilosophie des 14. Jahrhunderts. 1991. ISBN 90 04 09280 3
29. Langholm, O. Economics in the Medieval Schools. \Nealth, Exchange, Value, Money and
Usury according to the Paris Theological Tradition, 1200-1350. 1992.
ISBN 90 04 09422 9
30. Rijk, L. M. de. Peter if Spain (Petrus Hispanus Portugalensis): Syncategoreumata. First Criti-
cal Edition with an Introduction and Indexes. With an English Translation by Joke
Spruyt. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09434 2
31. Resnick, I. M. Divine Power and Possibility in St. Peter Damian's De Divina Omni-
potentia. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09572 I
32. O'Rourke, F. Pseudo-Dionysius and the Metaphysics ifAquinas. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09466 0
33. Hall, D. C. 7he Trinity. An Analysis of St. Thomas Aquinas' Expositio of the De
T rinitate of Boethius. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09631 0
34. Elders, L. J. the Metaplrysics if Being if St. 7homas Aquinas in a Historical Perspective.
1992. ISBN 90 04 096450
35. Westra, H. J. (Ed.). From Athens to Chartres. Neoplatonism and Medieval Thought.
Studies in Honour of EdouardJeauneau. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09649 3
36. Schulz, G. Veritas est adtEquatio intellectus et rei. Untersuchungen zur Wahrheitslehre des
Thomas von Aquin und zur Kritik Kants an einem iiberlieferten Wahrheitsbegriff.
1993. ISBN 90 04 09655 8
37. Kann, Ch. Die Eigenschqften der Termini. Eine Untersuchung zur Perutilis logica Alberts
von Sachsen. 1994. ISBN 90 04 09619 1
38. Jacobi, K. (Hrsg.). Argumentationstheorie. Scholastische Forschungen zu den logischen
und semantischen Regeln korrekten Folgerns. 1993. ISBN 90 04 09822 4
39. Butterworth, C. E., and B. A. Kessel (Eds.). 7he Introduction if Arabic Philosophy into
Europe. 1994. ISBN 90 04 098429
40. Kaufmann, M. Begriffi, Sdtze, Dinge. Referenz und Wahrheit bei Wilhelm von
Ockham. 1994. ISBN 9004098895
41. Hiilsen, C. R. Zur Semantik anaphorischer Pronomina. Untersuchungen scholastischer
und moderner Theorien. 1994. ISBN 90 04 09832 I
42. Rijk, L. M. de (Ed. & Tr.). Nicholas if Autrecourt. His Correspondence with Master
Giles and Bernard of Arezzo. A Critical Edition from the Two Parisian Manuscripts
with an Introduction, English Translation, Explanatory Notes and Indexes.
1994. ISBN 90 04 09988 3
43. Schonberger, R. Relation als Vergleich. Die Relationstheorie des Johannes Buridan im
Kontext seines Denkens und der Scholastik. 1994. ISBN 90 04 09854 2
44. Saarinen, R. Weakness if the Will in Medieval 7hought. From Augustine to Buridan.
1994. ISBN 90 04 09994 8
45. Speer, A. Die entdeckte Natur. Untersuchungen zu Begriindungsversuchen einer "scien-
tia naturalis" im 12. Jahrhundert. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10345 7
46. Te Velde, R. A. Participation and Substantiality in 7homas Aquinas. 1995.
ISBN 90 04 10381 3
47. Tuninetti, L. F. "Per Se Notum". Die logische Beschaffenheit des Selbstverstandlichen
im Denken des Thomas von Aquin. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10368 6
48. Hoenen, MJ.F.M. und De Libera, A. (Hrsg.). Albertus Magnus und der Albertismus.
Deutsche philosophische Kultur des Mittelalters. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10439 9
49. Back, A. On Reduplication. Logical Theories of Qualification. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10539 5

50. Etzkorn, G. j. Iter Vaticanum Franciscanum. A Description of Some One Hundred
Manuscripts of the Vaticanus Latinus Collection. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10561 1
51. Sylwanowicz, M. Contingent Causality and the Foundations qf Duns Scotus' Metaphysics.
1996. ISBN 90 04 10535 2
52. Aertsen, J.A Medieval Philosophy and the Transcendentals. The Case of Thomas Aquinas.
1996. ISBN 90 04 10585 9
53. Honnefelder, L., R. Wood, M. Dreyer (Eds.). John Duns Scotus. Metaphysics and
Ethics. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10357 0
54. Holopainen, T. J. Dialectic and Yheology in the Eleventh Century. 1996.
ISBN 90 04 10577 8
55. Synan, E.A. (Ed.). Qy.estions on the De Anima qf Aristotle by Magister Adam Burley and
Dominus Walter Burley 1997. ISBN 90 04 10655 3
56. Schupp, F. (Hrsg.). Abbo von Fleury: De syllogismis hypotheticis. Textkritisch heraus-
gegeben, iibersetzt, eingeleitet und kommentiert. 1997. ISBN 9004 10748 7
57. Hackett, J. (Ed.). Roger Bacon and the Sciences. Commemorative Essays. 1997.
ISBN 9004 100156
58. Hoenen, MJ.F.M. and Nauta, L. (Eds.). Boethius in the Middle Ages. Latin and Verna-
cular Traditions of the Consolatio philosophiae. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10831 9
59. Goris, W. Einheit als Prinzip und <Jel. Versuch iiber die Einheitsmetaphysik des Opus
tripartitum Meister Eckharts. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10905 6
60. Rijk, L.M. de (Ed.). Giraldus Odonis O.F.M.: Opera Philosophica. Vol. 1.: Logica.
Critical Edition from the Manuscripts. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10950 I
61. Kapriev, G . ... ipsa vita et veritas. Der "ontologische Gottesbeweis" und die Ideenwelt
Anselms von Canterbury. 1998. ISBN 90 04 11097 6
62. Hentschel, F. (Hrsg.). Musik - und die Geschichte der Philosophie und Naturwissenschriften im
Mittelalter.Fragen zur Wechselwirkung von 'musica' und 'philosophia' im Mittelalter.
1998. ISBN 90 04 11093 3
63. Evans, G.R. Getting it wrong. The Medieval Epistemology of Error. 1998.
ISBN 90 04 112405
64. Enders, M. Wahrheit und Notwendigkeit. Die Theorie der Wahrheit bei Anselm von
Canterbury im Gesamtzusammenhang seines Denkens und unter besonderer
Beriicksichtigung seiner Antiken Quellen (Aristoteles, Cicero, Augustinus, Boethius).
1999. ISBN 90 04 11264 2
65. Park, S.C. Die Rezeption der mittelalterlichen Sprachphilosophie in der 7heologie des Yhomas von
Aquin. Mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Analogie. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11272 3
66. Tellkamp, J.A Sinne, Gegenstande und Sensibilia. Zur Wahrnehmungslehre des Thomas
von Aquin. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11410 6
67. Davenport, AA Measure qf a Different Greatness. The Intensive Infinite, 1250-1650.
1999. ISBN 9004 11481 5
68. Kaldellis, A Yhe Argument qf Psellos' Chronographia. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11494 7


The Chronographia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Chronographia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

Downloaded from Brill.com 11/29/2023 12:05:32AM

PAUL WILPERT UNO ALBERT ZIMMERMANN

TZOTCHO BOIADJIEV, KENT EMERY, JR.

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-EinheitsaufnablTIe

© Copyright 1999 by Koninklijke Brill.NV; Leiden, TIe Netherlands

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

1. Ethos and History .................................................................. 23

Bibliography ................................................................................. 199

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

This book is an interpretation of Psellos' Chronographia. Until recently,

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

"much of what [plato] says is false, and much more is confused,

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

But certain peculiar events occur in the dialogue that undermine

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

be held in Xanthippe's arms (60a).6 Finally, even at the end of the

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

9 The allusion is to Eunapios, Lives qf the Philosophers 481: Priskos, a fourth-century

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

12 The literature on Neoplatonism is now gradually expanding, rendering previous

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

metaphysics should be construed as reflections of his personal beliefs.

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

exercise of political power. 16 Unlike any of the N eoplatonists, he had

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

values. He returned to the capital in the following year, and was

IS To list a few: medicine, astronomy, law, history, panegyric, hagiography, poet-

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

print, collections, and scattered throughout the issues of many, often

21 I am preparing two comprehensive bibliographies, to be published separately:

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

that all modern students of Byzantium first become acquainted with

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

How then does my approach differ from that of existing scholarship

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

addressing in each case, nor under what circumstances each work

these very contradictions in my analysis of the Chronographia. Similar methodological

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

31 For the prominence and importance of Psellos' position, see W. Wolska-Conus,

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

philosophy to valla, which ordinarily refers to the clear running

.17 D. L. Schaefer, The Political Philosophy of Montaigne, p. 42, n. 5, summarizing an

argument by A. Armaingaud. This argument was made as early as 1720 by John

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

of religion, philosophy, politics, and rhetoric. Now a small number of

38 George Ostrogorsky, History qf the Byzantine State, p. 316.

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

try to substantiate this hypothesis, or explicate its profound conse-

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

iron-clad cognitive embraces. 48 The mounting number of exceptions

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2

wanting to revive the myths of the pagans, though he was shrewd

A recent analysis of the Timarion has plausibly concluded that its

.50 Niketas Choniates, Annals III.

Anthony Kaldellis - 978-90-04-45286-2