Michael Psellus

by the emperor, also called John, but nicknamed "Aoinos" [the abstainers], because he partook of wine not at all. Likewise, after the Patriarch of Antioch fell asleep, the emperor appointed a certain Nicephorus, bearing the surname "Maurus." Alexander Cabasilas was chosen as Duke of Skopje. Leo Diabatenus, sent to Mesembria, was managing affairs there and concluded agreements and truces with the Patzinaks and Comans. The emperor also gave his niece, the Synadene, daughter of Theodulus Synadenus, to the Kral of Hungary as wife; upon his death, she returned again to Byzantium. Many ordinations of metropolitans and other holy men also took place during his reign, which were not free from reproach. The emperor, accustomed to frugality and simplicity, departed in no way from his own character. He was most prompt in bestowing gifts and most liberal, and inclined toward everyone with readiness. He had two servants, Borilus and Germanus, who did not obey him as servants, but ^B performed whatever they pleased without contradiction; because of them, he was hateful to the leaders of the Senate, who took offense at their crimes against everyone. But when, as the narrative has already related, the logothete fled to Ruselius and was staying with him, and was kept in custody by him after being tonsured, he killed Ruselius with poison. But being led to Botaneiates by the relatives of Ruselius, he was kept under guard on the island of Prote. And since those who were with him knew full well that if the emperor only saw him, he would obtain pardon, seeing that he was endowed with experience in many things, and the emperor himself was rather dull at conducting affairs, those who were with the emperor, judging that it would not be to their advantage (for they suspected that he would be an obstacle to them), sent the Great Hetairiarch Straboromanus and killed him; although he had had this one mandate from the emperor, that he should only question him concerning the funds that belonged to the Queen City, and not trouble him further in matters. But he, as soon as he arrived, ordered him to be bound and tortured severely, so that he gave up his soul under the very tortures, even though he promised, if he were not tortured, that he would confess and return the money itself. But, as I said, it was not so much the royal treasuries that were the concern of those men, as it was to ensure that he was taken out of the way before he arrived in the sight of the emperor and spoke to him. And matters concerning the killing of the logothete had this end. ^C

JACOBI GOARI NOTES. (51) Note that if they do not prove that the logothete was the treasurer, it must be sought out elsewhere at another time.

YEAR OF OUR LORD MLXXII MICHAEL PSELLUS LEONIS ALLATII ON THE PSELLOI AND THEIR WRITINGS DISSERTATION.

Fabricius reprinted this Diatriba after the Roman edition of 1634 in volume V of his *Bibliotheca Graeca*. We provide it in its entirety because the author, while discussing our Michael Psellus himself (from § XXI onwards), repeatedly refers to others whom he has already discussed or is about to discuss; thus, the writers examined by him become joined by a certain connection.

SYLLABUS OF THE PSELLOI Concerning whom Allatius discourses in this Diatriba.

I. Michael Psellus, or the Emperor Psellos (the Stammerer), from A.D. 820 to 829. § 1. ^A II. Michael Psellus, disciple of Photius, famous circa A.D. 870. § 2-20. III. Michael Psellus, tutor to the Emperor Michael Ducas, famous circa A.D. 1050. § 21-33. His published writings, § 34, 52, and 78; unpublished, § 53-77. Also belonging to him are those chapters on universal doctrine, which I have here edited for the first time with Allatius. Michael Ephesius distinct from Psellus. § 31. Perhaps Michael Ducas the Emperor himself was a disciple of Psellus. § 32. IV. Michael Psellus, physician, under Constantine Porphyrogenitus. § 71. V. Michael Psellus, a military man, under Theodore Lascaris. § 79. VI. Joannes Psellus. § 49, 56, 80. VII. Constantinus Psellus. § 50 and 80.

I. Michael Psellus, or the Emperor Psellos.

[1] I. Let the first of all (a) be Michael the Amorite (b), who, after Leo the Armenian, was Emperor of Constantinople; others have called him *Traulos*, that is, Stammerer. We shall call him *Psellos* (for it will be the same, whatever others may say). Suidas says: *Psellos: obscure, inarticulate speaker, stammerer*. But, lest we seem to change surnames—which must be preserved with the utmost care, even regarding religion—into other words of the same meaning, although there is no lack of precedent for this, behold a witness greater than any exception, writing near those times: Nicetas, who was also called David the Paphlagonian, in the *Life of Saint Ignatius the Patriarch*, who distinguishes said Emperor by no other surname than Psellus. For he says: *Michael, whom they call Psellos, being domesticus of the excubitors, and accused of conspiring for the throne, was confined by his accomplices.* For indeed Michael, whom they name Psellus, (then domesticus of the excubitors), having been denounced for aspiring to the kingdom, was put under guard by his fellow soldiers and associates in the conspiracy, etc. Yet he becomes known in later historians under the name *Traulos* (Stammerer). Regarding the dogmas of the Christian faith, ecclesiastical matters, and especially the adoration ^B of holy images, he was truly *Psellos* in word and deed, that is, lisping; truly *traulos*, that is, stammering.

II. Michael Psellus, disciple of Photius, circa A.D. 870.

[2] II. Another Michael Psellus was, as a man of learning, established in his study of knowing and teaching the best arts and disciplines; he was commended by many names, but chiefly for the fact that he alone, while all others in a most wretched Greece were wasting away in sleep and luxury, did not neglect the dead Muses, but cultivated them more accurately and opened the fountains of philosophy to those who desired them. From him Leo the Byzantine, nephew of the Patriarch of Constantinople Joannes, of the line of the Morocharzani, surnamed the Philosopher, drew the elements of liberal arts after his boyhood studies, as Joannes Scylitza relates in his *Oriental History*, and Cedrenus from Scylitza in the *Synopsis*. *Ta men*...

NOTES.

^A Leo, as they say, sought after letters and poets in the capital, but he studied rhetoric, philosophy, the recovery of arithmetic, and the methods of the other sciences while he was on the island of Andros. For there, having chanced upon a certain learned man, Michael Psellus, and having received from him only the foundations, some arguments, and the beginnings—since he did not find as much as he wished—he roamed through the monasteries, searching for and acquiring the books stored in them; and through diligent practice and meditation, he was raised to the height of such knowledge.

*Constantine, of your nectar, Calliope,* *Having drunk well, says with knowledge:* *“He who has parsed the mysteries of the heart,* *Late and with difficulty has understood the hidden malice.”* *Farewell to me, O thrice-miserable Polymnia. Farewell, Muses.* *But I, from now on, desire rhetoric,* *Having found Photius, the high priest and elder-teacher,* *Who nurtured me with the milk of divine springs.*

He did not, however, cease to be friendly and respectful toward Photius even before this, because of the manifold wisdom and virtue in him. And although he had removed him from the patriarchal throne—not wishing to prefer anything before justice—nevertheless, he did not fail to provide him with everything for his consolation. Whence, having even given him a place of stay in the palace, he appointed him as instructor and teacher of his own children.

^B For he now at last feels the desire for rhetoric, since I have found Photius, the supreme president and elder-teacher, who nurtured me with the milk of divine springs. He calls Photius *gerontodidaskalos* (elder-teacher), either because he was an old man, or because he instructed an old man; for both were of older age. And that turned out more conveniently for Leo, as he was not the last among the primates of the court. For Photius, having been stripped of his dignity, lived a life in the palace of Basil the Macedonian, informing Leo and Constantine, and the rest of Basil’s children, in humanity, eloquence, and other disciplines. From this, an approach was also given to Leo for grasping more divine studies. I have this from Constantine Porphyrogenitus concerning the life and deeds of Basil the Macedonian: “Nor yet had he before this neglected the studies of humanity in him, Photius; nay, he increased him with honors on account of the manifold wisdom and virtue in him. And although he had removed him from the patriarchal throne, granting primacy to justice, he nevertheless conferred upon him everything by which he might solace him. Whence, having summoned him to the palace, he established him as the informant and master of his own children.”

^C [4] IV. Leo, therefore, whether by the office of teaching philosophy or by the excellence with which he himself surpassed others in philosophical matters, claimed for himself the surname of Philosopher. When the parent of ecclesiastical history had noted this in his *Annals*, he affirmed, not incongruously, that Michael Psellus flourished in the year of our Lord 859. For indeed at that time Michael Psellus was approved as a man not unlauded in the science of philosophizing, distinct from the other Michael Psellus under Constantine and Michael Ducas, whom many, through little caution, confounding, have miserably disturbed the order and times of history, so that not a few thrust upon their readers as many lies and trifles in very few words. Lest I be too long, [attend to] the words of Gregorius Gyraldus *De poet. histor.*, Dialogue 5: “That Leo, indeed, was not uncelebrated, who was the son of Basil, nicknamed the Philosopher, who for about years from the Word of God made flesh held the empire of Byzantium and the East, whose son was Constantine Ducas, who both felt rightly concerning the Christian religion and busily devoted his effort to the best arts and disciplines. ^D That famous book of this Constantine exists, which, dying, he left to his son Romanus, in which he encompassed the sum total of the empire, the treaties of allies, the forces of enemies, what and how great they were, and all other things pertaining to the empire: which book the Republic of Venice most diligently [keeps] in its own private library today.”

^A It also makes the city keep watch. In the time of this Constantine, there also flourished a man skilled in every scientific and liberal art, as well as foreign ones, M. Psellus, whose nearly countless books are passed through the hands of the curious and scholarly. To this Constantine, indeed, the books of Psellus on the "rationale of life," that is, on diet, and on the making of gold—that is, the *Chrysopæia*—are attributed; which books someone, not truly unlearned, wrongly believed in writing had been given to Constantine the Great: just as the *Commentaries* which are read in the Chaldean symbols of Zoroaster, and the *Astronomical Canons*, etc.; and with a few words inserted: “There was also the son of this Constantine Ducas, and a disciple of M. Psellus, the Emperor Michael Ducas of Constantinople, who, because of the famine and poverty which had invaded the city of Constantinople at the beginning of his reign, was surnamed ‘Parapinaces.’” This Michael, indeed, was otherwise ignorant and lethargic, except that he progressed in the good arts under Psellus, and especially in the making of verses, in which matter Greek history commends him as an emperor.

^B V. I am amazed that a man of sound mind could have spoken so inconsiderately. To him, Leo the Philosopher is the Emperor Leo, son of Basil. This is an error. It is certain that the Emperor Leo, being most devoted to the humanities, philosophy, and sacred studies, wrote many things—some of which still exist—in every branch of knowledge in a praiseworthy manner: and for this reason he was surnamed *sophos*, that is, “the wise,” but the name of “philosopher” was never attributed to him by the more learned. Therefore, from Leo the Philosopher and a second [emperor called] the Wise, he makes one Leo, and [calls] him the son of Basil. The author of *Theatrum vitæ humanæ* (vol. XXI, lib. II, page 3759) has fallen into a more ignorant lapse. “The Emperor Leo the Philosopher was initiated into letters at Byzantium; he learned rhetoric, philosophy, arithmetic, and the remaining sciences on the island of Antros, having stayed there with Michael Psellus.” [According to] Cedrenus. “A truly huge and ardent zeal of the emperor, although he had no authority or resources, who, having left his home and neglected the riches of the highest station, traveled to the island of Antros to obtain learning from the master Psellus.” Would it not have been much easier, by proposing a great reward, for Psellus to have been summoned and arrived? It is also false for Cedrenus to assert this, for he knows the Philosopher Leo as distinct from Leo the Wise and [the] Emperor. And the words of Cedrenus are [exactly] those concerning Leo the Philosopher which we brought forward above.

VI. Gyraldus continues: “Whose son, that is to say, Leo’s son, was Constantine Ducas.” Who said this? Constantine Ducas lived long after these times. Nor did Constantine, the son of Leo, ever assume the surname of Ducas for himself, but rather Porphyrogennetos, in which he took the greatest pleasure and pride. The surname of Ducas was taken in the empire at least one hundred and sixty years later. He who... and felt correctly concerning the Christian religion. Concerning Constantine Ducas, it might perhaps be true. But by what reasoning could Constantine, the son of Leo, a defender of schism, have felt correctly concerning the Christian religion? Others may judge. His attempt to defend Photius from wrongs, or [his defense of] the Tome of Union, edited by Leunclavius in the *Jus Græco-Romanum* (Book II), is clear enough and more. That celebrated book of this Constantine, which he left at his death to his son Romanus, is well known. Joannes Meursius edited it from a codex of the Palatine library, which was once said to have belonged to Baptista Ignatius, in Greek and Latin, along with other short works of the same Constantine, at Leiden by Elzevir in 1627, in 8°. But he was not a Ducas, but a Porphyrogennetos. In the time of this Constantine also there flourished Michael Psellus. If the discussion is about Psellus, whose countless books, as he says himself, are circulating, he is mistaken. For he did not live at that time. If it is about the tutor of Leo the Philosopher, although he may not be mistaken, he is nevertheless not celebrated by the edition of countless books. Concerning whom, whether he wrote anything ^D I still doubt. To this Constantine, surely, [are attributed] the books of Psellus on the “rationale of life,” that is, on diet. This is also false. For Psellus, who wrote the book *On the Rationale of Life*, dedicated the book to Constantine Ducas, or if you prefer, Constantine Monomachos. And [he is said to have written] *On the Making of Gold*. Nothing could be further from the truth. For he sent that little book to the Patriarch Michael Cerularius, at whose urging he had written it. Whom someone not entirely unlearned [attributes to Constantine]... He most excellently rejects the ineptitudes of others, and recounts some commentaries of Psellus, though not those of Leo the Philosopher, the master. He adds: “There was also the son of this Constantine Ducas, and a disciple of M. Psellus, the Emperor Michael Ducas of Constantinople, who was surnamed Parapinaces because of the famine and poverty.” Nonsense. Of Constantine, the son of Leo, there was no son Michael, but Romanus, to whom he left, as Gyraldus had said above, his dying [work] *On the Administration of the Empire*. And this Michael, under his tutor Psellus, recognizes Constantine Ducas as his father. Does Gyraldus treat history well? Does he deserve well of Psellus and these emperors, whom he confuses by mixing them together so vilely, and casts them forth from their proper place into other times?

VII. Possevinus likewise, while he transfers the writings of the more recent Psellus to that ancient tutor of Leo, receives antiquity quite poorly: “Michael Psellus, who is said to have been the tutor of Leo, surnamed the Philosopher, wrote many things, concerning both theology, and philosophy, and other disciplines, whether pertaining to mechanics or medicine; provided, however, that all the things which are ascribed [to him] are his legitimate works.” Nor does Franciscus Bosquetus show more wisdom in his preface to the reader for Michael Psellus’s *On the Laws*.

VIII. And certainly, Andreas Schottus in his preface to Psellus’s *Commentary on the Song of Songs*, and Gerhard Vossius in his *De Historicis Graecis* book II, chapter 26, are deceived—and they impose upon Caesar Baronius and Bellarmine—by attempting to persuade themselves and others that Psellus flourished in the year of Christ 859, at which time Leo the Philosopher was emperor at Constantinople, whom Psellus supposedly instructed in letters. For although it may be true regarding Psellus—and Baronius is not mistaken in this—that there was indeed a certain Psellus at that time, distinguished in literature, Baronius never affirmed that he instructed the Emperor Leo in letters; rather, he distinguished Leo the Philosopher from the Emperor Leo. Baronius, they say, relates that Simeon Metaphrastes was celebrated in a panegyric oration by a Psellus, not of the same age as Leo, but much more recent. This is true. But he did not say that there existed only one Psellus. And we, for our part, cannot affirm with certainty to which Psellus the oration should be attributed. Yet we are led by a conjecture, and a very light one at that, that this more recent one is the author of it; because he wrote more extensively in every discipline and was most celebrated for the glory of his writings. Whether that elder one handed down anything in writing, it is not certainly established. ^B

IX. But I, for my part, have no doubt, if we wish to confess the truth, that that Psellus under Basil the Macedonian consigned many philosophical things to writing, and that they are now circulated under the name of the more recent Psellus, indistinct due to the affinity of the name. For all the writings which point to Psellus the father—since they differ in their manner of treatment, in the acumen of discovery, and neither in the same form of expression nor in the color of their figures do they rejoice, but rather present, on the one hand, that unadorned and Greek philosophy (not barbaric, clearly, but manly, and which shines with its own splendor), and on the other hand, others play with the Muses and the Graces and the blossoms of words, and dance happily with a polished structure of periods—demand different parents for themselves because of the diversity of their genius. And although great men sometimes, wearied by the labor of bringing forth lofty matters, might seem to be bereft of their strength and to turn themselves into various different forms of expression, there always shines forth in them a certain power of nature, never degenerating from itself, by which sharp-witted men and keen judges of works can track down the true author. Even if Ganymede limps with a disfigured face and twisted feet, he cannot migrate into another man in such a way that he is not recognized as Ganymede; you can readily discern those lines, and the sparks of beauty, however badly received, and the rays latent in the limbs, if you are not a complete fool. And often in broken, worn-away, and partially mutilated marble, I have detected the heaven of Praxiteles. Since, therefore, in these works everything is far different, I judge clearly that they are not to be referred to the ancients. Those will be the chief ones which expound most of Aristotle’s books by way of paraphrase, not ineleganter. ^C And I have always had a slight doubt about that *Dialogue* in which the operations of demons are asserted, and about its author. The style is more solid than flowery, and the subject matter—outside the schools of the Peripatetics, akin to the teachings of Plato and Zoroaster, and those magical trifles—indicates a Psellus other than the more recent one. In this *Dialogue*, Marcus, staying on the island of Cherson, explains the secrets of magic to a foreigner; Leo the Philosopher is taught philosophy and the remaining sciences by Michael Psellus on the island of Antro. I see the history of Leo brought onto the stage under alien names as if masked. Moreover, does not that account, where Timotheus says he heard from his paternal grandfather about the evil customs of the Euchites, seem to fit better with the age of the elder Psellus—at the time when, as John Damascene relates regarding the heresies, the heresy of the Massalians was most cruelly ravaging the Church of God, which in the time of the younger one was nearly extinct and languishing? Add to the *Dialogue* the treatise on Demons (not yet edited in Greek, as far as I know) which, by the judgment of the Greeks, you would call a uterine and German offspring; and historians report that Leo the Philosopher and John, his kinsman, were accused and charged with magic, through whom it is probable they learned it from none other than that Michael Psellus. ^D

X. The little book of Psellus *On Stones*, also edited by Maussac, must be attributed either to this elder Psellus, if my conjecture does not fail me, or certainly to no one. Hear what he himself says, while at the end he enumerates the authors who rendered the causes for the virtues of stones, and after all of them subjoins: "Among those not long before us was Alexander of Aphrodisias, a man, to put it simply, most ready in all things and even in the hidden secrets of nature." That is: "Among those who lived a little before us, Alexander of Aphrodisias was very ready to unfold even the most occult things of nature, to embrace many things in few." Must we say that Alexander of Aphrodisias, who wrote under Antoninus and Severus, lived "a little before" the times of Psellus, who flourished under Constantine and Michael Ducas? If a space of eight hundred and fifty years is a small interval of time for Psellus, what will be a long one? Therefore, either this little book must be claimed for this elder Psellus, or if six hundred or more years are long times, and therefore it is not to be attributed to the elder, another author of the little treatise must be sought by us diligently, lest we be forced to admit—most foolishly—that Psellus was asleep while he wrote these things.

XI. The Medical and Therapeutic book, also by Psellus, which he dedicated to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, unless the inscription deceives us, perhaps belongs to the elder Psellus.

If he prolonged his life to that time; surely the recent era denies it.

XII. It is therefore likely that this Psellus composed many things in Philosophical and Rhetorical studies. But you will say, did he not write, whatever may be said of others, a panegyric on Simeon Metaphrastes, as Baronius dreams, 9 when the younger Psellus wrote it? Wherefore Baronius is mistaken both regarding Psellus, whom he relegates to another time, and regarding Metaphrastes, whom he contends, on account of an imaginary Psellus, had devoted his labor to the Church in narrating the lives of the saints two hundred years before he existed. Nor with any more fortunate outcome did Bellarmine in his *De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis*, for the ninth century, year 850; or Jacobus Gaulterus in his ^B *Tabula Chronologica*, ninth century, page 598; or Jacobus Gretser in [*De imaginibus manu non factis*], ch. 10, and others, follow Baronius.

XIII. These enemies of ecclesiastical history and the most fierce opponents of Simeon Metaphrastes think they triumph in the downfall of such great men. But they attempt this with no evident reason, if my opinion does not deceive me. Baronius did not distinguish the times of Psellus; but in what way do they distinguish them? They themselves assign that Panegyric on Metaphrastes to the younger Psellus, but by what argument? By absolutely none. They will never prove that the author of that oration was the other Psellus, and not the teacher of Leo the Philosopher. He wrote many things, as is likely; why could he not also have written this oration? And that he did write it—I will prove this with a most firm argument, if the manuscripts do not deceive me, and if those who argue the contrary are not stones. They should concede, and must concede, that the parent of the oration was nicknamed Psellus, and that he lived not long after the times of Metaphrastes. Behold his words : "^{A C} For he showed even at the end what kind of life he had busily pursued. For they who watched him do not say he was honored, nor divided, but he seemed to be freed as if from some bond, and to be raised easily toward the angels who were leading him." That is: For he showed even in the end what kind of life he had lived. For they who saw him do not say that he was as if severed, or divided: but he seemed to be freed as if from a certain shackle, and with a cheerful nod to extend himself to the angels taking him. Nor can they deny that Nicetas, who was also called David, a Paphlagonian, lived contemporary to the holy Ignatius of Constantinople, and, with documented writings, was most celebrated in the same times as the elder Michael Psellus. He himself relates this of himself in the beginning of the *Life of Ignatius* written by him. Most Vatican codices make this Nicetas the same person as Nicetas Serron. Indeed, the exposition on the *Poems* of Gregory Nazianzen, by the same Nicetas who also commented on other works of Gregory—namely, Serron—which also very many manuscript codices ^D affirm, attribute it to this Nicetas David. For they have quite evidently: "Nicetas the Philosopher of Paphlagonia 10, *Exposition on the Poems of the Theologian*." Or, "Nicetas also called David, *Exposition on the same*." Nicetas the Philosopher of Paphlagonia's *Exposition on the Poems of the Theologian*, and Nicetas, who is also David, *Exposition on the same*. Nor are the Augustan manuscript codices different from these; and the Venetian edition under the year 1563 confirms it. So that from this you may see, by the combined agreement of so many manuscripts, not by the carelessness of one copyist, that these expositions were not changed, but in a continuous series were proven by many that the author was Nicetas, who was also called David and the Paphlagonian Philosopher. Therefore Serron, Nicetas, and David, by the authority of these codices, are one and the same author. Follow these things, my dear Gaffarel. Nicetas, besides the expositions on the orations of Gregory, and other products of his genius in every kind of doctrine, very elegantly compiled a sufficiently rich and lucid *Catena* on the Gospel of Saint Luke, divided into four books, from many Fathers and ecclesiastical writers; among whom Simeon Metaphrastes and Psellus are not the least. Can we therefore admit that this Psellus, who flourished under Constantine Ducas, is he? Away. Mere trifles. It is certain that he died before the times of Nicetas. Let them prove, if they can, that he revived again after Nicetas.

XIV. This argument is certainly effective, but to me, in the present, to tell the truth, it does not satisfy. Nor do I think it sufficiently proven by the faith of the manuscript codices, which I reviewed above, that Nicetas David is the same as Nicetas Serron, the compiler of the *Catena* on Luke; for I believe a long interval of time passed between them both. For Nicetas Serron, first a deacon of the Great Church, and a master, or doctor—the author of the *Catena* on Luke, Matthew, and others, and later Archbishop of Heraclea—flourished in the same times as Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, to whom I read the ninth letter of Theophylact among those printed by Meursius. But there will be another place for inquiring about these.

XV. But if I wished to insist on the doctrines of the innovators, Metaphrastes was contemporary to the very disciples of the apostles in the ultimate antiquity of the Christian Church, so far is he from being the most recent. A knot which I do not know if the adversaries will ever untie. Gesner, and his Epitomator, suspect that Hippolytus the Theban, the writer of an *Ecclesiastical Chronicle*, whose fragment Canisius produced for us in *Antiquit. tom. III* in Greek and Latin, is the one whom Jerome mentions in the book *De viris illustribus*, namely, [Hippolytus] of Porto, and not inappropriately; since both Nicephorus Callistus in *Histor. Eccles. lib. II, c. 3*, Glycas, [i] and 11 Theodorus Metochita in [index: entries preserved]

their annals attribute those things which are Hippolytus the Theban’s to Hippolytus, bishop of Porto, and substitute the Portuensian for the Theban. But the Portuensian suffered martyrdom under the emperor Alexander, namely, in the year of Christ 229. Metaphrastes is therefore more ancient, since the Metaphrastes of Simeon is mentioned in the Chronicle, and by conjecture they flourished together with the disciples of the apostles. Many are now producing Metaphrastes here, yet they say the most recent of all wrote the Lives of the saints. Trifles and dreams.

XVI. Let there be a single Simeon Metaphrastes, that he may be considered distinct from the Theban of Porto, just as Hippolytus is; and let us seek the very obscure times of his life and his way of living from sources other than Psellus’s time, and, if possible, from the Metaphrastes himself. The author of the Life of the holy Theoctiste of Lesbos—as Lippomano, Surius, and others, without any hesitation, though I know not why one would transmit it to an uncertain author—is this Metaphrastes. And this is confirmed by the most certain testimony of Psellus himself. For Psellus, when introducing his commentaries on the Metaphrastes in a canon on the Metaphrastes, writes that he undertook the task of writing at the counsel and admonition of an anchorite of Paros, and that first of all he composed that dialogue, and graphically celebrated the life of the virgin Theoctiste; in Ode 6: "Thy first work [sprang] from divine providence, and from the conversations of the holy elder and monk, O divine Simeon, whom thou hast seen on the island of Paros. For in a manner worthy [of praise] thou hast celebrated the bright and divine struggles of the Lesbian Theoctiste, who in truth lived an angelic and almost bodiless way of life, wisely accomplishing it." That is: "Your first commentary was made by divine Providence and the conversation of the holy elder and anchorite, O admirable Simeon, whom you saw on the island of Paros." And: "For the dignity of the praised Lesbian, the illustrious and divine struggles, truly of Theoctiste, fashioned by God, who wisely completed the angelic and almost incorporeal way of life." In this writing, both the conversation of the elder in Paros and the exhortations and the life of Theoctiste are set forth according to the limitations of human talent. Therefore, whoever might deny that this writing is the genuine work of Metaphrastes would be alien to reason. But in this work, the way of life of the same author, and the times of his age, are set forth clearly and without any ambiguity. Therefore, we seek in vain for testimony about Simeon from another, or from Simeon himself. But let us learn from Simeon that he did not abhor taking a wife, but also begat children by her, and discharged civil duties; then at last, when he had been sent as an envoy with Himerius, a man most skilled in leading armies, to the Arabs who had invaded Crete: and, as it was not permitted to proceed further due to contrary winds, he sailed to Paros, and having become most familiar with that elder and anchorite of the same name, from whom he had learned the deeds of Theoctiste on the condition that he should commit everything to writing, and having heard the end of his own embassy, which was fortunate, and the gifts to be brought back from the emperor—things that that divine old man had foretold—after the navigation was completed, by writing down the things he had seen and heard, he fulfilled the elder’s instructions. He was living at that time, therefore, when the Arabs afflicted the Aegean islands and the maritime coasts of Greece not without a successful outcome, though to the wretched calamity and slaughter of Greece. But especially then, when Himerius was sent to defeat the Arabs with a fleet and sword—the man himself by word and by duties—[he was] at the time when he had not yet turned his mind to writing. But these things happened in the times of Leo the Wise, the son of Basil the Macedonian, if faith is to be placed in Cedrenus, Curopalates, Zonaras, and other Greek historians. Therefore, this Simeon Metaphrastes, a writer of Lives, flourished at that time, enriched with duties and honors. And if one may venture a guess, that Simeon who was a secretary under this Leo—who had offered the gold left by Rhodophyllus to the infamous apostate Leo of Tripoli, to turn him away from the destruction of Thessalonica, and because of this was decorated by the emperor with the dignities of patrician and primary secretary—is none other than our Simeon Metaphrastes here, who is distinguished by the name of Logothete by Psellus, as we shall say below, and by others.

XVII. Simeon Metaphrastes therefore began his writing under Leo, and under Constantine Porphyrogennetus, Leo’s son, and his grandson Romanus, and even in his more advanced age he used to finish his labors—as can be gathered from his oration on the exportation of the right hand of John the Baptist in Lippomano and Surius. For he says that at that age, under the emperors Constantine and Romanus, the hand was brought from Antioch to Byzantium by Job the deacon. And that this occurred under the said emperors is confirmed by Cedrenus and Zonaras regarding Constantine Porphyrogennetus.

XVIII. Therefore, Gerard Vossius and others err who think that Simeon Metaphrastes flourished under Constantine Ducas, or at least around those times; and that Baronius and Bellarmine erred, since Simeon, as Vossius himself thinks, lived two hundred years later than they imagined.

XIX. Furthermore, how terribly Hospinianus hallucinated, while he split up the Metaphrastes and the Pselli at his own whim, so to speak, is abundantly shown by Jacobus Gretserus in *De imaginibus manu non factis*, c. 19. I shall also contribute some things from my own side, beyond what has already been said, to so rich a harvest, that the truth may shine more clearly. Metaphrastes was not a trivial schoolmaster of Constantinople, but illustrious by birth, born of an eminent family, abounding in wealth, famous in the imperial court, [a man] of the secretarial staff and intimate counsels, and even after his death illustrious for miracles. Psellus on the same: "And more wonderful still, that he was both well-born, and from his own house [possessed the fruits] of glory."

^A abounding in great wealth, and those things which would make anyone lazy toward disciplines. It is for this reason that Psellus composed the Office for that same [saint], which might be chanted by ecclesiastics on his feast day, as is customary to be done for other saints. In it, in Ode 3, he writes: "Having been adorned with the dignities of the earthly senate, as a man of counsel you acquired the way of conducting life in heaven, and adorned the senate above." And he often calls him Logothete. Ode 1: "Grant me, Word of God, a harmonic song, when I have begun to celebrate your servant, Symeon the Metaphrast, the truly admirable Logothete." And elsewhere: "Let us all celebrate with fitting songs the great servant of God, Symeon the holy Logothete."

Hence, some consider that certain things ascribed to Symeon were added by later writers, ^B as Baronius, Bellarmine, and others have observed, since those men lived after the times of Symeon. But Andreas Schottus, in his preface to the reader in the *Canticle of Canticles*, opines that they were annexed and published by Psellus, who is indeed more recent. Whence Schottus had this information is not clear, even if it be true that Psellus, whether out of emulation of Symeon or reverence for the saints, quite elegantly and accurately wrote up the many Lives of the saints. I wish, having neglected childish arguments, in which he sometimes seems to have wallowed, he had spent more hours on these grave matters than he did! We will detail his efforts regarding the saints in the list of works below.

XXI. Michael Psellus, tutor of Emperor Michael Ducas, famous around the year 1050. Others.

The third was Michael Psellus, tutor of Michael Ducas, who, having merited most of all men from the republic of letters, consecrated an honorific memory of himself to posterity, such that he overwhelmed the other men of the same name by the sharpness of his genius, the abundance of his erudition, the depth of his sciences, the variety of his arguments, the multitude of his writings, and the splendor of his glory; ^C wherefore, with the memory of the others extinguished—and, if I may so speak, obliterated—he alone appears to have deserved that name. So when we say "the poet" or "the orator," Homer and Demosthenes—I speak of the Greeks—at once offer themselves to us and present themselves to the eyes of the mind.

XXII. His homeland was Constantinople, from a lineage of consuls and patricians, although not of such fortunate standing.

He relates this himself in the epitaph of his mother: "My father's lineage, therefore, was ancient, traced back to consuls and patricians; but his own affairs were not in too prosperous a state." After two daughters, he himself was brought into the light as the third birth, with many sighs and prayers poured out by his mother to God. It is strange what is narrated of his birth, that he shed no tears, nor ever thereafter, even in the greatest vicissitudes, did he weep, but [15] from that tender age and always had joyous and sparkling eyes; he only hungered for his mother's breasts, to which he was drawn both by habit and by his mind. At five years old, he was handed over to a tutor, and he took up the burden of studies so vigorously that all playful things, except for the study of letters in which he took the greatest delight, became distasteful to him. Behold his own feeling, expressed in his very own words: "Thence ^D my mother, being guided toward better things, placed me at five years of age with a teacher. And my lesson was not only easy for me, but also more pleasant than any other form of play. I would indeed grieve if they did not give me my schoolbooks for the entire day. And it was for me, play was study and study was play, not as one playing at these things, but as one studying those..."

^A with the result that my mind, avid for any kind of study, could never be sated with knowledge. I would wish for nothing to exist that might escape my notice; and it would not be irksome to me to know things even beneath the earth. Nor do I, like most people, apply myself to just one thing while neglecting others; but I obtain knowledge even of base and abominable things, so that I may have the means to oppose those who use them. He speaks of this at greater length in his *Oration on his Mother*, in which he enumerates all these individual matters to the point of satiety. The reader may see them there, lest I myself become tedious.

XXIII. Meanwhile, having attained sufficient age and prudence, he became known at court to the emperors, who experienced his useful services in the greatest affairs. For Michael Stratioticus, among the men chosen from the enrolled senators whom he sent to bring Isaac Comnenus into concord with those in revolt, also sent our Psellus, celebrated with no mean praise by Zonaras in volume III. ^B It is recorded that select men from the enrolled senators were sent to Comnenus: the President Constantine Lichudes, the President Leo Alopus, and Michael Psellus, the most wise prince of the philosophers. And Cedrenus in his *Synopsis*: "There met him there the envoys of the Emperor: the President Constantine Lichudes, Theodore Alopus, and Constantine Psellus, the prince of the philosophers." For these three men, appearing to surpass in wisdom and power of speech the people of that day—and Psellus ^C incomparably so—were chosen to act as envoys, and the Emperor expected to achieve great things through their eloquence and grace.

There, however, the envoys themselves acted treacherously, and approaching Cecaumenus in secret, in one way or another, they exhorted him to persist in his resistance and not to yield at all. And that they did this, the men well-informed of the matter affirmed—men who were not the sort to lie—and they confirmed this to Comnenus himself under oath, stating that the entire civilian population held him in ill favor, and that as soon as he approached the city, they would drive out the old man and receive him ^D with songs of victory and hymns. It was recorded, moreover, that these same envoys had acted deceitfully, and had at various times urged Cecaumenus now one way, now another, to strongly attack the offers...