1. Ep. ad Euagrium, MPG 46 1104c. The letter has also been attributed to Gregorios of Nazianzos (letter 243); on the issue see Refoulé, F., ‘La date de la lettre à Éuagre’, Recherches de Science Religieuse 49 (1961) 520–548 Google Scholar.

2. Sathas, K.N., Μεσαιωνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη ἢ Συλλογὴ ἀνεκδότων μνημείων τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς ἱστορίας, V, Μιχαὴλ Ψελλοῦ ἱστορικοὶ λόγοι, ἐπιστολαὶ καὶ ἄλλα ἀνέκδοτα (Paris 1876) ix Google Scholar.

3. Letter 146, ed. Garzya, A., Synesii Cyrenensis Epistolae (Rome 1979) 256.6-257.11Google Scholar. D. Roques has proposed a dating around the beginning of the year 399; Roques, D., Etudes sur la Correspondance de Synesios de Cyrène (Collection Latomus 205. Bruxelles 1989) 88-103Google Scholar; cf. also Hermelin, I., Zu den Briefen des Bischofs Synesios (Uppsala 1934)19-25Google Scholar. H. Druon dated the letter around 402; Druon, H., Œuvres de Synésius, évêque de Ptolemais, dans la Cyrénaique, au commencement du Ve siècle (Paris 1878) 476 Google Scholar. Arguing against Roques’ dating approach: A. Cameron and J. Long, with a contribution by Sherry, L., Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius (Transformation of the Classical Heritage 19. Berkeley 1993) 86-91Google Scholar. On Herkulianos see PLRE II.545.

4. I prefer συστάσεως which is the reading of all of the mss. with the exception of Ambrosianus 482, 14th century, that reads εὐστάσεως, and Laurentianus LV 8, 15th century, which has στάσεως. Garzya edits ‘ἐνστάσεως’ following Hercher, R. (ed., Epistolographi Graeci [Paris 1873] 729)Google Scholar, who perhaps follows Moreli, F. (ed., Synesii Cyrenaei episcopi Epistolae [Paris 1605])Google Scholar. However, ‘ἔνστασις’ means ‘negation, objection’ in Synesios (e.g. letter 67, Garzya 121.8-12: Ἀλέξαδρος ἀπὸ βουλῆς Κυρηναῖος ἔτι μειράκιον ὢν εἰς μοναδικὸν βίον ἐτέλεσε. τῇ δὲ ἡλικία συμπροϊούσης τῆς κατὰ τὸν βίον ἐνστάσεως, ἠξιώθη μὲν ἐκκλησιαστικῆς διακονίας, ἠξιώθη δὲ τοῦ πρεσßúτεπος εἶναι). ‘Ἔστασις’ does not mean ‘desire’ or ‘desiderio’, as in the English and Italian translations of the text; Fitzgerald, A., The Letters of Synesius of Cyrene: translated into English with Introduction and Notes (London 1926) 240–241 Google Scholar, Casini, A., Sinesio di Cirene. Epistolario. Prima versione italiana con la disposizione delle Lettre in ordine cronologico (Milan 1969) 46 Google Scholar, Garzya, A., Opere di Sinesiodi Cirene. Epistole, operette, imni (Turin 1989) 353 Google Scholar. Druon Œuvres, 475) tried to remain closer to the meaning of the sentence by rendering ‘ςςστασις’ as ‘regret’, but such a meaning of the word is not attested to. The conjecture ‘συντάσεαως’, proposed by Fritz, seems rather unlikely to me; Fritz, W., Die briefe des Synesius von Kyrene: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Attizismus im IV. und V. Jahrhundert (Leipzig 1898) 222 Google Scholar.

5. The Greek verbs ἀρρενόω and θηλύνομαι were translated respectively by Fitzgerald as ‘fortify’ and ‘feel softened’, while in the French translation by Druon (Œuvres, 475) they appear as ‘fortifier’ and ‘amollir’ and in the Italian translations as ‘confermare e rafforzare’ and ‘ammollito’ (Casini, Sinesio, 46, ‘corroborare’ and ‘soprafatto’ (Garzya, Opere, 353). I decided to keep the gendered connotation of the Greek and generally remain close to the Greek text, unlike the more elaborate translation by Fitzgerald.

6. One may read a subtle Platonic connotation here; cf. the slight sarcasm in the use of the word θαυμόσιος in Pl. Phdr. 242a.

7. On Synesios see Bregman, J., Synesius of Cyrene, Philosopher-Bishop (The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 2. Berkeley 1982)Google Scholar; Roques, D., Synésios de Cyrène et la Cyrénaique du Bas-Empire (Paris 1987)Google Scholar. Synesios still needs to be explored as a literary figure.

8. On the notion of rhetorical pathos and on its importance see the excellent article by Agapitos, P.A., ‘Narrative, Rhetoric, and “Drama” Rediscovered: Scholars and Poets in Byzantium interpret Heliodoros’, in Studies in Heliodorus, ed. Hunter, R. (Cambridge Philogical Society, Supplementary Volume 21. Cambridge 1998) 125–156 Google Scholar. See also Kustas, G.L., Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric (Ἀνάλεκτα Βλατάδων 17. Thessalonike 1973) 54-57Google Scholar.

9. On same-sex desire in Byzantium see Smythe, D.C., ‘In Denial: Same-sex Desire in Byzantium’, in Desire and Denial in Byzantium, ed. James, L. (Aldershot 1999) 139-48Google Scholar. See also Laiou, A.E., Marriage, amour et parente à Byzance aux XI_e-XIII_e siècles (Travaux et Mémoires du Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Monographies 7. Paris 1992) 72-78Google Scholar.

10. M. Mullett, ‘From Byzantium with Love’, in Desire, ed. James, 3-22, at 21-22. See Sedgwick, E. Kosofsky, Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire (New York 1985)Google Scholar.

11. On the vocabulary of this discourse see Karlsson, G., Ideologie et cérémonial dans l’épistolographie byzantine (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Stadia Graeca Upsaliensia 3; Uppsala 1962)Google Scholar; Thraede, K., Grundzüge griechisch-römischer Brieftopik (Zetemata, Monographien zue klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 48. Munich 970)Google Scholar; Hunger, H., Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft XII.5. Munich 1978) I 197–239 Google Scholar; Tomadakes, N.B., Βυζαντινὴ ἐπιστολογραήία (Athens 1993, 4 ed.)Google Scholar. For a similar case of homorhetorical discourse in the Latin West see Southern, R.W., Saint Anselm: a Portrait in a Landscape (Cambridge and New York 1990) 148fGoogle Scholar.

12. The word gender is used here while exploring rhetoric and self-identity. A pertinent definition could be: the indefinable and unique point of a self-identity where the cultural interpretation of sex and one’s own sexuality meet or rupture.

The bibliography on gender is vast. As an introduction see Butler, J., Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York 1990)Google Scholar; Laqueur, T.G., Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge, MA 1990)Google Scholar; Partner, N.F., ‘No Sex, No Gender’, Speculum 68 (1993) 419-443CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. Cf. Synesios’ letter 71 (Garzya 130.1-4).

14. Sathas, , Μεσαιωνική Βιβλιοθήκη, V 307.14fGoogle Scholar.

15. Σύγχαιρέ μοι, μέγιστε καῖσαρ, μᾶλλον δὲ χάῖρε προηγουμένως, Ψελλος γάρ σοι γεγένηται ἕτερος, έμοι τῷ πρωτοτύπω άνθάμιλλος ουτω γάρ με πείθουσι λέγειν α’ι περι τήν λεχώ, ψευδόμεναι μέν ‘ίσως, άλλα κατά то έμον φθεγγόμεναι βουλημα. άρ’ οΰν έκαρτέρησα к at ούτίκα Ίδείν то βρεφΰλλιον; ού’, μα τήν Ίεράν σου κεφαλήν άλλά και συνηγκαλισάμην και κατεφίλησα, косі τά χείλη μικροϋ δειν καθημάτωσα, ώσπερ έκ πολέμου άριστέα περιπτυξάμενος πεφοινιγμένον τω αΐματι.

16. Hom. Iliad 8.19f. On the Neoplatonic interpretation of the topic in Psellos see Cesaretti, S.P., Allegoristi di Omero a Bizanzio. Richerche ermeneutiche (Milan 1991) 72-79Google Scholar.

17. Cf. Io. 16.21.

18. Hom. Iliad 22.126 (cf. also Il. 16.34-35 and Od. 19.163). These lines were most commonly quoted in Byzantine literature; cfHunger, H., ‘On the Imitation (μίμησις) of Antiquity in Byzantine Literature’, DOP 23-24 (1969-1970 15-38Google Scholar, at 29-30; see also Macrides, R., ‘Poetic Justice in the Patriarchate: Murder and Cannibalism in the Provinces’, in Cupido Legum, eds. Burgmann, L., Fögen, M.T. and Schmick, A. (Frankfurt am Main 1985) 137-168Google Scholar, at 159 n. 59. Neither article recognizes that this Homeric quotation is used with more frequency beginning with the twelfth century (e.g. in Eustathios of Thessalonike). Late antique and early Christian rhetoric, however, ignore the Homeric quotation, with the exceptions of Sextos Empiricus and Themistios respectively. It appears once in Plato (in the Apologia of Socrates), once in Plutarch, and then in the sixth century Neoplatonists Simplikios, Olympiodoros, and David. I do not regard this as a coincidence, but rather a phenomenon that is perhaps connected to the influence of Psellos and his rhetorical world. It is also worth mentioning that in all the relevant passages the quotation refers to the quality of humanity and never to femininity as in Psellos.

19. Sathas, , #Μεσαιωνική Βιβλιοθήκη, V 307.22-308.7Google Scholar.

20. cfSathas, , Μεσαιωνική Βιβλιοθήκη IV 413.2fGoogle Scholar. (Ἐγκώμιον είς τὸν όσιώτατον κῦρ Κωνστανῖνον πατριάρχην Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τὸν Λειχούδην).

21. For a similar worldview in medieval English literature see Potkay, M. Brzezinski and Evitt, R. Meyer, Minding the Body: Women and Literature in the Middle Ages, 800-1500 (New York 1997)Google Scholar.

22. cf.Sathas, , Μεσαιωνική Βιβλιοθήκη, V 460 Google Scholar.4-5 (letter 180, to the Krites of Philadelpheia): ἐπειδὴ καὶ τοιοῦτος έγώ τήν ψῆχήν, θήλυς ἀτεχνῶς καὶ εὐσυμπάθητος.

See also Kurtz, E. and Drexl, F. ed., Michaelis Pselli Scripta minora magnam partem adhuc inedita II, Epistulae (Milan 1941) 230 Google Scholar.2-6 (letter 201, to a Protoasekretis): οὔκ εἰμι λίθος ... ούδ′ ἀπο δρυος ἢ πέτρης τήν γένεσιν ἔσχηκα, άλλὰ τῆς άπαλῆς φυσεως πέφυκα βλάστημα καὶ τοῖς фυσικοῖς πάθεσιν μαλθακίζομαι. The ‘correct’ word for male weakness according to Suda should be ‘ἀσθενεῖν’ and not ‘μαλακίζεσθαν’ (mu 90.1, ed. A. Adler): Μαλακίζεσθαι: ἐν ταῖς νόσοις φασιν ‘Αττικοὶ тὰς γυναῖκας μαλακίζεσθαι, τούς δὲ ἄνδρας ἀσθενεῖν.

23. Such an approach draws upon the Rezeptionsästhetik of the School of Constance (of the late 1960s), mainly on Hans Robert Jauss; see for example his Literaturgeschichte als Provokation der Literaturwissenschaft (Konstanzer Universitätsreden 3. Constance 1967), reprinted in his Literaturgeschichte als Provokation (Frankfurt 1970); see also his later major work, Ästhetische Erfahrung und literarische Hermeneutik (Munich 1977). This approach, however, should be used with some caution; for an alternative approach refer to Bakhtin’s notion of dialogism; Bakhtin, M., The Dialogic Imagination (eds. Holquist, M. and Emerson, C.. Austin, Texas 1981)Google Scholar; see also Sheperd, D., ‘Bakhtin and the Reader’, in Bakhtin and Cultural Theory, ed. Hirschkop, K. and Shepherd, D. (Manchester and New York 1989) 91-108Google Scholar.

24. See Kustas, Studies; Cameron, A., Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: the Development of Christian Discourse (Berkeley 1991)Google Scholar; Brown, P., Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: towards a Christian Empire (Madison, Wis. 1992)Google Scholar.

25. On the manuscript tradition see Garzya, Synesii, vii-xxxii; on the reception by the Byzantines see the famous résumé in Photios’ Bibliotheke (ed. Henry, R. [Paris 1959] I 15.28f.)Google Scholar; cf. Suda (sigma 1511.1-6, ed. A. Adler) and the so-called Anonymous schoolmaster of the 10th century; Anon. Londinensis, letter 105, ed. by Browning, R. and Laourdas, B., ‘κὸ κείμενον τῶν ἐπιστολῶν тоῦ κώδικος BM 36749’, EEBS 27 (1957) 206 Google Scholar. See also A. Cameron, J. Long and L. Sherry, Barbarians, 37-38.

26. For the evolution of the notion in the medieval West see Cadden, J., The Meaning of Sex Difference in the Middle Ages: Medicine, Science, and Culture (Cambridge and New York 1993)Google Scholar and Salisbury, J.E., ‘Gendered Sexuality’, in Handbook of Medieval Sexuality, ed. Bullough, V.L. and Brundage, J.A. (Garland Reference Library of the Humanities 1696. New York 1996) 81-102Google Scholar.

27. Komes Simplikios according to Roques (Études, 75-82), Paeonios according to Garzya (Synesii, 257) following P. Pétau, MPG 66.1534, n. 79; cf. PLRE II.816-817. See also A. Cameron, J. Long and L. Sherry, Barbarians, 86-91.

28. A stoic phrase (Chrysippos, fragment 759; SVF 188.9) used also by Porphyrios (Vita Plotini 11.13).

29. Letter 105, to Anastasios (ed. Garzya, Synesii, 143.10-13). Cf. Synesios’ letter 41 (61.15-62.4): άλλ’ έπειδή μοι συνέπεσεν άποβαλεῖν τῶν παιδίων τὸ φίλτατον, κἄν εὶργασάμην τι δεινον αὐτὸς έμαυτόν οὕτως έαλώκειν τοῦ πάθους. ἔγωγέ τοι τὰ μεν ἄλλα ἄρρην είμί (λέγω δέ έν είδόσι), καὶ τὰ πολλὰ δουλευω τῷ λόγω, συνηθείας δέ οὕτω τι ἥττων ὠς ταυτη κρατειν τήν ὰλογίον τοί λόγου. οὒκουν ούδε τоῖς έκ φιλοσοφίας δόγμασι тоῦ παρόντος πάθονς έκρὰτησα, ὰλλὰ Άνδρόνικος ὰντιπεριήγαγε, καὶ προς τὰῖς κοιναῖς συμφορῖς τον νοῦν ἔχειν έποίησε. καὶ γεγόνασί μοι συμφοραι παραμυθίαν τῶν συμφορών, προς έαυτὰς ὰνθελκουσαι καὶ πάθει πάθος ἐκκροΰουσαι.

30. Ajax 650-652. The phrase circulated in medieval rhetorical scholia that comment the ‘έθηλύνθην’ as follows: έθηλΰνθην: εχαυνώθην, έμαλακίσθην, ήπαλυνθην, ήμερώθην; Christodoulos, G.A., Tà ὰρχὰϊα σχόλια ύζ Αϊαντα τοΰ Σοφοκλέους (Athens 1977) 310 Google Scholar. On masculinity in classical antiquity see: Foxhall, L. and Salmon, J., Thinking Men: Masculinity and its Self-representation in the Classical Tradition (Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society 7. London and New York 1998)Google Scholar; Foxhall, L. and Salmon, J., When Men Were Men: Masculinity, Power and Identity in Classical Antiquity (Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society 8. London and New York 1998)Google Scholar.

A similar appropriation within Christian discourse can be found. God might be presented as experiencing a positive feminization. Referring to the relationships within the Holy Trinity, Clement of Alexandria writing in the beginning of the third century, states (Quis dives salvetur?, ed. Früchtel, O. Stählin-L., Clemens Alexandrinus, vol. III, 183.31-184.4Google Scholar): ἔστι δέ καὶ αὺτὸς ό θεος ὰγὰπη και δι’ ὰνὰπην ήμῖν έθεὰθη. καὶ τὸ μέν ὰρρητον αύτοῦ πατηρ, τὸ δε єіς ἡμᾶς συμπαθες νένονε μητηρ. ὰγαπησας ό πατήρ έθηλύνθη, καὶ τούτου μέγα σημεῖον δν αὐτὸς έγέννησεν ιέξ αύτοϋ καὶ ὁ τεχθεις έξ ὰγὰπης καρπος ὰγὰπη.

31. In the twelfth century medieval West in religious literature, monks and friars presented themselves as weak women, referring to their virtue of humility; see Bynum, C. Walker, ‘The Feminization of Religious Language and Its Social Context’, in Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (Publications of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, UCLA vol. 16. Berkeley 1982) 138, 148–149 Google Scholar. Cf. also the excellent study by Newman, B., From Virile Woman to WomanChrist. Studies in Medieval Religion and Literature (Philadelphia 1995)Google Scholar; cf.Townsend, P. and Taylor, A. (ed.), The tongue of the Fathers: Gender and Ideology in the Twelfth-century Latin (Philadelphia 1998)Google Scholar. Another interesting twelfth century parallel is the association of the troubadour vernacular literature with the female, sometimes maternal, body; this different, other body provided the space for the emergence of a self-identity; on the issue see the penetrating book by Spence, S., Texts and the Self in the Twelfth Century (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 30. Cambridge and New York 1996) 10fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.; cf. also Zumthor, P., ‘Birth of a language and Birth of a Literature’, Mosaic 8 (1975) 195–206 Google Scholar, esp. 196-97, 201.

32. It is also interesting that Synesios in his two letters that mention the death of his son (letters 41 and 79) continues by saying that the public pathos, public grief and misfortunes cured his private one. Such an observation could be seen as the masculine public process that restores the order that a feminine private pathos has disrupted.

33. An interesting case where an infant is compared to the enchanting Sirens is Manouel Holovolos’ description (fourteenth century) of the young Konstantinos, son of Michael VIII Palaiologos (ed. Treu, M., Orationes [Potsdam 1906-07] 91.35Google Scholar); I thank Dimiter Angelov for bringing this passage to my attention.

34. Cf. e.g. Iliad 16.155f.: Μυρμιδόνας δ’ ἄρ’ έποιχόμενος θώρηξεν Άχιλλεύς/... οἳ δὲ λύκοι ὥς / ὠμοφάγοι, τοῖσίν τε περὶ φρεοίν ἀλκή, / οἵ τ’ ἔλαφον κεραον μέγαν οὔρεσι δηώσαντες / δάπτουσιν πᾶσιν δε παρήϊον ὰίματι φοινόν.

35. Intimacy and closeness are also demonstrated by the use of diminutives: то θυγατρίδιον, τον κοιτωνίσκον. The latter word could also be a reminiscence of an occurrence of the word in late antique Christian rhetoric; it appears in Gregorios of Nazianzos’ funeral oration on Basileios the Great (Orat. 43, ed. Bernardi, J., Grégoire de Naziance: Discours 42-43 [SC 358. Paris 1990] 244.20Google Scholar). This was a highly influential text forPsellos’ oratorical discourse. He also seems to have liked the word ‘κοιτωνίσκος’; it appears three times in his Chronographia: III 21.13, V 21.16, Vllb 7.11. One must have in mind that the word could bring interesting allusions to Psellos’ Byzantine readers who probably knew the relevant Gregorian passage through its appearance in Byzantine anthologies.

36. cf.Westerink, L.G. ed., Michael Psellus, De omnifaria doctrina (Utrecht 1949) 111.10-11Google Scholar.

37. See e.g. the commentary of Basileios the Great on Eve’s femaleness (Homilia dicta in Lacisis; MPG 31.1453c): Ἵνα τοίνυν έκτρέφηται νήπιον, ὰπαλή ή φΰσκ ή γυναικεία παρηχθη, ὰπαλή και φιλὰνθρωπος. Τω οΰν ὰπαλω και τψ είκτικω προσχών ó διὰβολος, τήν εύκολίαν τήν πρίχ ὰρετήν, εύκολίαν είς κακίαν έποιησατο.

38. The term physis is of crucial import to Psellos’ worldview. Here a detailed analysis would exceed the capacity of this article. I deal with Psellos’ conceptions of physis and pathos in my dissertation titled Writing the Ego: Michael Psellos’ Rhetorical Autography for the Institut für Byzantinistik, Vienna, 2000.

39. In the recent version of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae one can find more than 700 appearances of compounds and derivatives from the word pathos and around 100 of the word hedone. An emphasis on softness and gentleness is disclosed with detecting Psellos’ near obsession with the word herema (around 60 times).

40. The interest in women in Byzantium does not necessarily employ involvement of feminist theory in our discipline. See James, L., ‘Introduction: Women’s Studies, Gender Studies, Byzantine Studies’, in Women, Men, and Eunuchs: Gender in Byzantium, ed. James, L. (London and New York 1997) xi-xxivGoogle Scholar. For a comparative reading see Gold, B.K., Miller, P.A. and Platter, C., Sex and Gender in Medieval and Renaissance Texts: the Latin Tradition (Albany 1997)Google Scholar.

41. Cf.Vergari, G., ‘Michele Psello e la tipologia femminile Christiana’, Siculorum Gymnasium N.S. 40 (1987) 217–225 Google Scholar.

42. His passionless, rational, learned daughter might suffice here as an example; Sathas, , Μεσαιωνική, V 62-87Google Scholar. See also Chrpnographia Via 2.2-3 and Via 4. 1f.

43. See Medico, H.E. Del, ‘Ein Ödipuskomplex im elften Jahrhundert. Michael Psellos’, Imago 18 (1932) 214–244 Google Scholar.

44. It can be argued that the Freudian psychoanalytic movement was a product of a gender crisis, a crisis in masculine identity and subjectivity. See Toews, J.E., ‘Refashioning the Masculine Subject in Early Modernism: Narratives of Self-Dissolution and Self-Construction in Psychoanalysis and Literature, 1900-1914’, Modernism/Modernity 4 (1997) 31-67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45. See Angold, MJ., ‘The Autobiographical Impulse in Byzantium’, DOP 52 (1998) 225-257Google Scholar, at 236 n. 62 for relevant bibliography. See also idem, The Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204: A Political History, 2nd ed., (London and New York 1997) 99-114.

46. It has been argued lately, in contrast to previous evaluations (e.g. Tinnefeld, F., Kategorien der Kaiserkritik in der byzantinischen Historiographie von Proklos bis Niketas Choniates [Munich 1971] 130 Google Scholar), that Psellos’ Chronographia is heavily in favour of the military; Kaldellis, A., The Argument of Psellos’ Chronographia (Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 68; Leiden, Boston and Köln 1999) 182f.Google Scholar, also n. 369; see also C. Barber, ‘Homo Byzantinus?’, in Women, ed. James, 185-199, at 190-191. Psellos’ illusive rhetoric has escaped the notice of both readings of the notion of ‘masculinity’.

47. Andreia appears only once in Chronographia in a rather indifferent passage (VI 74.10), while 30 times in the Alexiad of the ‘power-thirsty’ Anna Komnene.

48. Ruther, T., Die sittliche Forderung der Apatheia in den beiden ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten und bei Klemens von Alexandrien: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des christlichen Vollkommenheitsbegriffes (Freiburger theologische Studien 63. Freiburg 1949)Google Scholar. cf.Turner, H.J.M., St. Symeon the New Theologian and Spiritual Fatherhood (Byzantina Neerlandica 11. Leiden and New York 1990) xv, 179fGoogle Scholar.

49. cf.Sathas, , Μεσαιωνική Βιβλιοθήκη, V 409.Google Scholar22-411.6 (letter 157, to Konstantinos, έπι τῶν κρίσεων): καὶ βοΰλομαι μεν έπί πασν φιλοσοφεῖν καὶ λόγοις καῖ πρὰγμασιν, έλέγχει δέ με то ἦθος ὰφιλοσόφως ἐπὶ τοῖς φυσικοῖς διακείμενον πὰθεσιν, ἢ καὶ τοΰτο ϊσως φιλόσοφον θὰτερον δε дєрос Σκυθικόν σκιρτώ γοϋν πώς οϊν έίπτς επι τοΐς νεογενέσι βρέφεσι, και μὰλιστα ε’ι φίλτατα ε’ίη και φνλτὰτων τοκέων και αντικρυς ὰναλμὰτων ή χαρίτων αύτῶν ... εγωγ’ οΰν οΰκ ὰφιστὰμην τών του βεστὰρχου παιδίων, ουτε λουομένων, ουτε σπαργανουμένων, ὰλλ’ ήν μοι ηδιστον θέαμα то Ррефос ήρεμα έπι του ὰριστερου τής μαίας κείμενον πήχεος, και θατέρςι χειρι διαντλουμενον, νϋν μεν πρηνές, νΰν δέ ΰπτιον καὶ μοι μετέωpoç ήν ή ψυχή και μὰλιστα παθαινομένη ... ώσπερ αύτος ό δεσμοΰμενος ών, έταραττόμην, και μικρου δείν τφ βρέφει συνέπασχον. καὶ εί μεν θηλείας τοΰτο ψυχής, ού πὰνυ τι οιδα, έμοι γοΰν то τέως ουτω διατετύπωται, και ή φΰσις, ώσπέρ τις κηρος ажосАос коп εύτύπωτος, καὶ τών μαθημὰτων συνεσχε τα κὰλλιστα, και тас τών φιλτὰτων χὰρντας ὰναμὰττεται και τους λεγομένους ὰδαμανήνους où πὰνυ ζηλώ, ε’ίτε δρειοί τινες εΐεν, ειτε μετεωρότερον ὰλλ’ εν μέν έπι то θειότερον τήν φΰσιν ήλλοίωσαν διὰ τινος ὰγωγτκρείττονος και γεγόνασιν ὰντι ὰνθρώπων θεοί, τοΰτο εύχής εργον, ή κρειττον εΰχής, εί δε ὰπεσκληκότως τοΰς ή’θονκ έκ πρώτης γενέσεως εχουσι, к dt γενομένων εΰθυς ή γνώμη ἀυίτυπος ην, τοΰτοις ού’τε έπιτετηδευται то φιλόσοφον, οΐίτε έσχεδίασται, ὰλλ’ οΰτε φιλόσοφοι αν λέγοιντο, ὰλλὰ λιθώδεκ τε καϊ ὰπόκροτοι.