1 This study has greatly profited from the advice and suggestions of Kristoffel Demoen. I am also grateful to the anonymous referees for their valuable and insightful comments.

2 Hunger, H., Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, II [Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft; Abt. 12, Teil 5] (Munich 1978) 231-2Google Scholar, and Karpozelos, A., ‘Realia in Byzantine epistolography X-XIIc’, BZ 77 (1984) 20–37 Google Scholar.

3 The letter is edited in Sathas, K., Μεσαιωνική Βφλιοθήκη, V (Paris and Venice 1876) 434-8Google Scholar (letter 171). It is briefly mentioned in Karpozelos, ‘Realia’ 27–28, where it is implied that Psellos asks for a mule because he could not handle a horse. This might not be wholly correct: Psellos asks for a mule that is not too young and rash (cf. infra).

4 ‘Narrative unit: Psellos sent Iasites a discussion of the rational and irrational, why only the horse among animals is alogon’, Prosopography of the Byzantine World <http://www.pbw.kcl.ac.uk>, accessed 16 January 2009.

5 Psellos, Michael, Scripta Minora, ed. Kurtz, E. – Drexl, F., II (Milan 1941) 7–8 Google Scholar (letter 6; this edition is hereafter referred to as ‘Kurtz-Drexl’), and Gautier, P., ‘Quelques lettres de Psellos inédites ou déjà éditées’, REB 44 (1986) 111–197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (letter 25). See ‘Anonymus 2297’, PBW. About Iasites, see Snipes, K., ‘A letter of Michael Psellos to Constantine the nephew of Michael Cerularios’, GRBS 22 (1981) 89–107 Google Scholar (see lines 32–38 in the letter, and p. 106 for more information about the person) and Gautier, P., ‘La curieuse ascendance de Jean Tzetzes’, REB 28 (1970) 207–220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 217-18.

6 See Kriaras, E., Λεξικο της μεσαιωνικής Έλληνικης δημώδους γραμματείας 1100-1669, Τομος A’ (Thessalonike 1969) 235 Google Scholar.

7 Fortenbaugh, W. W., ‘On the antecedents of Aristotle’s bipartite psychology’, GRBS 11 (1970) 233-50Google Scholar.

8 Plato, Respublica 439d, Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea 1102a–b, Plutarch, Moralia 442a, etc.

9 Damascene, John, Expositio fidei, ed. Kotter, B. (Berlin and New York 1973) §26, 1 Google Scholar. 92-93: Χρή γινώσκειν, cm то λογικον φύσει κατάρχει τοΰ άλόγου ■ διαιροϋνται γαρ ol δυνάμεις της ψυχης είς λογικον καΐ αλογον.

10 See e.g. the fragments De anima et mente and Συλλογαι διάφοροι коЛ ποικίλαι in Psellos, Michael, Philosophica Minora, ed. O’Meara, D. J., II (Leipzig 1989) 2 Google Scholar and 30 (op. 2 and 13). These writings, even their wording, owe very much to Philoponos’ commentary on Aristotle’s De anima, as the editor remarks.

11 See LPG, s.v. ‘λογικος’, significations A. rational; B. comprehensible by reason, logical; C. spiritual.

12 This expression goes back to Plato, Timaeus (see 41c and 69c), and is elaborated on in the psychological theories of Neo-platonic philosophers when addressing the relation of mind to body; it is also dear to Psellos. See Psellos, Michael, Oratoria Minora, ed. Littlewood, A. (Leipzig 1985) 11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, line 9 (or. 4), referring to ‘body’, and Philosophica minora, II, 23, 1. 10–11 (op. 11) in a more ‘Proclean’, spiritual sense. The idea of λόγος as a ‘carriage for the soul’ is, however, unique, as far as I can see.

13 Psellos, Michael, De Omnifaria Doctrina, ed. Westerink, L. (Nijmegen 1948), 49 Google Scholar, §81, and Psellos’ encomium for his mother in Sathas, Μεσαιωνική Βιβλιοθήκη, V, 34.

14 See e.g. De Anima 413b–414b, where Aristotle makes the connection between sensible things, sensory impressions, opinions, and desires.

15 Plato, Phaedrus 246a–254e. Psellos was very familiar with this image; he even devoted an exegetical work to it, entitled ‘Εξήγησις της Πλατωνικης έν τφ Φαίδρη διφρείας των ψυχών και στρατείας τών θεων, ed. Pbilosophica Minora, II, 12–14 (op. 7).

16 LSJ, s.v. δυσοιώνιστος give the translation ‘ill-omened’, but I think Psellos takes it to mean ‘hard to take an omen from’.

17 He makes a similar distinction in another letter; see Sathas, Μεσαιωνική Βφλιοθήκη, 242–3, letter 11.

18 The text is problematic here: normally, as elsewhere in the letter, the verb άνταλλάττομαι is followed by an accusative denoting the object that one receives in exchange and a genitive for the object that is given in exchange. Here the opposite is the case.

19 See the striking resemblance of expression in Galen’s De differentiis febrium, edited in Galen, Opera omnia, ed. Kühn, C. G., VII (Leipzig 1821-1833) 358 Google Scholar.

20 Karpozelos, ‘Realia’, 27–8.

21 This is only a hypothesis, based on the fact that both the preceding and the following letter in the edition of Sathas explore these themes. These letters follow upon each other in their original sequence in the manuscript Paris. Gr. 1182. Letter 168, also positioned nearby in the manuscript, is the more famous letter to a schoolteacher not satisfied with the gift of money Psellos had given to him. See Gautier, P., ‘Deux manuscrits pselliens: le Parisinus Graecus 1182 et le Laurentianus Graecus 57-40’, REB 44 (1986) 45–110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 78. About the principles (and lack thereof) underlying the ordering in Psellos’ letters-collection, see E. Papaioannou, ‘Fragile literature: Byzantine Letter-Collections and The case of Michael Psellos’, in P. Odorico (ed.), La face cachée de la littérature byzantine. Le texte en tant que message immédiat (forthcoming).

22 Mullett, M., ‘The classical tradition in the Byzantine letter’, in Mullett, M. and Scott, R. (eds.), Byzantium and the Classical Tradition, Papers of the Thirteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies (Birmingham 1981) 75–93 Google Scholar, here 81.

23 Karpozelos, ‘Realia’, 20–1.

24 Karpozelos, A., The Letters of loannes Mauropous, Metropolitan of Euchaita (Thessalonike 1990), 128 Google Scholar (translation) and 230 (commentary).

25 See for instance a letter to Aristenos, edited in Gautier, ‘Lettres inédites’, 173–5 (letter 24), where Psellos avers that letters can be exchanged for letters, just like clothes for clothes (1.14–15: λόγοςγάρ λογου άντιλαμβάνεται ώσπερ ύφάσματος ΰφασμα).

26 Kurtz-Drexl, II, 164–6 (letter 138).

27 Gautier, ‘Lettres inédites’, 184–5 (letter 31), 1. 8–10: Τρόπον ούν τινα άντιδρωμεν άλλήλοις και άντιπάσχομεν, έγώ μεν λόγους διδούς, σΐ δε ‘έργα άντιδιδοϋς, and 1. 15-17: Έγίο μεν προς τάς ϋπερ σοϋ των λόγων ττηγας άνεστόμωμαι, σΰ δε άνθυπερβλΐζεις το εύγνωμονεΐν πλείονι ρεΰματι, καΐ γίνεται παρ’ άλλήλοις πλήρης ό της φιλίας κρατήρ.

28 Kurtz-Drexl, II, 107 (letter 75).

29 1. 17–19: έγω μεν γαρ πλουτω λόγοις, σί> δε πλουτεΐς πράγμασιν άντιδώσομεν συν άλλήλοις δαψιλως τά οίκεΐα.

30 In this and the following paragraphs, I make use of some concepts and ideas of the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. See especially his Le sens pratique (Paris 1980) and Les règles de l’art: genèse et structure du champ littéraire (Paris 1992).

31 Psellos, Michael, Chronograpbia, ed. Impellizzeri, S., I (Milan 20055) 290 Google Scholar (book VI, §43). As Pietsch, E., Die Chronograpbia des Michael Psellos: Kaisergeschichte, Autobiographie und Apologie (Wiesbaden 2005) 73 Google Scholar remarks, this is nothing more than mimicking the Socrates of Plato’s Apology.

32 Psellos, , Chronograpbia I, 40–42 Google Scholar (book I, §29).

33 See for example Kurtz-Drexl, II, 80-81 (letter 48), in which Psellos confirms to his friend Kalokyros that he has engaged all his eloquence to move the emperor to show mercy: ‘If there was any charming ode, or a melody gently gliding into the ears, chasing the soul unnoticed, I did not neglect it.’ (r. 13–15).

34 See Ahrweiler, H., ‘Recherches sur la société byzantine au XIe siècle: nouvelles hiérarchies et nouvelles solidarités’, TM 6 (1976) 99–124 Google Scholar.

35 This ‘capacity for learning’ (£ξιν λογιότητος) re-occurs in Psellos, , Chronograpbia, I, 282 Google Scholar (book VI, §35), to describe Monomachos’ lack of intellectual abilities.

36 Kurtz-Drexl, II, 278-81.

37 These gifts are mentioned in other letters directed to caesar Ioannes Doukas, e.g. letters 206 and 233 in the edition of Kurtz-Drexl.

38 Kurtz-Drexl, II, 278, 1. 19–24: Προς μεν τοροΰς кой, ϋδνα, ‘ίσως δε κα\ μΰρα και πέμματα καϊ άρώματα, ύπερθαΐμαστε μοι καΐσαρ, έπιστέλλειν καΐ άνταμείβεσθαι δΰναμαι• προς δε ‘ίππον οϋτω μεν καλόν, οΰτω δε μέγαν, οΰτω δε τρυφερόν, οϋτω δε ταχυν καΐ εύκίνητον έπιστολήν ίσόμετρόν τε καΐ ίσοδι3ναμον ποιησαι άμηχανω.

39 Kurtz-Drexl, II, 278.24–279.3: El και μή τοιοΰτος ήν μηδε τοσοϋτοις έκεκόσμητο κάλλεσιν, όπόσοις ούδ’ ó τοΰ Αλεξάνδρου παράσημος ϊππος (...) άλλ’ έπειοή παρά τοιοΰτου άνδρος δωρόν μοι άπέσταλται, όποίφ αν ούδεις τών άπ’ αιώνος γηγεναίν άντερίσειεν, πώς άν διαμιλλησαίμην λόγφ προς την τσθ πεμψαντος άρετήν.

40 Kurtz-Drexl, II, 164 (letter 138), 1. 17–19: έγώ δε καΐ τοθτον -rfl κοινίςι φιλίςι παραμετρών καΐ τας προς άλλήλους συνθήκας συλλογιζόμενος μυρίον είσπράττομαι χρεος έτηστολων.