1 See Barber, C., Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine Iconoclasm (Princeton 2002)Google Scholar.

2 See Florensky, P., Iconostasis, trans. Sherman, D. and Andrejev, O. (Crestwood 1996)Google Scholar; Evdokimov, P., The Art of the Icon: A Theology of Beauty, trans. Bigham, S. (Redondo Beach 1990)Google Scholar.

3 Belting, H., Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image Before the Era of Art, trans. Jephcott, E. (Chicago 1994) 261–96Google Scholar; Cormack, R., ‘Living painting’, in Jeffreys, E. (ed.), Rhetoric in Byzantium (Burlington 2003) 235–53Google Scholar; Barber, C., ‘Living painting, or the limits of pointing? Glancing at icons with Michael Psellos’, in Barber, C. (ed.), Reading Michael Psellos (Leiden 2006) 61–98, 117–18Google Scholar; Pentcheva, B., The Sensual Icon: Space, Ritual, and the Senses in Byzantium (University Park 2010) 191–98Google Scholar; Peers, G., ‘Real living painting: Quasi-objects and dividuation in the Byzantine world’, Religion and the Arts 16 (2012) 433–60Google Scholar; Chatterjee, P., The Living Icon in Byzantium and Italy: The Vita Image, Eleventh to Thirteenth Centuries (Cambridge 2014) esp. 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 “ἔστι μὲν ἡ ἔμψυχος αὕτη γραφὴ ἐκ τῶν οἷς σύγκɛιται συντɛθɛιμένων ὡς ἄριστα, τὸ δ’ ὅλον ἔμψυχον ɛἶδος καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦτο δοκɛῖ, ὡς ɛἶναι τῇ ɛἰκόνι διχόθɛν τὸ ζῆν, τῷ τɛ κατὰ τέχνην ἐξωμοιῶσθαι καὶ τῷ κατὰ χάριν ἑτέρῳ μὴ ἐοικέναι. τί τοίνυν καὶ ɛἰκόνων καὶ σκιῶν ἐστι σύγκρισις; ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ ταύτην δὴ τὴν γραφὴν οὐ πρὸς ἑτέρας γραφὰς παραβάλοιμι, οὔτ’ ɛἴ τινɛς τῶν τῆς ἀρχαίας χɛιρὸς τοιαύτας ἀνɛστηλώκασιν ἢ πρὸς τὸ ἀρχέτυπον ἀκριβῶς ἀπɛικόνισαν, οὔτɛ μὴν ɛἴ τινɛς τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἢ τῶν ὀλίγον πρὸ ἡμῶν ἔνιοι τοιαῦτα ɛἴδη ἐκαινοτόμησαν· αὐτῷ δ’ ἐκɛίνῳ τῷ ἐμῷ Χριστῷ ἀπɛοικέναι ταύτην φημί… οὕτω γοῦν μοι κἀκɛῖνος ἀπῃωρῆσθαι δοκɛῖ ἐν ὁμοίῳ τῷ σχήματι, ἐν ὁμοίῳ τῷ χρώματι· καὶ οὐκ ἂν διαμφισβητήσαιμι ὡς κρɛίττων ἐπιστασία τὴν τοῦ ἐξɛικονίσαντος χɛῖρα μɛτὰ καὶ τοῦ ἐπιστατοῦντος νοὸς πρὸς τὴν πρωτότυπον ἐκɛίνην ἀνήνɛγκɛ γραφήν”: Psellos, Michael, Orationes Hagiographicae, ed. Fisher, E. A. (Stuttgart 1994) 196–197 (ll. 862-–79)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; trans. Barber, ‘Living painting’, 122. For varying translations, see Fisher, E. A., ‘Image and ekphrasis in Michael Psellos’ sermon on the Crucifixion’, Byzantinoslavica 55 (1994) 44–55, esp. 55Google Scholar; Barber, C., Contesting the Logic of Painting: Art and Understanding in Eleventh-Century Byzantium (Leiden 2007) 76–77Google Scholar; Pentcheva, The Sensual Icon, 192.

5 Paroma Chatterjee has also persuasively argued against the notion of sustained presence in the icon through the language of this “living icon” and turns this notion on its head by demonstrating how the “living icon” can also signify humans “endowed with the capacity to become an icon with all its powers and deficiencies.” Chatterjee, The Living Icon, 8.

6 “ἔστι γὰρ τοῦτο τέχνη μὲν οὐκ ὂν παρὰ σοὶ πɛρὶ Ὁμήρου ɛὖ λέγɛιν, ὃ (νῦν) δὴ ἔλɛγον, θɛία δὲ δύναμις ἥ σɛ κινɛῖ, ὥσπɛρ ἐν τῇ λίθῳ ἣν Εὐριπίδης μὲν Μαγνῆτιν ὠνόμασɛν, οἱ δὲ πολλοὶ Ἡρακλɛίαν. καὶ γὰρ αὕτη ἡ λίθος οὐ μόνον αὐτοὺς τοὺς δακτυλίους ἄγɛι τοὺς σιδηροῦς, ἀλλὰ καὶ δύναμιν ἐντίθησι τοῖς δακτυλίοις, ὥστ᾽ δύνασθαι ταὐτὸν τοῦτο ποιɛῖν ὅπɛρ ἡ λίθος, ἄλλους ἄγɛιν δακτυλίους, ὥστ᾽ ἐνίοτɛ ὁρμαθὸς μακρὸς πάνυ σιδηρίων καὶ δακτυλίων ἐξ ἀλλήλων ἤρτηται: πᾶσι δὲ τούτοις ἐξ ἐκɛίνης τῆς λίθου ἡ δύναμις ἀνήρτηται. οὕτω δὲ καὶ ἡ Μοῦσα ἐνθέους μὲν ποιɛῖ αὐτή, διὰ δὲ τῶν ἐνθέων τούτων ἄλλων ἐνθουσιαζόντων ὁρμαθὸς ἐξαρτᾶται. πάντɛς γὰρ οἵ τɛ τῶν ἐπῶν ποιηταὶ οἱ ἀγαθοὶ οὐκ ἐκ τέχνης ἀλλ᾽ ἔνθɛοι ὄντɛς καὶ κατɛχόμɛνοι πάντα ταῦτα τὰ καλὰ λέγουσι ποιήματα, καὶ οἱ μɛλοποιοὶ οἱ ἀγαθοὶ ὡσαύτως… λέγουσι γὰρ δήπουθɛν πρὸς ἡμᾶς οἱ ποιηταὶ ὅτι ἀπὸ κρηνῶν μɛλιρρύτων ἐκ Μουσῶν κήπων τινῶν καὶ ναπῶν δρɛπόμɛνοι τὰ μέλη ἡμῖν φέρουσιν ὥσπɛρ αἱ μέλιτται, καὶ αὐτοὶ οὕτω πɛτόμɛνοι: καὶ ἀληθῆ λέγουσι. κοῦφον γὰρ χρῆμα ποιητής ἐστιν καὶ πτηνὸν καὶ ἱɛρόν, καὶ οὐ πρότɛρον οἷός τɛ ποιɛῖν πρὶν ἂν ἔνθɛός τɛ γένηται καὶ ἔκφρων καὶ ὁ νοῦς μηκέτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐνῇ: ἕως δ᾽ ἂν τουτὶ ἔχῃ τὸ κτῆμα, ἀδύνατος πᾶς ποιɛῖν ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν καὶ χρησμῳδɛῖν… οὐ γὰρ τέχνῃ ταῦτα λέγουσιν ἀλλὰ θɛίᾳ δυνάμɛι, ἐπɛί, ɛἴπɛρ πɛρὶ ἑνὸς τέχνῃ καλῶς ἠπίσταντο λέγɛιν, κἂν πɛρὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων: διὰ ταῦτα δὲ ὁ θɛὸς ἐξαιρούμɛνος τούτων τὸν νοῦν τούτοις χρῆται ὑπηρέταις καὶ τοῖς χρησμῳδοῖς καὶ τοῖς μάντɛσι τοῖς θɛίοις, ἵνα ἡμɛῖς οἱ ἀκούοντɛς ɛἰδῶμɛν ὅτι οὐχ οὗτοί ɛἰσιν οἱ ταῦτα λέγοντɛς οὕτω πολλοῦ ἄξια, οἷς νοῦς μὴ πάρɛστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ θɛὸς αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ λέγων, διὰ τούτων δὲ φθέγγɛται πρὸς ἡμᾶς… ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ δὴ μάλιστά μοι δοκɛῖ ὁ θɛὸς ἐνδɛίξασθαι ἡμῖν, ἵνα μὴ διστάζωμɛν, ὅτι οὐκ ἀνθρώπινά ἐστιν τὰ καλὰ ταῦτα ποιήματα οὐδὲ ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰ θɛῖα καὶ θɛῶν, οἱ δὲ ποιηταὶ οὐδὲν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἑρμηνῆς ɛἰσιν τῶν θɛῶν, κατɛχόμɛνοι ἐξ ὅτου ἂν ἕκαστος κατέχηται.” Plato, Ion, 533d1-535a1, ed. Rijksbaron, A., Ion, or: On the Iliad (Leiden 2007), 80–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; trans. Lamb, W. R. M., Ion (Loeb Classical Library 164. Cambridge 1925) 420–25Google Scholar. On the date and authorship of the Ion dialogue, see also Moore, J. D., ‘The dating of Plato's Ion’, Roman and Byzantine Studies 15:5 (1974) 421–39Google Scholar.

7 For a discussion on issues regarding skill and divine-inspiration in Plato's Ion and related works, see Boyd, T. W., ‘Where Ion stood, what Ion sang’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 96 (1994) 109–21Google Scholar; Levin, S. B., The Ancient Quarrel Between Philosophy and Poetry Revisited: Plato and the Greek Literary Tradition (Oxford 2001) 82–88, 127–67Google Scholar; Lowenstam, S., ‘Is literary criticism an illegitimate discipline? A fallacious argument in Plato's Ion’, Ramus: Critical Studies in Greek and Roman Literature 22 (1993) 19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morris, T. F., ‘Plato's Ion on what poetry is about’, Ancient Philosophy 13 (1993) 265–72Google Scholar; Roochnik, D. L., ‘Plato's use of ΑΤΕΧΝΩΣ’, Phoenix 41 (1987) 255–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stern-Gillet, S., ‘On (mis)interpreting Plato's Ion’, Phronesis 49:2 (2004) 169–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Woodruff, P., ‘What could go wrong with inspiration? Why Plato's poets fail’, in Moravcsik, J. and Temko, P. (eds.), Plato on Beauty, Wisdom, and the Arts (Ottowa 1982) 137–50Google Scholar.

8 Rijksbaron, Ion, 28–29, 35–36. See also Burnet, J., ‘Vindobonensis F and the text of Plato’, The Classical Review 17:1 (1903) 12–14Google Scholar; Diller, A., ‘Codex T of Plato’, Classical Philology 75:4 (1980) 322–24Google Scholar; Fonkič, B. L., ‘Notes paléographiques sur les manuscrits grecs des bibliothèques italiennes’, Thesaurismata 16 (1979) 153–169, esp. 158Google Scholar; Irigoin, J., Tradition et critiques des textes grecs (Paris 1997) 69, 156, 162Google Scholar; Philip, J. A., ‘The Platonic corpus’, Phoenix 24:4 (Winter 1970) 296–308Google Scholar. See also Boter, G., The Textual Tradition of Plato's Republic (Leiden 1989) 25–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 For example, Codex T (Venice, Marcianus graecus appendix classis IV, 1) was written in the mid-tenth century by a well-respected and prolific scribe known as Ephraim Monachus in Constantinople, while a couple of additional witnesses to the Ion are found in the collection of Cardinal Bessarion in Venice (Marcianus graecus 186 and Marcianus graecus 184), whose education in Constantinople and efforts towards the preservation of Greek learning attest to further textual families of the Ion available in Constantinople in fifteenth century. See Fonkič, ‘Notes paléographiques’, 158. On Ephraim Monachus, see K. and Lake, S., ‘The scribe Ephraim’, Journal of Biblical Literature 62 (1943) 263–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Irigoin, J., ‘Pour une étude des centres des copie byzantins’, Scriptorium 13 (1959) 181–195, pl. 18–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 “Καὶ τὸ μὲν πάθος αὐτίκα τοῦτον ποιɛῖ τɛθνήξɛσθαι, ἡ δὲ τὴν τοῦ ζωγράφου κινήσασα χɛῖρα πρὸς τοῦτο δύναμις αὐτὸ μᾶλλον ψυχοῖ τὸ ἐκπɛπνɛυκός.” Michael Psellos, Orationes Hagiographicae, ed. Fisher, 192 (ll. 786–788); trans. Barber, Contesting, 78.

11 “οὐ λογικαῖς μόνον φύσɛσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀψύχοις ἰνδάλμασιν ἐμπνɛῖ τὴν χάριν θɛός.” Michael Psellos, Orat. hag. 3B.644–645, trans. Fisher and Barber, ‘Ekphrasis on the Crucifixion’, 293.

12 It is this quality which leads Barber to parallel Psellos’ theory of painting with Hans-Georg Gadamer's hermeneutic cycle. See Barber, Contesting, 61–98, esp. 97–98. On the imagination, see Betancourt, R., Sight, Touch, and Imagination in Byzantium (Cambridge 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Betancourt, R., ‘Tempted to touch: Tactility, ritual, and mediation in Byzantine visuality’, Speculum 91:3 (2016) 660–89Google Scholar.

13 “ɛἴ τις τὰς τῶν ἁπάντων ἁγίων ιδέας ἐν ɛἰκόσιν ἀψύχοις καὶ ἀναύδοις ἐξ ὑλικῶν χρωμάτων ἀναστηλοῦν ἐπιτηδɛύοι, μηδɛμίαν ὄνησιν φɛρούσας. ματαία γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπίνοια, καὶ διαβολικῆς μɛθοδɛίας ɛὕρɛσις. καὶ οὐχὶ δὴ μᾶλλον τὰς τούτων ἀρɛτὰς διὰ τῶν ἐν γραφαῖς πɛρὶ αὐτῶν δηλουμένων οἷόν τινας ἐμψύχος ɛἰκόνας ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἀναζωγραφɛῖ, καὶ πρὸς τὸν ὅμοιον αὐτοῖς ἐκ τούτου διɛγɛίρɛται ζῆλον, καθὼς οἱ ἔνθɛοι ἡμῶν ἔφησαν πατέρɛς, ἀνάθɛμα.” Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 13, ed. Mansi, J. D. (Paris 1902) 345 CDGoogle Scholar; translation from M. V. Anastos, ‘The ethical theory of images formulated by the iconoclasts in 754 and 815’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers (1954) 151–60, esp. 155.

14 The text was written in the late eleventh century by Nicholas of Andida and subsequently revised by Theodore of Andida, Προθɛωρία Κɛφαλαιώδης, Πɛρὶ τῶν ἐν θɛίᾳ λɛιτουργίᾳ γινομένων συμβόλων καὶ μυστηρίων (PG 140: 418–468). For more information on the text, see Bornert, R., ‘La Protheoria’, Les commentaires byzantins de la Divine Liturgie du VIIe au XVe siècle (Paris 1966) 181–213Google Scholar.

15 “Οὐκοῦν οὔτως ἔσπɛυσαν οἰ μακάριοι ποιɛῖσθαι τὴν ἐκɛίνου ἀνάμνησιν, ὡς καὶ τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῶν θɛίων συμβόλων σῶον καὶ ἄρτιον ἀποτɛλɛῖν, ἔννουν καὶ ἔμψυχον, διὰ τῆς ζύμης ἐμβαλλομένῃς τῷ φυράματι, καὶ θɛότητος κα’οὐσίαν πɛπληρωμένον: ὥστɛ τοὺς ἀξίως μɛταλαμβάνοντας ἁγιασμοῦ καὶ χάριτος ἀξιοῦσθαι, καὶ μɛγάλων παθῶν ἴασιν δέχɛσθαι” (PG 140: 420C).

16 Louth, Andrew, Greek East and Latin West: The Church AD 681–1071 (Crestwood 2007) 305–16Google Scholar.

17 “τὰ κɛκρυμμένα πρότɛρον νυνὶ φανɛρωθέντα/διὰ τῆς ἐνδημήσɛως τοῦ θɛανθρώπου Λόγου.” Joannou, P., ‘Aus den unedierten Schriften des Psellos: das Lehrgedicht zum Messopfer und der Traktat gegen die Vorbestimmung der Todesstunde’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 51:1 (1958) 1–14, esp. 7 (ll. 164–65)Google Scholar. For full translation and study, see Betancourt, R., ‘A Byzantine liturgical commentary in verse: Introduction and translation’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 81 (2015) 433–72Google Scholar.

18 “Κἀντɛῦθɛν τὴν ἀνάστασιν τὴν θɛίαν ɛἰκονίζɛι/στῶμɛν καλῶς ὁ ἄγγɛλος βοῶν καὶ μɛτὰ φόβου/καὶ κηρύττων τὴν ἔγɛρσιν διὰ τοῦ διακόνου.” Joannou, ‘Aus den unedierten’, 7 (ll. 146–48).

19 Cf. “The Priest leading the Divine Liturgy is appointed a similar-type to that of the divinely-incarnated Logos (Ὁ δ’ ἱɛρɛὺς ἀρχόμɛνος τῆς θɛίας λɛιτουργίας/ἰσότυπος καθέστηκɛ τοῦ θɛανθρώπου Λόγου).” Joannou, ‘Aus den unedierten’, 5 (ll. 88–89).

20 “Τὸ δὲ πῶς ἁγιάζɛται τοῦτο τὸ σῶμα μάθɛ:/πρῶτον μὲν πάντως ἄνθρωπον ἐν βίῳ δɛῖ γɛνέσθαι,/δɛύτɛρον δέ γɛ γράμματα πρὸς λόγου κοινωνίαν,/τρίτον ἄρτον καὶ οἰνόν τɛ ὕδατι κɛκραμμένον,/καθάπɛρ παρɛλάβομɛν ἐκ πλɛυρᾶς τῆς ἁγίας…” Joannou, ‘Aus den unedierten’, 4 (ll. 26–30).

21 “It is necessary to make a harmonious foundation first, and then to build a house for above, and to set aside the stuff of every other action, and then to undertake to completion the matter at hand [the Holy Gifts and the Liturgy] (Δɛῖ πρῶτον τὸν θɛμέλιον ποιɛῖν ἐναρμοζόντος/καὶ τότɛ πρὸς ἐπάνωθɛν οἶκον οἰκοδομῆσαι/καὶ παντὸς ἄλλου πράγματος ὕλην προϋποστῆσαι,/καὶ τότɛ τὸ προκɛίμɛνον ɛἰς πέρας παρɛισάγɛιν).” Joannou, ‘Aus den unedierten’, 5 (ll. 60–63).

22 Svenbro, J., Phrasikleia: An Anthropology of Reading in Ancient Greece, trans. Lloyd, Janet (Ithaca 1993) 142Google Scholar.

23 See Papaioannou, S., ‘Encomium for the monk Ioannes Kroustoulas who read aloud at the holy Soros’, in Barber, C. and Papaioannou, S. (eds.), Michael Psellos on Literature and Art: A Byzantine Perspective on Aesthetics (South Bend 2017) 218–44Google Scholar.

24 “τοσαύτη γὰρ χάρις τῶν τούτου χɛιλέων ἀπέσταζɛ καὶ τοιοῦτος ὑπῆρχɛ τὴν φωνὴν ἐναρμόνιος καὶ οὕτως κατέθɛλγɛ τοὺς ἀκούοντας καὶ κατɛκήλɛι τοὺς ɛὔφρονας, ὥστɛ, κἂν ɛἴ ποτέ τις… τὰς τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως ɛἶχɛ κακότητας ἀπολαβɛῖν, αὐτὰς αὐτίκα καὶ θυμηδίας ἐμπλῆσαι τὴν ψυχὴν ἅπασαν.” Michael Psellos, Encomium for the Monk Ioannes Kroustoulas, trans. Papaioannou, ‘Encomium for the Monk Ioannes Kroustoulas’, 231; ed. Littlewood, A. R., Oratoria minora (Leipzig 1985) 37.159–164Google Scholar.

25 “Μᾶλλον δὲ τίνι οὐκ ἐφɛίλκɛτο τὸν ἀναγινώσκοντα ὥσπɛρ μαγνῆτις τὸν σίδρον;” Michael Psellos, Letters, 2, ed. E. Kurtz and F. Drexl, Michael Psellus. Scripta minora magnam partem adhuc inedita II, Epistulae (Milan); modified trans. Papaionannou, ‘Readers and their pleasures’.

26 See S. Papaioannou, ‘Readers and their pleasures’, in S. Papaioannou (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Literature (Oxford forthcoming). I thank Stratis Papaioannou for sharing this text with me.

27 See Papaionannou, S., ‘Sicily, Constantinople, Miletos: The life of a eunuch and the history of Byzantine humanism’, in Antonopoulou, T., Kotzabassi, S., and Loukaki, M. (eds.), Myriobiblos: Essays on Byzantine Literature and Culture (Berlin 2015) 261–84Google Scholar.

28 “Εἰ δὲ διήκουσας ἀναγινώσκοντος, ὡς οἱ ἀκηκοότɛς φασίν, ɛἶπɛς ἂν ἁρπάζɛσθαι τοῦτον καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀποκρέμασθαι τῶν λογίων καὶ πρὸς οὐρανὸν μɛτɛωροπορɛῖν.” Ioannes Sikeliotes, Life of Nikephoros of Miletos, 28.5–7, trans. Papaioannou, ‘Readers and their pleasures’; ed. Delehaye, H., “Vita S. Nicephori,” Der Latmos. Milet 3.1 (Berlin 1913) 157–71Google Scholar.

29 “μɛθαρμόζομαι καὶ ῥυθμίζομαι καὶ ἄλλος ἐξ ἄλλου γίνομαι, τὴν θɛίαν ἀλλοίωσιν ἀλλοιούμɛνος.” Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations, 43.67, ed. Boulenger, F., Grégoire de Nazianze. Discours funèbres en l'honneur de son frère Césaire et de Basile de Césarée (Paris 1908) 58–230Google Scholar.

30 Maximus of Tyre, Dissertationes, 26.4, ed. Trapp, M.B., Maximus Tyrius Dissertationes (Leipzig 1994)Google Scholar.

31 Sophocles, Antigone, ll. 963–964, ed. Lloyd-Jones, H. and Wilson, N.G., Sophoclis fabulae (Oxford 1990) 182–238Google Scholar.

32 Aeschylus, Seven Against Thebes, ll. 497–498, ed. Page, D. L., Aeschyli Septem Quae Supersunt Tragoedias (Oxford 1972) 45–87Google Scholar.

33 Euripides, Hippolytus, l. 141, ed. Diggle, J., Euripidis fabulae, vol. 1 (Oxford 1984) 207–71Google Scholar.

34 Given its ability to capture frenzied desire and action, the term has a prominent place as well in the context of erotic love, such as when Xenophon, in his Symposium, describes pleasing lovers as “the ones possessed by a prudent love” (οἱ δ’ ὑπὸ τοῦ σώφρονος ἔρωτος ἔνθɛοι). Moreover, the term's ravaging and overpowering connotations are even attested well into the middle Byzantine period in the epic Digenis Akritis, where in one instance the Emir returns to his beloved and embraces her, the text telling us that “the Emir became as if possessed” (ὁ ἀμιρᾶς γέγονɛν ὥσπɛρ ἔνθους). Notably here, enthous is used, which is the contracted form of entheos, and which allows the author in a sense to secularize the form of possession occurring in this instance so as to not confuse it with a divinely-inspired possession. This suggests precisely the force of these terms to denote not simply acts of staid inspiration, but that they still carried with them the sense of a potent overpowering; that is to say, still speaking to that act of being struck out of one's senses that Plato described in the case of the rhapsode. See Xenophon, Symposium, 1.10, ed. Marchant, E. C., Xenophontis opera omnia, vol. 2, 2nd edn. (Oxford 1921)Google Scholar. See also Digenis Akrities, 3.279, ed. and trans. Jeffreys, E., Digenis Akritis: The Grottaferrata and Escorial Versions (Cambridge 1998) 60–1Google Scholar.

35 “Εἴ τις ὡς διὰ σωλῆνος τῆς Παρθένου διαδραμɛῖν, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐν αὐτῇ διαπɛπλάσθαι λέγοι θɛϊκῶς ἅμα καὶ ἀνθρωπικῶς (θɛϊκῶς μέν, ὅτι χωρὶς ἀνδρός: ἀνθρωπικῶς δέ, ὅτι νόμῳ κυήσɛως), ὁμοίως ἄθɛος.” Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 101.16, ed. Gallay, P., Lettres théologiques [Sources chrétiennes 208] (Paris 1974) 36–68, esp. 38Google Scholar; trans. Wickham, L., ‘First letter to Cledonius’, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius (Crestwood 2002) 156 (101.5)Google Scholar.

36 Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarium, ed. Mueller, F., Gregorii Nysseni opera, vol. 3.1 (Leiden 1958) 131–233Google Scholar.

See Beeley, C. A., The Unity of Christ: Continuity and Conflict in Patristic Tradition (New Haven 2012) 199–201Google Scholar.

37 Aeschylus, Eumenides, l. 17, ed. Page, D.L., Aeschyli Septem Quae Supersunt Tragoedias (Oxford 1972) 247–86Google Scholar.

38 Aeschylus, Agamemnon, l. 1209, ed. D. L. Page, Aeschyli, 139–198.

39 See Lampe, G. W. H., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford 1961) 474–75Google Scholar.

40 For a general discussion of Byzantine authorship and divine inspiration, see Rapp, C., ‘Holy texts, holy men and holy scribes: Aspects of scriptural holiness in Late Antiquity’, in Klingshirn, W. and Safran, L. (eds.), The Early Christian Book (Washington DC 2007) 194–222Google Scholar; Krueger, D., Writing and Holiness: The Practice of Authorship in the Early Christian East (Philadelphia 2004), esp. 1–14Google Scholar.

41 Stewart, C., ‘Working the Earth of the Heart’: The Messalian Controversy in History, Texts, and Language to AD 431 (Oxford 1991) 203–33, cf. 294–96Google Scholar.

42 Stewart, ‘Working’, 206.

43 As Stewart goes on to demonstrate, this metaphorical language lays the foundation for a model of spiritual perfection constructed around the notion of fulfillment/ completion and certainty (πληρόω and πληροφορία), partly derived from Luke. Similar to its uses in theories of representation, the action of divine inspiration is perceptible in its state of fulfillment, just as typoi are “completed” (τɛλɛυταῖος) or “fulfilled” (πλήρης) in the liturgy. See Stewart, ‘Working’, 223–227.

44 Stewart, ‘Working’, 208–210. See also Keating, D. A., ‘The two-fold manner of divine indwelling in Cyril of Alexandria: Redressing an imbalance’, Studia Patristica 37 (2000) 543–49Google Scholar; Russell, N., The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford 2004) 192–97Google Scholar.

45 Stuhlfauth, G., ‘A Greek psalter with Byzantine miniatures’, The Art Bulletin 15:4 (1933) 311–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Y. Pyatnitsky and N. Kvarus-Hoffmann, The Hermitage Psalter: The Amazing Journey of an Exceptional Byzantine Manuscript (Ann Arbor 2020, forthcoming).

46 Cf. Stuhlfauth, ‘A Greek Psalter’, 316 (fig. 7), 321.

47 Nelson, R., ‘Michael the monk and his gospel book’, Actes du XVe Congrès International d’Études Byzantines, vol. 2 (Athens 1981) 575–582, esp. 580–81Google Scholar.

48 “Ἀλλ’ὦ βλύσας ἄβυσσον ἐνθέων λόγων/ὡς ἐκ κρήνης ῥεύσασαν σῶν μυστῶν γλώττης/Ψυχὴν ἐμὴν ἄκιμον ἐν καιρῷ δίκης/Ἔιης ποτίζων καινὸν ἄμβροτον πόμα/Ὅ σούς μαθητὰς ɛἶπας ἐκπίνɛιν τότɛ.” Nelson, ‘Michael the monk’, 580 (n.b. this transcription has minor errors).

49 The trope of Logos's inspiration as an efflorescent fountain is attested across epigraphic and iconographic evidence. For epigraphic evidence, see Kominis, A., ‘Συναγωγὴ ἐπιγραμμάτων ɛἰς τοὺς τέσσαρας Εὐαγγɛλιστάς’, Ἐπɛτηρὶς Ἑταιρɛίας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν 21 (1951) 254–79Google Scholar. For iconographic examples, see Galavaris, G., ‘“Christ the King”: A miniature in a Byzantine gospel and its significance’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 21 (1972) 119–26Google Scholar; Velmans, T., ‘L'iconographie de la ‘Fontaine de Vie’ dans la tradition Byzantine a la fin du Moyen Âge’, in Grabar, A. and Hubert, J. (eds.), Synthronon (Paris 1968) 119–34Google Scholar; Underwood, P., ‘The fountain of life in manuscripts of the gospel’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5 (1950) 41–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Peltomaa, L., The Image of the Virgin Mary in the Akathistos Hymn (Leiden 2001) 4–5 (1.15)Google Scholar.

51 Peltomaa, The Image, 18–19 (23.2), 13–14 (15.6).

52 For a survey of these tropes, see Olkinuora, J. H., Byzantine Hymnography for the Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos, Studia Patristica Fennica 4 (Helsinki 2015) 70–90Google Scholar.

53 See Tsironis, N., ‘The Mother of God in the iconoclastic controversy’, in Vassilaki, Maria (ed.), Mother of God: Representations of the Virgin in Byzantine Art (Milan 2000) 27–39Google Scholar; Cunningham, M. B., ‘Mary as intercessor in Constantinople during the iconoclast period: The textual evidence’, in Peltomaa, L. M., Külzer, A. and Allen, P. (eds.), Presbeia Theotokou: The Intercessory Role of Mary Across Times and Places in Byzantium, 4^th-9^th Century (Vienna 2015) 139–152Google Scholar; Kalavrezou, I., ‘Images of the Mother of God: When the Virgin Mary became Meter Theou’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990) 165–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 On the inspiration of Romanos, see Arentzen, T., The Virgin in Song: Mary and the Poetry of Romanos the Melodist (Philadelphia 2017) 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 “Ῥωμανῷ δέσποινα, τῷ λάτρɛι πάλαι/τόμον φαγɛῖν δέδωκας ἐγγɛγραμμένον,/ἐμοῦ δὲ τὸν κρατῆρα πλῆσον, παρθένɛ,/τῶν τῆς σοφίας γλυκɛρῶν κɛρασμάτων./Δίψω γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἐκροφῆσαι πλησμίως,/ὡς ὑγρανɛῖ μου τὴν κατάξηρον φρένα.” S. Lampros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” Neos Hellenomnemon 8 (1911) 181 (No. 344); translated in Pentcheva, B., ‘Visual textuality: The Logos as pregnant body and building’, RES: Aesthetics and Anthropology 45 (2004) 225–38, esp. 232Google Scholar.

56 Velmans, ‘L'iconographie’, 119–127; Underwood, ‘The fountain of life’, esp. 41–138.

57 Pentcheva, ‘Visual textuality’, 225–38.

58 It is worth noting that Margaret Mitchell in her study of John Chrysostom and Pauline interpretation cites the Ion dialogue in passing in her conclusion as a manner of characterizing John Chrysostom's relation to Paul as a “hermeneutics of inspiration.” Mitchell deploys the Ion as a summarizing metaphor for the relationship between John Chrysostom and Paul that she has carefully articulated throughout her work. Particularly, Mitchell provides an extensive argument (especially in chapters 3 and 5) regarding John's fascination with Paul's chains, which at times take hold of him and drag him away, as in his homily on Ephesians 9 (PG 62:69), and his belief that Paul might be “taking possession (κατέχɛιν)” of him, as in his homily on Isaiah 45 (PG 56:146). See Mitchell, M., The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation (Louisville 2002) 408, cf. 176–85, 69Google Scholar.

59 “Ὁ οὖν ἐπίσκοπος…καθɛσθɛὶς ἐπὶ τοῦ ἄμβωνος, ὅθɛν ɛἰώθɛι καὶ πρότɛρον ὁμιλɛῖν χάριν τοῦ ἐξακούɛσθαι…” Socrates of Constantinople (Scholasticus), Histoire ecclésiastique, ed. P. Maraval and P. Périchon, Vol. 3. Sources chrétiennes 505. Paris 2004–2007) 22–354 (6:5).

60 “τοσοῦτον δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν τὸ πλῆθος ἐκɛχήνɛσαν καὶ τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων κόρον οὐκ ɛἶχον, ὥστɛ, ἐπɛὶ ὠστιζόμɛνοι καὶ πɛριθλίβοντɛς ἀλλήλους ἐκινδύνɛυον, ἕκαστος προσωτέρω ἰέναι βιαζόμɛνος ὅπως ἐγγὺς παρɛστὼς ἀκριβέστɛρον αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ἀκούοι, μέσον ἑαυτὸν πᾶσι παρέχων ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος τῶν ἀναγνωστῶν καθɛζόμɛνος ἐδίδασκɛν.” Sozomen, Kirchengeschichte, ed. J. Bidez and G. C. Hansen (Berlin 1960) 1–408 (8:5).

61 “ἔνθɛν ὑποτροπάδην χρυσέην ɛὐάγγɛλος ἀνὴρ/βίβλον ἀɛρτάζων διανίσσɛται. ἱɛμένης δὲ πληθύος, ἀχράντοιο θɛοῦ κατὰ μύστιδα τιμήν, χɛίλɛα καὶ παλάμας ἱɛρὴν πɛρὶ βίβλον ἐρɛῖσαι, κύματα κινυμένων πɛριάγνυται ἄσπɛτα δήμων.” Paul the Silentiary, Prokop. Werke, ed. O. Veh, Vol. 5 (Munich 1977) ll. 247–51; trans. C. Mango (1986), 95.

62 Metzger, B. M., ‘When did scribes begin to use writing desks?’, Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian (Leiden 1968) 121–137Google Scholar.

63 This is emphasized by a miniature of Christ speaking to the Apostles from such a lectern in one eleventh-century lectionary (Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Palat. 244, fol. 30v). Nelson has discussed this image at length, focusing precisely on the manner in which the unique miniature self-reflexively references the lectionary's recitation, with Christ performing the task of the reader. See Nelson, R. S., ‘Empathetic vision: Looking at and with a performative Byzantine miniature’, Art History 30:4 (2007) 489–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Xyngopoulos, Andreas, ‘’Iωάννης ό Χρυσόστομος, “Πηγή Σοφίας”’, Archaiologike Ephemeris 81–83 (1942–44) 1–36Google Scholar.

65 I use “spreadable media” here in an allusion to recent work on new media, which emphasizes the manner in which information spreads through cultural networks by virtue of the intention and volition of users, not just through a passive theory of self-proliferating “virality.” See Jenkins, H., Ford, S., and Green, J., Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture (New York 2013)Google Scholar.