The metropolitan of Amaseia was asked to watch over Psellos' son-in-law (?), the young krites of Armeniakon

Summary:
Psellos wrote three times to the metropolitan of Amaseia. The young krites of Armeniakon, whom Psellos described in the first letter, was Psellos himself, despite his different appearance, or perhaps a better man then he, with a mind enhanced by Psellos' teaching. He merited, despite his name (?), a Sybaritic, not Laconian welcome. The second letter is mainly devoted to the libels of Sabbaites, mentioning that the young krites was a major target. Psellos complained also that the metropolitan of Amaseia had neglected to report on him. He called him his own son and the metropolitan's most authentic nephew. Psellos did not think it would be necessary to punish him, as he was well trained. The third letter rejected as needless the metropolitan's defence of his obvious virtues and his relationship with an unnnamed friend. Envy was abroad, but the metropolitan and an ex-krites of Armeniakon could easily dispel it. Greetings were sent from another unnamed friend. [The ex-krites, referred to in the first person plural, might be the young man mentioned above, but it is at least as likely to be Psellos himself, whose career as krites is not well attested] 
Dates:
1059 
Sabbaites, author of an epigram (Anonymus 2133)
metropolitan of Amaseia (Anonymus 2172)
  • He received a letter about Anonymus 2173, who was Michael 61 himself, despite his different appearance, or perhaps a better man with a mind enhanced by Psellos’ teaching; he merited, despite his (whose?) name, a Sybaritic, not Laconian welcome (:) Psellos Letters (K - D) 58, 91.7-19
  • Anonymus 2172, for all his great qualities, had not reported on the krites, whom he called his own son and the metropolitan’s most authentic nephew; Psellos did not think it would be necessary to punish him, as he was well trained (:) Psellos Letters (Sathas) 35.269
  • His defence of his obvious virtues and friendship with Anonymus 2453 was rejected by Michael 61 as needless; envy was abroad, but he and Psellos, ex-krites of Armeniakon, could easily dispel it; greetings were sent from Anonymus 2454 (:) Psellos Letters (K - D) 136, 161.14-163.12
  • He had been insulted by Anonymus 2133, as had Anonymus 2173, Michael 61, Isaakios 1 and God himself ; Psellos had been first to respond to Sabbaïtes in a way which would clip his wings (:) Psellos Letters (Sathas) 35.269-270
krites of Armeniakon (Anonymus 2173)
  • He was Psellos himself, despite his different appearance, or perhaps a better man with a mind enhanced by Psellos’ teaching; Anonymus 2172 was told by Psellos that he merited, despite his (whose?) name, a Sybaritic, not Laconian welcome (:) Psellos Letters (K - D) 58, 91.7-19
  • He was to be reported on by Anonymus 2172 to Michael 61, but the latter complained that the metropolitan had said nothing; however Psellos was confident that no discipline would be required, since the krites had been well trained (:) Psellos Letters (Sathas) 35.269
  • He had been specially insulted by Anonymus 2133, as had Anonymus 2172, Michael 61, Isaakios 1 and God himself; Psellos had been first to respond to Sabbaïtes in a way which would clip his wings (:) Psellos Letters (Sathas) 35.269-270
friend of metropolitan of Amaseia (Anonymus 2453)
  • Friendship with him was confirmed by Anonymus 2172 in a way which was unnecessary and distorted the metropolitan’s character (:) Psellos Letters (K - D) 136, 162.4-20
friend of metropolitan of Amaseia (Anonymus 2454)
  • He sent greetings to Anonymus 2172 in the last line of Michael 61’s letter (:) Psellos Letters (K - D) 136, 163.11-12
Emperor Isaakios I Komnenos (Isaakios 1)
Michael Psellos (named Konstantinos till tonsure in 1054) (Michael 61)
  • He praised Anonymus 2172's style, but rejected his needless defence of his obvious virtues and friendship with Anonymus 2453; envy was abroad, but he and Psellos, ex-krites of Armeniakon, could easily dispel it; greetings from Anonymus 2454 (:) Psellos Letters (K - D) 136, 161.14-163.12
  • Anonymus 2173, of whom he wrote to Anonymus 2172, was Psellos himself, despite his different appearance, or perhaps a better man with a mind enhanced by Psellos’ teaching; he merited, despite his (whose?) name, a Sybaritic, not Laconian welcome (:) Psellos Letters (K - D) 58, 91.7-19
  • He wrote to Anonymus 2172 to welcome Anonymus 2173, who was Psellos himself Psellos Letters (K - D) 58, 91.7-19
  • He wrote complaining that the great Anonymus 2172 had not reported on Anonymus 2173, whom he called his own son and the metropolitan's most authentic nephew; Psellos did not think it would be necessary to punish him, as he was well trained (:) ὁ ἐμὸς μὲν υἱός, σὸς δὲ γνησιώτατος ἀνεψιός Psellos Letters (Sathas) 35.269-270
  • He claimed that Anonymus 2173 (especially), Anonymus 2172, Michael 61, Isaakios 1 and God himself were all insulted by Anonymus 2133; Psellos had been first to respond to him in a way which would clip his wings (:) Psellos Letters (Sathas) 35.269
  • He wrote complaining that Anonymus 2172 had not reported on Anonymus 2173 Psellos Letters (Sathas) 35.269-270