Joseph A. Munitiz. A missing chapter from the typikon of Nikephoros Blemmydes. Revue des études...

8/3/2019 Joseph A. Munitiz. A missing chapter from the typikon of Nikephoros Blemmydes. Revue des tudes byzantines, to

1/10

Joseph A. Munitiz

A missing chapter from the typikon of Nikephoros BlemmydesIn: Revue des tudes byzantines, tome 44, 1986. pp. 199-207.

Abstract

REB 44 1986 France p. 199-207

J. A. Munitiz, A missing chapter from the typikon of Nikephoros Blemmydes. The edition with English translation and notes of

the text of a chapter mentioned by A. Heisenberg but not published by him along with the other three chapters that have survived

from the foundation document of Blemmydes ; the sole manuscript (Monac. gr. 225) is described and the relation analysed

between this chapter and a section of Blemmydes' Autobiography (written in 1265), in which he reproduces a eucharistie

discourse delivered before the Armenian delegates who visited Nymphaion in 1249/1250.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Munitiz Joseph A. A missing chapter from the typikon of Nikephoros Blemmydes. In: Revue des tudes byzantines, tome 44,

1986. pp. 199-207.

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1986_num_44_1_2188
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rebyz_232http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1986_num_44_1_2188http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1986_num_44_1_2188http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rebyz_232


2/10

A MISSING CHAPTER FROM THE TYPIKONOF NIKEPHOROS BLEMMYDES

Joseph A. MUNITIZ

Although this short text was mentioned by August Heisenberg when hepublished chapters 9, 11 and 13 of the typikon (Nicephori BlemmydaeCurriculum Vitae et Carmina, Leipzig, 1896, Prolegomena p. xxxii-xxxm),it has never been published. It seems to have survived in only onemanuscript, the Monacensis graecus 225, f. 369v-370v, as the Madridmanuscript1 mentioned by Heisenberg contains, according to the 18th century catalogue drawn up by Iriarte2, not the four chapters of the Munichmanuscript but two short treatises (De fide, and De virtute et ascesi) whichare also said to have formed part of the typikon. The full text of Blemmydes'foundation document appears to have been lost along with the site of hismonastery, which was reduced to the status of a metochion or appendageto the great monastery of Galesion3 shortly after the death of the founder(probably near the year 12704), and an attempt to assemble all the fragments would require considerable research into their respective manuscripttraditions. However the present chapter has a special interest in relation tothe autobiography of Blemmydes, and its publication now may help tofurther research both in the history of the typikon and in other aspects ofits idiosyncratic author.

Remarks on the manuscript. The chapters of the typikon occur in the1. Matritensis graecus 4688 (olim 59).2. J. Iriarte, Regiae Bibliothecae Matritensis codices graeci manuscripti, I, Madrid1769, p. 197-200.3. Pachymeres : Bonn, I, 34 2 9"13.4. There is no certainty about the exact year ; the date is discussed in my edition ofthe English translation of the Partial Account (to be published shortly).

Revue des tudes byzantines 44, 1986, p. 199-207.


3/10

200 J.A. MUNITIZfinal lot of what is a composite manuscript. The first lot, containing mostlyworks of Maximus in a distinctive hand, 13th century, need not concern us5.There follow five lots, the first three (f. 41-28) probably all by one scribe6,the fourth (f. 282-3 52V) in a more brownish ink and in a different hand, andthe final lot (f. 353-373v), where a different system for numbering thegatherings (in the lower right-hand corner at the front of each, instead ofat the top) has been used, but on close inspection one can recognize thesame hand as for the first three. All five lots contain works of Blemmydes.Heisenberg had suggested that the final lot was of later date7, and it doesat first appearance look like a separate manuscript. However a more likelyexplanation is that the fourth lot has been inserted, thus breaking thesequence of sections all written by the same scribe, but at different stages :thus all five lots have been written by only two scribes, and the writingsuggests a date very near the end of the thirteenth, or in the early years ofthe fourteenth, century8. Unfortunately the paper shows no water-marks.There is nothing in the Munich manuscript to suggest that the twotreatises that come before the fourth chapter of the typikon (f. 353-359v andf. 359V-369V, De fide and De virtute et ascesi respectively) are to be regardedas parts of it (only in the Madrid manuscript are the words and added to their titles). Instead one thirdof the way down the left hand margin of f. 369V a delta appears with, ne^itto it, a form of decorative asterisk (used by the scribe elsewhere to drawattention to a title, f. 359V, or the start of a new paragraph, f. 354V, 357, 365V,370v, 372, 372V) : the form of the star is different, in that six lines move outfrom an inner group of four dots, the lines not being linked to form 'points'of a star as happens in the other examples mentioned. This is the onlyindication that a new work is starting. The number, especially when joinedto the numbers ', ', ' that appear on f. 370v, 372 and 372V, suggests thatthe scribe is selecting and omitting from a fuller document, and it remainsto be seen if the content of the chapters selected provides a clue to thecriterion used.

5. J. Declerck, Maximi Confessons Quaestiones et Dubia, Turnhout and Louvain,1982, p. lxxxviii.6. Heisenberg {op. cit., p. xxvxxvi) thought that tw o scribes were involved here(f. 41-203v, and f. 204-28 ). It is true that different numbering systems are used for eachof the three lots.7. Op. cit., p. xxvii : saeculo XIV. exeunte. In my edition of the Greek text of the PartialAccount (Nicephori Blemmydae Autobiographia sive Curriculum Vitae necnon EpistulaUniversalior, Turnhout and Louvain 1984, p. xix), I raised no objections to Heisenberg'ssuggestion, as I had not yet studied in detail the text of the typikon. The hand that haswritten the latter (in the final lot) is undoubtedly the same as that responsible for thePartial Account (in the third lot).8. For references to reproductions of similar hands (dated to the early years of the14th century), cf. ibidem, p. xx.


4/10

THETYPIKON OF NIKEPHOROS BLEMMYDES 201Scribal characteristics. Many of these will be lost in the printedtranscription, but deserve to be mentioned briefly here. In general, thescribe shows exactly the same characteristics that had appeared in his copyof the Partial Account9. Thus he uses a number of the standard abbreviationstacitly resolved below) e.g. for -, -, -, -, , - andalso ('), , , , , , . Heoccasionally omits iota subscript (about a dozen cases, all tacitly insertedbelow). The enclitic (something of a hall mark of Blemmydes, and quitecommon in the Partial Account10) appears here also (29, 33, 34), as does theuse of double accents over and (a convention not adopted here"). Thescribe has a remarkable way of writing the - of , so that it looks like-au (this pattern recurs in his copy of the Partial Account, e.g. f. 227 line 3,230 line 8 ab imo, 240v line 7) .Care has been taken to respect his punctuation, and wherever a commais printed, it corresponds to a punctuation sign in the manuscript ; but thescribe has a much greater variety of signs than appears below, frequentlyusing the sign ; to indicate the shift from subsidiary to main clause,2 ; 4 (sic) ; 20 ; 22 ; 36 ; 50 ; or an important pause 34 ; Occasionally he uses the sign :(e.g. after : 11, and at the end of the chapter). But he makes nodistinction between a full stop and a colon, and of course uses no capitals,although the absence of a capital epsilon at the beginning is simply due toan over-sight when the red letters were added. The d iairesis sign ( ") appears

over the iotas that are pronounced as such (not if they form part ofdiphthongs), another convention abandoned here.The accent over the has been respected (9), but the grave accents havebeen printed as acute before punctuation signs.Corrections of errors. Scribal errors that need correcting are rare, asone would have expected given the quality of his work with the PartialAccount12. The corrections required have been listed after the Greek text. At10 the scribe may have confused for (but cf . note 4 to thetranslation).Blemmydes' eucharistie discourse to the Armenians. Undoubtedly the9. Many of these are mentioned in the Introduction to the edition of the Greek textof the Partial Account (ibidem, p. xvni-xxiv).10. Ibidem, p. l.1 1 . The only example in this chapter occurs at 56, but there are several examples inthe text of the Partial Account, as there are in other manuscripts of this period (cf. ibidem,p. xvi note 16). Dr Constant De Vocht kindly pointed out to me that an alternative systemused by some scribes is to replace the double accent by a comma after the word.12. The excellent quality of the scribe's work there was somewhat obscured byHeisenberg's edition : cf. ibidem, p. xxm and xlvi.


5/10

202 J.A. MUNITIZmost curious aspect of this chapter is the use made by Blemmydes in itscomposition of an earlier work of his, which is reported in the PartialAccount in the part written in 1265 (the details are mentioned in notes 6 and10 to the translation). He records there how he was involved in thediscussions with representatives of the 'Cilicians', meaning the ArmenianChurch with which the Constantinopolitan Church seems to have enteredinto negotiations in 1239/124013. In the winter of 1249/1250 a delegationdiscussed differences in liturgical practice between the two Churches(PartialAccount, II 61-66), notably the addition to the Trisagion, the use ofunleavened bread, and also that of unmixed wine three points defendedby the Armenians against the Greeks. Blemmydes gives in detail hiscriticism of the first and third points, but he was clearly particularly proudof the latter because it was the result of original reflection on his part andallowed him to display his earlier medical training. Thus he makes noreference to earlier writers, despite the abundant material available14, andpropounds instead an explanation which takes account of the physiologicalprocess of digestion and assimilation of food.For his typikon he begins by introducing a paragraph suggested by thereference to wine mixed with water ; this allows him to continue to weaveinto the humdrum recommendation of good quality in the materials usedin the liturgy a prolonged series of theological speculations. The way hadalready been prepared for these by the Christological symbolism read intothe components of incense (paragraph 1), and by the 'realistic' eucharisttheology of paragraph 2. With paragraph 3 liturgical history can be broughtinto play, even if the need for such an exposition at this point may bequestioned. However once launched into the re-use of his earlier discourse,he decides to use it all, and thus his three final paragraphs are a justificationor Christ's institution of the sacrament of bread and wine, and adefence of the 'reasonableness' of believing that Christ as God couldtransform these two foods into His own flesh and blood. Blemmydesoriginally intended his hearers to be impressed by his erudition (historicaland medical) and by the strength of his theological speculation (capable ofmaking clear the intricacies of God's working). But here he wanted to

13. V. Laurent, Regestes, n 1290.14. A useful sample made by John of Oxeia for his eucharistie florilegium can nowbe easily consulted by means of the clavis offered to Dr M. Geerard on the completionof his Clavis Patrutn Graecorum : J . Munitiz, A clavis to the " Florilegia on the Eucharist"attributed to John of Oxeia, , Wetteren, 1984, p. 177-200. Some othereucharistie florilegia, including the 13th century composition of Theognostos, are alsoconsidered there.


6/10

THE TYPIKON OF NIKEPHOROS BLEMMYDES 203ensure that his own monks should have clear and correct instruction on aperennial matter of debate15.In fact the changes he introduced into his text are minimal : 22 instead of ' and the omission of before ; 24 insteadof ; 33 instead of ' ; 37 instead of ; 40-41 the addition of ; 50-51 analteration of word order : , instead of , ; 50 instead of , and theaddition of rather more punctuation than in the version recorded in thePartialAccount. But the essential difference between the two versions is thatin the former (penned in 1265) Blemmydes discloses the original context ofthe discourse (in 1250), in the typikon the uninitiated would have theimpression that he is reading a text especially composed for the purposesof a typikon.The other surviving chapters (or at least those published by Heisenberg)are much less discursive ; they deal respectively with candidates, food andcommunal prayer16. However even there one cannot but be impressed bythe trenchant character of this founder, insisting on the right of boys ofeleven years of age to decide if they should stay in a monastery against theirparents' wishes, using his knowledge of herbs to safeguard the health of thecommunity, and telling his monks that if they cannot stand to pray inpublic, they should leave the chapel. But it is difficult to imagine Blemmydesriting anything that did not bear the stamp of his personality, and theexact reasons for the choice of these four chapters rather than others mustremain something of a mystery. For the fourth chapter at least it wasprobably the presence of the extracts from the eucharistie discourse thatsaved it from oblivion.

15 . In the 12th century Nicholas of Methona (died before 1 165) wrote a treatise onthe Eucharist (PG 135, 509-551) to counteract Bogomil errors, but they were still activein the 13th century as Germanos II had to take measures against them (V. Laurent,Regestes, n 1291).16 . An English translation of these chapters is to be included in a volume oftranslations of Byzantine monastic testaments and typika sponsored by Dumbarton Oaks(the project director is Mr John Philip Thomas).


7/10

204 j.a. munitizText

'. .1 . ' , , , . , , , 5 , , . , , , , , , , ,10 , , (> , ,

.2. , , ' , - , ) -15 , , ,f. 370 , | - ' , , , , -20 , , .3. , - , , ' , , , $'25 . , , , , , , , , , . 30 , , 3 , , - .4. , , , 35 , , , on , , , ' , , $, , , , -40 , .5. ' , , , , ,


8/10

THE TYPIKON OF NIKEPHOROS BLEMMYDES 205f. 370v , \ , 45 , , ' ' - , ,

, , . , , , , , 50 ' , .6. , , , , , , , , , $' "55 ", ' , , .Codex Monac. gr . 225 (), f. 369V3 : 4 : - 10 : 39 : II : - 53 :

TranslationChapter 4. The bread, wine and incense offered to God.1. As the things for the holy altar, those offered to God, superior toothers, I shall treat of those first. Indeed as fo r the breads that are provided fo r theFeeder of all, and are to become the body of the Master, which admits no filth ofany sort, let them be as clean as possible ; and let the wine be choice, as it is to berendered into the most honoured blood of the Lord. The incense should becomposed out of eagle-wood1 and ordinary black incense, the latter being pre

eminent among all to be found, because the Lord, of whom the incense is a type2,< consists > not of one nature but of the highest divinity and of common humanity,

1 . The Greek equivalent for 'eagle-wood' is usually (aquilaria malaccensis),but Liddell and Scott (in the revised Stuart Jones edition, and with the Supplement of1968 to be consulted in this case) note that , the word used by Blemmydeshere, occurs in the writings of the sixth century A.D. medical writer, Atius, as asynonym for it.2. The meaning is that of 'symbol'.


9/10

206 J.A. MUNITIZthe latter being without blemish and mixture, indeed of one composite3 person, Hewho offered Himself on your behalf in the odour offragrance as priest, and as Godreceived Himself along with the Father and the Spirit.

2. However the incense, being a type, remains a type, whereas the bread, whileon the one hand it is to be consecrated and is laid upon the altar in place of the bodyof the Master, and in this sense it may be called a counter-type5 of that body, andthe wine of the blood, yet on the other hand after the most sacred and awe-inspiringinvocation of the rite, and after the three-fold signing upon them of the cross, theysurpass the counter-type and attain that strangest of perfections, thebread being made into the very body of the Lord beyond sense perception, and thewine mixed with water being made in a similar manner into the blood of the sameLord and God.3. Indeed, because6 the wine was not neat, the pair of divine liturgists7 were atpains to speak accurately ; they did not call it 'wine', but by the expressions theyused made it clear that it was the very drink to which we are accustomed,undoubtedly wine mixed with water. As the word 'cup' denotes in turn two things the content which is drunk is termed the 'cup', and also the instrument itself, inwhich is contained the drink, is customarily called the 'cup' the two fathersdivided between them these two meanings of the word ; one applied the word tothe content8, the other to the container9. Both have spoken explicitly of the breadas 'bread', but they did not want to call the second of the offerings 'wine' in orderto forestall the impression that it was unmixed.

3. The expression is attributed originally to John of Caesarea (cf.Contra Monophysitas, 7, d. M. Richard, Turnhout and Louvain 1977, p. 63), but wasadopted by the monophysites and studiously avoided by the strict Chalcedonian,Leontius of Byzantium (B. Daley, The Origenism of Leontius of Byzantium, Journal ofTheological Studies, 27 , 1976, p. 361) ; however Justinian gave it imperial imprimatur inhis Confessio Rectae Fidei, and a modified form ( , ') was accepted by the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 55 3 (ACO v, i, p. 24 2 l214).lemmydes' choice of the term here will have to be taken into account when anassessment is made of his Christology, but at present at least one basic text, hiscontroversial sermon on St John (BHG 931), is unpublished.4. Ephesians 5, 2, quoting from Exodus 29 , 18 ; although the weight of manuscripttradition for this New Testament passage favours 'on our behalf, the reading 'on yourbehalf is found in many witnesses and may have been intended by Blemmydes here.

5. The term is ambiguous, being used by different authors to signify bothtype' or 'symbol' and also 'the typified' or 'symbolized thing itself. Here Blemmydesappears to be using it as a synonym for 'type'.6. At this point Blemmydes begins to draw on the text of his address to the Armeniandelegation, that visited Nymphaion in the winter of 1249/1250 for discussions with theexiled Church of Constantinople (Partial Account, II 66 , 7-19 ; ed. Heisenberg, Curricu

lumitaep. 8315"28). His first extract is from a paragraph that originally stood at the endof his discourse.7. Sts John Chrysostom and Basil of Caesarea, to whom are attributed the tw oliturgies most widely used in the Greek Church.8. Thus in the Liturgy of St Basil, at the moment of the epiclesis, the priest says, 'Thischalice, this is the precious blood...' (To , ...) ; cf. (ed. Apostoliki Diakonia), Athens 1977, p. 180.9. In the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, the phrase over the chalice for the epiclesisis, 'That which is in this chalice... (To ...) ; cf. ibidem, p. 126.


10/10

THETYPIKON OF NIKEPHOROS BLEMMYDES 2074. Since10 for a rational animal the most important and most appropriate of allsolid foods is bread, and of the liquid foods the most beneficial for such a creatureis wine, as it is transformed most quickly by the natural processes into blood, and

since moreover it is well known that the generation of the blood and the developmentf the flesh are produced by the foodstuffs, when the Lord wanted to uniteus to Himself, He gave us bread to eat which He Himself ate, having altered it intohis own flesh ; as if this bread, eaten by the Lord, digested by him, madeinto the body's juices, distributed once more, made into His blood, added to Him,had been rendered into the flesh of the Lord Himself by adventitious growth andresemblance".5. But all these are nature's processes, and the creator of nature, He who gaveher the power to function, cu t short these multiple paths and transformed the bread,without a passage of time, in supernatural fashion, even before eating it, into Hisown flesh, not into a part of His flesh, but into its very entirety. Even after thepartition of the bread, it was His good pleasure that each single part should be thewhole of His flesh, and that all the parts should be one and the same flesh. Thatis why we receive the whole Christ in the mysteries, each can take the whole intohimself, and can mingle with the whole, and dwell in Christ, and Christ in him'2 ;even though Christ is wholly in each, He is one and the same without division in all.6. He also provided us with the wine to drink, which He Himself had drunk andin the manner in which He had drunk, obviously mixed with water and not neat ;here also, before drinking it, He changed it into His own blood in a way that iswonderful, inexpressible and divine. The One who sustains all things by the word ofispower*3 can perform all things by simple authority when He so wishes, bringingsome things out of non-being, and transforming other things in a way beyond ourgrasp.Joseph A. MunitizHeythrop College11-13 Cavendish SquareGB - London WIM OAN

10. Only here does Blemmydes pick up the opening phrases of the speech recordedin his autobiography (Partial Account, II 64 , 4 - 66 , 7 ; ed. Heisenberg, p. 82l4-8315).11 . The words 'and resemblance' are missing in the Partial Account.12. A reminiscence of John 6, 56 , slightly altered from the Partial Account.13. Hebrews 1, 3 (slightly altered).

Joseph A. Munitiz. A missing chapter from the typikon of Nikephoros Blemmydes. Revue des études...

Documents

Transcript of Joseph A. Munitiz. A missing chapter from the typikon of Nikephoros Blemmydes. Revue des études...