Joseph A.

Munitiz

A missing chapter from the typikon of Nikephoros Blemmydes

In: Revue des études 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 études byzantines, tome 44,
1986. pp. 199-207.

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1986_num_44_1_2188
 A MISSING CHAPTER FROM THE TYPIKON
OF NIKEPHOROS BLEMMYDES

Joseph A. MUNITIZ

Although this short text was mentioned by August Heisenberg when he

published chapters 9, 11 and 13 of the typikon (Nicephori Blemmydae
Curriculum Vitae et Carmina, Leipzig, 1896, Prolegomena p. xxxii-xxxm),
it has never been published. It seems to have survived in only one
manuscript, the Monacensis graecus 225, f. 369v-370v, as the Madrid
manuscript1 mentioned by Heisenberg contains, according to the 18th cen
tury catalogue drawn up by Iriarte2, not the four chapters of the Munich
manuscript but two short treatises (De fide, and De virtute et ascesi) which
are 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 his
monastery, which was reduced to the status of a metochion or appendage
to the great monastery of Galesion3 shortly after the death of the founder
(probably near the year 12704), and an attempt to assemble all the frag
ments would require considerable research into their respective manuscript
traditions. However the present chapter has a special interest in relation to
the autobiography of Blemmydes, and its publication now may help to
further research both in the history of the typikon and in other aspects of
its idiosyncratic author.

Remarks on the manuscript. — The chapters of the typikon occur in the

1. Matritensis graecus 4688 (olim Ν 59).

2. J. Iriarte, Regiae Bibliothecae Matritensis codices graeci manuscripti, I, Madrid
1769, p. 197-200.
3. Pachymeres : Bonn, I, 342 9"13.
4. There is no certainty about the exact year ; the date is discussed in my edition of
the English translation of the Partial Account (to be published shortly).
Revue des Études byzantines 44, 1986, p. 199-207.
200 J.A. MUNITIZ

final lot of what is a composite manuscript. The first lot, containing mostly
works of Maximus in a distinctive hand, 13th century, need not concern us5.
There follow five lots, the first three (f. 41-28Γ) probably all by one scribe6,
the fourth (f. 282-3 52V) in a more brownish ink and in a different hand, and
the final lot (f. 353-373v), where a different system for numbering the
gatherings (in the lower right-hand corner at the front of each, instead of
at the top) has been used, but on close inspection one can recognize the
same 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 does
at first appearance look like a separate manuscript. However a more likely
explanation is that the fourth lot has been inserted, thus breaking the
sequence 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 writing
suggests a date very near the end of the thirteenth, or in the early years of
the fourteenth, century8. Unfortunately the paper shows no water-marks.
There is nothing in the Munich manuscript to suggest that the two
treatises that come before the fourth chapter of the typikon (f. 353-359v and
f. 359V-369V, De fide and De virtute et ascesi respectively) are to be regarded
as parts of it (only in the Madrid manuscript are the words έκ τοΟ τυπικοϋ
αύτοϋ and έκ τοϋ αύτοϋ τυπικοϋ added to their titles). Instead one third
of the way down the left hand margin of f. 369V a delta appears with, ne^it
to it, a form of decorative asterisk (used by the scribe elsewhere to draw
attention 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 out
from 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 only
indication that a new work is starting. The number, especially when joined
to the numbers θ', ια', ιγ' that appear on f. 370v, 372 and 372V, suggests that
the scribe is selecting and omitting from a fuller document, and it remains
to be seen if the content of the chapters selected provides a clue to the
criterion used.

5. J. Declerck, Maximi Confessons Quaestiones et Dubia, Turnhout and Louvain,

1982, p. lxxxviii.
6. Heisenberg {op. cit., p. xxvxxvi) thought that two scribes were involved here
(f. 41-203v, and f. 204-28 Γ). It is true that different numbering systems are used for each
of the three lots.
7. Op. cit., p. xxvii : saeculo XIV. exeunte. In my edition of the Greek text of the Partial
Account (Nicephori Blemmydae Autobiographia sive Curriculum Vitae necnon Epistula
Universalior, Turnhout and Louvain 1984, p. xix), I raised no objections to Heisenberg's
suggestion, as I had not yet studied in detail the text of the typikon. The hand that has
written the latter (in the final lot) is undoubtedly the same as that responsible for the
Partial Account (in the third lot).
8. For references to reproductions of similar hands (dated to the early years of the
14th century), cf. ibidem, p. xx.
 THETYPIKON OF NIKEPHOROS BLEMMYDES 201

Scribal characteristics. — Many of these will be lost in the printed

transcription, but deserve to be mentioned briefly here. In general, the
scribe shows exactly the same characteristics that had appeared in his copy
of the Partial Account9. Thus he uses a number of the standard abbrevia
tions (tacitly resolved below) — e.g. for -αν, -εν, -ων, -ης, και, -μενον and
also δύο (β'), Χριστός, Κύριος, άνθρωπότης, Πατήρ, ΠνεΟμα, σταυρός. He
occasionally omits iota subscript (about a dozen cases, all tacitly inserted
below). The enclitic δε (something of a hall mark of Blemmydes, and quite
common in the Partial Account10) appears here also (29, 33, 34), as does the
use of double accents over μέν and δε (a convention not adopted here"). The
scribe has a remarkable way of writing the -υν of τοίνυν, 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 comma
is printed, it corresponds to a punctuation sign in the manuscript ; but the
scribe has a much greater variety of signs than appears below, frequently
using the sign ; to indicate the shift from subsidiary to main clause,
2 υπέρτερα ; 4 άνεπίδεικτον (sic) ; 20 οίνος ; 22 άκρατος ; 36 τροφών ; 50 ών
ό χριστός ; or an important pause 34 εστίν ; Occasionally he uses the sign :
(e.g. after ιερεύς : 11, and at the end of the chapter). But he makes no
distinction 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 to
an over-sight when the red letters were added. The diairesis sign ( ") appears
over the iotas that are pronounced as such (not if they form part of
diphthongs), another convention abandoned here.
The accent over the τέ has been respected (9), but the grave accents have
been printed as acute before punctuation signs.

Corrections of errors. — Scribal errors that need correcting are rare, as

one would have expected given the quality of his work with the Partial
Account12. The corrections required have been listed after the Greek text. At
10 the scribe may have confused ύμων for ήμων (but cf. note 4 to the
translation).

Blemmydes' eucharistie discourse to the Armenians. — Undoubtedly the

9. Many of these are mentioned in the Introduction to the edition of the Greek text
of 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 in
the 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 system
used 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 by
Heisenberg's edition : cf. ibidem, p. xxm and xlvi.
202 J.A. MUNITIZ

most curious aspect of this chapter is the use made by Blemmydes in its
composition of an earlier work of his, which is reported in the Partial
Account in the part written in 1265 (the details are mentioned in notes 6 and
10 to the translation). He records there how he was involved in the
discussions with representatives of the 'Cilicians', meaning the Armenian
Church with which the Constantinopolitan Church seems to have entered
into negotiations in 1239/124013. In the winter of 1249/1250 a delegation
discussed differences in liturgical practice between the two Churches
(Partial Account, II 61-66), notably the addition to the Trisagion, the use of
unleavened bread, and also that of unmixed wine — three points defended
by the Armenians against the Greeks. Blemmydes gives in detail his
criticism of the first and third points, but he was clearly particularly proud
of the latter because it was the result of original reflection on his part and
allowed him to display his earlier medical training. Thus he makes no
reference to earlier writers, despite the abundant material available14, and
propounds instead an explanation which takes account of the physiological
process of digestion and assimilation of food.
For his typikon he begins by introducing a paragraph suggested by the
reference to wine mixed with water ; this allows him to continue to weave
into the humdrum recommendation of good quality in the materials used
in the liturgy a prolonged series of theological speculations. The way had
already been prepared for these by the Christological symbolism read into
the components of incense (paragraph 1), and by the 'realistic' eucharist
theology of paragraph 2. With paragraph 3 liturgical history can be brought
into play, even if the need for such an exposition at this point may be
questioned. 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 justifica
tion for Christ's institution of the sacrament of bread and wine, and a
defence of the 'reasonableness' of believing that Christ as God could
transform these two foods into His own flesh and blood. Blemmydes
originally intended his hearers to be impressed by his erudition (historical
and medical) and by the strength of his theological speculation (capable of
making 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 now
be easily consulted by means of the clavis offered to Dr M. Geerard on the completion
of his Clavis Patrutn Graecorum : J. Munitiz, A clavis to the " Florilegia on the Eucharist"
attributed to John of Oxeia, Άντίδωρον, Wetteren, 1984, p. 177-200. Some other
eucharistie florilegia, including the 13th century composition of Theognostos, are also
considered there.
 THE TYPIKON OF NIKEPHOROS BLEMMYDES 203

ensure that his own monks should have clear and correct instruction on a
perennial matter of debate15.
In fact the changes he introduced into his text are minimal : 22 οτιπερ
instead of οτι δ' ô and the omission of και before ή ; 24 δηλονότι instead
of πάντως ; 33 Έπεί δε instead of 'Επειδή ; 37 αυτός ήσθιεν instead of ην
αυτός έσθίειν είωθείς ; 40-41 the addition of και της εξομοιώσεως ; 50-51 an
alteration of word order : μένει έν Χριστφ, και Χριστός έν αύτφ instead of
μένει Χριστός έν αύτφ, και αυτός έν Χριστώ ; 50 δε instead of δ, and the
addition of rather more punctuation than in the version recorded in the
Partial Account. But the essential difference between the two versions is that
in the former (penned in 1265) Blemmydes discloses the original context of
the discourse (in 1250), in the typikon the uninitiated would have the
impression that he is reading a text especially composed for the purposes
of a typikon.
The other surviving chapters (or at least those published by Heisenberg)
are much less discursive ; they deal respectively with candidates, food and
communal prayer16. However even there one cannot but be impressed by
the trenchant character of this founder, insisting on the right of boys of
eleven years of age to decide if they should stay in a monastery against their
parents' wishes, using his knowledge of herbs to safeguard the health of the
community, and telling his monks that if they cannot stand to pray in
public, they should leave the chapel. But it is difficult to imagine Blemmyd
es writing anything that did not bear the stamp of his personality, and the
exact reasons for the choice of these four chapters rather than others must
remain something of a mystery. For the fourth chapter at least it was
probably the presence of the extracts from the eucharistie discourse that
saved it from oblivion.

15. In the 12th century Nicholas of Methona (died before 1 165) wrote a treatise on
the Eucharist (PG 135, 509-551) to counteract Bogomil errors, but they were still active
in 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 of
translations of Byzantine monastic testaments and typika sponsored by Dumbarton Oaks
(the project director is Mr John Philip Thomas).
 204 j.a. munitiz

Text

δ'. Περί τον προσφερομένων Θεω άρτου και οϊνου και θυμιάματος.
1 . '<Ε>πειδή τα προς το άγιον θυσιαστήριον, τω Θεω προσφερόμενα, των
άλλων υπέρτερα, περί αυτών διέξειμι πρότερον. Όσοι τοίνυν άρτοι τω
πάντων τροφεϊ προσκομίζονται, σώμα γινόμενοι δεσποτικόν, το ρύπου
παντός άνεπίδεκτον, εστωσαν κατά τό έγχωροϋν καθαρώτατοΓ και ό
5 οίνος, επίλεκτος, έπείπερ αίμα κυριακόν αποτελείται το τιμιώτατον. Τό
θυμίαμα, σύνθετον εκ ξυλαλόης έστω και τοΟ μέλανος θυμιάματος τοΟ
κοινοΟ, των ευρισκομένων απάντων οντος ύπερφεροϋς, έπεί και ό Κύριος
ον τυποΐ τό θυμίαμα, φύσεως ού μιας, άλλα της υπέρτατης θεότητος, και
τής κοινής άνθρωπότητος, και ταύτης ανόθευτου τέ και είλικρινοΟς,
10 υποστάσεως μέντοι συνθέτου, μιας, ος εαυτόν υπέρ υμών εί(ζ> όσμήν
προσήνεγκεν εύωδίας, ώς ιερεύς, και ώς Θεός προδεδέξατο μετά τοϋ
Πατρός και τοϋ Πνεύματος.
2. Άλλα το μεν θυμίαμα τύπος ον, μένει τύπος, ό δ' άρτος, ίερουργού-
μενος μεν εστί, και αντί τοϋ δεσποτικού σώματος τω θυσιαστήρια) προ-
15 κείμενος, άντίτυπος εκείνου κατά τοϋτον τόν λόγον εϊρηται, και ό οίνος,
f. 370 τοϋ αίματος, μετά δε την ίερωτάτην και φρικωδεστάτην της τελε-
|

σιουργίας έπίκλησιν και την έπ' αύτοϊς σημείωσιν τοϋ σταυροϋ την
τριττήν, ύπερβαίνουσι το άντίτυπον, και εις αυτήν την άποικεστάτην
τελειότητα φθάνουσιν, ό μεν άρτος, εις αυτό τό σώμα τοϋ Κυρίου μετα-
20 ποιούμενος υπέρ αϊσθησιν, ό δε τω υδατι κεκραμένος οίνος, εις αυτό τό
αίμα τοιουτωτρόπως τοϋ αύτοϋ Κυρίου και Θεοϋ.
3. Τοίνυν οτιπερ οίνος ούκ άκρατος, ή των Θείων ίεροτελεστών άκριβο-
λογουμένη δυάς, «οινον» αυτόν ούκ ονόμασαν, άλλα δι' ων εϊποσαν,
αυτό τό συνήθως ήμΐν πινόμενον, δεδηλώκασιν, οινον δηλονότι με$'
25 ύδατος. Έπεί γαρ τό «ποτήριον» δύο τινά παρά μέρος δηλοΐ, και γαρ και
αυτό τό πινόμενον, «ποτήριον» λέγεται, και πάλιν τό σκεϋος εν ω τό
πινόμενον, «ποτήριον·» έκάλεσεν ή συνήθεια, τά δύο της τοιαύτης φωνής,
οι δύο πατέρες έαυτοΐς διεμερίσαντο σημαινόμενα, και ό μεν εις, τω
περιεχομένω προσήρμοσε την φωνήν, άτερός δε τω περιέχοντι. Τόν μεν
30 οϋν άρτον, και άμφω διαρρήδην «άρτον» είρήκεσαν, 3άτερον δέ των
προκειμένων, ειπείν «οινον» ούκ έδοκίμασαν, τήν τοϋ ακράτου προαναι-
ροΟντες ύπόνοιαν.
4. Έπεί δε τφ λογικφ ζώω τροφή στερεά προηγουμένη και καταλληλότ
ερα πασών, ό άρτος εστίν, υγρά δε τω αύτφ χρησιμωτέρα των άλλων, ό
35 οίνος, εις αίμα διαταχέος ύπό τής φύσεως άλλοιούμενος, έκ δέ των
τροφών, γνώριμον on και γένεσις αίματος και σαρκός σύστασις, ό Κύριος
ένών ημάς έαυτφ, δέδωκεν ήμΐν τόν άρτον φαγεΐν ον αυτός ήσθιεν, ιδίαν
σάρκα τόν άρτον άπεργασάμενος' ώσπερ ει ό άρτος ούτος, αύτφ τω
Κυρίω βρωθείς, πεφ$είς, χυλοποιηθείς, άναδοθείς, αίματοποιηθείς, προσ-
40 τεθείς, άπετελέσθη σαρξ αύτοϋ τοϋ Κυρίου δια τής προσφύσεως και τής
εξομοιώσεως.
5. 'Αλλά ταϋτα μέν, ενεργήματα φύσεως, ό δέ ταύτης δημιουργός, ό
δούς αυτή και τό ένεργεΐν, τους πολλούς δρόμους ύποτεμών, άχρόνως και
 THE TYPIKON OF NIKEPHOROS BLEMMYDES 205

f. 370v ύπερφνώς, και προ τοΰ φαγεΐν τον άρτον, είς την έαυτοΟ σάρκα τοΰτον
άλλ' εις αυτήν την ολότητα' και κατα-

\
45 μετέβαλεν, ουκ εις μέρος σαρκός,
μεριζομένου δέ τοϋ άρτου, πάλιν εν εκαστον ευδόκησε μέρος, ολην είναι
την σάρκα την έαντοΟ, και πάντα τά μέρη, μίαν σάρκα και την αυτήν. Διό
και ημείς δια των μυστηρίων, όλον είσδεχόμεΘα τον Χριστόν, όλον
έκαστος είσοικίζεται, και ολω συνανακίρναται, και μένει εν Χριστώ, και
50 Χριστός εν αύτω' έν έκάστφ δέ όλοκλήρως ών ό Χριστός, εις και ό αυτός
άμερίστως έν πάσιν εστί.
6. Παρέσχεν ήμΐν και τον οΐνον πιεϊν, ον αυτός έπινε, και ώς επινεν,
ΰδατι πάντως κεκραμένον, ούκ άκρατον, και προ τοϋ πιεϊν αυτόν, είς το
οίκεΐον αίμα μεταβαλών, Θαυμαστώς, άρρήτως, $εοπρεπώς' ό γαρ "τά
55 πάντα φέρων τω τής αύτοϋ δυνάμεως ρήματι", κατ' έξουσίαν οτε βούλεται
πάντα ποιεί, τά μεν έκ τοϋ μη είναι παράγων, τά δέ μετασκευάζων υπέρ
κατάληψιν.
Codex Monac. gr. 225 (Μ), f. 369V
3 φύπου : ρϋπον Μ 4 άνεπίδεκτον : -δεικτον Μ 10 είς : ει Μ 39 πεφθείς :
πεμφθείς Μ I χυλοποιηθείς : χιλ- Μ 53 ϋδατι : ϋδασι Μ

Translation

Chapter 4. The bread, wine and incense offered to God.

1. As the things for the holy altar, those offered to God, <are> superior to
others, I shall treat of those first. Indeed as for the breads that are provided for the
Feeder of all, and are to become the body of the Master, which admits no filth of
any sort, let them be as clean as possible ; and let the wine be choice, as it is to be
rendered into the most honoured blood of the Lord. The incense should be
composed 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 άγάλοχον (aquilaria malaccensis),

but Liddell and Scott (in the revised Stuart Jones edition, and with the Supplement of
1968 — to be consulted in this case) note that ξυλαλόη, the word used by Blemmydes
here, occurs in the writings of the sixth century A.D. medical writer, Aëtius, as a
synonym for it.
2. The meaning is that of 'symbol'.
206 J.A. MUNITIZ

the latter being without blemish and mixture, indeed of one composite3 person, He
who offered Himself on your behalf in the odour offragrance as priest, and as God
received Himself along with the Father and the Spirit.
2. However the incense, being a type, remains a type, whereas the bread, while
on the one hand it is to be consecrated and is laid upon the altar in place of the body
of the Master, and in this sense it may be called a counter-type5 of that body, and
the wine of the blood, yet on the other hand after the most sacred and awe-inspiring
invocation of the rite, and after the three-fold signing upon them of the cross, they
surpass the <role of> counter-type and attain that strangest of perfections, the
bread being made into the very body of the Lord beyond sense perception, and the
wine mixed with water being made in a similar manner into the blood of the same
Lord and God.
3. Indeed, because6 the wine was not neat, the pair of divine liturgists7 were at
pains to speak accurately ; they did not call it 'wine', but by the expressions they
used 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, in
which is contained the drink, is customarily called the 'cup' — the two fathers
divided between them these two meanings of the word ; one applied the word to
the content8, the other to the container9. Both have spoken explicitly of the bread
as 'bread', but they did not want to call the second of the offerings 'wine' in order
to forestall the impression that it was unmixed.

3. The expression σύνθετος ύπόστασις is attributed originally to John of Caesarea (cf.

Contra Monophysitas, 7, éd. M. Richard, Turnhout and Louvain 1977, p. 63), but was
adopted by the monophysites and studiously avoided by the strict Chalcedonian,
Leontius of Byzantium (B. Daley, The Origenism of Leontius of Byzantium, Journal of
Theological Studies, 27, 1976, p. 361) ; however Justinian gave it imperial imprimatur in
his Confessio Rectae Fidei, and a modified form (ενωσις κατά σύνΟεσιν, όπερ εστί καθ'
ύπόστασιν)
Blemmydes'was choice
accepted
of the
by term
the Fifth
hereEcumenical
will have Council
to be taken
in 553into
(ACOaccount
iv, i, p.when
242 l214).
an
assessment is made of his Christology, but at present at least one basic text, his
controversial sermon on St John (BHG 931), is unpublished.
4. Ephesians 5, 2, quoting from Exodus 29, 18 ; although the weight of manuscript
tradition for this New Testament passage favours 'on our behalf, the reading 'on your
behalf is found in many witnesses and may have been intended by Blemmydes here.
'type'
5. The
or 'symbol'
term άντίτυπος
and alsois 'the
ambiguous,
typified'being
or 'symbolized
used by different
thing itself.
authorsHere
to signify
Blemmydes
both
appears 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 Armenian
delegation, that visited Nymphaion in the winter of 1249/1250 for discussions with the
exiled Church of Constantinople (Partial Account, II 66, 7-19 ; ed. Heisenberg, Curricu
lum Vitaep. 8315"28). His first extract is from a paragraph that originally stood at the end
of his discourse.
7. Sts John Chrysostom and Basil of Caesarea, to whom are attributed the two
liturgies most widely used in the Greek Church.
8. Thus in the Liturgy of St Basil, at the moment of the epiclesis, the priest says, 'This
chalice, this is the precious blood...' (To δε ποτήριον τοΰτο, αυτό τό τίμιον αίμα...) ; cf.
Ίερατικόν (ed. Apostoliki Diakonia), Athens 1977, p. 180.
9. In the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, the phrase over the chalice for the epiclesis
is, 'That which is in this chalice... (To δε έν τω ποτηρίω τούτω...) ; cf. ibidem, p. 126.
 THETYPIKON OF NIKEPHOROS BLEMMYDES 207

4. Since10 for a rational animal the most important and most appropriate of all
solid foods is bread, and of the liquid foods the most beneficial for such a creature
is 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 develop
ment of the flesh are produced by the foodstuffs, when the Lord wanted to unite
us to Himself, He gave us bread to eat which He Himself ate, having altered it into
his own flesh ; <it was> as if this bread, eaten by the Lord, digested by him, made
into 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 and
resemblance".
5. But all these are nature's processes, and the creator of nature, He who gave
her the power to function, cut short these multiple paths and transformed the bread,
without a passage of time, in supernatural fashion, even before eating it, into His
own flesh, not into a part of His flesh, but into its very entirety. Even after the
partition of the bread, it was His good pleasure that each single part should be the
whole of His flesh, and that all the parts should be one and the same flesh. That
is why we receive the whole Christ in the mysteries, each can take the whole into
himself, 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 and
in 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 is
wonderful,
Hispower*3 can
inexpressible
perform all
andthings
divine.
by The
simple
Oneauthority
who sustains
when all
Hethings
so wishes,
by thebringing
word of
some things out of non-being, and transforming other things in a way beyond our
grasp.

Joseph A. Munitiz
Heythrop College
11-13 Cavendish Square
GB - London WIM OAN

10. Only here does Blemmydes pick up the opening phrases of the speech recorded
in 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).