Thought

Blemmydes’ philosophical work came out mostly from his teaching activity and it must be seen within the frame of Byzantine higher education. Blemmydes taught not only Orthodox theology but a wider range of subjects; in fact all the ‘‘sciences’’ of his time. He situates them in a monastical context where education and knowledge were conceived as a kind of exercise that contributes to soul formation: knowledge should go hand in hand with a moderate ethos (Statue of a King, 169). Hence, humans are ‘‘logical beings’’ and ‘‘educable’’ and they most esteem ‘‘reason’’ and ‘‘education’’ (Autobiography, I.2).

The place of philosophy is dominant within this curriculum. Blemmydes (Epitome logica, 7) adopted the six classical definitions of philosophy that had Platonic and Aristotelian origins and prevailed through the Byzantine period. He also follows the ancient division of philosophy into theoretical and practical, including thus all sciences, that is, theology, physics, geometry, astronomy, arithmetic, music/harmony, ethics, poetics, rhetoric, law, economics, and politics.

His major philosophical work is an Epitome (first draft 1237-1239, composition of the final version c. 1260) in two books, the first on Logic and the second on Physics.

The Epitome logica was first written at the request of the Byzantine Emperor, when Blemmydes was ‘‘young and inexperienced in philosophy.” Logic, taken either as a part or as a mere tool of philosophy, was accepted throughout Byzantium as an introductory and compulsory course. But Blemmydes gives another reason for its justification: ‘‘The science of logic is quite useful for the study of Holy Scripture, as well as for all reasoning related to truth’’ (Proemium). If Logic is the best mean to approach the truth and since God is truth itself, then approach to the truth means approach to God; hence the necessity of a careful study of Logic.

Epitome is a systematic and concise exposition of the essence and the method of Logic, that is, the Aristotelian logic. It contains a summary of Porphyry’s Isagoge with Blemmydes’ comments (chaps. 1-13), a fuller paraphrase of Categories (chaps. 14-25), a summary of On Interpretation (chaps. 26-30), Prior Analytics (chaps. 31-36), and references to Sophistical Refutations (chaps. 37-39) and to syllogisms and sophistic proofs (chap. 40). Blemmydes clarifies all the technical terms and concepts and gives the necessary examples - as he usually does throughout his writings.

In his Epitome physica Blemmydes follows the structure and the content of the Aristotelian physics. He analyzes the basic concepts of physics, such as principium, cause, nature, matter, form, generation and corruption, time and place, and infinite (chaps. 1-10, based on Simplicius’ Commentary on Physics) and void (chap. 31), summarizes the theory of elements (chap. 11, based on Philoponus’ commentary on Aristotle’s De generatione et corruptione), outlines meteorology (chaps. 12-23, based on Alexander’s commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology), the theory on heaven (chap. 24, based on Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo), and astronomy (chaps. 25-30, based on Cleomedes’ Short Astronomy). The latter was included in physics as a bridge to metaphysics and theology. It is characteristic that the work concludes (chap. 32) with an explanation of Psalm 8.

The Epitome is a synthetic introduction to physics, the best available for that period in Byzantium and one that exhibits its writer’s adequate knowledge of the relevant ancient Greek literature. Blemmydes uses extensively all the available sources, not only Aristotle and Plato but also Archimedes, Posidonius, Galen, Alexander, Ptolemy, Cleomedes, Philoponus, Damascius, and Simplicius.

Blemmydes’ main principle to explain all the natural phenomena is the existence of a primordial and continuous efficient cause (God) within the Universe. He finds Aristotelian physics to be consistent with the Christian worldview and he is critical to certain points that he finds incompatible with Christianity. Thus, he argues against the eternity of the world, contrasting Aristotle with Plato; he criticizes Aristotle’s theory of the fifth element (i. e., ether); he probably disagrees with the view that the material medium (e. g., the air) has a propulsive role; he assumes that there is no void since God is everywhere; and he rejects astrology in favor of astronomy. His knowledge and his use of scientific method can be attested when he accurately describes and explains a moon eclipse that occurred in 1258.

In both these treatises Blemmydes shows his erudition and his ability to present the issues comprehensively and to rephrase intelligibly his sources. Due to its educational purpose the Epitome is written plainly and contains many examples, thus making the text suitable for the students and attaining their author’s purpose to ‘‘to be as clear as [he] possibly could’’ (Autobiography, II.75).

As the majority of Byzantine philosophers Blemmydes had not tried to establish not even to compile an anthropological theory. He dealt only with certain issues mostly as a response to questions raised by the circumstances or by his students.

The treatise On the Soul (1263) came out when Blemmydes’ students asked him to give them a simpler explanation of Aristotle’s theory of the soul, and - at the most part - it is a summary of the De anima. He does not depart from the Aristotelian definitions that he explains. The distinctive Christian elements are the rejection of the preexistence of the created soul and the concluding reference to the inexplicable resurrection of bodies.

The short treatise On the Body (1267) was written as an appendix of Blemmydes’ On the Soul for his students. Its main issue concerns corporeal principles and elements, concluding that both terms mean the same.

The two earlier treatises On the Terminus of Man’s Life (1242-1249 or 1250s), both written in dialogue form, accumulate arguments against the predetermination of the time of everyman’s death. Perhaps Blemmydes’ motivation for writing these treatises was to confront the Latin opinion that had circulated in Constantinople at the middle of thirteenth century that God’s preknowledge involves predetermination. For Blemmydes the Dominicans’ thought was an innovation. So he prefers to argue exclusively on a scriptural and patristic basis and not with the help of ‘‘rhetorical techniques or philosophical sophistry.’’ The use of evidence, the hundred of quotations and allusions to the Bible and to the Church Fathers and other authors, make On the Terminus a typical work of a Byzantine scholar on a common Byzantine topic. He is In the same line with Theophylaktos Simokattes, Photios, and Nicholas I Mystikos but contrary to Church Fathers and writers such as Germanos, John of Damascus, Niketas Stethatos, Psellos, Nicholas of Methone (and later such as Theodore Metochites and George Scholarios). Blemmydes’ main concern is to defend the primacy of free choice that he thinks is violated by the belief in the predestined end of life. For him death is the consequence of sin and the responsibility for its cause lies with human beings and not with God, who nevertheless has the power to change (and to terminate) the course of human life. Thus in his Autobiography Blemmydes describes the death of nine of his opponents and he explains their end by terms of their specific actions and God’s wrath against them.

Blemmydes wrote a short treatise On Virtue where he adopts an Aristotelian view and he takes virtue to be a product of knowledge and judgment. The role of education is indispensable because it is through exercise (askesis) that human beings can control irrational desire and replace it by rational will.

A conventional work, written in the ornate style appropriate to its genre, is The Statue of a King (c. 1250), dedicated to Blemmydes’ student and future Emperor, Theodore II Lascaris. It continues the long tradition of ‘‘mirror of princes’’ and it is more an ethical discourse than a political treatise. Blemmydes advises how the Emperor should be, listing all his virtues and subordinating politics to ethics. The ideal king, who will regenerate the Byzantine world, must be a philosopher, having no property and no interests other than the truth and his subjects. Numerous passages from the Bible and many more from classical literature, history, and philosophy are brought to reinforce his argument; but the classical reminiscences cannot offer solutions to real political life and administration.