Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?, 1990
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1990
Published in Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence
Pages 113-123
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
[B]oth the content of Themistius’ works, and such evidence as we have of the commentators’ attitudes to him, show that he was predominantly a Peripatetic. In this he stood out against the tendencies of his time. His frequently expressed admiration for Plato does not invalidate this conclusion. Themistius may rightly claim to have been the last major figure in antiquity who was a genuine follower of Aristotle. For him, unlike his contemporaries, Plato does not surpass the master of those who know but he, and Socrates, ‘innanzi agli altri piu presso gli stanno’. [Conclusion, p. 123]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"875","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":875,"authors_free":[{"id":1285,"entry_id":875,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1286,"entry_id":875,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?","main_title":{"title":"Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?"},"abstract":"[B]oth the content of Themistius\u2019 works, and such evidence as we \r\nhave of the commentators\u2019 attitudes to him, show that he was \r\npredominantly a Peripatetic. In this he stood out against the tendencies \r\nof his time. His frequently expressed admiration for Plato does not \r\ninvalidate this conclusion. Themistius may rightly claim to have been the \r\nlast major figure in antiquity who was a genuine follower of Aristotle. For \r\nhim, unlike his contemporaries, Plato does not surpass the master of \r\nthose who know but he, and Socrates, \u2018innanzi agli altri piu presso gli \r\nstanno\u2019. [Conclusion, p. 123]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUf0DABj9Bcfzr5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":875,"section_of":1453,"pages":"113-123","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1453,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book brings together twenty articles giving a comprehensive view of the work of the Aristotelian commentators. First published in 1990, the collection is now brought up to date with a new introduction by Richard Sorabji. New generations of scholars will benefit from this reissuing of classic essays, including seminal works by major scholars, and the volume gives a comprehensive background to the work of the project on the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, which has published over 100 volumes of translations since 1987 and has disseminated these crucial texts to scholars worldwide.\r\n\r\nThe importance of the commentators is partly that they represent the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools and partly that they provide a panorama of a thousand years of ancient Greek philosophy, revealing many original quotations from lost works. Even more significant is the profound influence - uncovered in some of the chapters of this book - that they exert on later philosophy, Islamic and Western. Not only did they preserve anti-Aristotelian material which helped inspire Medieval and Renaissance science, but they present Aristotle in a form that made him acceptable to the Christian church. It is not Aristotle, but Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators that so often lies behind the views of later thinkers. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M8lXuAdHpDW8tvu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1453,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1990]}

Simplicius and others on Aristotle’s discussions of reason, 1988
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Duffy, John (Ed.), Peradotto, John J. (Ed.)
Title Simplicius and others on Aristotle’s discussions of reason
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1988
Published in Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75
Pages 103-119
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Duffy, John , Peradotto, John J.
Translator(s)
What I want to do in this paper is to look at how Aristotle’s successors treated some points in his discussions of reason, and in particular the discussion in the De anima. bout their handling of relevant parts of the Nichomachaean Ethics we know very little, for unlike the De anima that treatise was not a major subject of study in the philosophical lectures and seminars of late antiquity. Though a commentary on some of it had been written by Aspasius, and notes by other, probably pre-Neoplatonic, hands survive,8 exposition of the Nicomachean Ethics seems to have been one of the gaps that the group of Aristotelians around Anna Comnena in twelfth-century Constantinople felt that they needed to fill. [pp. 104 f.]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"784","_score":null,"_source":{"id":784,"authors_free":[{"id":1154,"entry_id":784,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2428,"entry_id":784,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":109,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Duffy, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Duffy","norm_person":{"id":109,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Duffy","full_name":"Duffy, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032769092","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2429,"entry_id":784,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":110,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Peradotto, John J.","free_first_name":"John J.","free_last_name":"Peradotto","norm_person":{"id":110,"first_name":"John J.","last_name":"Peradotto","full_name":"Peradotto, John J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172304636","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and others on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and others on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason"},"abstract":"What I want to do in this paper is to look at how Aristotle\u2019s \r\nsuccessors treated some points in his discussions of reason, and in \r\nparticular the discussion in the De anima. bout their handling of \r\nrelevant parts of the Nichomachaean Ethics we know very little, for \r\nunlike the De anima that treatise was not a major subject of study in \r\nthe philosophical lectures and seminars of late antiquity. Though a \r\ncommentary on some of it had been written by Aspasius, and notes by \r\nother, probably pre-Neoplatonic, hands survive,8 exposition of the \r\nNicomachean Ethics seems to have been one of the gaps that the group \r\nof Aristotelians around Anna Comnena in twelfth-century Constantinople felt that they needed to fill. [pp. 104 f.]","btype":2,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MADsskDf9a78Egx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":109,"full_name":"Duffy, John","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":110,"full_name":"Peradotto, John J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":784,"section_of":35,"pages":"103-119","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":35,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Duffy1988","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1988","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1988","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rraDrmkMtyk718J","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":35,"pubplace":"Buffalo \u2013 New York","publisher":"Arethusa","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1988]}

Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle’s De Anima, 1987
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle’s De Anima
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben
Pages 90-106
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
These are a few examples of how the Neoplatonist commenta­ tors confronted Alexander on matters where differences could hardly fail to arise. What happens is clear enough. But it would be wrong to think that these principles of interpretation are not applied at other points in the work. Let us take an apparently innocuous issue like the section where Aristotle discusses locomotion under the stimulus of the appetitive faculty (433 b 8sqq.). Alexander, giving a clearly Aristotelian explanation, said that the faculty was moved accidentally. Plutarch differed, and said that the activity of the appetitive faculty is movement: this Simplicius describes as a Pla­ tonic explanation, and prefers it (302,23-30).44 On the other hand, a few pages below Simplicius prefers Alexander to Plutarch on the question whether moving but ungenerated entities have sense-per­ ception (320,33-34): we have already looked at his and Stephanus’ account of this passage.45 As we indicated, Stephanus there quotes Alexander only to disagree with him, and here we have at least one piece of evidence to show that Neoplatonist commentators could take a different view of the same passage. If we had more examples of texts where Alexander’s views of the De anima were discussed by more than one of his successors, we should be able to form a clearer picture of how far the different commentators were prepared to accept them, and thus incidentally of the precise differences between these commentators themselves on the points at issue. [pp. 90 f.]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"805","_score":null,"_source":{"id":805,"authors_free":[{"id":1191,"entry_id":805,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima","main_title":{"title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima"},"abstract":"These are a few examples of how the Neoplatonist commenta\u00ad\r\ntors confronted Alexander on matters where differences could \r\nhardly fail to arise. What happens is clear enough. But it would be \r\nwrong to think that these principles of interpretation are not applied \r\nat other points in the work. Let us take an apparently innocuous \r\nissue like the section where Aristotle discusses locomotion under the \r\nstimulus of the appetitive faculty (433 b 8sqq.). Alexander, giving a \r\nclearly Aristotelian explanation, said that the faculty was moved \r\naccidentally. Plutarch differed, and said that the activity of the \r\nappetitive faculty is movement: this Simplicius describes as a Pla\u00ad\r\ntonic explanation, and prefers it (302,23-30).44 On the other hand, a \r\nfew pages below Simplicius prefers Alexander to Plutarch on the \r\nquestion whether moving but ungenerated entities have sense-per\u00ad\r\nception (320,33-34): we have already looked at his and Stephanus\u2019 account of this passage.45 As we indicated, Stephanus there quotes \r\nAlexander only to disagree with him, and here we have at least one \r\npiece of evidence to show that Neoplatonist commentators could \r\ntake a different view of the same passage. If we had more examples \r\nof texts where Alexander\u2019s views of the De anima were discussed by \r\nmore than one of his successors, we should be able to form a clearer \r\npicture of how far the different commentators were prepared to \r\naccept them, and thus incidentally of the precise differences between \r\nthese commentators themselves on the points at issue. [pp. 90 f.]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NaSG1csaeaFnFQD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":805,"section_of":189,"pages":"90-106","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1987a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9u1939JCTsnoDBo","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?, 1986
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1986
Journal Hermes
Volume 114
Pages 314–335
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
What, in the end, can we say about Philoponus’ position as a Platonist, bearing in mind that our conclusions must still in some respects be provision­al? That he was a Neoplatonist is indisputable. Since, however, few if any, of his differences with other Neoplatonists seem to arise from the adoption of a specifically Alexandrian philosophical point of view, we must attribute them to his own philosophical - and theological - orientation. It turns out that, in his case, »Alexandrian Platonist« may mean little more than a man whose philosophy was Neoplatonic, and who worked at Alexandria, though one might observe that there would not have been a warm welcome at Athens for a Christian Neoplatonist, however closely his views might conform to those codified by Proclus and developed by Damascius. One could go on to say that, apart from the concentration on Aristotle, his differences from other Alexandrians were greater than theirs from the Athenians. In this connection we should notice Philoponus’ frequent appeals to Plato against Aristotle in the passages Simplicius singles out for complaint, and his relatively frequent reservations about the agreement, symphônia, of Plato and Aristotle, which most others eagerly sought to demonstrate. And since we started with a critique of P r a e c h t e r , who did so much to initiate the serious study of the Aristotelian commentators, it might be appropriate to end with his characteri­ sation of Philoponus in the De aeternitate mundi: »es ist der gelehrte Platoniker der spricht«. [conclusion, p. 334-335]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"628","_score":null,"_source":{"id":628,"authors_free":[{"id":888,"entry_id":628,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?","main_title":{"title":"John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?"},"abstract":"What, in the end, can we say about Philoponus\u2019 position as a Platonist, bearing in mind that our conclusions must still in some respects be provision\u00adal? That he was a Neoplatonist is indisputable. Since, however, few if any, of \r\nhis differences with other Neoplatonists seem to arise from the adoption of a specifically Alexandrian philosophical point of view, we must attribute them to his own philosophical - and theological - orientation. It turns out that, in \r\nhis case, \u00bbAlexandrian Platonist\u00ab may mean little more than a man whose philosophy was Neoplatonic, and who worked at Alexandria, though one might observe that there would not have been a warm welcome at Athens for a \r\nChristian Neoplatonist, however closely his views might conform to those codified by Proclus and developed by Damascius. One could go on to say \r\nthat, apart from the concentration on Aristotle, his differences from other Alexandrians were greater than theirs from the Athenians. In this connection \r\nwe should notice Philoponus\u2019 frequent appeals to Plato against Aristotle in the passages Simplicius singles out for complaint, and his relatively frequent reservations about the agreement, symph\u00f4nia, of Plato and Aristotle, which \r\nmost others eagerly sought to demonstrate. And since we started with a critique of P r a e c h t e r , who did so much to initiate the serious study of the \r\nAristotelian commentators, it might be appropriate to end with his characteri\u00ad\r\nsation of Philoponus in the De aeternitate mundi: \u00bbes ist der gelehrte Platoniker der spricht\u00ab. [conclusion, p. 334-335]\r\n","btype":3,"date":"1986","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Il5meIvwCfrHOJU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":628,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"114","issue":"","pages":"314\u2013335"}},"sort":[1986]}

Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: Über die Zeit, 1983
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: Über die Zeit
Type Article
Language English
Date 1983
Journal The Classical Review, New Series
Volume 33
Issue 2
Pages 337-338
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios. Über die Zeit. Ein Kommentar zum Corollarium de tempore. (Hypomnemata, 70.) Pp. 197. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1982

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"770","_score":null,"_source":{"id":770,"authors_free":[{"id":1134,"entry_id":770,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: \u00dcber die Zeit","main_title":{"title":"Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: \u00dcber die Zeit"},"abstract":"Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios. \u00dcber die Zeit. Ein Kommentar zum Corollarium de tempore. (Hypomnemata, 70.) Pp. 197. G\u00f6ttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1982","btype":3,"date":"1983","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/F7RO5jlE7YIQ3Pl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":770,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review, New Series","volume":"33","issue":"2","pages":"337-338"}},"sort":[1983]}

Soul and the structure of being in late Neoplatonism : Syrianus, Proclus, and Simplicius ; Papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool, 15-16 April 1982, 1982
By: Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Lloyd, Antony C. (Ed.)
Title Soul and the structure of being in late Neoplatonism : Syrianus, Proclus, and Simplicius ; Papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool, 15-16 April 1982
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1982
Publication Place Liverpool
Publisher Liverpool University Press
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Lloyd, Antony C.
Translator(s)
This short and not inexpensive book contains the papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool on 15-16 April 1982. There are four papers dealing in turn with 'Monad and Dyad as Cosmic Principles in Syrianus' by A. D. R. Sheppard; 'Procession and Division in Proclus' by A. C. Lloyd; 'La doctrine de Simplicius sur l'âme raisonnable humaine dans le Commentaire sur le manuel d'Epictète' by I. Hadot, and fourthly 'The Psychology of (?) Simplicius' Commentary on the De anima' by H. J. Blumenthal. The other participants in the colloquium must have made it a memorable and worthwhile, though rather short-lived occasion. The foremost living experts in the field of later Platonism were present, including A. H. Armstrong, P. Hadot, J. Rist, and A. Smith. Arguably the most interesting feature of the collection is the difference of opinion among at least two of the participants about the validity of C. G. Steel's 'The changing self: a study of the soul in later Neoplatonism; Iamblichus, Damascius, and Priscianus' (cf. the review by A. Smith in JHS 100 [1980]). There, it is argued that the three authors mentioned were the only later Platonists to teach the mutability as distinct from the fall of the soul. So it is well enough known that Proclus dissented from Plotinus in his assertion at e.g. Elements 211 that the soul completely falls. But it is also argued that Proclus dissented from Iamblichus in denying the changeableness of the fallen soul. With Steel's hypothesis, Blumenthal is in a large measure of agreement, whereas Ilsetraut Hadot feels that such a view is oversimplified. She suggests that even Plotinus is prepared to admit a greater degree of alteration in the soul than some exegetes allow for. It must be said in defense of her position that despite the evidence of Ennead 4.8.8 and 4.1, there are disturbing passages at 4.4.3 and 5.1.1 which challenge a too simple evaluation of Plotinus. In this particular collection, the issue is rather over the interpretation of Simplicius, De Anima 220.2-4 (cf. p. 91). Blumenthal argues that Simplicius' language need only mean that the soul has a temporary change. Against such an interpretation, Hadot argues that it overlooks the fact that Simplicius was a pupil of Damascius and he certainly believed in the change of the human soul. Perhaps, though, the views are not as far apart as the foregoing remarks may suggest. After all, it is hard to be supposed that the change in the soul argued for by Iamblichus and his followers was in itself irreversible. The whole Platonist school had to offer some sort of rationale for the obvious fact of the weakness and sinfulness of the human being. Whether one talks of 'fall', 'change', or 'weakness' seems hardly to matter. Nor is the problem restricted to pagans. A few apt quotations from St. Augustine illustrate the universal nature of the problem which faces any thinker who is prepared to take seriously both the goodness of the human soul and the existence of evil. (Review by Anthony Meredith)

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"133","_score":null,"_source":{"id":133,"authors_free":[{"id":164,"entry_id":133,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":165,"entry_id":133,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":465,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","free_first_name":"Antony C.","free_last_name":"Lloyd","norm_person":{"id":465,"first_name":"Antony C.","last_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","full_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1052318118","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Soul and the structure of being in late Neoplatonism : Syrianus, Proclus, and Simplicius ; Papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool, 15-16 April 1982","main_title":{"title":"Soul and the structure of being in late Neoplatonism : Syrianus, Proclus, and Simplicius ; Papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool, 15-16 April 1982"},"abstract":"This short and not inexpensive book contains the papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool on 15-16 April 1982. There are four papers dealing in turn with 'Monad and Dyad as Cosmic Principles in Syrianus' by A. D. R. Sheppard; 'Procession and Division in Proclus' by A. C. Lloyd; 'La doctrine de Simplicius sur l'\u00e2me raisonnable humaine dans le Commentaire sur le manuel d'Epict\u00e8te' by I. Hadot, and fourthly 'The Psychology of (?) Simplicius' Commentary on the De anima' by H. J. Blumenthal. The other participants in the colloquium must have made it a memorable and worthwhile, though rather short-lived occasion. The foremost living experts in the field of later Platonism were present, including A. H. Armstrong, P. Hadot, J. Rist, and A. Smith.\r\nArguably the most interesting feature of the collection is the difference of opinion among at least two of the participants about the validity of C. G. Steel's 'The changing self: a study of the soul in later Neoplatonism; Iamblichus, Damascius, and Priscianus' (cf. the review by A. Smith in JHS 100 [1980]). There, it is argued that the three authors mentioned were the only later Platonists to teach the mutability as distinct from the fall of the soul. So it is well enough known that Proclus dissented from Plotinus in his assertion at e.g. Elements 211 that the soul completely falls. But it is also argued that Proclus dissented from Iamblichus in denying the changeableness of the fallen soul. With Steel's hypothesis, Blumenthal is in a large measure of agreement, whereas Ilsetraut Hadot feels that such a view is oversimplified. She suggests that even Plotinus is prepared to admit a greater degree of alteration in the soul than some exegetes allow for. It must be said in defense of her position that despite the evidence of Ennead 4.8.8 and 4.1, there are disturbing passages at 4.4.3 and 5.1.1 which challenge a too simple evaluation of Plotinus. In this particular collection, the issue is rather over the interpretation of Simplicius, De Anima 220.2-4 (cf. p. 91). Blumenthal argues that Simplicius' language need only mean that the soul has a temporary change. Against such an interpretation, Hadot argues that it overlooks the fact that Simplicius was a pupil of Damascius and he certainly believed in the change of the human soul. Perhaps, though, the views are not as far apart as the foregoing remarks may suggest. After all, it is hard to be supposed that the change in the soul argued for by Iamblichus and his followers was in itself irreversible. The whole Platonist school had to offer some sort of rationale for the obvious fact of the weakness and sinfulness of the human being. Whether one talks of 'fall', 'change', or 'weakness' seems hardly to matter. Nor is the problem restricted to pagans. A few apt quotations from St. Augustine illustrate the universal nature of the problem which faces any thinker who is prepared to take seriously both the goodness of the human soul and the existence of evil. (Review by Anthony Meredith)","btype":4,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3dlj1RyoeJrdlCY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":465,"full_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":133,"pubplace":"Liverpool","publisher":"Liverpool University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1982]}

Plotinus in later Platonism, 1981
By: Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Markus, R. A. (Ed.), Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Plotinus in later Platonism
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1981
Published in Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong
Pages 212-222
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Markus, R. A.
Translator(s)
To us, Plotinus was the founder of Neoplatonism. Many of his ideas were not new, but the overall structure of his thought, its power, and its great measure of internal consistency differentiate his work unmistakeably from what went before—and much of what came after, dependent as much of it was on his achievement. Did Plotinus’ Neoplatonic successors think of him in this way? [p. 212]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"873","_score":null,"_source":{"id":873,"authors_free":[{"id":1282,"entry_id":873,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1283,"entry_id":873,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":403,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Markus, R. A.","free_first_name":"R. A.","free_last_name":"Markus","norm_person":{"id":403,"first_name":"R. A.","last_name":"Markus","full_name":"Markus, R. A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121838862","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2229,"entry_id":873,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plotinus in later Platonism","main_title":{"title":"Plotinus in later Platonism"},"abstract":"To us, Plotinus was the founder of Neoplatonism. Many of his \r\nideas were not new, but the overall structure of his thought, its \r\npower, and its great measure of internal consistency differentiate his \r\nwork unmistakeably from what went before\u2014and much of what \r\ncame after, dependent as much of it was on his achievement. Did \r\nPlotinus\u2019 Neoplatonic successors think of him in this way? [p. 212]","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/j5Qwxf61v4ZTXSv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":403,"full_name":"Markus, R. A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":873,"section_of":131,"pages":"212-222","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":131,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1981a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1981","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1981","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nuplWyD3w3eywGW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":131,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Variorum","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1981]}

Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong, 1981
By: Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Markus, R. A. (Ed.)
Title Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1981
Publication Place London
Publisher Variorum
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Markus, R. A.
Translator(s)
The studies collected in this book are all concerned with aspects of the Platonic tradition, either in its own internal development in the Hellenistic age and the period of the Roman Empire, or with the influence of Platonism, in one or other of its forms, on other spiritual traditions, especially that of Christianity. [offical abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"131","_score":null,"_source":{"id":131,"authors_free":[{"id":162,"entry_id":131,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2228,"entry_id":131,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":403,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Markus, R. A.","free_first_name":"R. A.","free_last_name":"Markus","norm_person":{"id":403,"first_name":"R. A.","last_name":"Markus","full_name":"Markus, R. A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121838862","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong"},"abstract":"The studies collected in this book are all concerned with aspects of the Platonic tradition, either in its own internal development in the Hellenistic age and the period of the Roman Empire, or with the influence of Platonism, in one or other of its forms, on other spiritual traditions, especially that of Christianity. [offical abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nuplWyD3w3eywGW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":403,"full_name":"Markus, R. A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":131,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Variorum","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1981]}

529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?, 1978
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title 529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1978
Journal Byzantion
Volume 48
Issue 2
Pages 369–385
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
[Conclusion, pp. 268 f.]: Proclus had once taken a year comparable circumstances (90), so that Damascius and his colleagues - whether or not they were the persons named by Agathias - could encourage themselves with the knowledge that philosophic activity in Athens had once before been resumed after a break. And then, for whatever reasons, the hope was not fulfilled. If this is right, then the year 529 must be allowed to retain its traditional significance. But not all of it. Greek philosophy, if not openly the Platonist kind, continued to be taught elsewhere and when, a century later, Heraclius called Stephanus to Constantinople to hold an official chair of philosophy (91), Neoplatonism was installed in the capital with the blessing of the Emperor himself.

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"876","_score":null,"_source":{"id":876,"authors_free":[{"id":1287,"entry_id":876,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?","main_title":{"title":"529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?"},"abstract":"[Conclusion, pp. 268 f.]: Proclus had once taken a year comparable circumstances (90), so that Damascius and his colleagues -\r\n whether or not they were the persons named by Agathias - could\r\n encourage themselves with the knowledge that philosophic activity in\r\n Athens had once before been resumed after a break. And then, for\r\n whatever reasons, the hope was not fulfilled. If this is right, then the\r\n year 529 must be allowed to retain its traditional significance. But not\r\n all of it. Greek philosophy, if not openly the Platonist kind, continued to\r\n be taught elsewhere and when, a century later, Heraclius called\r\n Stephanus to Constantinople to hold an official chair of philosophy (91),\r\n Neoplatonism was installed in the capital with the blessing of the\r\n Emperor himself.","btype":3,"date":"1978","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4u8Kej7b86VvpJj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":876,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Byzantion","volume":"48","issue":"2","pages":"369\u2013385"}},"sort":[1978]}

Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on "Phantasia", 1977
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on "Phantasia"
Type Article
Language English
Date 1977
Journal The Review of Metaphysics
Volume 31
Issue 2
Pages 242-257
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The ancient commentaries on Aristotle have for the most part remained in that strange kind of no-man's land between Classical and Medieval studies that even now holds so many of the productions of later antiquity. On the whole it would be true to say that students of Neoplatonism?for the commentators were usually Neoplatonists ?prefer to occupy themselves with openly Neoplatonic writings. Modern Aristotelian scholars, on the other hand, tend to take very little account of the opinions of their ancient predecessors. In this way they differ from the Medie vals, both Christian and Moslem: as is well known, Aquinas instigated the translation of many of these commentaries by his fellow Dominican, William of Moerbeke, while a century before, Averroes, the greatest of the Arabic commentators, had made ample use of at least the earlier Greek expositions. [Introduction, p. 242]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"877","_score":null,"_source":{"id":877,"authors_free":[{"id":1288,"entry_id":877,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on \"Phantasia\"","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on \"Phantasia\""},"abstract":"The ancient commentaries on Aristotle have for the most part \r\nremained in that strange kind of no-man's land between Classical \r\nand Medieval studies that even now holds so many of the productions \r\nof later antiquity. On the whole it would be true to say that students \r\nof Neoplatonism?for the commentators were usually Neoplatonists \r\n?prefer to occupy themselves with openly Neoplatonic writings. \r\nModern Aristotelian scholars, on the other hand, tend to take very \r\nlittle account of the opinions of their ancient predecessors. In this \r\nway they differ from the Medie vals, both Christian and Moslem: as \r\nis well known, Aquinas instigated the translation of many of these \r\ncommentaries by his fellow Dominican, William of Moerbeke, while a \r\ncentury before, Averroes, the greatest of the Arabic commentators, \r\nhad made ample use of at least the earlier Greek expositions. [Introduction, p. 242]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/i27gyBgOk88OE3n","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":877,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Review of Metaphysics","volume":"31","issue":"2","pages":"242-257"}},"sort":[1977]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 2
529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?, 1978
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title 529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1978
Journal Byzantion
Volume 48
Issue 2
Pages 369–385
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
[Conclusion, pp. 268 f.]: Proclus had once taken a year comparable circumstances (90), so that Damascius and his colleagues -
 whether or not they were the persons named by Agathias - could
 encourage themselves with the knowledge that philosophic activity in
 Athens had once before been resumed after a break. And then, for
 whatever reasons, the hope was not fulfilled. If this is right, then the
 year 529 must be allowed to retain its traditional significance. But not
 all of it. Greek philosophy, if not openly the Platonist kind, continued to
 be taught elsewhere and when, a century later, Heraclius called
 Stephanus to Constantinople to hold an official chair of philosophy (91),
 Neoplatonism was installed in the capital with the blessing of the
 Emperor himself.

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"876","_score":null,"_source":{"id":876,"authors_free":[{"id":1287,"entry_id":876,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?","main_title":{"title":"529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?"},"abstract":"[Conclusion, pp. 268 f.]: Proclus had once taken a year comparable circumstances (90), so that Damascius and his colleagues -\r\n whether or not they were the persons named by Agathias - could\r\n encourage themselves with the knowledge that philosophic activity in\r\n Athens had once before been resumed after a break. And then, for\r\n whatever reasons, the hope was not fulfilled. If this is right, then the\r\n year 529 must be allowed to retain its traditional significance. But not\r\n all of it. Greek philosophy, if not openly the Platonist kind, continued to\r\n be taught elsewhere and when, a century later, Heraclius called\r\n Stephanus to Constantinople to hold an official chair of philosophy (91),\r\n Neoplatonism was installed in the capital with the blessing of the\r\n Emperor himself.","btype":3,"date":"1978","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4u8Kej7b86VvpJj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":876,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Byzantion","volume":"48","issue":"2","pages":"369\u2013385"}},"sort":["529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?"]}

Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle’s De Anima, 1987
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle’s De Anima
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben
Pages 90-106
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
These  are  a  few  examples  of  how  the  Neoplatonist  commenta­
tors  confronted  Alexander  on  matters  where  differences  could 
hardly fail  to  arise. What happens  is  clear enough.  But it would be 
wrong to think that these principles of interpretation are not applied 
at  other  points  in  the  work.  Let  us  take  an  apparently  innocuous 
issue like the section where Aristotle discusses locomotion under the 
stimulus  of the  appetitive  faculty  (433  b  8sqq.). Alexander, giving a 
clearly  Aristotelian  explanation,  said  that  the  faculty  was  moved 
accidentally.  Plutarch  differed,  and  said  that  the  activity  of  the 
appetitive  faculty  is  movement:  this  Simplicius  describes  as  a  Pla­
tonic explanation, and prefers it (302,23-30).44 On the other hand, a 
few  pages  below  Simplicius  prefers  Alexander  to  Plutarch  on  the 
question  whether  moving  but  ungenerated  entities  have  sense-per­
ception  (320,33-34):  we  have  already  looked  at  his  and  Stephanus’ account  of  this  passage.45  As  we  indicated,  Stephanus  there quotes 
Alexander only to disagree with him, and here we have at least one 
piece  of  evidence  to  show  that  Neoplatonist  commentators  could 
take a different view of the same passage. If we had more examples 
of texts where Alexander’s views of the De anima were discussed by 
more than one of his successors, we should be able to form a clearer 
picture  of  how  far  the  different  commentators  were  prepared  to 
accept them, and thus incidentally of the precise differences between 
these commentators themselves on the points at issue. [pp. 90 f.]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"805","_score":null,"_source":{"id":805,"authors_free":[{"id":1191,"entry_id":805,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima","main_title":{"title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima"},"abstract":"These are a few examples of how the Neoplatonist commenta\u00ad\r\ntors confronted Alexander on matters where differences could \r\nhardly fail to arise. What happens is clear enough. But it would be \r\nwrong to think that these principles of interpretation are not applied \r\nat other points in the work. Let us take an apparently innocuous \r\nissue like the section where Aristotle discusses locomotion under the \r\nstimulus of the appetitive faculty (433 b 8sqq.). Alexander, giving a \r\nclearly Aristotelian explanation, said that the faculty was moved \r\naccidentally. Plutarch differed, and said that the activity of the \r\nappetitive faculty is movement: this Simplicius describes as a Pla\u00ad\r\ntonic explanation, and prefers it (302,23-30).44 On the other hand, a \r\nfew pages below Simplicius prefers Alexander to Plutarch on the \r\nquestion whether moving but ungenerated entities have sense-per\u00ad\r\nception (320,33-34): we have already looked at his and Stephanus\u2019 account of this passage.45 As we indicated, Stephanus there quotes \r\nAlexander only to disagree with him, and here we have at least one \r\npiece of evidence to show that Neoplatonist commentators could \r\ntake a different view of the same passage. If we had more examples \r\nof texts where Alexander\u2019s views of the De anima were discussed by \r\nmore than one of his successors, we should be able to form a clearer \r\npicture of how far the different commentators were prepared to \r\naccept them, and thus incidentally of the precise differences between \r\nthese commentators themselves on the points at issue. [pp. 90 f.]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NaSG1csaeaFnFQD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":805,"section_of":189,"pages":"90-106","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1987a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9u1939JCTsnoDBo","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima"]}

Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?, 1974
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1974
Journal Hermes
Volume 102
Issue 4
Pages 540–556
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Bearing  in  mind  the  reservations  already  made,  what  conclusions  can  we draw?  In the first place, it is fair to say that the evidence from Simplicius does, taken  overall,  suggest  that  Iamblichus did not  write a commentary on  the de Anima. Consideration of  Stephanus'  commentary on de Anima G points in the same  direction,  but  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  that  commentary  contains 
a reference to  Iamblichus'  that  looks  more like  a  quotation from  a de  Anima commentary  than  any  other  that  we  have.  Philoponus  is  less  helpful,  as  are other  members  of  the  Alexandrian  school.  He  certainly  gives  no  positive indication  that  Iamblichus  wrote  a  commentary,  but  for  the  reasons  that  we have given,  the lack  of  such positive  evidence  in  his case does not  amount  to 
anything  like  conclusive  negative  evidence.  We  cannot  entirely  rule  out  the possibility  that  Iamblichus  did  write  a  commentary,  either  on  the  de  Anima as  a whole,  or on some extended part  of  it,  but it seems probably that he  did 
not.  If  he  did  it  would  certainly  be  fair  to  say  that  his  commentary  was probably  of  no  great  importance.  Discussions  of  isolated  texts  of  Aristotle are  another  matter:  they  are  only  to  be  expected  in  the  work  of  any  Neoplatonist. [conclusion, p. 556]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"569","_score":null,"_source":{"id":569,"authors_free":[{"id":808,"entry_id":569,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?","main_title":{"title":"Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?"},"abstract":"Bearing in mind the reservations already made, what conclusions can we draw? In the first place, it is fair to say that the evidence from Simplicius does, taken overall, suggest that Iamblichus did not write a commentary on the de Anima. Consideration of Stephanus' commentary on de Anima G points in the same direction, but it must not be forgotten that that commentary contains \r\na reference to Iamblichus' that looks more like a quotation from a de Anima commentary than any other that we have. Philoponus is less helpful, as are other members of the Alexandrian school. He certainly gives no positive indication that Iamblichus wrote a commentary, but for the reasons that we have given, the lack of such positive evidence in his case does not amount to \r\nanything like conclusive negative evidence. We cannot entirely rule out the possibility that Iamblichus did write a commentary, either on the de Anima as a whole, or on some extended part of it, but it seems probably that he did \r\nnot. If he did it would certainly be fair to say that his commentary was probably of no great importance. Discussions of isolated texts of Aristotle are another matter: they are only to be expected in the work of any Neoplatonist. [conclusion, p. 556]","btype":3,"date":"1974","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lVHeUz4fhZTWu9Y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":569,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"102","issue":"4","pages":"540\u2013556"}},"sort":["Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?"]}

John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?, 1986
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1986
Journal Hermes
Volume 114
Pages 314–335
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
What, in the end, can we say about Philoponus’ position as a Platonist, bearing in mind that our conclusions must still in some respects be provision­al? That he was a Neoplatonist is indisputable. Since, however, few if any, of 
his differences with other Neoplatonists seem to arise from the adoption of a specifically Alexandrian philosophical point of view, we must attribute them to his own philosophical -  and theological -  orientation. It turns out that, in 
his case,  »Alexandrian Platonist« may mean little more than a man whose philosophy  was  Neoplatonic,  and  who  worked  at Alexandria,  though  one might observe that there would not have been a warm welcome at Athens for a 
Christian  Neoplatonist,  however closely his  views  might  conform to those codified by Proclus and developed by Damascius.  One could go on to say 
that,  apart from the concentration on Aristotle, his differences from other Alexandrians were greater than theirs from the Athenians. In this connection 
we should notice Philoponus’ frequent appeals to Plato against Aristotle in the passages Simplicius singles out for complaint, and his relatively frequent reservations about the agreement, symphônia, of Plato and Aristotle, which 
most  others  eagerly  sought  to  demonstrate.  And  since  we  started  with  a critique of P r a e c h t e r ,  who did so much to initiate the serious study of the 
Aristotelian commentators, it might be appropriate to end with his characteri­
sation of Philoponus in the De aeternitate mundi: »es ist der gelehrte Platoniker der spricht«. [conclusion, p. 334-335]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"628","_score":null,"_source":{"id":628,"authors_free":[{"id":888,"entry_id":628,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?","main_title":{"title":"John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?"},"abstract":"What, in the end, can we say about Philoponus\u2019 position as a Platonist, bearing in mind that our conclusions must still in some respects be provision\u00adal? That he was a Neoplatonist is indisputable. Since, however, few if any, of \r\nhis differences with other Neoplatonists seem to arise from the adoption of a specifically Alexandrian philosophical point of view, we must attribute them to his own philosophical - and theological - orientation. It turns out that, in \r\nhis case, \u00bbAlexandrian Platonist\u00ab may mean little more than a man whose philosophy was Neoplatonic, and who worked at Alexandria, though one might observe that there would not have been a warm welcome at Athens for a \r\nChristian Neoplatonist, however closely his views might conform to those codified by Proclus and developed by Damascius. One could go on to say \r\nthat, apart from the concentration on Aristotle, his differences from other Alexandrians were greater than theirs from the Athenians. In this connection \r\nwe should notice Philoponus\u2019 frequent appeals to Plato against Aristotle in the passages Simplicius singles out for complaint, and his relatively frequent reservations about the agreement, symph\u00f4nia, of Plato and Aristotle, which \r\nmost others eagerly sought to demonstrate. And since we started with a critique of P r a e c h t e r , who did so much to initiate the serious study of the \r\nAristotelian commentators, it might be appropriate to end with his characteri\u00ad\r\nsation of Philoponus in the De aeternitate mundi: \u00bbes ist der gelehrte Platoniker der spricht\u00ab. [conclusion, p. 334-335]\r\n","btype":3,"date":"1986","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Il5meIvwCfrHOJU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":628,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"114","issue":"","pages":"314\u2013335"}},"sort":["John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?"]}

Neoplatonic Elements in the "de Anima" Commentaries, 1976
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Neoplatonic Elements in the "de Anima" Commentaries
Type Article
Language English
Date 1976
Journal Phronesis
Volume 21
Issue 1
Pages 64-87
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Most scholars who refer to the Greek commentators for help in the 
understanding of  difficult  Aristotelian texts  seem  to  expect 
straightforward scholarly treatment  of  their problems.2 Not 
infrequently they are disappointed and complain about the irrelevance 
of the  commentary they  read, or inveigh against the incompetence of 
the  commentators.3 Only  Alexander is  generally exempt  from such 
censure,  and  that  in  itself  is  significant.  For  he  is  the  only  major 
commentator whose work survives in  any  considerable quantity who 
wrote before Neoplatonism. Shortly after Alexander the kind of thought 
that  is  conveniently described by  this label came to  dominate Greek 
philosophy, and nearly all pagan philosophy and philosophical 
scholarship was  pursued  under  its influence,  if not  by  its active 
adherents. It  is the purpose of this paper to argue that  these facts are 
not  trivial  items  of  background interest,  but  are  fundamental to  a 
proper assessment of  the  later  commentators' opinions on  points  of 
Aristotelian scholarship. [p. 64]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"612","_score":null,"_source":{"id":612,"authors_free":[{"id":867,"entry_id":612,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonic Elements in the \"de Anima\" Commentaries","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonic Elements in the \"de Anima\" Commentaries"},"abstract":"Most scholars who refer to the Greek commentators for help in the \r\nunderstanding of difficult Aristotelian texts seem to expect \r\nstraightforward scholarly treatment of their problems.2 Not \r\ninfrequently they are disappointed and complain about the irrelevance \r\nof the commentary they read, or inveigh against the incompetence of \r\nthe commentators.3 Only Alexander is generally exempt from such \r\ncensure, and that in itself is significant. For he is the only major \r\ncommentator whose work survives in any considerable quantity who \r\nwrote before Neoplatonism. Shortly after Alexander the kind of thought \r\nthat is conveniently described by this label came to dominate Greek \r\nphilosophy, and nearly all pagan philosophy and philosophical \r\nscholarship was pursued under its influence, if not by its active \r\nadherents. It is the purpose of this paper to argue that these facts are \r\nnot trivial items of background interest, but are fundamental to a \r\nproper assessment of the later commentators' opinions on points of \r\nAristotelian scholarship. [p. 64]","btype":3,"date":"1976","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7wpRahl6Ref0nE0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":612,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"21","issue":"1","pages":"64-87"}},"sort":["Neoplatonic Elements in the \"de Anima\" Commentaries"]}

Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on "Phantasia", 1977
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on "Phantasia"
Type Article
Language English
Date 1977
Journal The Review of Metaphysics
Volume 31
Issue 2
Pages 242-257
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The  ancient commentaries on Aristotle have for the most part 
remained in that strange kind of no-man's land between Classical 
and Medieval studies that even now holds so  many of the productions 
of  later  antiquity. On  the whole it would be  true  to  say  that  students 
of  Neoplatonism?for the commentators were usually Neoplatonists 
?prefer to occupy themselves with openly Neoplatonic writings. 
Modern Aristotelian scholars, on the other hand, tend to take very 
little account of the opinions of their ancient predecessors. In this 
way they differ from the Medie  vals, both Christian and Moslem: as 
is well known, Aquinas instigated the translation of many of these 
commentaries by his fellow Dominican, William of Moerbeke, while a 
century before, Averroes, the greatest of the Arabic commentators, 
had made ample use of at least the earlier Greek expositions. [Introduction, p. 242]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"877","_score":null,"_source":{"id":877,"authors_free":[{"id":1288,"entry_id":877,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on \"Phantasia\"","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on \"Phantasia\""},"abstract":"The ancient commentaries on Aristotle have for the most part \r\nremained in that strange kind of no-man's land between Classical \r\nand Medieval studies that even now holds so many of the productions \r\nof later antiquity. On the whole it would be true to say that students \r\nof Neoplatonism?for the commentators were usually Neoplatonists \r\n?prefer to occupy themselves with openly Neoplatonic writings. \r\nModern Aristotelian scholars, on the other hand, tend to take very \r\nlittle account of the opinions of their ancient predecessors. In this \r\nway they differ from the Medie vals, both Christian and Moslem: as \r\nis well known, Aquinas instigated the translation of many of these \r\ncommentaries by his fellow Dominican, William of Moerbeke, while a \r\ncentury before, Averroes, the greatest of the Arabic commentators, \r\nhad made ample use of at least the earlier Greek expositions. [Introduction, p. 242]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/i27gyBgOk88OE3n","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":877,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Review of Metaphysics","volume":"31","issue":"2","pages":"242-257"}},"sort":["Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on \"Phantasia\""]}

Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong, 1981
By: Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Markus, R. A. (Ed.)
Title Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1981
Publication Place London
Publisher Variorum
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Markus, R. A.
Translator(s)
The studies collected in this book are all concerned with aspects of the Platonic tradition, either in its own internal development in the Hellenistic age and the period of the Roman Empire, or with the influence of Platonism, in one or other of its forms, on other spiritual traditions, especially that of Christianity. [offical abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"131","_score":null,"_source":{"id":131,"authors_free":[{"id":162,"entry_id":131,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2228,"entry_id":131,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":403,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Markus, R. A.","free_first_name":"R. A.","free_last_name":"Markus","norm_person":{"id":403,"first_name":"R. A.","last_name":"Markus","full_name":"Markus, R. A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121838862","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong"},"abstract":"The studies collected in this book are all concerned with aspects of the Platonic tradition, either in its own internal development in the Hellenistic age and the period of the Roman Empire, or with the influence of Platonism, in one or other of its forms, on other spiritual traditions, especially that of Christianity. [offical abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nuplWyD3w3eywGW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":403,"full_name":"Markus, R. A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":131,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Variorum","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong"]}

Plotinus in later Platonism, 1981
By: Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Markus, R. A. (Ed.), Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Plotinus in later Platonism
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1981
Published in Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong
Pages 212-222
Categories no categories
Author(s) , Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Markus, R. A.
Translator(s)
To us,  Plotinus was the founder of Neoplatonism.  Many of his 
ideas were  not  new,  but  the  overall  structure  of his  thought,  its 
power, and its great measure of internal consistency differentiate his 
work unmistakeably from what  went  before—and  much  of what 
came after, dependent as much of it was on his achievement.  Did 
Plotinus’  Neoplatonic successors think of him in this way? [p. 212]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"873","_score":null,"_source":{"id":873,"authors_free":[{"id":1282,"entry_id":873,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1283,"entry_id":873,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":403,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Markus, R. A.","free_first_name":"R. A.","free_last_name":"Markus","norm_person":{"id":403,"first_name":"R. A.","last_name":"Markus","full_name":"Markus, R. A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121838862","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2229,"entry_id":873,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plotinus in later Platonism","main_title":{"title":"Plotinus in later Platonism"},"abstract":"To us, Plotinus was the founder of Neoplatonism. Many of his \r\nideas were not new, but the overall structure of his thought, its \r\npower, and its great measure of internal consistency differentiate his \r\nwork unmistakeably from what went before\u2014and much of what \r\ncame after, dependent as much of it was on his achievement. Did \r\nPlotinus\u2019 Neoplatonic successors think of him in this way? [p. 212]","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/j5Qwxf61v4ZTXSv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":403,"full_name":"Markus, R. A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":873,"section_of":131,"pages":"212-222","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":131,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1981a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1981","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1981","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nuplWyD3w3eywGW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":131,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Variorum","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Plotinus in later Platonism"]}

Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: Über die Zeit, 1983
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: Über die Zeit
Type Article
Language English
Date 1983
Journal The Classical Review, New Series
Volume 33
Issue 2
Pages 337-338
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios. Über die Zeit. Ein Kommentar zum Corollarium de tempore. (Hypomnemata, 70.) Pp. 197. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1982

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"770","_score":null,"_source":{"id":770,"authors_free":[{"id":1134,"entry_id":770,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: \u00dcber die Zeit","main_title":{"title":"Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: \u00dcber die Zeit"},"abstract":"Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios. \u00dcber die Zeit. Ein Kommentar zum Corollarium de tempore. (Hypomnemata, 70.) Pp. 197. G\u00f6ttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1982","btype":3,"date":"1983","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/F7RO5jlE7YIQ3Pl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":770,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review, New Series","volume":"33","issue":"2","pages":"337-338"}},"sort":["Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: \u00dcber die Zeit"]}

Simplicius and others on Aristotle’s discussions of reason, 1988
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Duffy, John (Ed.), Peradotto, John J. (Ed.)
Title Simplicius and others on Aristotle’s discussions of reason
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1988
Published in Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75
Pages 103-119
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Duffy, John , Peradotto, John J.
Translator(s)
What  I  want to  do  in  this paper is to look at how Aristotle’s 
successors  treated  some  points  in  his  discussions  of reason,  and  in 
particular  the  discussion  in  the  De anima. bout  their  handling  of 
relevant  parts  of the  Nichomachaean Ethics we  know very little, for 
unlike the De anima that treatise was not a major subject of study in 
the  philosophical  lectures  and  seminars  of late  antiquity.  Though a 
commentary on some of it had been written by Aspasius, and notes by 
other,  probably  pre-Neoplatonic,  hands  survive,8  exposition  of the 
Nicomachean Ethics seems to have been one of the gaps that the group 
of Aristotelians around Anna Comnena in twelfth-century Constantinople felt that they needed to fill. [pp. 104 f.]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"784","_score":null,"_source":{"id":784,"authors_free":[{"id":1154,"entry_id":784,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2428,"entry_id":784,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":109,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Duffy, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Duffy","norm_person":{"id":109,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Duffy","full_name":"Duffy, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032769092","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2429,"entry_id":784,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":110,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Peradotto, John J.","free_first_name":"John J.","free_last_name":"Peradotto","norm_person":{"id":110,"first_name":"John J.","last_name":"Peradotto","full_name":"Peradotto, John J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172304636","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and others on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and others on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason"},"abstract":"What I want to do in this paper is to look at how Aristotle\u2019s \r\nsuccessors treated some points in his discussions of reason, and in \r\nparticular the discussion in the De anima. bout their handling of \r\nrelevant parts of the Nichomachaean Ethics we know very little, for \r\nunlike the De anima that treatise was not a major subject of study in \r\nthe philosophical lectures and seminars of late antiquity. Though a \r\ncommentary on some of it had been written by Aspasius, and notes by \r\nother, probably pre-Neoplatonic, hands survive,8 exposition of the \r\nNicomachean Ethics seems to have been one of the gaps that the group \r\nof Aristotelians around Anna Comnena in twelfth-century Constantinople felt that they needed to fill. [pp. 104 f.]","btype":2,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MADsskDf9a78Egx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":109,"full_name":"Duffy, John","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":110,"full_name":"Peradotto, John J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":784,"section_of":35,"pages":"103-119","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":35,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Duffy1988","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1988","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1988","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rraDrmkMtyk718J","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":35,"pubplace":"Buffalo \u2013 New York","publisher":"Arethusa","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius and others on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 2