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]}

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]}

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":[1976]}

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":[1974]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1
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?"]}

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\""]}

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"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1