Type of Media 3
Author 6
Date 7
Author
Dates
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 2 OF 2
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":["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"]}

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":["Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?"]}

  • PAGE 2 OF 2