| 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.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NaSG1csaeaFnFQD |
{"_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]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Il5meIvwCfrHOJU |
{"_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]}
| 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 |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/F7RO5jlE7YIQ3Pl |
{"_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]}
| 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) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3dlj1RyoeJrdlCY |
{"_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]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/j5Qwxf61v4ZTXSv |
{"_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]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nuplWyD3w3eywGW |
{"_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]}
| 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. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4u8Kej7b86VvpJj |
{"_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]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/i27gyBgOk88OE3n |
{"_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]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/7wpRahl6Ref0nE0 |
{"_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]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lVHeUz4fhZTWu9Y |
{"_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]}
| Title | Simplicius: On Aristotle ‘On the Soul 3.1–5’ |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2000 |
| Publication Place | London |
| Publisher | Duckworth |
| Series | Ancient commentators on Aristotle |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | , Simplicius |
| Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
| Translator(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. (Blumenthal, Henry J.) , |
In On the Soul 3.1-5, Aristotle goes beyond the five sense to the general functions of sense perception, the imagination and the so-called active intellect, the of which was still a matter of controversy in the time of Thomas Aquinas. In his commentary on Aristotle's text, 'Simplicius' insists that the intellect in question is not something transcendental but the human rational soul. He denies both Plotinus' view that a part of the soul has never descended from uninterrupted contemplation of the Platonic Forms, and Proclus' view that the soul cannot be changed in its substance through embodiment. He also denies that imagination sees things as true or false, which requires awareness of one's own cognitions. He thinks that imagination works by projecting imprints. In the case of mathematics, it can make the imprints more like shapes taken on during sense perception or more like concepts, which calls for lines without breadth. He acknowledges that Aristotle would not agree to reify these concepts as substances, but thinks of mathematical entities as mere abstractions. Addressing the vexed question of authorship, H. J. Blumenthal concludes that the commentary was written neither by Simplicius nor Priscian. In a novel interpretation, he suggests that if Priscian had any hand in this commentary, it might have been as editor of notes from Simplicius' lectures. [offical abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Ic4w7j2wFv2xfas |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"122","_score":null,"_source":{"id":122,"authors_free":[{"id":148,"entry_id":122,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"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":2269,"entry_id":122,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2270,"entry_id":122,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius: On Aristotle \u2018On the Soul 3.1\u20135\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius: On Aristotle \u2018On the Soul 3.1\u20135\u2019"},"abstract":"In On the Soul 3.1-5, Aristotle goes beyond the five sense to the general functions of sense perception, the imagination and the so-called active intellect, the of which was still a matter of controversy in the time of Thomas Aquinas.\r\nIn his commentary on Aristotle's text, 'Simplicius' insists that the intellect in question is not something transcendental but the human rational soul. He denies both Plotinus' view that a part of the soul has never descended from uninterrupted contemplation of the Platonic Forms, and Proclus' view that the soul cannot be changed in its substance through embodiment.\r\nHe also denies that imagination sees things as true or false, which requires awareness of one's own cognitions. He thinks that imagination works by projecting imprints. In the case of mathematics, it can make the imprints more like shapes taken on during sense perception or more like concepts, which calls for lines without breadth. He acknowledges that Aristotle would not agree to reify these concepts as substances, but thinks of mathematical entities as mere abstractions.\r\nAddressing the vexed question of authorship, H. J. Blumenthal concludes that the commentary was written neither by Simplicius nor Priscian. In a novel interpretation, he suggests that if Priscian had any hand in this commentary, it might have been as editor of notes from Simplicius' lectures. [offical abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2000","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Ic4w7j2wFv2xfas","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":122,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"Ancient commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius: On Aristotle \u2018On the Soul 3.1\u20135\u2019"]}
| Title | Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5 |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1997 |
| Published in | Studies in Plato and the Platonic Tradition. Essays Presented to John Whittaker |
| Pages | 213-228 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
| Editor(s) | Joyal, Mark |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qcoAf1qJJEw8sNW |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1469","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1469,"authors_free":[{"id":2543,"entry_id":1469,"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}},{"id":2544,"entry_id":1469,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":540,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Joyal, Mark","free_first_name":"Mark","free_last_name":"Joyal","norm_person":{"id":540,"first_name":"Mark","last_name":"Joyal","full_name":"Joyal, Mark","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1162514582","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5","main_title":{"title":"Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qcoAf1qJJEw8sNW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":540,"full_name":"Joyal, Mark","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1469,"section_of":1470,"pages":"213-228","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1470,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Studies in Plato and the Platonic Tradition. Essays Presented to John Whittaker","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book, which honours the career of a distinguished scholar, contains essays dealing with important problems in Plato, the Platonic tradition, and the texts and transmission of Plato and later Platonic writers. It ranges from the discussion of issues in individual Platonic dialogues to the examination of Platonism in the Middle Ages. The essays are written by leading scholars in the field and reflect the current state of knowledge on the various problems under discussion. The collection as a whole testifies to the importance of the Platonic writings for the history of ideas, and to the vitality that the study of these writings continues to possess.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xCDhlMW8VGTAIuZ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1470,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge (2017)","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5"]}
| Title | Soul Vehicles in Simplicius |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1993 |
| Published in | Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism |
| Pages | 173-188 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
| Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
| Translator(s) |
There has been a not inconsiderable amount of discussion of the nature and function of the "exiftia — or exochema — the body or bodies made of not quite bodily substance which served as an intermediary between body and soul in various Neoplatonisms from Porphyry, or even arguably Plotinus, down to and including Proclus. Rather less attention, and, in Simplicius’ case virtually none, has been paid to the nature and role of such intermediary vehicles in the Neoplatonist commentators on Aristotle. The purpose of the following pages will be to examine the use of the concept in Simplicius. [Introduction, p. 173] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TVpisoEkoNEZkWU |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"896","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":896,"authors_free":[{"id":1322,"entry_id":896,"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":2442,"entry_id":896,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}}],"entry_title":"Soul Vehicles in Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Soul Vehicles in Simplicius"},"abstract":"There has been a not inconsiderable amount of discussion of the nature and function of the \"exiftia \u2014 or exochema \u2014 the body or bodies made of not quite bodily substance which served as an intermediary between body and soul in various Neoplatonisms from Porphyry, or even arguably Plotinus, down to and including Proclus. Rather less attention, and, in Simplicius\u2019 case virtually none, has been paid to the nature and role of such intermediary vehicles in the Neoplatonist commentators on Aristotle. The purpose of the following pages will be to examine the use of the concept in Simplicius. [Introduction, p. 173]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TVpisoEkoNEZkWU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":896,"section_of":214,"pages":"173-188","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1993c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"This book presents a series of Dr. Blumenthal\u2019s studies on the history of Neoplatonism, from its founder Plotinus to the end of Classical Antiquity, relating especially to the Neoplatonists\u2019 doctrines about the soul. The work falls into two parts. The first deals with Plotinus and considers the soul both as part of the structure of the universe and in its capacity as the basis of the individual\u2019s vital and cognitive functions. The second part is concerned with the later history of Neoplatonism, including its end. Its main focus is the investigation of how Neoplatonic psychology was modified and developed by later philosophers, in particular the commentators on Aristotle, and used as the starting point for their Platonizing interpretations of his philosophy.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/o9PFSmbWfnXTRz5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":214,"pubplace":"Aldershot (Hampshire)","publisher":"Variorum","series":"Variorum collected studies series","volume":"426","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Soul Vehicles in Simplicius"]}
| Title | Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1993 |
| Publication Place | Aldershot (Hampshire) |
| Publisher | Variorum |
| Series | Variorum collected studies series |
| Volume | 426 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This book presents a series of Dr. Blumenthal’s studies on the history of Neoplatonism, from its founder Plotinus to the end of Classical Antiquity, relating especially to the Neoplatonists’ doctrines about the soul. The work falls into two parts. The first deals with Plotinus and considers the soul both as part of the structure of the universe and in its capacity as the basis of the individual’s vital and cognitive functions. The second part is concerned with the later history of Neoplatonism, including its end. Its main focus is the investigation of how Neoplatonic psychology was modified and developed by later philosophers, in particular the commentators on Aristotle, and used as the starting point for their Platonizing interpretations of his philosophy. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/o9PFSmbWfnXTRz5 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"214","_score":null,"_source":{"id":214,"authors_free":[{"id":273,"entry_id":214,"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":"Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism","main_title":{"title":"Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism"},"abstract":"This book presents a series of Dr. Blumenthal\u2019s studies on the history of Neoplatonism, from its founder Plotinus to the end of Classical Antiquity, relating especially to the Neoplatonists\u2019 doctrines about the soul. The work falls into two parts. The first deals with Plotinus and considers the soul both as part of the structure of the universe and in its capacity as the basis of the individual\u2019s vital and cognitive functions. The second part is concerned with the later history of Neoplatonism, including its end. Its main focus is the investigation of how Neoplatonic psychology was modified and developed by later philosophers, in particular the commentators on Aristotle, and used as the starting point for their Platonizing interpretations of his philosophy.","btype":1,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/o9PFSmbWfnXTRz5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":214,"pubplace":"Aldershot (Hampshire)","publisher":"Variorum","series":"Variorum collected studies series","volume":"426","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism"]}
| 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) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3dlj1RyoeJrdlCY |
{"_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"]}
| Title | The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1991 |
| Published in | Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition |
| Pages | 175-189 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. , Robinson, Howard |
| Translator(s) |
n 19671 had only just begun to study Simplicius’ commentary on Epictetus’ Enchiridion, and I had had at that time my first few doubts about whether Praechter’s views on the dogmatic position of Alexandrian Neo platonism were well founded.2 Praechter had at least formulated these views in the form of hypotheses, but despite his circumspection, they had quickly become unassailable certainties for historians, universally admired and accepted for over fifty years. It was just at this point that I came across the contribution of A. C. Lloyd, who dared to say3 that Praechter had misread or read too hastily the passages in Simplicius’ commentary on Epictetus which referred to first principles, on which Praechter largely based his theory. It was Lloyd again, in the same paper,4 who put historians of philosophy on their guard against the tendency (likewise deriving from Praechter) to minimize, or even to refuse to acknowledge, the importance of the fact that for a long time all the Neoplatonists believed in a fundamental agreement between Plato’s philosophy and Aristotle’s. In my book Le Problème du néo platonisme alexandrin: Hiéroclès et Simplicius’ I simply followed the track marked out by Lloyd. And even now, in the translation with com mentary of Simplicius’ commentary on the Categories which has been undertaken under my editorship,5 61 am attempting to carry further the critique of Praechter’s hypotheses which Lloyd began.This will also be the case in the present paper, which will bring out some of the results which might be reached by working on the Neoplatonic commentaries on Aristotle’s Categories. [pp. 175 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XguF7or4lVRgRJ5 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"640","_score":null,"_source":{"id":640,"authors_free":[{"id":909,"entry_id":640,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":910,"entry_id":640,"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":911,"entry_id":640,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":139,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robinson, Howard","free_first_name":"Howard","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":139,"first_name":"Robinson","last_name":"Howard ","full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172347122","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories","main_title":{"title":"The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories"},"abstract":"n 19671 had only just begun to study Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Epictetus\u2019 \r\nEnchiridion, and I had had at that time my first few doubts about whether \r\nPraechter\u2019s views on the dogmatic position of Alexandrian Neo\u00ad\r\nplatonism were well founded.2 Praechter had at least formulated these \r\nviews in the form of hypotheses, but despite his circumspection, they \r\nhad quickly become unassailable certainties for historians, universally \r\nadmired and accepted for over fifty years. It was just at this point that I \r\ncame across the contribution of A. C. Lloyd, who dared to say3 that \r\nPraechter had misread or read too hastily the passages in Simplicius\u2019 \r\ncommentary on Epictetus which referred to first principles, on which \r\nPraechter largely based his theory. It was Lloyd again, in the same \r\npaper,4 who put historians of philosophy on their guard against the tendency (likewise deriving from Praechter) to minimize, or even to \r\nrefuse to acknowledge, the importance of the fact that for a long time all \r\nthe Neoplatonists believed in a fundamental agreement between \r\nPlato\u2019s philosophy and Aristotle\u2019s. In my book Le Probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9o\u00ad\r\nplatonisme alexandrin: Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius\u2019 I simply followed the track \r\nmarked out by Lloyd. And even now, in the translation with com\u00ad\r\nmentary of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the Categories which has been \r\nundertaken under my editorship,5 61 am attempting to carry further the \r\ncritique of Praechter\u2019s hypotheses which Lloyd began.This will also be the case in the present paper, which will bring out \r\nsome of the results which might be reached by working on the \r\nNeoplatonic commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. [pp. 175 f.]","btype":2,"date":"1991","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XguF7or4lVRgRJ5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":139,"full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":640,"section_of":354,"pages":"175-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":354,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Robinson1991","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1991","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1991","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/anTH9fx9QKBfykf","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":354,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories"]}
| Title | The commentators: their identity and their background |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1996 |
| Published in | Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the "De Anima" |
| Pages | 35-51 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
| Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/I0dc7d4a4K5xGSg |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1449","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1449,"authors_free":[{"id":2431,"entry_id":1449,"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}},{"id":2444,"entry_id":1449,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}}],"entry_title":"The commentators: their identity and their background","main_title":{"title":"The commentators: their identity and their background"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/I0dc7d4a4K5xGSg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1449,"section_of":213,"pages":"35-51","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":213,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the \"De Anima\"","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1996a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1996","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fixlFMqtKju8xdW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":213,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The commentators: their identity and their background"]}
| Title | The writings of the De anima commentators |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1996 |
| Published in | Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the "De Anima" |
| Pages | 53-71 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
| Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
| Translator(s) |
So far we have discussed the work of our commentators as if it was simply scholarship and philosophical exposition, whether of their own philosophy or that of Aristotle which most of them held to be fundamen tally the same. There is, however, another aspect of the commentaries which, while not prominent, should not be forgotten. That is the way in which doing such work was an integral part of a life aimed at the greatest possible degree of return to that higher reality from which the commenta tors saw human life as a decline and separation. It is becoming increasingly better understood that for the great majority of Greek philo sophers, philosophy was not only a way of thinking but a way of life.70 The late Neoplatonists seem to have gone even further, and regarded the production of commentaries as a kind of service to the divine, much as a Christian monk who engaged in scholarship would have seen it in that light So we find at the end of Simplicius’ commentary on the De caelo what can only be described as a prayer: ‘Oh lord and artificer of the universe and the simple bodies in it, to you and all that has been brought into being by you I offer this work as a hymn, being eager to see as a revelation the magnitude of your works and to proclaim it to those who are worthy, so that thinking no mean or mortal thoughts about you we may make obeisance to you in accordance with the high place you occupy in respect of all that is produced by you’ (731.25-9). Those who think that ancient philosophy ceased to be of interest some three and a half centuries before these words were written and who may from time to time consult Sim plicius for an opinion on the meaning of an Aristotelian text, are unlikely ever to see these words, or those that come at the end of the commentary on the Enckeiridion (138.22-3). Without them they cannot fully under stand the nature of works beyond whose surface they never penetrate, works whose very composition could be seen as an act of reverence to the gods of paganism. [Conclusion, p. 71] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1xXItSZspUfzEIR |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"927","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":927,"authors_free":[{"id":1371,"entry_id":927,"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":2527,"entry_id":927,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}}],"entry_title":"The writings of the De anima commentators","main_title":{"title":"The writings of the De anima commentators"},"abstract":"So far we have discussed the work of our commentators as if it was \r\nsimply scholarship and philosophical exposition, whether of their own \r\nphilosophy or that of Aristotle which most of them held to be fundamen\u00ad\r\ntally the same. There is, however, another aspect of the commentaries \r\nwhich, while not prominent, should not be forgotten. That is the way in \r\nwhich doing such work was an integral part of a life aimed at the greatest \r\npossible degree of return to that higher reality from which the commenta\u00ad\r\ntors saw human life as a decline and separation. It is becoming \r\nincreasingly better understood that for the great majority of Greek philo\u00ad\r\nsophers, philosophy was not only a way of thinking but a way of life.70 The \r\nlate Neoplatonists seem to have gone even further, and regarded the \r\nproduction of commentaries as a kind of service to the divine, much as a \r\nChristian monk who engaged in scholarship would have seen it in that \r\nlight So we find at the end of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the De caelo what \r\ncan only be described as a prayer: \u2018Oh lord and artificer of the universe \r\nand the simple bodies in it, to you and all that has been brought into being \r\nby you I offer this work as a hymn, being eager to see as a revelation the \r\nmagnitude of your works and to proclaim it to those who are worthy, so \r\nthat thinking no mean or mortal thoughts about you we may make \r\nobeisance to you in accordance with the high place you occupy in respect \r\nof all that is produced by you\u2019 (731.25-9). Those who think that ancient \r\nphilosophy ceased to be of interest some three and a half centuries before \r\nthese words were written and who may from time to time consult Sim\u00ad\r\nplicius for an opinion on the meaning of an Aristotelian text, are unlikely \r\never to see these words, or those that come at the end of the commentary \r\non the Enckeiridion (138.22-3). Without them they cannot fully under\u00ad\r\nstand the nature of works beyond whose surface they never penetrate, \r\nworks whose very composition could be seen as an act of reverence to the \r\ngods of paganism. [Conclusion, p. 71]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1xXItSZspUfzEIR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":927,"section_of":213,"pages":"53-71","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":213,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the \"De Anima\"","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1996a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1996","abstract":"Steven Strange, Emory UniversityScholars have traditionally used the Aristotelian commentators as sources for lost philosophical works and occasionally also as aids to understanding Aristotle. In H. J. Blumenthal's view, however, the commentators often assumed that there was a Platonist philosophy to which not only they but Aristotle himself subscribed. Their expository writing usually expressed their versions of Neoplatonist philosophy. Blumenthal here places the commentators in their intellectual and historical contexts, identifies their philosophical views, and demonstrates their tendency to read Aristotle as if he were a member of their philosophical circle.This book focuses on the commentators' exposition of Aristotle's treatise De anima (On the Soul), because it is relatively well documented and because the concept of soul was so important in all Neoplatonic systems. Blumenthal explains how the Neoplatonizing of Aristotle's thought, as well as the widespread use of the commentators' works, influenced the understanding of Aristotle in both the Islamic and Judaeo-Christian traditions.H. J. Blumenthal is the author or coeditor of six previous books and is currently preparing a two-volume translation, with introduction and commentary, of Simplicius' Commentary on \"De anima\" for publication in Cornell's series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fixlFMqtKju8xdW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":213,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The writings of the De anima commentators"]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qUf0DABj9Bcfzr5 |
{"_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?"]}
| Title | Were Aristotle's Intentions in writing the De Anima Forgotten in Late Antiquity? |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1997 |
| Journal | Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale |
| Volume | 8 |
| Pages | 143–157 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
In general we have to conclude that while the whole "Philoponus” commentary may include a number of explicit references to the biological writings, and while the real Philoponus may often refer to medical and scientific issues, there is no systematic bias towards explaining the contents of the De anima in terms of them. There is, however, just as in the Ps-Simplicius commentary, enough said about such matters, and enough reference made to other parts of the biological corpus, to show that the commentators were still aware of the original intentions of the work — or, at the very least, behaved as if they were — even if they did not always feel bound by them. That awareness was to survive into the Middle Ages as well. [Conclusion, p. 157] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qhZRe3zhqqbPUeO |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"893","_score":null,"_source":{"id":893,"authors_free":[{"id":1316,"entry_id":893,"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":"Were Aristotle's Intentions in writing the De Anima Forgotten in Late Antiquity?","main_title":{"title":"Were Aristotle's Intentions in writing the De Anima Forgotten in Late Antiquity?"},"abstract":"In general we have to conclude that while the whole \"Philoponus\u201d commentary may include a number of explicit references to the biological writings, and while the real Philoponus may often refer to medical and scientific issues, there is no systematic bias towards explaining the contents of the De anima in terms of them. There is, however, just as in the Ps-Simplicius commentary, enough said about such matters, and \r\nenough reference made to other parts of the biological corpus, to show that the commentators were still aware of the original intentions of the work \u2014 or, at the very least, behaved as if they were \u2014 even if they did not always feel bound by them. That awareness was to survive into the Middle Ages as well. [Conclusion, p. 157]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qhZRe3zhqqbPUeO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":893,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale","volume":"8","issue":"","pages":"143\u2013157"}},"sort":["Were Aristotle's Intentions in writing the De Anima Forgotten in Late Antiquity?"]}