| 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":[1997]}
| Title | Iamblichus as a Commentator |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1997 |
| Journal | Syllecta Classica |
| Volume | 8 |
| Pages | 1–13 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Twenty two years ago, when tiiat growtii in interest in Neoplatonism which is a s??a?t??? of this conference was only just getting under way, two large booksappeared which will be famUiar to all who are interested in Iamblichus. I am referring,of course, to JM. Dillon's collection of die fragmentary remains of Iamblichus'commentaries on Plato's dialogues, supplied with an ample commentary to boot,1 andB. Dalsgaard Larsen's Jamblique de Chalets. Exégète et Philosophe, of which some240 pages are devoted to his role as exégète: a collection of exegetical fragmentsappeared as a 130 page appendix.2 Larsen's book covered the interpretation of bothPlato and Aristode, and pre-empted a second volume of Dillon's which was to dealwith Aristode. I mention these books because we are, inter alia, taking stock, and it isremarkable that not much attention has been paid since dien to Iamblichus' role as acommentator. Perhaps tiiey have had die same effect on die study of this aspect ofIamblichus as Proclus' work had on the interpretation of Plato at Alexandria.Be that as it may, I intend to look, not very originally, at Iamblichus' activitiesas a commentator on philosophical works— and so I shall say notiring about dietwenty-eight books or more of his lost commentary on die Chaldaean Oracles*— andalso to say sometiring, in die manner of core samples, about how his expositionscompare with those of the later commentators. Though the process can be traced back in part to Porphyry,4 I drink it is safe to say tiiat Iamblichus was the firstNeoplatonist, at least of those about whom we are reasonably well informed, to set outin a systematic way to write commentaries on the major works of both Plato and—inIamblichus' case to a lesser extent—Aristotle too. [pp. 1 ff.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/uYBsFlDm7T54N7r |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"895","_score":null,"_source":{"id":895,"authors_free":[{"id":1321,"entry_id":895,"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":"Iamblichus as a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Iamblichus as a Commentator"},"abstract":"Twenty two years ago, when tiiat growtii in interest in Neoplatonism which is a\r\ns??a?t??? of this conference was only just getting under way, two large booksappeared which will be famUiar to all who are interested in Iamblichus. I am referring,of course, to JM. Dillon's collection of die fragmentary remains of Iamblichus'commentaries on Plato's dialogues, supplied with an ample commentary to boot,1 andB. Dalsgaard Larsen's Jamblique de Chalets. Ex\u00e9g\u00e8te et Philosophe, of which some240 pages are devoted to his role as ex\u00e9g\u00e8te: a collection of exegetical fragmentsappeared as a 130 page appendix.2 Larsen's book covered the interpretation of bothPlato and Aristode, and pre-empted a second volume of Dillon's which was to dealwith Aristode. I mention these books because we are, inter alia, taking stock, and it isremarkable that not much attention has been paid since dien to Iamblichus' role as acommentator. Perhaps tiiey have had die same effect on die study of this aspect ofIamblichus as Proclus' work had on the interpretation of Plato at Alexandria.Be that as it may, I intend to look, not very originally, at Iamblichus' activitiesas a commentator on philosophical works\u2014 and so I shall say notiring about dietwenty-eight books or more of his lost commentary on die Chaldaean Oracles*\u2014 andalso to say sometiring, in die manner of core samples, about how his expositionscompare with those of the later commentators. Though the process can be traced back in part to Porphyry,4 I drink it is safe to say tiiat Iamblichus was the firstNeoplatonist, at least of those about whom we are reasonably well informed, to set outin a systematic way to write commentaries on the major works of both Plato and\u2014inIamblichus' case to a lesser extent\u2014Aristotle too. [pp. 1 ff.]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/uYBsFlDm7T54N7r","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":895,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Syllecta \tClassica","volume":"8","issue":"","pages":"1\u201313"}},"sort":[1997]}
| Title | Alexandria as a Center of Greek Philosophy in Later Classical Antiquity |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1993 |
| Journal | Illinois Classical Studies |
| Volume | 18 |
| Pages | 307-325 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Any discussion of Greek Alexandria may properly take its starting point from the work of P. M. Fraser, even if only to dissent from it. In the preface to Ptolemaic Alexandria Fraser observes that philosophy was one of the “items” that “were not effectively transplanted to Alexandria.”1 In his chapter on philosophy, talking of the establishment of the main philosophical schools at Athens, Fraser writes that it “remained the centre of philosophical studies down to the closing of the schools by Justinian in A.D. 563.”2 The first of these statements is near enough the truth, since the Alexandria of the Ptolemies was not distinguished in philosophy as ifwas in literature or science, though even then some important things happened during that period too. But the implication that this situation continued during the Roman and early Byzantine periods is misleading, and by the end of the period simply false.3 The purpose of this paper is to examine some aspects of the considerable contribution that Alexandria made to the philosophical tradition that continued into the Islamic and Christian middle ages and beyond, and to show that it may lay claim to have been at least equal to that of Athens itself. [Introduction, p. 307] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/LDONxIQ4990ZfXQ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"898","_score":null,"_source":{"id":898,"authors_free":[{"id":1326,"entry_id":898,"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":"Alexandria as a Center of Greek Philosophy in Later Classical Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Alexandria as a Center of Greek Philosophy in Later Classical Antiquity"},"abstract":"Any discussion of Greek Alexandria may properly take its starting point \r\nfrom the work of P. M. Fraser, even if only to dissent from it. In the preface \r\nto Ptolemaic Alexandria Fraser observes that philosophy was one of the \r\n\u201citems\u201d that \u201cwere not effectively transplanted to Alexandria.\u201d1 In his \r\nchapter on philosophy, talking of the establishment of the main \r\nphilosophical schools at Athens, Fraser writes that it \u201cremained the centre of \r\nphilosophical studies down to the closing of the schools by Justinian in A.D. \r\n563.\u201d2 The first of these statements is near enough the truth, since the \r\nAlexandria of the Ptolemies was not distinguished in philosophy as ifwas in \r\nliterature or science, though even then some important things happened \r\nduring that period too. But the implication that this situation continued \r\nduring the Roman and early Byzantine periods is misleading, and by the end \r\nof the period simply false.3 The purpose of this paper is to examine some \r\naspects of the considerable contribution that Alexandria made to the \r\nphilosophical tradition that continued into the Islamic and Christian middle \r\nages and beyond, and to show that it may lay claim to have been at least \r\nequal to that of Athens itself. [Introduction, p. 307]","btype":3,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LDONxIQ4990ZfXQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":898,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Illinois Classical Studies","volume":"18","issue":"","pages":"307-325"}},"sort":[1993]}
| 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 | 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 | 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":["529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?"]}
| Title | Alexandria as a Center of Greek Philosophy in Later Classical Antiquity |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1993 |
| Journal | Illinois Classical Studies |
| Volume | 18 |
| Pages | 307-325 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Any discussion of Greek Alexandria may properly take its starting point from the work of P. M. Fraser, even if only to dissent from it. In the preface to Ptolemaic Alexandria Fraser observes that philosophy was one of the “items” that “were not effectively transplanted to Alexandria.”1 In his chapter on philosophy, talking of the establishment of the main philosophical schools at Athens, Fraser writes that it “remained the centre of philosophical studies down to the closing of the schools by Justinian in A.D. 563.”2 The first of these statements is near enough the truth, since the Alexandria of the Ptolemies was not distinguished in philosophy as ifwas in literature or science, though even then some important things happened during that period too. But the implication that this situation continued during the Roman and early Byzantine periods is misleading, and by the end of the period simply false.3 The purpose of this paper is to examine some aspects of the considerable contribution that Alexandria made to the philosophical tradition that continued into the Islamic and Christian middle ages and beyond, and to show that it may lay claim to have been at least equal to that of Athens itself. [Introduction, p. 307] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/LDONxIQ4990ZfXQ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"898","_score":null,"_source":{"id":898,"authors_free":[{"id":1326,"entry_id":898,"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":"Alexandria as a Center of Greek Philosophy in Later Classical Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Alexandria as a Center of Greek Philosophy in Later Classical Antiquity"},"abstract":"Any discussion of Greek Alexandria may properly take its starting point \r\nfrom the work of P. M. Fraser, even if only to dissent from it. In the preface \r\nto Ptolemaic Alexandria Fraser observes that philosophy was one of the \r\n\u201citems\u201d that \u201cwere not effectively transplanted to Alexandria.\u201d1 In his \r\nchapter on philosophy, talking of the establishment of the main \r\nphilosophical schools at Athens, Fraser writes that it \u201cremained the centre of \r\nphilosophical studies down to the closing of the schools by Justinian in A.D. \r\n563.\u201d2 The first of these statements is near enough the truth, since the \r\nAlexandria of the Ptolemies was not distinguished in philosophy as ifwas in \r\nliterature or science, though even then some important things happened \r\nduring that period too. But the implication that this situation continued \r\nduring the Roman and early Byzantine periods is misleading, and by the end \r\nof the period simply false.3 The purpose of this paper is to examine some \r\naspects of the considerable contribution that Alexandria made to the \r\nphilosophical tradition that continued into the Islamic and Christian middle \r\nages and beyond, and to show that it may lay claim to have been at least \r\nequal to that of Athens itself. [Introduction, p. 307]","btype":3,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LDONxIQ4990ZfXQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":898,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Illinois Classical Studies","volume":"18","issue":"","pages":"307-325"}},"sort":["Alexandria as a Center of Greek Philosophy in Later Classical Antiquity"]}
| 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":["Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?"]}
| Title | Iamblichus as a Commentator |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1997 |
| Journal | Syllecta Classica |
| Volume | 8 |
| Pages | 1–13 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Twenty two years ago, when tiiat growtii in interest in Neoplatonism which is a s??a?t??? of this conference was only just getting under way, two large booksappeared which will be famUiar to all who are interested in Iamblichus. I am referring,of course, to JM. Dillon's collection of die fragmentary remains of Iamblichus'commentaries on Plato's dialogues, supplied with an ample commentary to boot,1 andB. Dalsgaard Larsen's Jamblique de Chalets. Exégète et Philosophe, of which some240 pages are devoted to his role as exégète: a collection of exegetical fragmentsappeared as a 130 page appendix.2 Larsen's book covered the interpretation of bothPlato and Aristode, and pre-empted a second volume of Dillon's which was to dealwith Aristode. I mention these books because we are, inter alia, taking stock, and it isremarkable that not much attention has been paid since dien to Iamblichus' role as acommentator. Perhaps tiiey have had die same effect on die study of this aspect ofIamblichus as Proclus' work had on the interpretation of Plato at Alexandria.Be that as it may, I intend to look, not very originally, at Iamblichus' activitiesas a commentator on philosophical works— and so I shall say notiring about dietwenty-eight books or more of his lost commentary on die Chaldaean Oracles*— andalso to say sometiring, in die manner of core samples, about how his expositionscompare with those of the later commentators. Though the process can be traced back in part to Porphyry,4 I drink it is safe to say tiiat Iamblichus was the firstNeoplatonist, at least of those about whom we are reasonably well informed, to set outin a systematic way to write commentaries on the major works of both Plato and—inIamblichus' case to a lesser extent—Aristotle too. [pp. 1 ff.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/uYBsFlDm7T54N7r |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"895","_score":null,"_source":{"id":895,"authors_free":[{"id":1321,"entry_id":895,"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":"Iamblichus as a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Iamblichus as a Commentator"},"abstract":"Twenty two years ago, when tiiat growtii in interest in Neoplatonism which is a\r\ns??a?t??? of this conference was only just getting under way, two large booksappeared which will be famUiar to all who are interested in Iamblichus. I am referring,of course, to JM. Dillon's collection of die fragmentary remains of Iamblichus'commentaries on Plato's dialogues, supplied with an ample commentary to boot,1 andB. Dalsgaard Larsen's Jamblique de Chalets. Ex\u00e9g\u00e8te et Philosophe, of which some240 pages are devoted to his role as ex\u00e9g\u00e8te: a collection of exegetical fragmentsappeared as a 130 page appendix.2 Larsen's book covered the interpretation of bothPlato and Aristode, and pre-empted a second volume of Dillon's which was to dealwith Aristode. I mention these books because we are, inter alia, taking stock, and it isremarkable that not much attention has been paid since dien to Iamblichus' role as acommentator. Perhaps tiiey have had die same effect on die study of this aspect ofIamblichus as Proclus' work had on the interpretation of Plato at Alexandria.Be that as it may, I intend to look, not very originally, at Iamblichus' activitiesas a commentator on philosophical works\u2014 and so I shall say notiring about dietwenty-eight books or more of his lost commentary on die Chaldaean Oracles*\u2014 andalso to say sometiring, in die manner of core samples, about how his expositionscompare with those of the later commentators. Though the process can be traced back in part to Porphyry,4 I drink it is safe to say tiiat Iamblichus was the firstNeoplatonist, at least of those about whom we are reasonably well informed, to set outin a systematic way to write commentaries on the major works of both Plato and\u2014inIamblichus' case to a lesser extent\u2014Aristotle too. [pp. 1 ff.]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/uYBsFlDm7T54N7r","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":895,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Syllecta \tClassica","volume":"8","issue":"","pages":"1\u201313"}},"sort":["Iamblichus as a Commentator"]}
| 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":["John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?"]}
| 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":["Neoplatonic Elements in the \"de Anima\" Commentaries"]}
| 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":["Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on \"Phantasia\""]}
| 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":["Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: \u00dcber die Zeit"]}
| 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?"]}