Für wen schrieb Boethius seine Übersetzungen, Kommentare und Traktate zur Logik? Da es keine Anzeichen von einem mehr oder weniger geregelten Schulkontext gibt, in dem Boethius gelehrt hat und für den er seine Lehrbücher verfasste, wird der Fokus Fokus auf zwei Perspektiven gelegt. Zum einen werden die Spuren verfolgt, die Rückschlüsse auf das soziokulturelle Umfeld und das intellektuelle Milieu zulassen, in welches Boethius eingeflochten war. Zum anderen werden Boethius’ eigene Reflexionen unter dem Aspekt in den Blick genommen, inwiefern sie Hinweise auf sein intendiertes und auf sein tatsächliches Publikum liefern.

Die Frage nach der Eigenständigkeit des boethianischen Denkens ist für die Bewertung von Boethius’ logischem Werk so kontrovers wie grundlegend, da ihre Beantwortung zugleich Erkenntnisse zur Praxis und zu den Zielen des boethianischen Wissenstransfers erfordert wie auch auch ermöglicht. In diesem Aufsatz sollen Argumente, Beobachtungen und Überlegungen vorgestellt und diskutiert werden, die für und wider die Plausibilität der wirkmächtigen These James Shiels sprechen, wonach Boethius auch in seinen Kommentaren und logischen Traktaten lediglich Scholien übersetzte.

The purpose of this paper is to register exegetic (and for the most part unknown) material on the first four chapters of Aristotle’s De interpretatione transmitted in codices vetustissimi, vetusti and recentiores. Scholia, glosses and diagrams presented in this inventory are organized with respect to (a) their place in each manuscript and (b) their relation to the aristotelian text. Whereas texts and diagrams edited here do not represent any critical edition in its traditional sense, effort has been made to point towards continuities and discontinuities regarding their transmission.

The paper investigates Halevi’s theory of divine attributes as an example of the transfer of knowledge from the Classical Arabic philosophy to Judeo-Arabic philosophy. To this end, the depiction of divine attributes in Al-Ghazālī’s Al-Iqtiṣād fī al-i‛tiqād is compared to that offered by Halevi in the Sefer ha-Kuzari. The initial extended delineation of Al-Ghazālī’s account constitutes the background for the investigation of Halevi’s approach, in order to facilitate the comparison of both. The investigation of the discussion of divine attributes in the works of both authors does not only serve to demonstrate the similarities of both when it comes to their indebtedness towards and their criticism of the Neoplatonic-Aristotelian philosophical tradition. It also serves to illustrate their understanding of metaphorical and figurative language. Furthermore, the paper aims to show what parts of Al-Ghazālī’s thinking became transformed in this transfer process due to the different religious context.

The paper analyses the argumentative strategies of the ancient commentators on Aristotle's Meta- physics A 9, A 6 and M 4 and the functions ascribed by them to Aristotle's doxographic reports and critique. In discussing the use made of concepts from the Categories in the critique of Platonic Forms the commentators elucidate the need for further differentiations for didactic pur- poses in the institutional context of the philosophical schools of late antiquity. By doing this, the paper argues, the commentators further develop Aristotle's own argumentative strategy when he transfers tools from his logical treatises into other contexts. The commentators's transfer of texts and conceptual tools into other textual contexts follows the skopos of enhancing understanding of the meaning of the Aristotelian text. These acts of transfer constitute a new textual context for the Aristotelian text commented upon, one that includes texts from Plato, Platonic sources, Aristotle himself and earlier or contemporary commentators, each of which has its specific ar- gumentative functions.