of most of the remaining treatises. The recovery of Aristotle thus
occupied more than a century and a half. During that period the
intellectual life of western Europe was stimulated by the influx of
hitherto unknown works of that philosopher, and weighty additions were
made to the list of available studies.

As usual, the world of scholars and the universities were slow to
recognize the worth of the new studies. This was due partly to the
natural conservatism of teachers, and partly to the fear of
ecclesiastical authorities that the study of Aristotle would give rise
to heresies. Thus in the documents of the time we meet, on the one hand,
vigorous arguments by progressive scholars in favor of Aristotle, and on
the other, university regulations prescribing what books shall or shall
not be studied.

The attitude of Abelard toward Aristotle has already been cited (see p.
19).

His pupil, John of Salisbury, devotes a considerable portion of the
_Metalogicus_ to a discussion of the utility of the various portions of
the Organon and to the defense of Aristotle, as is shown by the titles
of various chapters of that work. It is important to remember that he is
advocating the study of the _newly_ translated books, as well as those
already known:

That Logic, because it seeks the truth, takes the lead in all
Philosophy.

On the usefulness of the Categories and their appliances.