Aristotle, but of Drogo. Yet he once taught those very Topics.
Certain auditors of Master Robert of Melun calumniated this work
as practically useless. All decried the Categories. Wherefore I
hesitated some time about commending them; but [there was no
question as to] the rest of his works, since they were commended
by the judgment of all; but I did not think that they should be
praised grudgingly. Yet opposition is made to the Elenchi
[Sophistical Refutations], though stupidly, because it contains
poetry; but clearly the idiom of [the Greek] language does not
lend itself readily to translation. In this respect the Analytics
seem to me preferable, because they are no less efficient for
actual use, and because by their easier comprehension they
stimulate eloquence.[18]

The slowness with which these works made their way is described by Roger
Bacon at the end of the thirteenth century.

But a part of the philosophy of Aristotle has come slowly into
the use of the Latins. For his Natural Philosophy and
Metaphysics, and the Commentaries of Averrhoes and of others,
were translated in our times, and were excommunicated at Paris
before the year of our Lord 1237 on account of [their heretical
views on] the eternity of matter and of time, and on account of
the [heresies contained in the] book on Interpretation of Dreams
(which is the third book on Sleep and Wakefulness), and on
account of the many errors in the translation. The Logicalia were
also slowly received and read, for the blessed Edmund, Archbishop
of Canterbury, was the first at Oxford, in my time, to lecture on
the book of Elenchi [Sophistical Refutations] and I saw Master
Hugo who at first read the book of Posterior Analytics, and I saw