who know." In this period, then, academic debate concerned itself with
matters of detail. What portions of his works should be studied for the
various degrees in Arts? In what order should they be studied? What
comments should be read? What translations should be used? So late as
1519 these are the chief questions considered in the reformed plan of
studies in Arts at Leipzig. The reader will note the stress laid upon
the study of the text itself; the exclusion of frivolous comments, and
the use of the latest translations by Greek scholars.

Inasmuch as no good thing is more desirable than philosophy, as
Cicero says, and none more advantageous has been given to the
race of mortals, or granted by heaven, or will ever be given as a
gift; in order that we may possess this too, we choose as our
guide Aristotle, whom we cause to be commended for his knowledge
of facts, the number of his works, his ability in speaking, and
the acumen of his intellectual powers. Nor will we interpret the
visions and involved questions of his interpreters, since it is
characteristic of a very poor intellect to grow wise from
commentaries only, in which, neglecting Aristotle's meaning, the
Sophists dispute about empty trifles. But his works, translated
in part by Archeropylus [Argyropulos], in part by Augustus Nipho
and Hermolaus Barbarus and Theodoras Gaza, will be made clear in
the order outlined below:[24] [Then follows the list of books,
for which see p. 134].

The third stage of the debate concerning Aristotle began shortly after
1500. His works were less exclusively the subject of study: they were
being displaced by the Latin and Greek classics. They were, moreover,
the object of repeated attack. In 1536, in the University of Paris,
which had so long maintained their study, Pierre Ramus successfully