The name and fame of Aristotle, never quite forgotten even in the darkest age,[80] and now known and extolled among Moorish scholars, formed indeed the ground of that immense reputation which Arabian philosophy enjoyed in Europe. The Latin schools had long been familiar with the logical writings of Aristotle, but the modern spirit, soon to show itself as it were precociously in Bacon and Albertus Magnus, was already awake, and under its influence men had begun to demand more than the mere training of the mind in abstract reasoning. Even the application of dialectics to evolve or support systems of doctrine drawn from Holy Scripture could not content this new curiosity. Men were becoming alive to the larger book of nature which lay open around them, and, confounded at first by the complexity of unnumbered facts in sea and sky, in earth and air, they began to long for help from the great master of philosophy which might guide their first trembling footsteps in so strange and untrodden a realm of knowledge. Nor was the hope of such aid denied them. There was still a tradition concerning the lost works of Aristotle on physics. The Moors, it was found, boasted their possession, and even claimed to have enriched these priceless pages by comments which were still more precious than the original text itself. The mere hope that it might be so was enough to beget a new crusade, when western scholars vied with each other in their efforts to recover these lost treasures and restore to the schools of Europe the impulse and guidance so eagerly desired. Such had, in fact, been the aim of Archbishop Raymon and the successive translators of the Toledan school. The important place they assigned to Avicenna among those whose works they rendered into Latin was due to the fact that this author had come to be regarded in the early part of the twelfth century as the chief exponent of Aristotle, whose spirit he had inherited, and on whose works he had founded his own. The part of the Aristotelic writings to which Michael Scot first turned his attention would seem to have been the history of animals. This, in the Greek text, consisted of three distinct treatises: first the _De Historiis Animalium_ in ten books; next the _De Partibus Animalium_ in four books; and lastly, the _De Generatione Animalium_ in five books. The Arabian scholars, however, who paid great attention to this part of natural philosophy and made many curious observations in it, were accustomed to group these three treatises under the general title _De Animalibus_, and to number their books or chapters consecutively from one to nineteen, probably for convenience in referring to them. As Scot’s work consisted of a translation from Arabic texts it naturally followed the form which had been sanctioned by the use and wont of the eastern commentators.