The selection following illustrates numerous characteristics of mediaeval university study. (1) The question itself is a very ancient subject of debate; the controversy, on religious grounds, concerning the study of the classics, had already continued for nearly a thousand years, and was destined to continue for centuries after the appearance of the _Decretum_. Many such questions were debated in the universities for generations. The debate on the classics still rages, though the arguments pro and con no longer raise the point of their influence on religious belief. (2) The selection is one among many examples of the powerful influence of Abelard's method in mediaeval writing and teaching. The reader will at once see in it the form of the "Yes and No." (3) It gives a very good idea of the substance of a university lecture, which would ordinarily consist in reading the actual text and comments here set down (see p. 111). (4) It shows how the mass of comments came to overshadow the original text, and by consequence to absorb the greater part of the attention of teachers and students. One object of university reform in all studies at the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century was to sweep away this burdensome and often useless material, and to return to the study of the text itself (see p. 48). (5) It illustrates a common mode of interpreting in a figurative sense passages from the Bible which to the modern reader seem to have no figurative meaning. Thus (pp. 64, 66) the plagues of frogs and flies which Moses brought upon Egypt typify "the empty garrulousness of dialecticians, and their sophistical arguments "; the gifts of the three Magi to the infant Jesus signify "the three parts of philosophy," etc. Mediaeval literature contains a great mass of such interpretations. The text and the "gloss," or commentary, are here placed on opposing pages for the sake of clearness. The text is a compilation, chiefly from earlier compilations; Gratian did not as a rule consult the sources themselves. His pupil, Paucapalea, made many additions to the text, one of which appears in this selection. The gloss here translated is the standard commentary (_glossa ordinaria_) which was used for centuries in the regular university lectures (see p. 108). Like the text, it is a compilation from many sources. It was first made (c. 1212) by John the German (Joannes Teutonicus), who added his own notes--usually signed "John"--to his selections from earlier glossators. The names or titles, often abbreviated, of commentators whom he quotes are frequently appended to their notes, e.g. John of Fa[enza], Hugo [of Pisa], C[ardinalis], Lau[rentius Hispanus]; many notes are unsigned. About 1238 the compilation of John the German was revised and enlarged by Bartholomew of Brescia, who also added comments from other writers, e.g. Arc [hidiaconus]. This revision forms the greater part, if not the whole, of the gloss which appears below.