Epistola Sebast. Curionis ad amplissimum Collegium Iurisconsult. Patavinae civitatis

as Cicero and Plato say (from whom Aristotle also does not differ in this matter), how can they be "opposites"? The man—disertus eloquent as he seems to himself—does not see that if these arts were opposed to one another, that common bond would nowhere be found. If the sentiment of the philosophers is true, that contraries cannot coexist, or at least the saying of our Savior, which is now worn out in common speech: "Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste," to which a religious man at least should give credence, since he ignores the common sentiments of the philosophers, truly he would set up an excellent encyclopedia of the arts for us, our teacher of speaking, turbulent and confused, and similar to himself in all things, since Rhetoric would conflict with Dialectic, and thus all arts would overturn one another. Furthermore, the following words of Aristotle in that place declare it openly: for Aristotle wishes to prove that Rhetoric can be comprehended by the precepts of art, and he does this with two arguments. The first and most important is this: that Rhetoric is similar to Dialectic, which is held in the number of arts. And later he shows in what respect they are similar, namely in their material, that each art professes certain things from which a method may be sought in any art, for finding probable arguments about all things and for judging them. But if Aristotle had said they were contrary, this argument would collapse, and all those things that are said there by Aristotle would be added in vain and ineptly unless they were said to confirm this. Truly, it is not a wonder that he did not understand the Greek, since he does not even understand the Latin. For in the same lecture (as I hear), wishing to corroborate this opinion of his with the authority of Cicero, he fell into a more grave error,