 This distinction has affected the direction of scholarship, causing great attention to be given to the “philosophical” works, which were thought to represent most truly his thought, and leaving the “theological” treatises to be comparatively neglected. Even where the latter are widely taught, they are set apart from his supposedly more philosophical commentaries. The result, ever since the initial research of Renan (1852), has been a segmented and fragmentary view of the Rushdian corpus that marginalizes important aspects of his thought.