APPENDIX V
Regesta Vaticana, Tom. xii., fol. 136 vo., epist. 170.
… archiepiscopo Cantuariensi sancte Romane ecclesie cardinali. De provisione dilecti filii magistri Michaelis Scoti, cuius eminentis sciencie titulus de ipso testimonium perhibet, quod inter litteratos alios dono vigeat sciencie singulari patris intimo cogitantes affectu, pro eo tibi, quod inter ceteros per orbem sciencia preditos eminenti litteratura et profundioris prerogativa doctrine coruscas, fiducialiter affectione plena dirigimus scripta nostra, firmam spem fiduciamque tenentes, quod probos clericos diligas et delecteris in illis ac per hoc ad providendum tante sciencie clerico promptus et facilis inveniri debeas per te (137ro.) ipsum. Quocirca fraternitati tue per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatinus tam liberaliter quam libenter predicto magistro infra provinciam tuam auctoritate nostra provideas in beneficio quod recipiente congruat et deceat providentem, ita quod ex hoc devocionem et diligenciam tuam in Domino commendare possimus et nos illud habeamus acceptum qui nollemus omnino quod dictus magister, qui maioribus dignus esset, gracie nostre, que reputatur ei debitum, frustraretur effectu, contradictores autem per censuras ecclesiasticas appellacione remota compescas. Dat. Lateran. xvii Kal. februar. anno octavo.
This extract, which has not hitherto been fully printed in any of the authorities (Pressutti, Regesta Honorii Pape III. vol. ii. pp. 194, 258; Bliss, Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers, vol. i. pp. 94, 97) has reached me from the Vatican just before going to press. I owe it to the kindness of Monsignor Ehrle, the Prefect of the Bibliotheca Apostolica, and am glad to reproduce it here, not only because of the light it throws on the events mentioned in Chapter viii., but as a testimony to the opinion then held of Scot’s attainments in science. Incidentally too, it places beyond question the fact mentioned on p. 14, namely, that he was in holy orders. With regard to the title of ‘Master,’ here repeated, I may add that this would seem to have been equivalent among the Regulars to that of ‘Doctor’ among the secular clergy; so that there is a further probability that Scot belonged to one of the monastic orders. Should any one still doubt that the ‘M. Scotus’ whom Honorius named for Cashel is the same person as Michael Scot, this extract may help to resolve the matter. Honorius evidently held Michael in the highest esteem, and it will be difficult to find another M. Scotus so likely to have been preferred by him in the very same year.