An Enquiry into the Life and Legend of Michael Scot

by J. Wood Brown

The whole matter of these versions, and of the fame belonging to Michael Scot in connection with them, seems to receive some further light when we compare the Toledan practice with that which distinguished the most famous schools of painting. It would surely be a strange freak of criticism which should deny to any of the great masters his well-earned fame because of the ground on which it was raised, or the numerous scholars whom it attracted to his studio. Yet we know well what this relation between the master and his school implied in the palmy days of pictorial art. There were apprentices who stretched canvas, mixed colours, and pricked and pounced designs. There were pupils, to whom, according to their talents and proficiency, varied parts of the execution were assigned. To the master alone belonged the oversight and responsibility of the whole. Giving a general design, were it only in a sketch from his hand, he watched the progress of the work with jealous eye, and caught the decisive moment to interpose by executing with his own pencil such parts of the painting as might give a distinctive character, a cachet, to the whole. Not till he was satisfied that the desired effect had been secured might the picture leave his studio, and who shall say that he did wrong to sign his name to works produced in such a way? Thus, at any rate, have the highest reputations in the world of art risen into their deserved and enduring fame.

Now, as it is certain that the Toledan School pursued similar methods in their literary labours, right requires that the reputation of its members should be judged by the same canons of criticism which we apply without hesitation to pictorial art. His own day unhesitatingly gave Scot the chief credit in the version of Averroës without inquiring too curiously what parts had been executed by the Cremonese, or other scholars, and what share belonged to Andrew the Jew. It may make us the more ready to accept this verdict and adopt it as our own when we remember the intellectual qualities of the Emperor for whom this work was done. It is certainly out of the question to suppose that a reputation in letters, such as Michael Scot undoubtedly enjoyed at the court of Frederick II., could have been gained by any but legitimate and honourable means.

Coming to an examination then of the various versions which came from the new Toledan School, we find that two of them expressly bear to have been the work of Scot himself. The first of these is the treatise commencing ‘Maxima cognitio naturae et scientiae.’ It is the commentary of Averroës on the De Coelo et Mundo of Aristotle,[170] and Scot has prefaced it by an introduction conceived as follows: ‘To thee, Stephen de Pruvino, I, Michael Scot, specially commend this work, which I have rendered into Latin from the sayings of Aristotle. And should Aristotle have delivered somewhat in an incomplete form concerning the fabric of the world in this book, thou mayest have what is wanting to complete it from that of Alpetragius which I have likewise rendered into Latin; and, indeed, it is one with which thou art well acquainted.’ As we know when the version of Alpetrongi on the Sphere was produced, this fortunate reference to that previous work enables us to determine, at least approximately, that of the De Coelo et Mundo, and hence of these translations of Averroës in general. The year 1217 is the first limit, before which they cannot have appeared, and 1223 is the last; for by that time Michael Scot had already left Spain. Between these two dates then, and probably nearer the former than the latter, must his labours and those of his coadjutors have been devoted to this important work.

Stephanus de Provino has been happily identified by M. Bourquelot with a somewhat notable ecclesiastic of the Church of Nôtre Dame du Val de Provins, whose name occurs in various documents dated between the years 1211 and 1233. Renan conjectures that he may be the same as a certain Etienne de Rheims, who, it seems, was born at Provins.[171] Perhaps he is the Stephanus Francigena of Guido Bonatti.[172] Scot’s friendship with him, to which the dedication of the De Coelo et Mundo bears witness, was probably begun in their student days at Paris.

The second version bearing the name of Scot is that which commences with the words: ‘Intendit per subtilitatem demonstrare;’ being the commentary of Averroës on the De Anima of Aristotle.[173] In the Victorine manuscript this treatise offers a curious title: ‘Here beginneth the Commentary of the Book of Aristotle the Philosopher concerning the Soul, which Averroës commented on in Greek, and Michael Scot translated into Latin.’

In the same manuscript the version of Averroës’s Commentary on the various books which compose the Parva Naturalia of Aristotle is ascribed to Gerard of Cremona. Renan observes that this ascription does not occur in any other copy, and supposes it to have been a mistake. He seems influenced in this conclusion by the fact that Gerard of Cremona died in 1187. It is curious to find such an eminent scholar forgetful of the existence of a younger Cremonese; and he is not alone in this error, for it has been repeated even of late years. Yet in 1851 Prince Baldassare Boncompagni had distinguished well between the elder and younger Gerard of Cremona in an excellent monograph on the subject.[174] Even had this work not been published, the learned world had already reason enough to suspect the truth. In a well-known passage of his Compendium Studii,[175] Roger Bacon speaks of Gerard of Cremona as a contemporary of Michael Scot, Alured of England, William the Fleming, and Herman the German, adding that those who were still young had nevertheless known Gerard, who was the eldest of this company of scholars. Now the Compendium Studii is commonly assigned to the year 1292, but even if we carry this passage back to 1267, when the most of Bacon’s works were written, it still appears evidently impossible that any one still young in that year could have seen a man who died in 1187. Boncompagni, as we have said, explains the difficulty by acquainting us with the younger Gerard, called de Sabloneta Cremonensis. He was undoubtedly a contemporary of Michael Scot, and the De Rossi manuscript, already referred to,[176] shows that he was in Spain about this time. There is therefore no reason to distrust the testimony of the Victorine codex when it gives Gerard the honour of having translated Averroës on the Parva Naturalia. In accomplishing this work he vindicated his right to the place we have already ventured to assign him as a member of the Toledan College.

The manuscript collections where the De Coelo et Mundo, the De Anima, and the Parva Naturalia of Averroës are found in a Latin dress, contain also versions of several other commentaries by the same author: those concerning the De Generatione et Corruptione, the four books of the Meteora, the De Substantia Orbis, and the Physica and Metaphysica of Aristotle.[177] We may safely ascribe them to the Toledo College. They were translated either by Michael Scot, Gerard of Cremona, or some other scholar who worked under these masters.

Renan, relying on the authority of Haureau,[178] has shown good reason to believe that at least the commentaries on the Physica and Metaphysica in their Latin versions came from the pen of Scot. Albertus Magnus, in a passage of high censure, delivers himself in the following terms: ‘Vile opinions are to be found in the book called Quaestiones Nicolai Peripatetici. I have been wont to say that the author of it was not Nicholas but Michael Scot, who in very deed knew not natural philosophy, nor rightly understood the books of Aristotle.’[179] The doctrine thus condemned is undoubtedly that of Averroës on the Physica and Metaphysica. A manuscript of the Paris library has a treatise commencing thus: ‘Haec sunt extracta de libro Nicolai Peripatetici,’ and it seems that a close correspondence exists between this and a certain digression in the commentary by Averroës on the twelfth book of the Metaphysics. This digression, says Renan, often occurs in the manuscripts as a separate treatise called ‘Sermo de quaestionibus quas accepimus a Nicolao et nos dicemus in his secundum nostrum posse.’ These words have been omitted from the printed editions of the Commentaries of Averroës, and thus the identity of this treatise with the book censured by Albertus Magnus was not recognised till Haureau discovered it.

The only result then of this sharp criticism is to assure us that the versions of the Physica and Metaphysica must also be reckoned to the credit of Michael Scot. For undoubtedly the opinions to which Albert took such exception were those of Averroës, and not of the translator. But if so, then what becomes of the censure passed upon Scot? The truth is that if he was more original than Bacon gave him credit for, on the other hand he escapes the force of Albert’s blame by proving to have been less original than the latter critic had supposed. His was indeed a hard case. He could not form versions from the Arabic but either he was accused of plagiarism or else held up to the indignation of Christianity as if he had been the author of the opinions he rendered into Latin. This steady determination to find fault overreaches itself. We begin to discover in it the bitter fruit of some odium philosophicum, and of that envy which even a just reputation seldom fails to excite.