SCOT TRANSLATES AVERROES 127 



Michael Scot, Gerard of Cremona, or some other 

 scholar who worked under these masters. 



Renan, relying on the authority of Haureau, 1 

 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.' 2 The doctrine thus condemned is un- 

 doubtedly that of Averroes 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 Averroes 

 on the twelfth book of the Metaphysics. This 

 digression, says Renan, often occurs in the manu- 

 scripts 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 Averroes, 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 



1 De la Philosophic Scolastique, i. 470. 2 Opera, ii. 140. 



