Both versions seem to be regarded as the _Experimentarius_ of Bernard Silvester, for in the manuscripts where they occur together the first usually follows its prologue, while the second is preceded by his picture and the line, _Translator Bernardus Silvester_.[303] In one manuscript[304] the prologue is immediately followed by the second version and the first set of Judges does not occur. In some manuscripts,[305] however, the second version occurs without the first and without the prologue, in which cases, I think, there is nothing to indicate that it is by Bernard Silvester or a part of the _Experimentarius_. The first version ends in several manuscripts with the words, _Explicit libellus de constellationibus_[306] rather than some such phrase as _Explicit Experimentarius_. Furthermore in some manuscripts where it occurs alone this first set of Judges is called the book of Alchandiandus or Alkardianus.[307] He may, however, have been the Arabic author and Bernard his translator, and the _liber alkardiani phylosophi_ opens in at least one manuscript with words appropriate to the title, _Experimentarius_, “Since everything that is tested by experience is experienced either for its own sake or on some other account.”[308] [Sidenote: Other modes of divination.] There are so many treatises of this type in medieval manuscripts and they are so frequently collected in one _codex_ that they are liable to be confused with one another. Thus in two manuscripts a method of divination ascribed to the physician of King Amalricus[309] is in such juxtaposition to the _Experimentarius_ that Macray takes it to be part of the _Experimentarius_, while the catalogue of the Sloane Manuscripts combines the two as “a compilation ‘concerning the art of Ptolemy.’” Macray also includes in the _Experimentarius_ a _Praenostica Socratis Basilei_, which is of frequent occurrence in the manuscripts, and other treatises on divination which are either anonymous or ascribed to Pythagoras and, judging from the miniatures prefixed to them, to Anaxagoras and Cicero, who thus again is appropriately punished for having written a work against divination. I doubt if these other modes of divination are parts of the _Experimentarius_, which often is found without them, as are some of them without it. But they are so much like it in general form and procedure that we may consider them now, especially as they are of such dubious date and authorship that it would be difficult to place them more exactly. [Sidenote: Divination of the physician of King Amalricus.]