[234] I cannot, however, agree with Professor Haskins (p. 10), that “From certain phrases in the preface” (of Hugh’s translation of the _Liber Aristotilis de 255 indorum voluminibus_) “it would seem that, while Hugo has been for some time a devotee of Arabian science, he has only recently (_nunc_) and comparatively late in the day (_serus ac indignus minister_) entered the bishop’s service.” It seems to me that the last phrase should read _servus ac indignus minister_, for Hugh had already translated at least one other work for the bishop before this one on the 255 books of the Indians, and in the present preface he alludes to many previous discussions between them and to the bishop’s continually exhorting him to publish, so that one would infer that they had been associated for some time past. Since writing this I have learned both from Mr. H. H. E. Craster of the Bodleian and from Professor Haskins himself that the reading in the MS (Digby 159, fol. 1v) is “seruus” or _servus_, as I have it in the rough notes I took on the treatise in August, 1919. [235] The following MSS may be noted in addition to those (BN 7453 and Florence, Laur. II-85, Plut. 30, c. 29) listed by Steinschneider (1905), pp. 35-6, and Haskins (1911), p. 13. CU Magdalene 27, late 14th century, fols. 1-66, “Ludus philosophorum qui apellatur filius (?) Astronomie. Rerum opifex deus qui sine exemplo nova condidit universa ... Ego sanctelliensis geomantie interpretacionem (instead of inscriptionem as given by Haskins from BN 7453) ingredior et tibi mi domine tirasonensis antistes....” James adds, “On a Latin version of a tract of Apollonius, by Hugo Sanctelliensis in MS Bib. Nat. Lat. 14951, see F. Nau in _Revue de l’Orient Latin_, 1908,” but in a note of 21 June 1921 Dr. James informs me that one should read _Orient Chrétien_ in place of _Orient Latin_. Vienna 5508, 14th century, fols. 182-200, Hugo Sacelliensis sive Saxaliensis, Geomantia, “Rerum opifex deus ... / ... sive mundus facie.” Vienna 5327, 15th century, fols. 59r-60v, Operis de geomantia ad Tirasconensem anstitem prologus et caput primum. Haskins (1911), p. 13, note 45, notes that the Laurentian MS has a different Incipit from BN 7453, but CU Magdalene 27 and Vienna 5508 agree with the latter Incipit. [236] Haskins, p. 14.