There can be little doubt regarding the nation where he had his birth. Disregarding for a moment the varying accounts of those who lived centuries after the age of Scot himself, let us make a commencement with one whose testimony is of the very highest value, being that of a contemporary. Roger Bacon, the famous scientist of the thirteenth century, introduces the name of Michael Scot in the following manner: ‘Unde, cum per Gerardum Cremonensem, et Michaelem Scotum, et Aluredum Anglicum, et Heremannum (Alemannum), et Willielmum Flemingum, data sit nobis copia translationum de omni scientia.’[3] In this passage the distinctive appellation of each author is plainly derived from that of his native country. That Bacon believed Michael to be of Scottish descent is therefore certain, and his opinion is all the more valuable since he was an Englishman, and not likely therefore to have confused the two nations of Great Britain as a foreigner might haply have done. To the same purpose is the testimony of Guido Bonatti, the astrologer, who also belonged to the age of Bacon and Scot. ‘Illi autem,’ he says,[4] ‘qui fuerunt in tempore meo, sicut fuit Hugo ab Alugant, Beneguardinus Davidbam, Joannes Papiensis, Dominicus Hispanus, Michael Scotus, Stephanus Francigena, Girardus de Sabloneta Cremonensis, et multi alii.’ Here also the significance of _Scotus_, as indicating nationality, is one that hardly admits of question. It was in all probability on these or similar authorities that Dempster relied when he said of Michael:[5] ‘The name Scot, however, is not a family one, but national,’ though he seems to have pressed the matter rather too far, it being plainly possible that _Scotus_ might combine in itself both significations. In Scotland it might indicate that Michael belonged to the clan of Scott, as indeed has been generally supposed, while as employed by men of other nations, it might declare what they believed to have been this scholar’s native land.