At this point, however, a new difficulty suggests itself. It is well known that the lowland Scots were emigrants from the north of Ireland, and that in early times _Scotus_ was used as a racial rather than a local designation. May not Michael have been an Irishman? Such is the question actually put by a recent writer,[6] and certainly it deserves a serious answer. We may commence by remarking that even on this understanding of it the name is an indefinite one as regards locality, and might therefore have been applied to one born in Scotland just as well as if he had first seen the light in the sister isle. So certainly is this the case that when we recall the name of John Scotus we find it was customary to add the appellative _Erigena_ to determine his birthplace. At that time the separation of race was much less marked than it had become in Michael’s day, and it seems certain therefore that if _Michael Scotus_ was thought a sufficient designation of the man by Bacon and Bonatti, they must have used it in the sense of indicating that he came of that part of the common stock which had crossed the sea and made their home in Scotland. But to find a conclusive answer to this difficulty we need only anticipate a little the course of our narrative by mentioning here a highly curious fact which will occupy our attention in its proper place. When Michael Scot was offered high ecclesiastical preferment in Ireland he declined it on the ground that he was ignorant of the vernacular tongue of that country.[7] This seems to supply anything that may have been wanting in the other arguments we have advanced, and the effect of the whole should be to assure our conviction that there need be now no further attempt made to deny Scotland the honour of having been the native land of so distinguished a scholar. Nor are we altogether without the means of coming to what seems at least a probable conclusion regarding the very district of the Scottish lowlands where Michael Scot was born. Leland the antiquary tells us that he was informed on good authority that Scot came from the territory of Durham.[8] Taken literally this statement would make him an Englishman, but no one would think of quoting it as of sufficient value to disprove the testimony of Bacon and Bonatti who both believed Michael to have been born in Scotland. If, however, there should offer itself any way in which both these apparently contending opinions can be reconciled, we are surely bound to accept such an explanation of the difficulty, and in fact the solution we are about to propose not only meets the conditions of the problem, but will be found to narrow very considerably the limits of country within which the birthplace of Scot is to be looked for.