A tradition preserved by one of the commentaries on Dante[41] informs us that Michael Scot was employed as the Emperor’s tutor, and this explanation is one which we need feel no hesitation in adopting, as it clears up in a very convincing way all the difficulties of the case. His talents, already proved and crowned in Paris and Bologna, may well have commended him for such a position. The dedication of his books to Frederick, and the familiar style in which he addresses the young prince, are precisely what might be expected from the pen of a court schoolmaster engaged in compiling manuals _in usum Delphini_.[42] Nay the very title of ‘Master’ which Scot had won at Paris probably owed its chief confirmation and continued employment to the nature of his new charge. Since the fifth century there had prevailed in Spain the habit of committing children of position to the course of an ecclesiastical education.[43] They were trained by some discreet and grave person called the _magister disciplinae_, deputed by the Bishop to this office. Such would seem to have been the manner of Frederick’s studies. His guardian was the Pope; he lived at Palermo under charge of the Canons of that Cathedral,[44] and no doubt the ecclesiastical character of Michael Scot combined with his acknowledged talents to point him out as a suitable person to fill so important a charge. It was his first piece of preferment, and we may conceive that he drew salary for his services under some title given him in the royal registry. This would explain his connection with Philip, the chief notary, on which the Florentine manuscript insists. Such fictitious employments have always been a part of court fashion, and that they were common in Sicily at the time of which we write may be seen from the case of Werner and Philip de Bollanden, who, though in reality most trusted and confidential advisers of the Crown, were known at Court as the chief butler and baker, titles which they were proud to transmit to their descendants.[45]