It is highly in favour of our identifying, as we have already done, Philip of Tripoli, the translator of the _Secreta_, with Philip of Salerno, the Clerk Register of Sicily, that we find Michael Scot, who stood in an undoubtedly close relation to the Clerk Register, showing an intimate acquaintance with the _Secreta Secretorum_. Foerster has given us a careful and exact account of several passages in different parts of the _Physionomia_ of Scot, which have their correspondences in the works of Philip, so that it is beyond question that the Latin version of the _Secreta_ was one of the sources from which Scot drew. Before leaving this part of the subject, we may notice that translations of Philip’s version into the vernacular languages of Italy, France, and England were made at an early date, both in prose and verse.[75] The English version of the _Secreta_ came from the hand of the poet Lydgate. Another treatise of the same school, to which Scot was also indebted, is to be found in the _Physionomia_ ascribed, like the _Secreta_, to Aristotle. The Latin version of this apocryphal work was made, it is said, directly from a Greek original, by Bartholomew of Messina. This author wrote for Manfred of Sicily, and at a time which excludes the notion that Scot could have seen or employed his work. Yet several passages in the preface to Book II. of Scot’s _Physionomia_ have evidently been borrowed from that of the Pseudo-Aristotle. As no Arabic version of the treatise is known to exist, the fact of this correspondence is one of the proofs on which we may rely in support of the conclusion that Scot must have known and used the Greek language in his studies.