In the event indeed this proved to be a matter highly creditable to those who promoted it, but one which carried serious and far-reaching consequences both for Michael Scot and for the Emperor himself in the ecclesiastical and political sphere. When Scot returned to Toledo it was not with the purpose of attempting single-handed a task for which not only time, but the co-operation of several scholars, was evidently necessary. There is reason to think that the Emperors commission conveyed some instruction to this effect; for, as a matter of fact, we know that at least two other hands were associated with Scot in the translation of Averroës. One of these was Gerard of Cremona, not of course the Cremonese who died in 1187, but the younger scholar of the same name, perhaps a son or nephew of the elder. He is distinguished as Gherardus _de Sabloneta_ Cremonensis. The Victorine manuscript[162] supplies evidence that he contributed to the work in which Michael Scot was now engaged. It is not impossible that Philip of Tripoli may have joined in the new enterprise. His name does not indeed appear in any of the manuscripts which contain the Latin Averroës, but we have seen that he was certainly in Spain about this time and even at work with Gerard of Cremona.[163] His intimate relation to Michael Scot is also beyond question, and, upon the whole, it seems reasonable to suppose that the Emperor may have engaged him to help in the work now going forward. However this may have been as regards the exact details of time and persons, we may regard it as a matter now for the first time brought to light and established, that in the years between 1217 and 1223 there existed a college of translators in Toledo just such as that which had done so much excellent work there a century before. In the new school Frederick II. held the honourable place of patron, as Archbishop Raymon had done in his day, while Michael Scot and Gerard of Cremona aided each other in completing the version of Averroës as Dominicus Gundisalvus had lent his help to form that of Avicenna. This view of the matter should be found very interesting, not only in itself, but with regard to the conclusions arrived at by Jourdain, whose discoveries in the literary history of the twelfth century it so remarkably repeats and extends to the following age.