As to the personality of Alphagirus, the only ground of conjecture seems to be that supplied by Romanus de Higuera, who, speaking of the learned men assembled in 1218 at Toledo for the astronomical congress, mentions that one of them was ‘el Conhesso Alfaquir’ of Toledo.[166] The place, the date, and the similarity of name, are all in favour of our supposing these two to be one and the same person. Nay further, as Alfaquir was of Toledo, and did not need to be summoned thither in 1218, there is no reason why he should not, as the ‘Alphagirus’ of 1209, have assisted Michael Scot in producing the _De Animalibus_ for Frederick. It is from a remark made by Roger Bacon that we know the first name of the Toledan interpreter to have been Andrew, and that he was a Jew. Bacon gives us this information in no kindly spirit, but in order to lead up to the bitter conclusion that Scot’s work was not original, but borrowed from one whose labours and just fame he had appropriated. ‘Michael Scot,’ he says, ‘was ignorant of languages and science alike. Almost all that has appeared in his name was taken from a certain Jew called Andrew.’[167] A sufficient answer to this serious accusation may be found in what we already know of the literary fashions of the day, and, in particular, of the traditional methods of work pursued by the Toledan translators. It was precisely thus that the Archdeacon Gundisalvus had used the aid of Avendeath. A little later too, we find the same system adopted in the translation of the Koran promoted by Peter the Venerable. That ecclesiastic thus expresses himself in sending a copy of his book to St. Bernard: ‘I had it translated by one skilled in both tongues; Master Peter of Toledo; but since he was not as much at home in the Latin, and did not know it as well as the Arabic, I appointed one to help him … Brother Peter our Notary.’ To his Koran Peter the Venerable joined a _Summa Brevis_ of the Christian controversy with the Mohammedans. This work also came from the pen of Master Peter, and with regard to it he makes the following remarks: ‘By giving elegance and order to what had been rudely and confusedly stated by him (_i.e._ by Master Peter) he (_i.e._ Brother Peter the Notary) has completed an epistle, or rather a short treatise, which, as I believe, will be very useful to many.’[168]