This correspondence throws a clear light upon the case of Michael Scot in regard to the charge of plagiarism. Like Master Peter, he was familiar with both the Latin and the Arabic language. His weak point, however, we may suppose to have made itself felt with regard to the latter, which he probably knew better in its colloquial than its literary form, and this must have been the reason why he availed himself of the aid of a Spanish Jew to secure the accuracy of his work. Such collaboration seems to have produced nearly all the previous versions which came from Toledo, and it is obvious that the honour due to the various contributors who combined in forming these translations can only be determined by those who have it in their power to make a careful and unprejudiced valuation of their individual labours in each case. We may gravely doubt whether this was what Bacon did before he sat down to pen his sharp censure on Michael Scot. Certainly such an estimate is now out of the question. We can only affirm the undoubted fact that the critic was wrong when he said Scot did not know Arabic. The contrary appears, not only from the probability we have already drawn from his Sicilian residence, but by actual testimony of a very honourable kind.[169] Nor must we forget to notice that the openness with which this copartnery was carried on affords a proof that no deceit could have been thought of in the matter. Considering the past history of the Toledan School, it must have been taken for granted that every version which came from thence under the name of a Christian scholar owed something to the care of his Moorish scribe.