The whole matter of these versions, and of the fame belonging to Michael Scot in connection with them, seems to receive some further light when we compare the Toledan practice with that which distinguished the most famous schools of painting. It would surely be a strange freak of criticism which should deny to any of the great masters his well-earned fame because of the ground on which it was raised, or the numerous scholars whom it attracted to his studio. Yet we know well what this relation between the master and his school implied in the palmy days of pictorial art. There were apprentices who stretched canvas, mixed colours, and pricked and pounced designs. There were pupils, to whom, according to their talents and proficiency, varied parts of the execution were assigned. To the master alone belonged the oversight and responsibility of the whole. Giving a general design, were it only in a sketch from his hand, he watched the progress of the work with jealous eye, and caught the decisive moment to interpose by executing with his own pencil such parts of the painting as might give a distinctive character, a _cachet_, to the whole. Not till he was satisfied that the desired effect had been secured might the picture leave his studio, and who shall say that he did wrong to sign his name to works produced in such a way? Thus, at any rate, have the highest reputations in the world of art risen into their deserved and enduring fame. Now, as it is certain that the Toledan School pursued similar methods in their literary labours, right requires that the reputation of its members should be judged by the same canons of criticism which we apply without hesitation to pictorial art. His own day unhesitatingly gave Scot the chief credit in the version of Averroës without inquiring too curiously what parts had been executed by the Cremonese, or other scholars, and what share belonged to Andrew the Jew. It may make us the more ready to accept this verdict and adopt it as our own when we remember the intellectual qualities of the Emperor for whom this work was done. It is certainly out of the question to suppose that a reputation in letters, such as Michael Scot undoubtedly enjoyed at the court of Frederick II., could have been gained by any but legitimate and honourable means.