Renan, relying on the authority of Haureau,[178] has shown good reason to believe that at least the commentaries on the _Physica_ and _Metaphysica_ in their Latin versions came from the pen of Scot. Albertus Magnus, in a passage of high censure, delivers himself in the following terms: ‘Vile opinions are to be found in the book called _Quaestiones Nicolai Peripatetici_. I have been wont to say that the author of it was not Nicholas but Michael Scot, who in very deed knew not natural philosophy, nor rightly understood the books of Aristotle.’[179] The doctrine thus condemned is undoubtedly that of Averroës on the _Physica_ and _Metaphysica_. A manuscript of the Paris library has a treatise commencing thus: ‘Haec sunt extracta de libro Nicolai Peripatetici,’ and it seems that a close correspondence exists between this and a certain digression in the commentary by Averroës on the twelfth book of the Metaphysics. This digression, says Renan, often occurs in the manuscripts as a separate treatise called ‘Sermo de quaestionibus quas accepimus a Nicolao et nos dicemus in his secundum nostrum posse.’ These words have been omitted from the printed editions of the Commentaries of Averroës, and thus the identity of this treatise with the book censured by Albertus Magnus was not recognised till Haureau discovered it. The only result then of this sharp criticism is to assure us that the versions of the _Physica_ and _Metaphysica_ must also be reckoned to the credit of Michael Scot. For undoubtedly the opinions to which Albert took such exception were those of Averroës, and not of the translator. But if so, then what becomes of the censure passed upon Scot? The truth is that if he was more original than Bacon gave him credit for, on the other hand he escapes the force of Albert’s blame by proving to have been less original than the latter critic had supposed. His was indeed a hard case. He could not form versions from the Arabic but either he was accused of plagiarism or else held up to the indignation of Christianity as if he had been the author of the opinions he rendered into Latin. This steady determination to find fault overreaches itself. We begin to discover in it the bitter fruit of some _odium philosophicum_, and of that envy which even a just reputation seldom fails to excite.