Iorga, Nicolae. Philippe de Mézières (1327–1405) et la croisade
au XIVe siècle. Paris: Bouillon, 1896.
Joan B. Williamson
MICHAEL SCOT
(c. 1175 or 1195–1235 or 1236)
Though famous as an astrologer and magician, Michael
Scot (or Scott) is chiefl y important as a scientifi c transla-
tor. He was born in Scotland but went to Spain, where
he learned enough Arabic to make Latin translations of
numerous scientifi c and philosophical works, sometimes
with a collaborator. The earliest of these works was al-
Bitruji’s defense of the Aristotelian astronomical model
(Toledo, 1217), to which Aristotle’s De caelo was a
natural sequel, together with Averroës’s major commen-
tary on it. Equally important were Scot’s translations
of Aristotle’s History of Animals and several related
biological works. In addition to these major translations,
which undoubtedly are the work of Scot, many others
have been attributed to him (Minio-Paluello 1974). Like
other Latin translations of Aristotle from Arabic, Scot’s
were replaced within a century by better versions from
the original Greek, but his were the ones from which
thirteenth-century scholastics worked.
By 1220, Scot had moved to Italy, where he remained
until his death. His success as a translator gained him
the patronage of the papacy, through which he secured
several ecclesiastical benefi ces in England and Scotland
(1224–1227); the income from these sinecures, which
he never visited, apparently supported him for the rest
of his life. From the papal letters of recommendation we
learn that Scot was a priest and held a university degree
(magister). Although some scholars have supposed
that he studied and taught at Paris, his association with
Bologna is better documented, for he was living there
in 1220–1221 and predicted the future of the Lombard
League for offi cials of Bologna in 1231.
Scot’s most famous patron was Emperor Frederick
II. A later generation (e.g., Salimbene, c. 1221–1290)
would remember Scot as “astrologer to the emperor,”
although it is not clear whether Frederick retained Scot
at court or only consulted him occasionally. Certainty
Frederick and Scot conversed from time to time, as Scot
repeatedly recalled with pride. In 1232, Scot translated
Avicenna’s treatise on animals for Frederick, who used
it in his own work on falconry.
Scot also dedicated his most ambitious work to
Frederick. This was an untitled trilogy on astrology to
which he devoted his last years. The fi rst book, Liber
introductorius, is a rambling introduction to astrology
that is addressed to amateurs with little background in
science. Scot fl eshes out the dry bones of professional
astrology with examples, digressions, and encyclopedic
information that make this work more lively and engag-
ing, though less useful, than its predecessors. The second
book, Liber particularis, adds more advanced explana-
tions, including some given in response to questions
asked by Frederick. The third book, Liber physionomiae,
deals with living creatures, notably mankind, and shows
especially how human character can be deduced from
physical signs. An abridged version of the last book was
immensely popular (it was printed about forty times), but
the rest remains unpublished except for excerpts. Unlike
other scholastics, Scot wrote for nonspecialists; he was
remarkable not so much for his learning as for his will-
ingness to display and exaggerate it. His contemporaries
were duly impressed and regarded him as a magician,
but in the next generation, Roger Bacon and Albertus
Magnus insisted that he was a charlatan, and Dante put
Scot in hell as a diviner (Inferno, 20.115–117).
See also Frederick IIFurther Reading
Haskins, Charles Homer. Studies in the History of Mediaeval
Science, 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1927, pp. 272–298.
Kay, Richard. “The Spare Ribs of Dante’s Michael Scot.” Dante
Studies, 103, 1985, pp. 1–14.
Minio-Paluello, Lorenzo. “Michael Scot.” In Dictionary of Sci-
entifi c Biography, ed. Charles Coulston Gillespie. New York:
Scribner, 1974, Vol. 9, 361–365.
Thorndike, Lynn. Michael Scot. London: Nelson, 1965.
Richard KayMOLINA, MARÍA DE
(c. 1270–1321)
Queen of Castile María (c. 1270–1321) was the wife of
Sancho IV (r.1284–1295) and the mother of Fernando
IV (c.1295–1312). As the daughter of Alfonso de Mo-
lina and Mayor Téllez de Meneses, she was a niece of
Fernando III and a fi rst cousin of Alfonso X. In June
1282 at Toledo she married Infante Sancho, the son and
heir of Alfonso X, even though they were related within
the prohibited degrees of kindred. Threatening them
with excommunication and interdict, Pope Martin IV
ordered them to separate in 1283, but they would not
do so. Inasmuch as they lacked a papal dispensation,
their enemies regarded the marriage as invalid and their
children as illegitimate. María was crowned with Sancho
IV at Toledo in April 1284. She seems to have been an
active counselor to her husband, but her powerful pres-
ence in Castilian politics was particularly felt after his
death in 1295.
As guardian of their fi rstborn, Fernando IV, her re-
sponsibility was to protect his person and to repel those
who challenged his right to the throne. Her brother-in-
law, Infante Juan, denied Fernando IV’s claims on the
grounds that he was illegitimate. Alfonso de la Cerda,MÉZIÈRES, PHILIPPE DE