139
7JKL51Q5
and bis search for a
Universal science
1978
MAR 2
MAR 05 1994
ROGER BACON AND
HIS SEARCH FOR A
UNIVERSAL SCIENCE
ROGER BACON AND
HIS SEARCH FOR A
UNIVERSAL SCIENCE
A Reconsideration of the Life and Work of Roger Bacon
in the Light of His Own Stated Purposes
STEWART C. EASTON
NEW YORK/ RUSSELL fcf RUSSELL
FIRST PUBLISHED IK 1 95 2
REISSUED, 197 I, BY RUSSELL & RUSSELL
A DIVISION OF ATHENEUM PUBLISHERS, INC*
BY ARRANGEMENT WITH
BASIL BLACKWELL, PUBLISHER, OXFORD
L. C, CATALOG CARD NO 177- 1 3 99 1 8
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AUTHOR'S NOTE
IT was unfortunate that what is perhaps the most useful new account
of the life and works of Roger Bacon from the pen of Father
Theodore Crowley, O.F.M. (Roger Bacon: The Problem of the Soul
in his Philosophical Commentaries, Louvain and Dublin, 1950), appeared
too late for detailed criticism in this book. It is gratifying to find that
on so many points we are in substantial agreement after studying the
same material on far more than either of us agree with earlier
writers on the subject. A few footnotes have been added while the
book was in the press to indicate areas of agreement and disagreement.
But no attempt has been made to alter any of the text in consideration
of Father Crowley's findings, which need far more careful attention
than I have been able to give them at this stage, especially in the
matter of the authenticity of the Liber de retardatione accidentium
senectutis, and the much disputed matter of Bacon's imprisonment.
I think he does less than justice to Father Mandonnet's real arguments
against the traditional order of the famous Opera to the Pope. But
his opinion of the importance of an understanding of Bacon's
chafacter if we are to explain his relations with the Franciscan Order
coincides with mine, though we come to different conclusions.
I wish to acknowledge here the invaluable assistance received from
Professor Thorndike of Columbia University throughout the whole
preparation of the book, and also from Professors Evans and Bigon-
giari in several important details. I am also indebted to Miss Made-
leine Edelstein for her patient hearing and rehearing of the complex
arguments in Chapter Vm until the various parts fell into place.
Full responsibility for the conclusions, of course, rests altogether
with me.
STEWART C. EASTON
City College of New York
7115105
KANSAS CITY (MO.) PUBLIC LIBRARY
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
N.B. All tides of books and articles are given throughout in abbreviated form.
For the full tides and dates, see the formal bibliography, pp. 236 ff.
The following abbreviations are not self-explanatory.
Archiv . . . Archiv fur Litteratur and Kirchengeschichte de$ Mittelalters.
Brewer, Op. Tert. J. S. Brewer, ed., Opus tertium.
Charles. E. Charles, Roger Bacon, sa vie, ses ouvrages, et ses doctrines.
Chartularium. Chartularium Universitatis Pansiensis.
CSP. J. S. Brewer, ed., Compendium studii philosophiae.
CST. H. Rashdall, ed., Compendium studii theologiae.
Gasquet. F. A. Gasquet, *An Unpublished Fragment of a "Work by Roger Bacon'.
Litde, Op. Tert. A. G, Litde, ed., Part of the Opus Tertium of Roger Bacon.
Opus Majus. J. H. Bridges, ed., The Opus Majus of Roger Bacon, 3 vols. 1
Opus Minus. J. S. Brewer, ed., Opus Minus.
Steele, Fasc. Opera hactenus inedita Fr. Rogeri Baconis, Oxford, 1905 (?) 41.
All the works in this series are not edited by Steele, but the series is always cited
as Steele, Fasc. I, etc.
1 Since this is the only edition of the Opus Majus used, the reference Opus Majus always
refers to the three volumes of Bridges' work, whether it is concerned with Bridges' personal
introduction or notes, or with Bacon's text, edited by him.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION i
II. EARLY LIFE AND EDUCATION 9
in. EARLY MANHOOD 19
IV. PROFESSOR AT PARIS 35
V. THE PROMISED LAND VISION OF A UNIVERSAL SCIENCE . 67
VI, TWENTY YEARS HAVE i LABOURED 87
VII. BACON AS FRLAR 118
VIE. THE WORKS FOR THE POPE ...... 144
DC THE UNIVERSAL SCIENCE OF ROGER BACON . . .167
X. THE LAST YEARS i86
APPENDIXES
A. THE LECTURES OF ROBERT GROSSETESTE TO THE FRAN-
CISCANS, 1229-35 206
B. WHO WAS THE UNNAMED MASTER? . . . .210
C. TWO PRINTED WORKS ATTRIBUTED TO BACON . . .232
BIBLIOGRAPHIES 236
ROGER BACON AND HIS SEARCH
FOR A UNIVERSAL SCIENCE
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
WHEN Voltaire wrote his Siecle de Louis XIV he made it clear
that he regarded the eighteenth century as the greatest age
so far known by mankind. While he retained some admiration for
the Greeks and Romans, the Middle Ages was for him a period of
unrelieved barbarism.
In the twentieth century we are hesitant to call any people bar-
barian, or any period of history barbaric. Relativism in philosophy,
whatever its effects on philosophy itself, has led to an interesting new
approach to history, and a new sin has entered the catalogue. As far
as we can, we should cease to examine the past in the light of current
assumptions; in particular we should cease to judge past thought by
the criterion of a present-day scheme of values. We must rather
regard it in the light of its own system, and its own assumptions; or
we shall be guilty of the sin of present-mindedness. We must not
expect, moreover, to find any individual thinker suddenly transcend
the whole scheme of beliefs by which his contemporaries lived. If
we find that in some particulars he appears to have transcended it we
must make the assumption that we are liable to have misunderstood
his contribution. Many others in his time were probably thinking
in the same way; probably a 'progressive' movement existed of which
we were unaware. It is then only our own ignorance that made us
believe in his uniqueness, and our task is clear. We must set out to
dispel this ignorance by studying his contemporaries and looking at
him from a new angle.
Moreover, philosophical relativism has had one other remarkable
result. We have become more charitable to the past. In our twen-
tieth century we have come to doubt whether there are any absolute
values at all; whether it is ever legitimate to say that an action, or
even a thought, is good or bad, true or false. For more than two
thousand years Euclidean geometry was accepted as 'true'. When in
2 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
the nineteenth century it became clear that this was not the only
possible geometry, a few blithe disciples of progress said that Euclid
was wrong, as a few physicists to their shame in our own age claimed,
after the experimental demonstration of the Einsteinian theory of
relativity, that Newton had been wrong. Then came the calmer
pragmatists who deckred, with great charity as well as scientific good
sense, that Euclidean geometry merely defines the properties of a
certain kind of space; while Newton's mechanics and physics are
'true' for the world of ordinary sense experience, but insufficient for
the realm of the atom and electron.
This general attitude has now affected the study of the Middle
Ages. St. Thomas Aquinas' physics has been declared to be 'ethics', 1
not wrong or mistaken as Voltaire or a nineteenth-century materialist
would have maintained, but justifiable within his thirteenth-century
framework of ideas. The Franciscans, when they instituted a censor-
ship of writings in 1260, were acting in a manner to be expected of
them in thirteenth-century society, since 'freedom of speech' could
never have been a thirteenth-century ideal. Medieval and Moslem
thinkers 'were convinced Aristotelians because of the factual evidence
from mathematics, physics, biology, astronomy, and psychology,
and because of the capacity of the Aristotelian science to account for
all this evidence'. 2
In considering the life-work of Roger Bacon, therefore, I have
tried to keep free from any bias either for or against him. Since the
revival of interest in his work, stimulated so . effectively by the
researches of Cousin, Brewer, and Charles nearly a century ago, he
has remained an extremely controversial figure. I am not specially
interested in his apparent anticipations of modern knowledge and the
'modern' viewpoint, nor his supposed originality and uniqueness. I
have worked on the assumption that he cannot have been unique,
and that his originality, as, indeed, all human originality, has rested
on his treatment of materials familiar to large numbers of people in
his time. As a thinker he may have been original, but he was only
unique in the sense that all thinkers are unique; he laid the impress
of his own mind upon his material by selecting what he considered
relevant to his purpose and interpreting this in accordance with his
own subjective scheme. This scheme I have believed it to be the
proper task of the historian to try to discover from Bacon's own life
1 'Modem science is physics, while medieval science was something at once less potent and
more important ethics/ J. H. Randall, The Making of the Modem Mind (Boston, 1940), p. 100.
1 F. S. C. Northrop, The Meeting of East and West (New York, 1946), p, 263.
Introduction 3
and writings, and I have tried to give some indications of the limita-
tions of the material that he used. The only judgment I feel able to
pronounce is on the completeness and relevance of his scheme for his
own thirteenth-century world.
The scheme was not born in an instant in his mind. Throughout a
long life it developed. As Bacon grew older it must be presumed
that his interests widened; increasing quantities of material became
available to him, all of which he attempted to synthesize into a
working philosophy of life which satisfied him and he believed had
value for others. As his mental powers declined in his old age, I
believe there was a contraction of his interests, as there were probably
fewer means at hand to satisfy them. This is the generalized picture
of human life as we usually know it, even in our own day; and I
believe it can be traced in the life of this thirteenth-century friar, if
we read all the works known to be by him, and take full advantage
of those writings which can be dated with certainty.
This means that in studying his output it is essential to examine at
the same time what we know and can reasonably conjecture of his
life. The writings cannot be regarded as the work of a disembodied
spirit and treated in vacua without doing grave violence to his whole
system of thought. An exclusive study of the early Quaestiones given
at the University of Paris, more than twenty years before the famous
Opera written for Pope Clement IV, will tell us much about the
curriculum of the Faculty of Arts in Paris about the year 1245, and
about Bacon himself as he was at that time. But they cannot be
supposed to embody his final philosophical views. On the other
hand, a study of the works only of his full maturity may give us a
better picture of the culmination of his thought, but it neglects the
elements that are historically important in the development of his
mind. Moreover, it overlooks the special circumstances which
prompted the work for the Pope, and its hortatory nature. In Bacon's
own term these works were persuasiones, composed with the expressed
intention of persuading Clement to a definite course of action. Such
work requires a very careful selection of what is likely to promote
the objectives, and an emphasis on certain parts which is not necessary
for a philosopher engaged in expressing the best thought of which
he is capable. The student of Bacon must in every case make allow-
ance for the purpose of the writer, in the Quaestiones, the Opera, and
the Communia Naturaliutn alike. And this can only be done if the
conditions in his life at the time are closely correlated with the
material produced*
4 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
This has presented a peculiarly difficult task when there is so little
reliable information available on his actual life, and no convincing
chronology has been established, or can probably ever be established,
for his writings. I have been forced to rely on Bacon's own state-
ments, meagre internal evidence, and to a much lesser degree later
unreliable tradition. I have had to fill this out with much conjecture,
the enlarging of brief and sometimes enigmatic hints, together with
my best estimate of the probabilities, based on what Bacon reveals of
his own character. If, especially in the later part of this study, the
conservative reader may think the hypothetical reconstruction
exceeds those decent limits the historian should observe, the writer
can only apologize to him and say that he is not personally attached
to these hypotheses, and will welcome any informed attempt to
destroy them.
If this study takes the form of a biography it is because at every
stage of the inquiry Bacon's personal history is important for the
understanding of his work. On the other hand, as this cannot be
understood except by considering the environment in which he was
working, much space will inevitably be given to the intellectual
atmosphere of the thirteenth century in both England and France,
and especially the enormous influence of the recent translations of
Aristotle and the 'Arabs'. This necessary information will be brought
into the story when it is required. But I have tried to keep it within
bounds, and to refer the reader to the extraordinarily valuable
bibliography of the whole movement to be found in Professor van
Steenberghen's study of Siger of Brabant. 1 As far as I am aware, this
selected bibliography has been nowhere surpassed, and it is of suffici-
ently recent date (1942) to be of considerable use to the student of
the intellectual history of the thirteenth century as it has been revealed
by recent research.
But primarily the biographical form has been chosen because of
the lack of a full biography of Bacon which takes modern research
into account. While not underestimating the immense labours
required for Emil Charles's pioneer biography, and his many valuable
insights, I cannot doubt that his work, 2 for our day, is at least partly
spoiled by his general estimate of Bacon as an outstanding modernist,
and a 'martyr of science', which colours his whole interpretation.
Moreover, he was extremely unfortunate in that the Amiens library
1 F. van Steenberghen, Siger de Brabant . , . pp.7 34-46. (For this and all other abbreviations,
see the complete bibliography.)
*E. Charles, Roger Bacon, sa vie . . . (cited as Charles).
Introduction 5
would not permit him an extended use of its unique MS. of the
Quaestiones, which has since been published in full. 1 And ninety
years of criticism and innumerable monographs have contributed
immeasurably to our knowledge both of Bacon and of his contem-
poraries. Yet this work remains the only full-length study of Bacon's
life and works to this day.
J. H. Bridges, the editor of the Opus Majus and other works of
Bacon, wrote in 1897 a valuable introduction which was later
expanded into a book and published separately. 2 But the book is
very short, and even of this, the life occupies only a small part. For
the seventh centenary of the presumed date of Bacon's birth, A. G.
Little edited an invaluable collection of essays, the first of which is
devoted to bis life, and the last to the fullest bibliography of his works
that has yet appeared. 3 Little also enlarged a few of his ideas on
Bacon in a lecture delivered to the British Academy in 1928.*
In 1916 Professor Lynn Thorndike wrote two important articles
in the American Historical Review which were based not only upon
Bacon's own work, but upon the work of Bacon's contemporaries,
which was largely unknown to earlier biographers. 6 Thorndike's
work laid the foundation for all later studies of Bacon, who had
previously been considered too much in isolation. Some of his many
useful suggestions have been followed up and examined more closely
in this study.
In 1921 Robert Steele wrote up his views on Bacon's life and
work,* and was one of the first to take account of the Amiens MS.
which he had already begun to edit. Many of Steele's opinions on the
development of Bacon's thought and his attempts to correlate them
with his life were, I think, over-hasty; but his knowledge at least of
Bacon's corpus of writings was probably second to none at that
time.
In 1928 appeared one of the most useful and critical studies of
certain disputed facts in Bacon's life, hidden away in an account of
his philology. In fact, more pages are devoted to his life than to his
philology. While I do not agree with some of Vanderwalle's con-
clusions, I have found his work most valuable and suggestive. 7
1 Charles, p. 66, note 3.
J. H. Bridges, The Life and Work . . . (1914).
* A. G. attic, Essays . . . (1914).
4 Little, 'Roger Bacon. Annual Lecture . . .* (1928).
5 L. Thorndite, *The True Roger Bacon . . * (1916). These articles were kter incorporated
into his History of Magic . . . (1923), n, 616-91.
6 R. Steele, 'Roger Bacon and the State of Science . . / (1921).
7 C. B. Vanderwalle, Roger Bacon dans Vkistoire . . . (1929).
6 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Since 1929 other works have appeared, but they have added very
little to our knowledge, and none seems to have been based on any
profound study of the sources. 1 Various monographs on special
aspects of Bacon's work have appeared continually during the
century. The most important of these are included in the biblio-
graphy.
The other great American historian of science, George Sarton, was
excluded by the scope of his undertaking 2 from an extended study
of Bacon's life and work. But everything that he wrote about him
was clearly based upon a profound understanding of his work and
his place in the history of science, and it was clear that he could have
written a fine study of him if he had been able to devote the time to
it. From the few sentences he gives to Bacon I draw the following,
with which, after the completion of my study, I confess myself in full
agreement:
He had a strong belief in the unity of knowledge, but that unity was accounted for
as a subordination of all knowledge to theology . . . this mixture of mysticism and
scientific positivism was Bacon's main characteristic: each ingredient would explain
his growing impatience with metaphysical discussion: the combination of both was
overpowering. Bacon was not a philosopher, but he was one of the greatest thinkers
of all ages. 3
A few words are necessary on the use of certain modern English
terms which do not exactly correspond to the Latin words used by
Bacon. The most important and ubiquitous of these words is 'science'
itself.
Webster gives several meanings in current use in English. His first
is 'the knowledge of principles or facts'. This is the most common
meaning of the Latin word scientia in Bacon's writings. In the great
medieval question: 'Is theology a science?' which is discussed in
Appendix B of this study, the word science has this meaning, and is
to be especially distinguished from faith. Do we know that God
exists, or do we only believe it? St. Thomas claims that we know
this truth, and would know it even if there were no inspired book in
which we believe. The context will show whether this is the meaning
required in each instance.
Webster's second meaning is more specific: 'Accumulated and
accepted knowledge which has been systematized and formulated
1 A special critical bibliography of Baconian biographies is given below, pp. 237-40.
* G. Sarton, Introduction to the History . . . (1931), n, 952-67.
* Sarton, Introduction . . . n, 960.
Introduction 7
with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of
general laws'. The medievals may have been struggling towards this
conception, but the use of the word science with this meaning will be
avoided in this study.
Webster's third and fourth meanings were known in the Middle
Ages and they are used by Bacon. 'Systematic knowledge relating
to the physical world and its philosophy, called also natural science',
and 'any branch or department of systematized knowledge considered
as a distinct field of investigation or object of study'. Wherever
possible the third meaning will be called 'natural science', and the
fourth, wherever it occurs, will be self-explanatory. However, the
special sciences dealt with by Bacon would not to-day in every case
be considered as branches of science at all, and in only a few cases
does the science cover the same material as in our time. For Bacon,
'mathematics' covers astronomy and astrology, music, arithmetic,
and geometry. The science of weights is considered as a part of
alchemy. Most of these distinctions, when relevant, will appear in
the text.
I am translating Bacon's sdentia experimentalis as the 'science of
experience' rather than as experimental science. To us it is not a
special science at all, but an integral part of the scientific method.
Bacon distinguishes it from knowledge which is deduced from prior
knowledge or from self-evident principles and axioms, and he
distinguishes it from the data of revelation. One of its uses is to
confirm this deductive material to enable the mind to rest in the
assurance of certitude, although it can also provide new and useful
natural knowledge, whether or not it fits into any theoretical system.
Experiments are anything which has been experienced. They may
be planned to serve as confirmation of deductive material or to add
to existing knowledge, as in our modern usage; or they may be
merely empirical data noticed in ordinary life. When Bacon says
that the scholastics do not make experiments, he does not mean that
they have no experience of life, but only that they do not subject
their theories to the test of experience. They treat their theories as
autonomous superior knowledge to their daily experience. It is
contended in this study that Bacon himself made few planned
experiments, but that he did give much thought to the meaning of
experiments carried out by others, and considered seriously the place
of ordinary life-experience within a theoretical scheme of universal
science. He does not emphasize, in the manner of modern science,
the new knowledge that can be gained from planned experiment.
8 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Bacon, in short, is not an inductive scientist, nor does he support
the point of view of his later namesake that it is the purpose of the
experimental scientist to discover laws of nature by inductive means.
Since this subject, however, is dealt with at length in Chapter X
below, nothing further need be said here.
CHAPTER n
EARLY LIFE AND EDUCATION
TRADITION assigns the birth of Roger Bacon to Ilchester in
Somerset. This tradition is no older than the middle of the
fifteenth century, and stems from the Warwickshire antiquary, John
Rous, though he speaks of Ilchester as in the county of Dorset. 1
Little points out that Ilchester is only five miles from the boundary
of Dorset. Another tradition gives the honour of his birth to Bisley
in Gloucestershire.
Much effort has been made to discover his family; but again the
evidence is inconclusive. Charles Jourdain even tried to assign him
to France, pointing out the numerous Bacon families, especially in
Normandy. After amusing himself for a while with this idea, he then
contents himself with the incontrovertible statement that a large part
of Bacon's life was spent in France. He studied and lectured at Paris,
and may have taken his degree there, while it is not certain that he
ever lectured at Oxford. 2
There is now no doubt at all that Bacon was born in England. He
states this directly in one passage discovered since Jourdain' s day, and
implies it in several others. 3 His family seems to have had enough
money to be able to give him some financial support, at least until
its ruin in the civil wars of Henry DDL Moreover, as he claims to have
spent, presumably in the days before he became a friar, more than
two thousand pounds on books and experiments, it is clear that its
position was substantial. 4 He also speaks of one brother who was
rich enough to be able to ransom himself several times after being
taken prisoner. In the same place he speaks of his mother and family
as if there were several other members. 5 Another brother was a
scholar. 6 This scholar has sometimes been confused with a famous
Dominican doctor, Friar Robert Bacon, who died, however, in 1245.
1 Little, Essays ... pp. 1-2.
2 C. Jourdain, Excursions historiques . ., . (1888), pp. 132-37.
* 'My parents and friends who supported the lord King of England were ruined ... I sent to
England for money, but I have had no reply to this day because exiles and enemies of the King
have occupied- the land of my birth.' F. A. Gasquet, *An Unpublished Fragment . . .* (1897),
p. 500. (Cited as Gasquet.)
4 Brewer, Op. Tert. t p. 59. 5 Ibid., p. 16.
6 'If I had been able to communicate freely I should have composed many things for my
brother, a scholar, and for other dear friends of mine*. Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 13.
io Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
As Roger writes in 1267 that he would have composed tracts for him
if he had been free, this can hardly be the scholar in question. 1
This is really all we know about his private circumstances. There
is a well-known story in Matthew Paris 2 concerning a Roger Bacon
who exercised his wit at the King's court in 1233. As Jourdain, Little,
and others have shown how common the name was, and the incident
does not seem in keeping with what we know of Roger's character,
it may be disregarded. If it is true, it is still of no importance.
The date of Bacon's birth as 1214 has been generally accepted,
simply because there is no reason for the adoption of any other.
There is no reliable information on the matter at all.
Charles is responsible for the calculations which place it in 1214.
He pointed out 3 that Bacon himself had said in 1267 that it was now
forty years since he had learned 'the alphabet', and for all but two of
these years he had been 'in studio'. Charles thought that 'in studio'
meant in the university, which it can certainly mean. Since in the
Middle Ages one entered the university about the age of thirteen,
and forty years had elapsed since Bacon's entry, he would be fifty-
three years old in 1267, and thus was born in 1214.
But Charles and his followers neglected to consider that he had also
apparently learned his alphabet forty years previously. And a family
rich enough to be able to give one member two thousand pounds to
buy MSS. and make experiments, and to ransom another who had
been taken prisoner in a civil war, would surely not have waited till
Roger was thirteen before teaching him the alphabet. And one did
not, in any case, so far as we know, learn the alphabet at a university.
So either the translation of *alphabetum' in its literal sense as
alphabet, or 'in studio' as at the university, must be abandoned. I am
inclined to think that fewer difficulties will be created by allowing
'alphabetum' as a figurative term for the rudiments of knowledge,
or, as we should call it, the ABC. This is supported by a use of die
word elsewhere in Bacon's work in a similar sense alphabetum
philosophiae. 4
While it may not be strictly true that Bacon spent his entire life in
universities, nevertheless, I have found no period prior to 1267 when
he was not at least in touch with either Oxford or Paris, and able to
attend lectures, even though he was at the same time teaching pupils
privately and carrying out his duties as a friar. Even as late as 1292,
when he was writing his kst work, he speaks of his difficulties in
1 Little, Essays ... p. 2. 2 Matthew Paris, ChronUa ... HI, 244-5.
8 Charles, pp. 4-5. * Brewer, Op. Tert. t p. 66.
Early Life and Education 1 1
gaining enough knowledge for his present purpose merely by reading
and listening, 1 so that study was probably, as he says, a lifelong habit.
The period of forty years cannot be taken quite literally, as Bacon
is fond of giving periods of rime in multiples of ten. 2 But in the
absence of any more exact information we are entitled to take it
literally, and make the assumption that he went to the university
about 1227, and was born about 1214, without danger of going too
far astray. On the other hand, the possibility must not be altogether
ignored that he only learned the alphabet and started to study, though
not at a university, about 1227, in which case his birth must be placed
around 1220. The former date, however, as we shall see, fits in
better with the other events of his life.
We have established, then, that Bacon was born in England in the
first quarter of the thirteenth century of a fairly rich, and possibly
noble, family. And this is really all we know about him until his
work as a magister regens in the Faculty of Arts at Paris in the fifth
decade of the century, except what can be gleaned from a few casual
remarks written in later years. We know how much, for instance,
he admired Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, and Brother
Adam Marsh; and how much Grosseteste, at least, influenced his
own work. But, as will be shown later, there is no evidence that he
knew either of them in his first period at Oxford.
Only in his last work, when his mind may have been wandering
back to the scenes of his youth, does he make any direct references to
specific masters who taught at Oxford. He tells us that the blessed
Edmund, Archbishop of Canterbury, was the first to lecture at
Oxford on the book of the Elenchi 'temporibus meis', and Master
Hugo lectured first on the Poster/ores. 3 He does not, however, claim
to have heard St. Edmund, though he had seen Master Hugo.
Nothing further is known of this Master Hugo, in spite of much
recent research on the masters of the period, 4 but it is confirmed from
other sources that St. Edmund of Abingdon taught logic in the new
schools at Oxford. This, however, seems to have been before 1214,
and from about 1202 to 1208. And when he again began to lecture
in the i22O J s it was on theology. 5 In his old age Bacon may not
actually have remembered that Edmund had given up the teaching
of logic some time earlier, and would only recall that he had lectured
1 csr, p. 26.
* E.g. Brewer, Op. Tert. t pp. 38, 59, 65; CSP, pp. 425, 428, 429, 469; GST, pp. 34, 53.
C5T, p. 34.
* D. A. Callus, 'Aristotelian Learning . . .' (1943), p. 239.
12 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
in his time at Oxford. It is, in any case, extremely unlikely that
Bacon studied with him, as he is seldom hesitant in mentioning
masters he has heard, and he would be too young to be studying
either advanced logic or theology in the I220*s.
The other reference is to the teaching of Richard of Cornwall in
I250, 1 so that, if Bacon heard Richard at all, it was after his return
from Paris, and not in the period we are studying.
Bacon's education at Oxford will have to be inferred from our
knowledge of the curriculum that was offered at the time. As he
claims to have always been studious, and several times in his later
work he emphasizes the value of academic education, and is severe in
his criticism of those who have not attended lectures, we may assume
that he fulfilled faithfully the requirements of the time. 2 Moreover,
the students were in any case expected to be present regularly at
lectures. This is shown by the earliest known statutes of the univer-
sity, issued in all probability during the very time Bacon was studying
there. 3
Since Bacon's education is of the utmost importance for under-
standing his kter attitude to contemporary authorities in the schools
and his strictures upon theologians who presumed to lecture without
ever having studied properly, 4 an attempt will be made to reconstruct
this period of his life and discover the extent of his own formal
sttidies. It will be our contention that much of his anger against the
authorities in the schools and the mendicant Orders stems from his
pride in his own status as a fully educated Master of Arts, while his
opponents had entered an Order in their youth and never received
a degree in. arts.
Moreover, Bacon certainly idealized this period of his youth. In
my time, he says, in the days of Robert Grosseteste people were
properly educated; there were good mathematicians then, and
theology was taught on the basis of the biblical text and not of
commentaries. But in the last thirty or forty years education has
declined. 5 Whatever strange things posterity has attributed to Bacon,
it cannot be shown that he was against the education of the schools
in general. 6
Education in the thirteenth century was based on the trivium and
1 CST, p. 53. * CSP, p. 486. Steele, Fasc. II, 10.
s Statute antiqua . . . (1931), p. 107. * CSP, pp. 425-8.
& Especially due, in Bacon's opinion, to the excessive use of the Bock of Sentences. Opus
Minus, p. 329.
8 'Pulchritudo tamen et utilitas et magnificentia specialiter in quinque relucent: videlicet
prout ventilatur in studio, ocoipationibus studii doctoralis utilibus et magnificis, in ornrd
facilitate legendo et disputando, et caeteris exercitiis scholasticae disciplinae.' GSP, p. 395.
Early Life and Education 13
quadrivium (grammar, rhetoric and logic; arithmetic, music, geo-
metry, astronomy), as it had been for centuries. But such an education
could be rudimentary or profound according to the conceptions of
the time, the manner of teaching, and above all, the text-books in
use and the teachers "who expounded them. Almost anything that it
was desired to teach could be squeezed into the framework. 1
In Bacon's time the leading university of Europe was undoubtedly
Paris, though for specialized subjects such as law and medicine others
might be preferred. Paris was under the special protection of the
Papacy, as is shown by the extraordinary efforts made by Pope
Gregory IX to reopen it after it had been closed down in I229. 2 The
strength of the Parisian curriculum lay especially in the arts (the
various branches of philosophy) and theology.
Though it has not yet been established that Oxford was originally
founded as a university (studium generate) by an exodus from Paris,
as Rashdall claims, 3 it was certainly in its early years greatly influenced
by Paris, offered similar courses, and was probably the second most
renowned university after Paris in the fields of philosophy and
theology. And those Englishmen who most distinguished them-
selves at Oxford could look forward to a professorial position at
Paris as the crown of their academic career, if they first completed
their education with a few years of more advanced study at Paris.
But in the 1230*5 Oxford seems to have had one great advantage
over Paris, an advantage so great at that time that it may well have
laid the foundation for her subsequent success and reputation.
Aristotle had fallen under a cloud at tie University of Paris, and the
study of his libri naturales and Metaphysics had been formally banned,
pending possible expurgation. Public lectures on these works could
no longer be held. 4 Though there were no doubt occasional infringe-
ments of this ban, and Aristotle could still be read privately, it was
a serious blow to the prestige of the university; and we have glimpses
of a number of efforts made in the Faculty of Arts to edge Aristotle
into the curriculum again. But public lecturing on Aristotle may not
have been restored even de facto fully until there was an interregnum
1 When the University of Paris wished to offer courses in Aristotle's Ethics in the Faculty of
Arts this subject was classed as rhetoric for no better reason than that rhetoric was a required
subject. H. Rashdall, The Universities of Europe . . . (1936), El, 140-53.
* Chartularium . . . 1, 125-8.
* Rashdall, The Universities of Europe ... HL, pp. 29 f, and notes.
4 See especially G. Thery, 'Autour du decret . . .' (1925-26). The ban dated from 1210,
when a number of professors had been condemned by the local archbishop. Recent research
has shown that materialistic philosophies had been derived at that time from various Aristo-
telian teachings, especially by David of Dinant,
14 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
in the Papacy and the Parisian doctors regained some degree of
autonomy. This subject will be dealt with later in connection with
Bacon's own lectures on Aristotle at Paris in the 1240's. 1
Though the two-year closing down of the whole university from
1229 to 123 1 was not directly connected with the banning of Aris-
totle, we know that it was in the minds of the scattered professors.
A remarkable letter is still extant, one of the first examples of the
'advertising circular 5 to come from the Middle Ages, in which the
University of Toulouse, newly founded after the Albigensian
Crusade, offers as one of its attractions lectures on the libri naturales
Vhich have been prohibited at Paris'. 2 Henry III of England also
invited the dispossessed scholars to England. We do not know,
however, whether Aristotle was one of die attractions offered. The
only promise recorded of Henry is that their persons will be safer. 8
But although documentary evidence is lacking, one fact is certain.
The most influential churchman in England, Robert Grosseteste,
Bishop of Lincoln from 1235 to 1253, had already been magister
scholarum at Oxford from 1214, from which position he retired to
continue teaching elsewhere, this time to the newly arrived Fran-
ciscan friars in their Oxford convent. 4 And Grosseteste, in spite of
an extremely independent mind, could not have been described as
anti-Aristotelian. 5
Now Grosseteste, as we know from several passages in Matthew
Paris, put up with no dictation from either king or prelate; and it is
in the highest degree unlikely that any ban on Aristotle could have
been enforced during his period as magister scholarum, or later as the
bishop of the diocese in which Oxford was situated. 6 The study of
1 Amongst the considerable recent monographic literature on the subject perhaps the two
most complete accounts are M. Grabmann, I Divieti ecclesiastici . . . (1941), and F. van Steen-
berghen, Siger fa Brabant . . . (1942), especially pp. 389-446, both of which works are fully
documented and take into account all previous research.
1 'libros naturales <mi fiierunt Parisius prohibiti potemnt illic audire qui volunt naturae
sinum medullitus perscnitari.' Johannes de Garlandia, De triumphis ... p. 97.
Chartularium ... 1, 119.
4 Thomas de Ecdeston, De adventu . . . (ed. Little), p. 60. A. G. Litde, *The Franciscan
School... '(1926), pp. 807 flf.
8 Though in many places in his work Grosseteste seems to favour Plato as against Aristotle,
an examination of the particular passages suggests that he criticized Aristotle for his philoso-
phical conclusions rather than for his scientific material. The depth of his quotation from the
libri naturales of Aristotle is considerable, and his whole work uses Aristotelian terminology,
especially such conceptions as potetttia and actus which derive from Aristotle's Metaphysics, and
the communication of motion from the Physics. Though as a Platonist Grosseteste prefers St.
Augustine, it is impossible to think that he would have used his great influence against his
other master. When Bacon says that he 'altogether neglected the works of Aristotle . . . and
preferred to use his own experience and other authorities' (GSP, p. 469), this is to be taken
with the grain of salt that we must usually use in accepting his more controversial remarks.
See infra, pp. 89-90. Matthew Paris, Chronica ... V, 395, 407.
Early Life and Education 15
Aristotle, therefore, at the university was probably only limited by the
general requirements of the curriculum and the works and teachers
available. 1
No record of the curriculum at Oxford in the Faculty of Arts
during the 1230'$ is known. The first extant list of works used is
dated I268. 2 On the other hand, we have a partial curriculum from
the University of Paris for 1215, several modifications are known
during the following decades, and a fairly complete list is available
for 1255, when Aristotle was officially reintroduced as a required
course of study. 3 There is also known an extremely valuable vade-
mecum of some professor who was teaching at Paris between 1230
and 1240. This contains information about die contents of the books
then in use, with a systematic classification of subjects. 4
Taking into account the way in which Oxford is known to have
imitated Paris, and making allowance for books and translations not
yet available in the 1230*5, the following list will probably not be far
wrong:
TMVIUM. Grammar: Grammatical works of Donatus and Priscian.
Rhetoric: Barbarismus of Donatus, and part of Topics of Boethius
except Book IV. (Not yet the Rhetoric of Aristotle, as
Bacon himself tells us.) 5
Logic: Logica antiqua or Ars vetus (Aristotle's Categories and De
interpretatione; Porphyry's Isagoge).*
Logica nova or Ars nova (Aristotle's Prior Analytics, Topics,
Sophistici elenchi, Posterior Analytics). 1
1 A recent study on the introduction of Aristotle to Oxford shows that the libri naturales were
taught by John Blund at Oxford certainly by the 1220's and almost certainly before 1209,
these dates coinciding with the introduction of the same books into Paris (Callus, * Aristotelian
Learning . . . (1943), pp. 241-44). Callus finds that Blund's 'approach to the problems is
uncertain, rather from the dialectical than the metaphysical angle 5 , and is heavily dependent
upon the Arabs, especially Avicenna. It was not until the middle of the century with the work
of Adam of Buckfield that Aristotle became really assimilated in the minds of the Oxford
masters.
a Statute ... pp. Ixxxviii fF., 25-27. Rashdall, The Universities of Europe ... HI, 153 ff.
* Rashdall, The Universities of Europe ... I, 440 fE
4 Archive de la Corona de Aragon (Barcelona) MS. Ripoll. 109. Described by M. Grab-
mann, I Divieti pp. 113-27, and elsewhere, and evaluated by Van Steenberghen, Siger de
Brabant . . . pp. 415-18. It seems clear from this still unpublished document that the ban on
Aristotle was at least partly observed; for though the libri naturales and the Metaphysics are
enumerated, the professor frfrinTrg it only "worth while to devote a few lines to each, in com-
parison with the considerable number given to the works of logic which were still in favour.
See also pp. 41-43, below.
In Bacon's opinion rhetoric should be a part of logic. Opus Majus> Brewer, Op. Tcrt.,
p. 307. The Topics of Boethius, to a modern reader, might appear more suitable as a logical
text, but it was used in Middle Ages as text also for rhetoric. Rashdall, The Universities of
Europe ... I, 441; Chartularium ... I, 78.
4 The Logica antiqua fr^ been available for centuries in the translations of Boethius.
7 These had only been available in translation since the twelfth century, and so were relatively
1 6 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Obviously this programme is heavily weighted on the side of
formal mental training. The student learnt from it primarily the
principles of disputing and the tools available for it. Bacon criticizes
especially the grammar, and makes many suggestions for its improve-
ment as well as urging the use of other languages than Latin, since
Latin cannot be understood by itself, and innumerable errors will be
made. 1 As he considers logic to be an innate faculty, formal education
in the subject is not so important for him as knowing thoroughly the
subjects on which it is to be exercised. 2 On the other hand he believes,
or pretends to believe, that only a small part of the corpus of Aristo-
telian logic was available; as this is one of his complaints we must
assume that he still hoped for more and better logic to develop the
innate faculty into an even more subtle weapon than it was. 3
QUADRTVTUM
The quadrivium, the second half of the academic curriculum, was
far more elastic than the trivium. Traditionally it was composed of
four subjects: arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music. With
the right texts and the right instruction it could be made into both
a liberal and a scientific education. But until the rediscovery of
Aristotle, and no doubt for a long time afterwards, in most studia
these subjects were taught in a very strange manner indeed. Boethius
was the authority for both arithmetic and music. Euclid was the
authority in geometry, which for this reason probably was better
taught than the rest of the quadrivium, even though Bacon has many
complaints to make of the time wasted in unnecessary proofs. 4 We
can see the fruits of Bacon's education in music when he quotes
Boethius as saying how valuable it was for the Church, for theology,
and even for medicine. 6 Too often arithmetic had been valued for
the understanding of perfect and imperfect numbers in the Pytha-
gorean manner, rather than for the performing of mundane calcula-
tions. The Bible and the commentaries of the Fathers were the best
aids to astronomy.
But all this had probably changed some years before Bacon's time,
and the change must have been accentuated during the rule of Robert
Grosseteste. It is impossible to over-estimate the importance of the
rediscovery of Aristotle, who provided Western man with his first
scientific philosophy and a tremendous body of empirically acquired
1 See especially Part III of the Opus Majus, I, 66 ff.
2 Brewer, Op. Tot, p. 104. . 8 Ibid., pp. 197-98.
* Steek, Fasc. XVI, 118, 121 (Communia Mathematica).
5 Brewer, Op. Tint, p. 299.
Early Life and Education 17
knowledge. Further information had been added by the people we
call the Arabs (though only a small minority was actually Arabic by
descent), especially in the field of astronomy and medicine. All the
known works of Aristotle had also been commented on by Arabic
philosophers. Since the middle of the twelfth century the fruits of
Arabic learning had gradually become available to the West, but we
do not know for certain how much had percolated through to the
curriculum of the University of Oxford by Bacon's day. A respect-
able body of the Won natwales was certainly studied regularly by 1268,
and may have been thirty years earlier. The list includes the Physics,
Metaphysics, De anima, De generatione, De coelo et mundo, and the
Meteorologica of Aristotle.
The Physics and the last three named would make the courses in
astronomy respectable, and the Metaphysics would add depth to all
the studies, even though it cannot be fitted clearly into a definite
place in the quadrivium.
Grosseteste himself was extremely interested in perspectiva, or what
we should call optics. The great authority in this field for all the
Latins, including Bacon, was Al Hazen, a Moslem scientist whose
work was translated by Gerard of Cremona in the twelfth century.
Grosseteste's own work may have been used in his own lectures, and
he, no doubt, used Al Hazen. The Aristotelian works were available
in twelfth-century translations from the Greek, and some from the
Toledan school of which Gerard was a member, from the Arabic.
In Bacon's time new translations from the Arabic appeared, which,
according to him, had a great success. Bacon, however, tells us that
the translations were execrable, and the supposed translators either
did not know their material, did not know the language, or, as in the
case of Michael Scot, did not even make the translations but merely
lent their names to them. 1 Probably the success was due more to the
new and interesting commentaries of Averroes which accompanied
them, than to any exceptional merit in the translations. It is inter-
esting to note that Bacon himself preferred the Antiaua Translatio of
the Physics, from the Greek, to the new translation from the Arabic
which he refused to use for his courses. 2 Ptolemy's Almagest, which
was later to become a standard text-book, though translated in the
twelfth century, was not yet itself in the regular university curri-
culum, 3 though manuals based on it were in general use. And nothing
1 GSP, p. 472, and many places elsewhere. It is one of Bacon's favourite complaints.
1 Steele, Fasc. VET, x.
* Van Steenbcrghen, Siger de Brabant ... p. 417.
1 8 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
new seems to have been added to the departments of music and
arithmetic. 1
So on the whole the quadrivium, though many of the old and
outdated authorities were still in use, was gradually being improved
by the addition of new works. In this respect Oxford may have been
in advance of Paris, through the influence of Grosseteste. But un-
doubtedly the greatest of these new works were the new and exciting
books of Aristotle, as many as the students could persuade their
teachers to offer and as many as the ruling faculty in its wisdom
allowed them. 2
This, then, was Bacon's first education. Like other students of his
time, he probably received his Baccalaureat in six years though not
if he really had to start with the alphabet ! and became a Master of
Arts after two further years of the same kind of study including the
explanation of philosophical texts. 3 After practising disputation he
would then be permitted to teach in the Faculty of Arts.
Such an education would leave him a secular master only. If he
wanted to become fully qualified in the sacred Faculty of Theology,
eight more years of study for a baccalaureat in theology, and a further
eight for the doctorate, awaited him. 4 It was necessary for him to
decide.
At this period he may have been any age from, say, twenty-one to
twenty-six, and the time was probably the second half of the fourth
decade of the century.
1 For the latest and most authoritative work on the Aristotelian translations see E. Frances-
chini, ' Aristotele nel medioevo,' Atti del IX congresso nazionale dijilosofia (Padua, September 20-
23, 1934); A. Birkenmajer, *Le r61e joue par les midecins et les naturalistes dans la reception
d'Aristote au XII et XQI siecles/ La Pologne au VI congres international des sciences historiques
(Oslo, 1928; Warsaw, 1930); S. D. Wingate, The Medieval Latin Versions of the Aristotelian
Scientific Corpus (London, 1931); G. Lacombe, Aristoteles Latinus (Rome, 1939), Vol. L This
last work, which was intended to cover the whole field authoritatively, does not yet, in its one
published volume, contain enough for use by itself, and so does not replace the earlier tides.
If the project is ever completed now that its chief editor is dead, it will no doubt include all
the material from the separate monographs.
a The popularity of Aristode among the Parisian students is sufficiendy attested by the
numerous sermons against their excessive attention to philosophical studies instead of to pious
exercises which would benefit their souls. M. M. Davy, Les Sermons umversitaires . . . pp. 85-87.
8 F. Ueberweg (ed. Geyer), Grundriss der Qeschichte . . . (1928), pp. 353-54.
4 Ibid., p. 354.
CHAPTER m
EARLY MANHOOD
THE whole period prior to Bacon's appointment as magister regens
at Paris is entirely undocumented. We simply do not know what
Bacon did at this time. Yet it must have been of supreme importance
for his whole career. He had to make his decision as to what his
life's work was to be. I shall therefore in this chapter try to indicate
the choices before him, show what he could not have done, and finally
by the process of elimination suggest what he probably did. This
should be found consistent with what we do know of his later life,
and to some degree account for it.
After inceptio in the Faculty of Arts at Oxford, did he go on to
theology, and become a master in this also? Did he remain at Oxford
and teach in the Faculty of Arts as a secular master? Did he go on to
Paris to complete his education in the Faculty of Arts there; or with
his Oxford degree go to Paris to study theology? Or were his
interests now aroused by the natural sciences, diverting him to this
field? Or in languages in which he certainly became interested later?
Or, finally, did he become a friar already at this early stage, and to
some extent retire from the world? These are the chief possibilities.
Some may be dismissed at once on sufficient evidence; otters require
more consideration and cannot, perhaps, be discarded altogether on
the basis of our present knowledge.
In this study it will be taken as proved that Bacon never became
a master or doctor of theology. I am aware that this was still regarded
as an open question by Vanderwalle, who devotes a special appendix
to it, 1 and by Glorieux, who follows Vanderwalle in his brief
biographical account, and has unnecessarily included Bacon for this
reason in his published list of Parisian masters of theology. 2
Later chroniclers are divided upon whether or not to give him the
tide, as recorded by Little, 3 who thinks, however, that Bartholomew
of Pisa is the most reliable on such matters, and therefore accepts his
testimony. Vanderwalle points out that Bartholomew also called
Bacon 'omni facilitate doctissimus', although he did not grant him
1 C. B. Vanderwalle, Roger Bacon dans Vhistoire . . . (1929), pp. 156-59.
* P. Glorieux, Repertoire des nrntres . . . (1934), II, 60.
* Little, Essays ... p. 6, note 1.
19
20 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
the official title of doctor of theology. 1 But such an expression is a
loose one, and in any case Bacon cannot have held a degree in every
faculty.
The question is one on which no later chroniclers should, in my
view, be taken as sufficient authority. They may not have known for
certain, and in view of Bacon's obvious interest in theology may have
assumed his competence and his degree. More important is the
absence of Bacon's name from any list of doctors either in Oxford or
Paris, though this again is not conclusive, as our lists for the thirteenth
century are not complete. But I consider conclusive two factors not
fully considered hitherto, though Charles was aware of the problem,
and had to do some sharp manoeuvring of dates which cannot be
accepted in the light of later research, in order to show 'that Bacon
did gain his doctorate. 2
The first is that Roger had no time to do the necessary theological
study, in view of the other interests which can be dated with greater
certainty. The second is his really abysmal ignorance of the material
studied in the faculties of theology in his day, and his sharp disagree-
ment with and prejudices against their methods. It is certainly untrue
to say, as Vanderwalle does, that Bacon was familiar with the writings
of Peter Lombard, Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, and
Thomas Aquinas. A close examination of his references to these men
shows precisely the opposite. He knew what was going on in the
faculties in a general way, but only as an outsider would know it.
Anyone who has studied a subject intensively for fourteen years must
have been influenced to some degree by the study, and can hardly
have been so completely unwilling as Bacon to accept any of its
premises. Bacon's attitude to theology was extremely old-fashioned,
and quite at variance with the advanced opinion of his day. He had
no idea at all of the long process that went on all through the thir-
teenth century of trying to make theology a science, culminating in
the considerable success attained by St. Thomas Aquinas. Bacon
wanted theological studies to consist primarily of scriptural exegesis,
which had been the practice before the rise of advanced logical
studies and natural philosophy. His method was that of the twelfth
century, and was still the method of Grosseteste, though probably
with modifications.
Bacon is not only out of sympathy with this modern viewpoint,
but he shows no signs of knowing anything about it, not even enough
to attack it intelligently. His attitude is the typical one of the outsider,
1 Vanderwalle, Roger Bacon dans Vhistoire ... p. 157. * Charles, pp. 9-11.
Early Manhood 21
a combination of prejudice and ignorance, and it is to me quite
unthinkable that he could possibly have been familiar with the method
from many years' study from the inside. A further point serves to
confirm this. There are no known works on theology from the pen
of Bacon except general criticisms of theologians, and his final
attempt to create a special kind of theology through the use of
natural science. Every student of theology at Paris and Oxford had
to learn to comment on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, as part of his
training; and if we have nothing else of a master's works, we usually
have, or know of, a commentary on the Sentences. These are, indeed,
in medieval studies, extremely valuable as showing the early thought
of a master, e.g. Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, or Bonaventura.
No such writing is known in the case of Bacon, nor does he once
quote from the Sentences. 1
Bacon was profoundly interested in theology, and he certainly
regarded it as the highest form of knowledge, as we shall show. The
Opus Majus is one long plea to the Pope to promote the study of the
special sciences so that they may throw light on theology. It cannot,
in my view, be regarded as only an attempt to interest the Pope
because of his suggestions for theology, while his heart lay with tie
study of the sciences in themselves. Neither Bacon's own psychology
nor the special objectives of his other work can be understood unless
this real obsession with theology is appreciated. If it be asked why,
if he were so vitally interested in theology, he did not study it
formally, the answer that will be proposed here is that at a time in
his life when he could have chosen this path he failed, >for under-
standable psychological reasons, to make the choice, and thereafter
he never had the opportunity again. He was no longer able to spare
from his other interests the long time necessary to qualify himself in
theology. A discussion of this hypothesis will be postponed until the
other choices available to him at the age of twenty-one have been
considered.
It can be said almost with certainty that he was not a friar at the
time of his Parisian lectures. From his remarks about the boys who
enter the Orders at an early age 2 it would look as if he, in fact, had
been a man of more mature years when he entered himself. The
Quaestiones given at Paris are purely philosophical, of the kind that
would be given in the Faculty of Arts by a secular master, and
1 For the position of these commentaries on the Sentences see the very valuable little book,
M-D. Chenu, La The'&logie comme science . . . (1943), esp. Chap. II.
* GSP, p. 426. Opus Minus, p. 327. Steele, Fasc. n, 11.
22 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
utterly different from the work of any known friars who have
written after being subjected to the devotions and religious instruc-
tions of their Order. Finally we know that as a friar he was pledged
to poverty. Yet at a much later date Bacon dwells on the expenditure
of his own funds for experiments, and this could only have been done
when he was in alio statu}- Indeed, in my view the best way to
determine the approximate date of his entry into the Franciscan
Order will be to ascertain as far as possible the years of his early
scientific studies and the expenditure of his private fortune, and fix
the entry itself towards the end of this period. But probably the most
conclusive evidence is from his own lips in the Gasquet fragment.
'When I was in alio statu, he says, 2 *I composed many things for the
elementary instruction of youths', which must refer to his Quaestiones
which, as will be shown later, take the form of class discussions and
include at least some definite questions asked by the students and
answered by Bacon as professor.
I do not believe that during or at the conclusion of his studies in
the Oxford Faculty of Arts, Bacon became interested in the scientific
pursuits which later occupied his life. From the early part of the
twelfth century there had been a considerable interest in scientific
matters amongst the English scholars. Many English names pass
through the pages of Thorndike's monumental history of magic and
experimental science Ajdelard of Bath, Alexander Neckam, Daniel
of Morley, Roger of Hereford, Bartholomew of England, and
Michael the Scot. But none of these ever seems to have taught in
England. They went abroad looking for Arabic treatises and Greek
scientific work. If they came home, as did Daniel of Morley, it was
only to become dissatisfied with the state of English studies. 3 Two
of the greatest translators of the period, who also wrote scientific
works, Alfredus Anglicus and Michael Scotus, spent most of their
lives abroad. Pope Honorius III and Pope Gregory IX both tried to
persuade the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, to give
Michael a benefice because 'they who sincerely seek the incomparable
treasure of science are deservedly to be supported with free livings'. 4
But Michael refused an archbishopric in poor Ireland, which was the
best oSer he received, and went to the Emperor Frederic II in Sicily
instead!
So, though there was no lack of native talent, it is improbable that
there was much opportunity for studying the natural sciences in
1 Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 59. * Gasquet, p. 500.
* L. Thorndike, History of Magic . . . H, 174. * Chartularium ... I, 105, 110.
Early Manhood 23
England before the tune of Robert Grosseteste, and certainly not at
the young University of Oxford. Indeed, it may have been the new
stimulus from the arrival of the mendicant Orders in England that
really set this study going, as was so eloquently argued by the anony-
mous writer of one of the first articles on Bacon to appear in any
English periodical. 1
Robert Grosseteste, as we know, was persuaded to resign his
Oxford appointment about the year 1229 and lecture to the Fran-
ciscans. He remained in this post until his elevation to the see of
Lincoln in 1235. It used to be assumed without question that Bacon
studied with him in these years, since his works are so full of praise
for the great bishop's scientific attainments. 2 But the date of Bacon's
studies would make it more probable that he was just too late to
attend this series of lectures. 3 As Grosseteste lived till 1253, there was
plenty of time later for Bacon to become acquainted with him and
his work.
But there is no evidence to show that Bacon's scientific interests
were at all awakened at this time. Indeed, all the evidence points in
the opposite direction. A group of lectures that he gave in Paris
several years later is very revealing on this point. The lectures are a
general commentary on the pseudo-Aristotelian work, Deplantis, and
will be dealt with in more detail later. 4 From these it is quite clear
that Roger has a considerable, if quite casual, knowledge of the
agricultural practices of his time, such as grafting and budding. But
they are certainly not looked upon with the eyes of a scientist, but
rather as apposite examples for doctrines on the nature of the vegeta-
tive soul. They equally kck the professional attention given to
botanical studies by Albertus Magnus. 5 Bacon was not interested in
plants except as a philosopher, though in later life he recognized the
importance of 'Agriculture' as one of the special sciences. But it
seems that he had no great competence in it, as he does not appear to
have ever attempted to compose a work on it, in spite of his desire
to write a 'complete and perfect' science.
If he were already interested in medicine it is surprising that
throughout the Quaestiones there is no sign of any of the medical
1 Westminster Review, 1864, pp. 14-16.
*E.g. Charles and his followers (Charles, pp. 4-5). Charles names Richard Kshacre and
Edmund Rich of Abingdon as having influenced Bacon; but neither of these can be called a
scientist, and, as we have seen (pp. 11-12 above), he was probably too late for Edmund.
* And in any case there is no definite proof of, and much probability against, the theory that
Grosseteste*s lectures were on scientific subjects. See Appendix A below.
*Steele,Fasc. XI, 173-252.
6 Thorndike, History of Mage ... II, 539.
24 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
knowledge he later acquired, no quotations even from Pliny. In his
kter philosophical works these quotations are everywhere. He
quotes Avicenna, but not very frequently, and then only as a philo-
sopher. Bacon is evidently entirely ignorant of alchemy, and, in fact,
seems to deny its validity altogether and, like a true scholastic of the
kind he criticizes later, he seems to disapprove of it on the a priori
grounds that it is impossible. 1
But, most extraordinary of all if he had already started to study
science, there is no mention of the fundamental book the book that
I shall try to show was the most influential in his whole life, the book
which perhaps more than anything else turned him from his life of
philosophy to a study of natural science the pseudo-Aristotelian
Secret of Secrets. Anyone who reads the greater works of Bacon's
maturity, his considerable corpus of medical opuscula, and, of course,
his own annotated edition of the Secret of Secrets itself, cannot fail to
appreciate this omission. And the reason for the omission was simply
that he had not yet read it.
It is for this reason that I must also reject the Liber de retardatione
accidentium senectutis as belonging to these years, in spite of the opinion
of its editors. 2 It is mentioned specifically in the Opus Majus,* and
although Bacon does not say there that he wrote it himself, it is
similar enough to his other medical works for us not to doubt its
authenticity and the usual attribution to him in the MSS. 4
1 Alchemists know, he says, that metals cannot be transmuted per spetiem. Then he proceeds
to quote 'Aristotle* on the Meteors, but the book he chooses for quotation is the one added by
Avicenna. Aristotle, he says further, meant that nature can transmute species, but not art. It
cannot be transmuted 'secundum speciem, et non negat quod non possit per naturam. In
essentia et differentia specifica non potest transmutari, sicut dicit Aristoteles de metallis*.
Steele, Fasc. XI, p. 252.
1 Steele, Fasc. DC, xxi-xxv. 8 Opus Majus, II, 209.
4 The evidence for the early date of 1236 suggested by Little rests on Bacon's statement in
one of the two extant versions that the book was begun *ad suasionem duorum sapientum,
scilicet Johannis CastelHonati et Philippi cancellarii Parisiensis', while the other version says
merely *ad suasionem duorum sapientum Par . . .' and breaks off. The very form of the scilicet
parenthesis suggests a gloss. There are several indications that it was written to a pope, while
others would suggest a secular prince (carissime princeps). It is possible that he sent one copy to
Innocent IV as one colophon suggests; the date of this Pope's old age seems consonant with
Bacon*s new interests in the early 1250' s and the real immaturity mingled with enthusiasm that
is discovered in the book. But that it was sent at the request of Philip the Chancellor who
died in 1236 I feel bound to reject on the grounds of inherent improbability (Bacon would
have been only in his early twenties, and why should Philip, an important Parisian dignitary,
entrust the task of advising him or the Pope in his old age to a youth who was probably not
even in Paris and could not yet Have made his reputation?). Little says (Essays ... p. 6) that
the Liber de retardatione shows that Bacon did not yet know Greek, and so was an early produc-
tion. I only find that he did not know the Greek medical writers yet at first hand. If this
proves anything it is only that the work was one of his earlier scientific writings, but not
necessarily prior to his work on philosophy. Crowley, however, in his recent work would
reject tl\e Liter de retardatione altogether for reasons of some considerable weight. Roger Bacon . . .
pp. 24-25.
Early Manhood 25
Miss Sharp, from a similar study of the sources, comes to the same
conclusion that Bacon's scientific and philological interests appeared
late, and only after he had become a Franciscan. 1 I think, however,
that she goes to the other extreme and puts them too late, since
Bacon must have spent his 2,000 pounds before he became a friar.
If, then, he was not yet interested in natural science, and was in
studio all his life except for two years' vacation 'so that I could study
better later', 2 he must have been teaching in the Faculty of Arts,
studying in the Faculty of Theology, or studying something else on
his own. Could this have been the languages that he professed to
know so well kter?
"We know from one of his letters that Robert Grosseteste early in
his episcopate was already studying and reading Greek for relaxation,
although he had not yet brought over his translators. 3 This would
be in the years after Bacon had graduated from the Faculty of Arts at
Oxford. He could have been studying at the same time, possibly even
with Grosseteste, using the same facilities. But I do not think that at
the time of the Quaestiones Bacon knew Greek. Throughout the
whole series of lectures he never once suggests that Aristotle has been
badly translated. Once he flatly states that Aristotle contradicts him-
self, 4 but for the most part he tries to reconcile him with revealed
truth instead of blaming misunderstandings on bad translations as he
does kter. In the Quaestiones he does not go in for discussions of
Greek words which he does so frequently later, even in his philosophic
work when there is no special need for it to persuade anyone. 5
He may also have learned Hebrew at this time, but it is still more
doubtful. His Hebrew, such as it was, was primarily used for the
examination of the scriptures in the original tongue; it seems there-
fore probable that he will have studied biblical exegesis first. And
at the time we speak of he had not yet taken up the study of theology.
I think in any case he must have studied Greek before Hebrew, first
because of his better mastery of Greek, and it was more accessible to
him; and secondly because he argues later that Greek is necessary for
the proper comprehension of Latin. While he gives many words that
1 Sharp, Franciscan Philosophy,. . . p. 119.
* 'Ut melius postea studerem/ Gasquet, p. 507
* Grosseteste, Epistolae ... pp. 173 ff.
4 'Ad objectum dico quod 3 Metaphysics dicit quod tangit in linea; unde contradicit sibi et
in primo de animal Steele, Fasc. Xffl, 327.
6 If, however, the commentary De sensu et sensato (Steele, Fasc. XIV, 1-134) is Bacon's,
and was written towards the close of his Parisian career, as suggested in Appendix C below,
then he knew some Greek before he left Paris, as in this work he shows some familiarity with
it (ibid., p. 71).
26 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
are derived from Hebrew, he says that Latin grammar is derived from
Greek, and he quotes Priscian to this effect. 1
We know from his own words that he did not know Arabic at
the rime of his Parisian lectures, as his Spanish students laughed at
him for his ignorance, and as he learnt several words from them. 2
A well-qualified modern scholar who has made a careful study of
Bacon's works, and who is himself an Arabist, proves, I think con-
clusi^ely, that Bacon in fact never knew Arabic at all. 3
Now, if he did not at this rime study languages or natural science,
and yet he was by 1267 the author already of many books on science
and knew enough to be able to write his great works to the Pope, it
is certain that he must have crammed a great deal of reading into the
years between his departure from the Faculty of Arts in Paris and
the writing of the Opus Majus, even if we do not take too seriously
his stories of kck of opportunity for study, and ten years' sickness,
of which he complains in the Gasquet fragment. 4 So on a priori
grounds I should be inclined to put the Parisian teaching as early as
seems compatible with the current state of affairs at the University
of Paris. But there is also a good deal of more reliable evidence which
seems to fit in best with an early date.
Modern scholarship on the whole has come to accept the date of
1245 as being the most probable for the beginning of the Parisian
lectures, and in the extant collection of Quaestiones there seems to be
enough work for several years. F. Delorme, the editor of the ques-
tions on the Physics, puts them between 1246 and 1256, but the latter
date seems to me to be far too late. 5 Duhem thinks 1250,* Charles is
unable to get his dates straight at all, since he tries to argue from the
untenable premise that Bacon obtained his doctorate in theology
from the University of Paris, and this he could not do before die
age of thirty-five. 7 De Wulf gives the date as before 1245 to 1250-
52. 8 Little reminds us that Bacon claims to have seen with his own
eyes Alexander of Hales (died 1245), William of Auvergne (died 1248
or 1249), and John of Garland (died 1252). 9
1 'Deinde Latini suam grarnmaticam Graecis vocabulis a Graecis trahunt, et ideo praecipue
debemus sequi Graecos'. CSP, p. 465. See also C5P, p. 462.
2 *Quod sicut multa alia prius ab Hispanis scholaribus meis derisus cum non intelligebam
quae legebam . . . tandem didici ab eisdem/ Opus Majus, III, 82. Possibly, as Steele suggests
(Fasc. XI, xviii), the famous laughter of the Spanish students, which impressed Bacon so much
that he mentions it three times, drove him to the study of the languages in which he was
deficient.
M. Bouyges, 'Roger Bacon, a-t-il lu . . .' (1930), pp, 311-15.
4 Gasquet, p. 500. * Steele, Fasc. VIII, vii.
6 P. Duhem, Systime du monde . . . Ill, 260. 7 Charles, pp. 9-10.
a De Wulf, Histoire fa la philosophic . . . II, 270. 9 Little, Essays ... pp. 4-5.
Early Manhood 27
Bacon could have seen Alexander of Hales while on a visit, but since
all the other probabilities point to an early date this suggestion seems
gratuitous. The only reason for putting the lectures later than 1245
is the fact that in this year public lecturing on the libri naturales and
the Metaphysics of Aristotle was still officially forbidden. This
objection will be dealt with in the next chapter. Meanwhile it is
enough to say that the time required for his study of natural science
and languages after he left the Faculty of Arts in Paris demands the
earliest date consistent with other known facts.
Since we have ruled out temporarily all the other possibilities we
can now ask again: Did Bacon begin to study theology at Oxford?
Or did he not even start to study theology but contented himself
with being a secular master and teaching philosophy at Oxford in
the Faculty of Arts? Or did he go at once to Paris?
Let us take the last suggestion first. We have seen that Bacon
believes in the lecture method and is proud of his own education. If
he had been an exceptionally good student in the Faculty of Arts he
could have acquired the very considerable knowledge of all the
works of Aristotle that is shown in his Quaestiones. But it is not
likely. He would have had to continue his study for many years yet
and gain practical experience in meeting class problems, disputing,
and answering questions. He has become highly skilled in this art by
the time of the Parisian lectures; and even though he may have
polished up the arguments before they were published, there are
many indications that the lectures were delivered in class and copied
down much as he gave them, although the erudition displayed in
some of these arguments would mean at least some editing and
expansion by the professor. Bacon refers to familiar objects in the
room, 1 and we know that he was teaching in Paris and not elsewhere,
since on one occasion he says 'if my palm, could touch the Seine'. 2
Now if he had left Oxford in the late 1230'$ and gone to Paris to
study theology, it is certain that by this time he would have become
less familiar with the Aristotelian Physics and Metaphysics since these
were very strictly forbidden in the Faculty of Theology. 3 At best he
could have read Aristotle's works for himself, but he could never
have disputed or taught publicly on them. His work would have
been to study the Sentences and Scriptures and there is no sign
whatever of such a preoccupation in the Quaestiones. If he had gone
1 *Ab isto pariete ad ilium parietem* is a typical example. Steele, Fasc. XHI, 264. Cf. also
/ferU, p. 203.
2 'Si palma mea tangat Secanam.' Steele, Fasc. Xm, 226.
28 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
to study in the Parisian Faculty of Arts he could not have listened
to, or lectured on, the libri naturales and the Metaphysics as these were
not only formally forbidden, but actually not being publicly lectured
upon in the 1230's. 1 His earlier knowledge of these works acquired
at Oxford would have become rusty, and, as we have seen, Bacon
liked and approved of lectures. Moreover, why should he have gone
to Paris to the Faculty of Arts, where he would not be allowed to
study Aristotle, when he could have stayed at Oxford, continued to
study him, and lectured and disputed publicly on him as a secular
master? So I think it more likely that he would have stayed at
Oxford rather than have gone to Paris at this time. 2
It may be mentioned that for his own advancement another field
of study altogether might have been the most valuable the study of
civil law. The position of authority in the schools required the study
of theology for at least fourteen years, culminating in the doctorate.
Even Albert the Great, who had gained a considerable knowledge of
theology from his own readings, and acquired a high reputation as
a theologian and a founder of theological studies, nevertheless found
it necessary in mature life to go to Paris for a more formal study
and the winning of the degree which would regularize his position.
But high office in the Church, though theologians could gain it,
especially in England where John Peckham and Robert Kilwardby,
both doctors of theology, though not lawyers, became Archbishop
of Canterbury in succession went perhaps more frequently on the
Continent to students of civil law. Many popes, from Innocent III
and IV to Boniface VIE, had studied at Bologna, and others such as
Gregory DC were skilled canonists. It is a commonplace for theolo-
gians and priests to attack the excessive study of the civil law in the
thirteenth century. 3
Bacon adds his quota of attack. It is doubtful if his temperament
would ever have permitted him to study law, and his attacks on the
encroachments made by the civil law sound more genuine and
seriously felt, and less petulant, than his attacks on theologians. He
objects to the way theology is studied, but not to the subject; he
objects to the use of civil law at all as irreligious. He would have
1 See above, p. 15, note 4.
2 I am aware that such arguments, based on the probability of an intelligent action, are far
from conclusive, since we are by no means always ruled by what is best for us. There may
have been some valid personal reason, of which we know nothing, for leaving England and
going to Paris; and this was really the determining factor. The rational action in the circum-
stances has been sketched here more for the purpose of exploring the possibilities than for
arriving at a decision as to what he actually did.
8 See Davy, Les Sermons universitaires . . . pp. 88-90, for clerical fulminations against the
study of civil law in 1230-31.
Early Manhood 29
preferred to throw it out altogether and revert to the moral law as
embodied, in Bacon's belief, in the ecclesiastical code. This is a part
of his deep faith in a moral society, which I think was one of the
determining factors in his later decision to become a friar, even though
such a step was against his apparent interests.
There remains the question whether he studied theology at Oxford.
I imagine he had some difficulty in making up his mind; but that he
finally decided against the study of theology at this time. Later he
realized more and more his deficiency in this respect. So he attacks
violently the existing system, and especially contemporary theolo-
gians, for whom he never has a good word. It is clear that in his own
mind he is confident that his qualifications are better, even for the
teaching of theology. I think that his decision was influenced by the
greater interest Aristotle had for him than the book of Sentences', by
die fact that he could study Aristotle freely, and his admired masters
were Aristotelians or had studied Aristotle intensively; and the
knowledge was new and exciting. There were commentaries to be
read, Avicenna above all and Averroes to a lesser degree and we
know these have been read by the time of the Parisian lectures, though
perhaps not so thoroughly as later. They are not quoted so exten-
sively as in the works of his maturity. I dunk that as a young man he
voluntarily relinquished the advantages that he might have expected
from following a career in theology, and chose instead to remain a
secular master and teach, while at the same time continuing the
studies of Aristotle and the commentators ever more deeply.
I think it probable that he regretted this choice in kter Hfe, especi-
ally when he was a friar. Friars who were masters of theology had
risen to great heights. Alexander of Hales was welcomed into the
Order with open arms and given the first chair of theology held by
the Franciscans at the University of Paris. Robert Kilwardby and
John Peckham became Archbishops of Canterbury , as we have seen,
St. Bonaventura became general of the Franciscans at the age of
thirty-six; Matthew of Acquasparta, Raymond of Gaufredi, kter
generals in the same century, all were doctors of theology. Thomas
Aquinas later became the real authority that Bacon would so dearly
have loved to be.
But Bacon, it will be contended, was neglected by his Order, and
his knowledge of philosophy and later of science was not valued. And
it was all his own fault because so early in his career he had opted for
philosophy alone, when by swallowing the book of the Sentences he
could have become a theologian and advanced to the heights.
30 RS er Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
But this knowledge did not make it any easier to bear. On the
contrary . . .
It seems to me that the subconscious realization that he had made
a wrong decision accounts for the whole of Bacon's later career and
his peculiar psychological disposition in a remarkable manner. He
chose to remain a secular master, and turned his back on the current
studies of theology at the university because he did not appreciate
the methods used and grudged the fourteen years' study necessary to
reach the top. He proceeded, then, to teach philosophy and gain a
limited success.
But after several years* teaching, what point had he reached? He
was still a young man; but there was no future for him as an authority
in the schools because he had not studied theology. And Bacon was
ambitious to be an authority. He was furiously jealous of Alexander
of Hales, who was 'an archdeacon and a master of theology of his
day* .- 1 he called Richard of Cornwall 'the worst and most stupid
author of those errors . . . the most renowned, who had the greatest
reputation in that stupid crowd'. 2 And Richard, too, was a master
of theology, lector to the Franciscans at Oxford from 1256. 3 But
Bacon's greatest hatred was reserved for an unnamed man (whom I
cannot think to be anyone but Albertus Magnus, however distorted
Bacon's picture may be of him 4 ), who had become an authority on
theology without ever having had the necessary philosophical back-
ground, who had gained his position by entering the Dominican
Order at an early age and having the full weight of its power behind
him. Bacon sneers at the students at Paris who didn't think they
knew anything unless they had listened to the 'boys of the two
Orders'. 5 If he himself had done this there would have been no need
to waste all his years of apprenticeship in philosophy. This unnamed
man had cheated, and Bacon could not forgive him (or himself for
not having been smart enough to do the same).
So, at the end of his Paris career, at the centre of his life, nel mezzo
del cammin di nostra vita he will have been about thirty-five Bacon
had to make his supreme decision. What was he to do with the rest
of his life? He could not now turn back and eat his words, and set
himself to study the book of the Sentences like any juvenile student of
theology.
I think the pseudo-Aristotelian Secret of Secrets, which purports to
be a letter sent by the philosopher Aristotle to Alexander the Great
1 Opus Minus, p. 325. * C5T, p. 52.
Little, 'The Franciscan School . . .' (1926), p. 845.
4 For a discussion of this problem see Appendix B below. fi CSP, pp. 425-26.
Early Manhood 31
(a mere thinker instructing the lord of the world), with its attractive
mixture of mystical theology and science, showed him the answer.
He could study and make himself master of science and thus become
a theologian by the back door. His dislike of formal theology (his
'mistake' as he subconsciously felt) was now justified, It was a soul-
destroying discipline. He will never change from this opinion all
his days. As late as 1290, when he is well over seventy, he begins
work at last on a compendium of theology. But it is still his own
brand of theology, and the Secret of Secrets is still to the fore. And,
even as he works, an old man with the fires of controversy now died
down to a smoulder, he knows it is useless. Every now and then his
hatred flares up briefly again against Richard of Cornwall who had
succeeded where he had failed, 1 against 'insane holders of theories', 2
against the 'never-ending multiplication of lies'. 3
But the whole work is tired and feeble. The philosophic system
had been better explained earlier. And, above all, the fourth cause of
error, so conspicuous in his works to the Pope, the worst cause of all,
is entirely omitted. Significantly, the 'conceit of ignorance', the fear
of being thought ignorant of anything, has disappeared. Could it be
that Bacon had repented or only that life had taught him at last that
it was safer to conceal one's private opinions of one's renowned
contemporaries ?
But first, long before this, came the fantastic effort to acquire
knowledge of all the sciences and their use in the field of theology.
From this time onwards his whole life is devoted to this study.
Whatever he takes up can be, and must be, used for theology.
Alchemy, optics, astrology, even Greek and Hebrew grammar,
mathematics all must be used. All these sciences are 'utilissima' for
theology. And most significant these are the only disciplines that
are valuable. He is right, and everyone else is wrong. Time and time
again he attacks his contemporaries and puts his own views forward
until he has at last the chance to present his case to the highest author-
ity in Christendom.
The haste with which he works is shown by the surprising im-
maturity of so many of his scientific books, and an excessive credulity
not shown by Albertus Magnus, whose studies were more Teutonic
and thorough. The age, from our point of view, is superstitious, and
the greater part of its scientific knowledge 'fallacious'. But some-
times Bacon is as bad as the least educated man of his day, though at
other times he has thoroughly penetrated his subject, and what he
1 GST, p. 52. * Ibi4. t p. 55. JM, p. 58.
32 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
has to say is at least My consistent, even if, from our point of view,
mistaken. He rarely uses his painfuUy acquired logic and philosophy.
No man could know personally all the fields he tries to study; so he is
forced to rely upon 'authorities' without checking them, and often
without the criticism of which he is quite capable, and without even
selecting the best authorities. It is clear that he has read at great speed
everything he can lay his hands on.
The two halves of his education were never thoroughly assimilated
nor made consistent with each other. While he sees that the link
between the theoretical and the practical is his scientia experimental^
he rarely uses the knowledge, and his few serious -efforts appear
juvenile to us and hardly worth the trouble of relating. 1 All this has
led historians of science such as Professor Thorndike with some justice
to ascribe a higher place in the history of science to Albertus Magnus.
While this interpretation of the motives behind Bacon's work may
explain the reasons for his antagonism to theologians and his devotion
to science, it is not intended in any way to minimize the value of his
science, which will be fully considered in due course. If we look
through the pages of history we shall find hundreds of men of genius,
artists of the highest rank, whose whole point of view was determined
by an emotional drive, quite possibly even of a primitive nature. It
has not vitiated their work; on the contrary, it may even be argued
that no great work of art has ever been produced without it. It gives
the work its slant, its personal bias, its special point of view; it gives
the artist his particular vision of the truth. It is his own subjective
reality; and this is communicated to the beholder as an experience,
and from it he can learn.
Bacon, too, was a man of genius, an artist. His favourite adjective
is 'pulcher' applied indiscriminately to all the branches of science. In
four pages of the Opus Minus there are no fewer than nine uses of
this word either as an adjective or a noun, in positive or superlative.
Bacon has an aesthetic appreciation of the universe unmatched in his
time and rare in any period. But he was not of the great company of
discoverers, experimenters, men of science of whom Albert was the
greatest in his own day. I do not believe he could have become a
scientist of this kind while he was driven by such an overpowering
desire to persuade. In his later life he was not a fair man, nor a just;
we cannot imagine him examining evidence, weighing and rejecting
1 As, for instance, his account of the attempt to break a diamond with goat's blood, which
was an old tradition. Bacon tells us that diamonds can easily be broken when they are used
to carve other gems ; but not by goat's blood. Opus Majus, II, 168-69.
Early Manhood 33
hypotheses, following the truth wherever it leads. In this he was
behind Albert, and behind even Thomas Aquinas, who is too often
regarded as the uncompromising exponent of a dogmatic position,
where, in fact, his calm clarity and earnest pursuit of the truth put
Bacon to shame. Bacon can give a masterpiece of brilliant exposition
of a difficult theory, and then follow it elsewhere with absurd and
puerile non-sequiturs; 1 he can produce a violent polemic and then
ruin it with a piece of contradictory evidence which he does not see
will vitiate the whole; 2 he shrinks from no purposeful and malicious
innuendo and sly personal remarks, while at the same time attributing
to himself the highest motives. 3 The one thing he can never be is
generous. 4 But his greatest work still stands to-day with the hallmark
1 As an example of brilliant exposition his statement of the case for astrology (Of us Majus,
I, 396 ff.) would be difficult to surpass. Yet later in the same book (ibid., II, 394-95), when
considering the ethical value of the different religions known to him, he claims that Christianity
is superior because Christ forgave sins. Surely he should have seen that this is an assertion,
not an argument. How would the infidel whom he hopes to convince by the argument know
that, in fact, the sins were forgiven? Mahomet could have said the same. To take another
example from the same work (ibid., HI, 14), Aristotle, according to Bacon, 'did not know how
to square the circle, a problem clearly understood in these days; his ignorance on this point
indicates still further ignorance of more important matters* (translation by R. B. Burke).
The same non-sequitur is used with regard to the famous unknown, 'si nescit rninora, non
potest scire majora' (Opus Minus, p. 327). This is not an argument; it is prejudice.
2 He attacks Alexander of Hales and the unknown, saying that theologians 'accept infinite
false and useless things about the sciences (Opus Minus, pp. 325-27). This, he says, is the result
of the teachings of those two (istorurn duorum). Yet these men have authority. Because the
friars reverenced Alexander they ascribed to him a work which he did not write. This Summa
contains numerous falsities and vanities. Alexander did not study Aristotle because in his day
Aristotle was forbidden, and because he failed to study the physical works of Aristotle he
could not understand his logic either. Because, *as is clear to everyone who knows these
sciences', the two go together. By this time Bacon has so worked himself up about this Summa,
and is so anxious to say everything unfavourable he can about Alexander that he adds, *cuius
signum est quod nullus facit earn de caetero scribi. Immo exemplar apud fratres putrescit et
jacet intactum et invisum hiis temporibus*. The proof of all this is that the work, which
Alexander himself did not write, but others, is never copied, and lies rotting on the shelves
of the Franciscan libraries ! As Churchill would say, some authority !
3 See Appendix B below for his attack on the unnamed master.
4 Bacon's one known deed which might, in a trivial sense, be called generous, was his educa-
tion of the boy John, whom he sent with his Opus Majus to the Pope. But as an act of generosity
this is vitiated by the motives which inspired it. He wanted to have a young mind to work
on, a boy whom he could instruct in all his knowledge, whom he could teach in a few months
the whole of his painfully acquired wisdom. This boy, this Galatea, is to be made in his own
image. With most fulsome and disproportionate praise, Bacon introduces John to the Pope as
superior in every way to his elders who have not had the advantage of his tutoring, even
though John is only twenty.
John cannot possibly have been such a paragon of wisdom and virtue indeed, nothing is
known of his subsequent career after he had acted as Roger's messenger but it suited his
mentor's purpose to think it. In the pages of Bacon's Opera John is only a projection of himself,
one of his hopes of earthly immortality. It takes no great imagination to picture this youth as
he really was, and his feelings towards the domineering master who was trying to cram all his
knowledge down his throat in a few years, to say nothing of supervising his morals. It is not
surprising that we have no record of any explanation of Roger's scientific system given, to the
Pope by John beyond kte unreliable legend. T&e figure of the favourite pupil on whom so
much had been staked fades out altogether from Bacon's later works, as if he had never been.
A further point that might show Bacon's generosity to the poor and neglected ones of this
34 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
of genius upon it; with all the faults of his brilliant and erratic nature
impressed upon it for all to see: but still, without any doubt, a
masterpiece.
Bacon may have started to study theology and given it up in
impatience or disgust. But, if he did, then he soon returned to
philosophy, and long before he had given up his freedom to become
a friar. He started to teach, and while he was doing so, over the few
years remaining to him at Oxford he deepened his knowledge of
Aristotle and the commentators, and he perfected his technique of
disputing. These he had at his disposal when he arrived in Paris.
I think it very possible that he attained a considerable reputation
in the Faculty of Arts at Oxford though such reputations were not
to be compared with those of real masters of theology. And it
seems very possible indeed that from this position at some time in
the early 1240*8 he was invited to lecture in Paris when the Faculty of
Arts in that university needed a man to teach Aristotle. They would
not call upon any of their own professors, for these were not practised
in the technique of expounding Aristotle because of the ban. With
no one available, therefore, who had the necessary technique and
experience, what more likely than that they should turn to Oxford?
And here was a young and gifted master ready to hand, in the person
of Roger Bacon. 1
world may also be interpreted in another sense his defence of Master Peter of 'Maharn-Curia*
(usually called Peter de Maricourt). This man was not an authority either; in fact, he was
unknown. 'He does not care for speeches and battles of words, but he pursues the works of
wisdom and finds peace in them . . . nothing which can be known escapes him. ... If he
wished to stand before princes and kings, they would honour him and make him rich. ... If
he wished to demonstrate at Paris his knowledge of wisdom, the whole world would seek him
out. But he cares nothing for honour and riches.' The strong, silent, incorruptible investigator,
the idealized image of Bacon himself and, above all, an unknown, a man who could never
be a competitor or an authority, like those other safely dead figures of the past, his revered
masters, Robert Grosseteste and Adam Marsh ! (Brewer, Op. Tert., pp. 46-47.)
1 There is an interesting passage in Bacon's last work which may also throw some light on
the rime and circumstances of his entry into Paris. 'Some of the philosophy of Aristotle', he
says, 'came late into use among the Latins because his natural philosophy and metaphysics
and the commentaries of Averroes were only translated in our times; and they were ex-
communicated at Paris before the year 1237 on account of the eternity of the world and of time,
and on account of the book concerning the divination of dreams which is the third book of
the De somno et vigilia, and on account of many errors in translation.' (C5T, p. 33.)
Now we have no reason other than this statement of Bacon to attribute any particular
significance to the year 1237. The main prohibitions of Aristotle were in 1210 and 1215,
followed by a renewal in 1231 until the works had been expurgated. Is it entirely gratuitous to
suggest that this year was associated in Bacon's memory with a decision of his own in that
year that he would not go to Paris in that year because of the prohibition? This is one of
the very few occasions when Bacon mentions an exact date instead of some round figure in
a multiple often. The date of 1237 as the year when he finished his studies at Oxford and had
to choose what career he was to follow, and whether to go to Paris or stay on at Oxford,
would exactly fit our tentative reconstruction of his life.
CHAPTER IV
PROFESSOR AT PARIS
TO understand conditions at the University of Paris in the 1240*5
it is necessary to consider briefly certain significant events that
had profoundly affected the whole academic life of the university.
In 1210, as we have seen, the works of one Amaury of Benes and
of David of Dinant had been condemned to be burned, and the
metaphysical and natural scientific works of Aristotle had been
prohibited in public lecture courses. 1 While it is improbable that
Amaury's seriously heretical works had had much connection with
Aristotle, the two monographs of G. Thery have shown convincingly
that David of Dinant's philosophy was a kind of materialistic pan-
theism. It was drawn not so much from Aristotle himself as from a
third-century commentator, Alexander of Aphrodisias, who had
developed Aristotle's ideas in the direction of a greater materialism
than his master. 2 Most of the later commentators had been influenced
more by Neo-Platonism, especially the popular Avicenna; but
Alexander's works were available in a twelfth-century Latin transla-
tion and had apparently obtained some currency.
Strictly speaking, David was not a metaphysician, but a logician.
Nevertheless, his writings had had enough influence to attract the
unfavourable attention of the Church in these early years of the
century, and provided enough material for an incipient heresy by the
time of Albertus Magnus forty years later. It is from Albert's attack
on one Baldwin and his associates that Thery has been able to recon-
struct the general ideas held by David and the use he made of them.
He thinks Albert's anger against David and his followers was due to
the illegitimate use of the master Aristotle, and that it is Albert's
belief that Aristode himself had been condemned because of the
discredit this brought on him. Thomas Aquinas also finds it necessary
to attack David's position, which he does with his usual lucidity. 3
1 Chartularium ... I, 70; supra, p. 13 (note 4).
2 Th6ry, 'Autour du decret . . .' (1926), Vol. VI.
3 David of Dinant, says St. Thomas, believed that God and mind and matter were of the
same genus, of which they are only the specific differences. While, in truth, in God, by
hypothesis, all virtues exist in pre-eminent degree. His virtues transcend those of all creatures,
and are not only different in kind. So David's philosophy is altogether built upon a confusion
between diversity and difference. There is only an analogical resemblance between primal
35
36 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
"We shall see that Bacon has no trouble with this conception, and that
he is quite clear on the difference between mind, matter, and God.
In 1215 the decree against Aristotle and David and Amaury is made
more definite and reaffirmed by Robert de Courson, the Cardinal-
Legate of the Papacy. 1 Charles Dickson has studied the life of this
cardinal, and thinks that the severe decree may have been made
partly on his own initiative, as he was a fanatical and rather tactless
theologian. 2 Nevertheless, he was a personal friend of Pope
Innocent III, and would hardly have taken this action without his
approval. The banned works, the Metaphysics and libri naturales
(Physics, De anima, and other less important works), had evidently
arrived in Paris a number of years before, perhaps from Salerno,
where they had already been in use at the medical school for a
considerable time, 3 and were by now well known in the Faculty of
Arts. However, the theological works of the day do not have
quotations from these books of Aristotle, which may be a sufficient
indication that they were not yet studied in the Faculty of Theology
at Paris. The decrees, therefore, may have affected only the Faculty
of Arts.
We know, however, that in spite of the prohibition the philoso-
phical work of Aristotle (though not necessarily the forbidden part)
was being used in the Faculty of Theology, or at least by theologians.
For in 1228 Pope Gregory IX addresses a letter to the Faculty of
Theology in which he warns the theologians against trying to confirm
theology by philosophy. He goes so far as to suggest that it is more
meritorious in the eyes of God to believe without probability, much
less proof, than to believe what can be shown to be true by philo-
sophy. 4 He also tells the Dominican students who were permitted
to attend the university that they must not study in the books of the
'Gentiles and philosophers', although they may inspect them briefly.
They are not to learn secular sciences nor even the arts which are
called liberal; they must only read theological works with which the
Chapter must provide them. 5 This admonition, however, does not
seem to have been particularly successful, since the same Pope, three
matter and the prirnal/wttrfion. David simply did not understand the analogical arguments for
the existence of God, that God was in no sense univocally the same as man (leading to anthropo-
morphism) or equivocally different (leading to agnosticism, as there can be no knowledge of a
being altogether different). David, in brutally insisting on their univocal nature, showed
himself to be a simpleton of a philosopher and a materialist. (Thomas Aquinas, Comtn. in
Sent., n, xvii.) x Chartularium ... I, 78 fF,
8 C. Dickson, *La Vie du Cardinal Robert . . .' (1934), pp. 116-24.
8 A. Birkenmajer, 'Le Role jou^ par les m&iecins . . .' (1928), pp. 1-15.
Chartularium ... I, 114. * IWL, 112-13.
Professor at Paris 37
years later, after the university had dispersed and then reassembled,
gave authority to the Prior of the Dominicans to absolve all masters
and students who had violated the prohibition against lecturing on
the libri naturales. 1 From which we may assume that some lectures
were going on, if not in the university, at least among the Dominicans.
All this time there is no doubt that individual students were still
reading Aristotle, since works written at the time show familiarity
with him, especially those of William of Auvergne, who was Bishop
of Paris at the time of the dispersal and retained his position until
his death in 1248 or 1249. William, who would always have some
supervision over the public lectures of the university, criticizes
Aristotle for holding many false doctrines; but on the whole he has
much more praise than blame for him, reserving his severer epithets
for Avicenna, whom he often treats very unfairly, putting arguments
in his mouth that he did not make, and then proceeding comfortably
to demolish them. 2 The Chancellor of the University, Philip, is also
in considerable debt to Aristotle.
In 1229, as has been said, the university was dispersed for two years,
after a quarrel between the citizens of Paris and the students. Pope
Gregory worked untiringly to reopen it, despatching letters all over
Europe to kings, princes, and the higher clergy. When at last he was
successful he marked the occasion by sending a letter to the university
which has since been regarded as its charter of liberties. He had
evidently realized that the study of Aristotle had gone too far to be
completely checked, and that Paris was losing students to Oxford and
Toulouse unnecessarily. So he told the Masters of Arts now that they
might not use the libri naturales until they had been examined and
purged from all suspicion. He conceded that the work of Aristotle
in this field should not be condemned in its entirety, as there were
things both 'useful and useless* in it. At the same time he warned the
students that, though they could lecture in the Faculty of Arts as
early as the age of twenty-one, no one could lecture in theology
until he had attained the age of thirty-five; and the arts students must
only lecture in their proper faculty, thus preserving the integrity of
the theologians. He appointed a committee of three to perform the
necessary expurgation. 3
There is no record of the labours of the committee ever having
been completed, perhaps because the leading member died in the same
1 Chartularium ... I, 143.
* An outstanding example of this is to be found in William of Auvergne, Opera .. . 1, 687-93
(De universe).
* Chartularium ... I, 138.
38 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
year. However, as Mandonnet pointed out, the whole method of
Aristotle is, in a sense, anti-theological, and a method cannot be
excised as easily as a few offending passages. 1 Theologians making
use of a group of apparently harmless ideas might quickly find
themselves making the same deductions from^them as Aristotle, and
thus be led into dangerous thoughts and heresies.
The increasing popularity of Aristotle, in spite of the prohibitions
against public lecturing, is probably due, as was suggested in the last
chapter, to the new translations from the Arabic and the commen-
taries of Averroes that accompanied them. AU serious students of
the Master cannot fail to have been interested at once in these com-
mentaries. Aristotle himself had been available for many years; but
at no time have his frequently cryptic words, with many thoughts
only barely indicated and rarely fully worked out, been easy to
understand. They cry out for running commentaries, explanations,
examples, and the more complete working out of his seminal
thoughts. The translation from the Arabic, which is a further
remove from Aristotle than the old versions of Aristippus and his
school from the Greek, could not be expected to be a great improve-
ment. Bacon may not have been much of an authority on translation
himself in spite of his pretensions; but Michael Scot, if we are to
judge by his other work, 2 was a very turgid thinker and writer, and
not at all likely to have fulfilled Bacon's demand that the subject-
matter of a translation should be known by a translator as well as the
language. 3
But the Averroes commentaries are another matter, however
barbaric the translation. Probably Averroes was already well known
in the Latin world by reputation, and it was truly an event when his
very full, and, on the whole, intelligent and faithful, explanations of
the Master became known to the learned world. 4
We have Bacon's own statement that 'from the time of Michael
Scot, whose translations appeared in 1230 with authentic expositions,
the philosophy of Aristotle has grown in importance among the
Latins'. 5 The most recent and complete study of the entry of Averroes
1 P. Mandonnet, Siger de Brabant ... (1911), I, 21.
2 Haskins gives one example, Studies in Medieval Science, pp. 266 ff. In fairness, however, it
should be mentioned that the Commentary on the Sphere, attributed to him, though not with
certainty, is considerably clearer and shows its author as a fairly good Aristotelian.
* Brewer, Op. Tert., pp. 32-33. Bacon says elsewhere that Michael's supposed translations
were done by a Jew named Andrew. Ibid., p. 91.
* As valuable, say, as a commentary on Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake by a lifelong student of
Joyce would .be to graduates majoring in twentieth-century experimental English literature 1
6 Opus MajuS; ITT, 66.
Projessor at Paris 39
into the Latin world confirms Bacon's statement note that in this
case it is not a round figure but a date and refutes convincingly the
earlier opinion that Averroes was already widely read in the West
by the second decade of the century. This opinion was due to a
misunderstanding of the scope of the actual knowledge held by writers
who spoke of him. 1
De Vaux disposes effectively of all the supposed quotations of
Averroes. The first two writers of importance who mention him
have only a very casual knowledge of him, admire him greatly, and
have found nothing offensive in his work. 2 William of Auvergne,
as we have seen, attacks Avicenna rather than Averroes, and Avicenna
can be much more easily reconciled with Christian faith than Aver-
roes, as subsequent history was to show, 3 even though he may be more
favourable to astrology, magic, and other practices not always
approved by Christians. Philip the Chancellor has probably only
dipped into the work of Averroes, and has not yet had a chance to
re^d him thoroughly before he dies in 1236. Both these writers are
probably making their brief quotations in the early 1230*5, and their
superficial knowledge is thus accounted for.
Though the entry of Averroes must have put pressure upon the
university to include Aristotle in its curriculum and tempted the
authorities to disregard the prohibition, can we say, with Thorndike,
that 'the ban was tacitly lifted in 123 1'? 4
As it is of the utmost importance if we are to estimate correctly
Bacon's position at the University of Paris when he gave his own
lectures on Aristotle, a more extended discussion becomes necessary
on whether the prohibition was indeed effective. Thorndike is here
considering the commentary on the Sphere of Sacrobosco which is
ascribed to Michael Scot. He has argued effectively for an early date
for the Sphere itself, which a late thirteenth-century writer claims to
have been composed by John of Sacrobosco at the University of Paris,
and he believes that already by the 1230'$ the book had been in use
long enough for a commentary to have been required. The first of
1 R. de Vaux, 'La premiere entree . . .' (1933), pp. 193-245.
* Ibid., p. 242.
3 See also De Vaux, 'Notes et textes . . .' (1934).
4 L. Thorndike, The Sphere of Sacrobosco . . . (1949), p. 22. Presumably Thorndike is also
relying on the opinion earlier expressed by B. Haur6au, Histoire de la philosophie . . . (1872-80),
II, 117, and Mandonnet, Siger de Brabant . . , (1911), I, 22 (though cf. p. 23), and, of course, on
the letter to the Dominican Prior referred to earlier. No one would question that there were
infractions of the ban; the question at issue is whether these amounted to a 'tacit lifting*.
Professor Thorndike has suggested to me also that even if the Commentary attributed to
Michael is not by him, it might have been attributed to him because of its use of Aristotle.
40 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
these may have been the one ascribed to Michael and printed in
Professor Thorndike's volume. Michael died in or before 1235.
Now this commentary, which is in the form of lectures given
probably at the University of Paris, makes extensive use of Aristotle.
But it has only one mention of the great Commentator, and this
would be surprising if the author had just translated his works. Four
fkts must be established if we are to use this evidence for the early
date of lectures which make use of the libri naturales:
(a) That Michael, who was employed by the Emperor Frederic II
during the years he could have delivered the lectures, had leave of
absence to go to Paris for a year or less. This is quite possible, though
there is no positive evidence. Frederic, sending the commentaries of
Averroes to the universities of Europe, -as we know he did, could
easily have sent Michael himself as his emissary.
(b) That there was a course being given at the University of Paris
either before, or beginning at, this rime, on the Sphere of Sacrobosco.
Thorndike has not produced evidence for this, and such evidence as
we have (for instance, the professor's vade-mecum, dealt with below)
seems to be negative. However, as this professor was concerned with
philosophy, he would not necessarily mention the Sphere, though he
does mention other text-books than Aristotle, e.g. the De motu cordis
of Al&edus Anglicus. 1
(c) That lectures could be given making extensive use of the
forbidden libri naturales. It is possible that a distinction might be made
between lectures on what was officially a different subject, and the
libri naturales themselves.
(d) That the commentary, in fact, is by Michael. Thorndike does
not find his authorship assured, but he does demonstrate from
internal evidence that it is early, and, indeed, the earliest commentary
known on the Sphere.
So while all these desiderata may be satisfied, I do not think the
evidence in its favour can amount to even a probability that it was
such a work as this that Bacon had in mind when he said that Michael
Scot introduced the natural philosophy of Aristotle. 2 His work as a
translator was of far greater importance, and Bacon's reference to
Averroes and Michael's connection with the translation is fully
sustained. But there is no reason to suppose that Averroes was
lectured upon yet, any more than the libri naturales] though private
1 Incidentally, I have found no reference in Bacon's works to the Sphere. But nothing caft
be inferred from this as Bacon seldom, if ever, quotes from his contemporaries.
1 Thorndike, The Sphere of Sacrobosco ... p. 22.
Professor at Paris 41
reading of the Commentator -would begin to produce its effect
gradually, culminating in the extensive use of him as an authority by
die late 1240'$. And such evidence as I have examined and considered
does not seem to confirm the tacit lifting of the ban. On the contrary,
it seems to have been fairly well observed as long as Gregory DC was
alive.
Grabmann says that we cannot deduce from the fact that the
expurgation was not carried out that lectures were at once given on
the libri naturales and the Metaphysics at Paris. 1 He mentions some
verses of John of Garland which refer to the use of Plato and Aristotle
at Paris, and can be dated with certainty as 1234, but does not think
they are decisive. 2 Philip the Chancellor (died 1236) undoubtedly
used the books, as did William of Auvergne. Roland of Cremona
wrote a Summa with 672 quotations from Aristotle about 1229, but
in it Averroes is neither named nor used. 3 In any case, Roland taught
at Toulouse during the period Paris was closed down. But quotation,
however extensive, proves nothing about public lectures at the
university. Moreover, these men, of high position and well advanced
in life, would not at this time be studying. So the evidence is not
really valuable for the question of public lectures in the Faculty of
Arts.
Much more decisive is the vade-mecum spoken of earlier and
described by Grabmann. Here the anonymous professor says
specifically in his preamble that he is intending to deal with questions
containing much difficulty and required for examinations in 'the
different faculties'. 4 Can it be suggested that this would not include
the libri naturales if they were being lectured upon, when surely the
most serious questions of all were concerned with these? And yet
the professor does not deal with them except merely to mention the
books in a few lines. A half column is devoted to the huge Meta-
physics, in which he speaks of the number of books, and gives in
some cases the incipit and a brief note on the contents. He adds:
'Take notice that metaphysics, since it treats of the general principles
of things, is superior to all other sciences ... the subject of meta-
physics can be called first being'. He then says how it is to be regarded
1 Grabmann, I Divieti . . . (1941), p. 109.
2 Ibid., p. 110. The poem is in the Municipal Library of Bruges.
* Grabmann, I Divieti ... pp. 111-12.
4 'Nos gravamen quaestionum plurimarum et difficultatem attendentes in quaestionibus, que
maxime in examinibus solent fieri, eo quod minium sunt disperse et in diversis facultatibus
contente nullum de eius habentes ordinem vel continuitatem, digmim duximus in quadam
compenditate huiusmodi quaestiones cum suis solutionibus pertractare'. Grabmann, I Divieti . . .
p. 114.
42 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
(univocum in ratione] and at once concludes with: 'And hoc modo it can
be said that being in general is the subject of metaphysics . That is as
far as he gets with metaphysics. On the libri naturales there is one
page, including indications of one or two minor problems to which
he devotes two or three lines each. That is all.
But the Ethics (a permitted if not required book since 1215) is gone
through carefully book by book, as also the whole content of the
Organon that was in use. 1 .
Grabmann then attacks the problem from another point ot view. 2
If the libri naturales were not being used, this must have left a consider-
able gap in the curriculm. How was it filled? And he gives the
suggestion that it was filled by a greatly increased study of logic and
grammar. He finds that the quantity of logical works which can be
exactly dated in the I22o's and 1230'$ greatly exceeds that of any other
period. The very important Summae logicales of Peter of Spain, later
Pope John XXI, may date from this time. 3 George Sarton remarks
that in the study of grammar, and particularly in the work of John of
Garland, 'there is a tendency to give the subject a greater philosophical
depth. John was one of the first speculative grammarians or modistae
whose efforts tended to lift grammar up a to higher philosophical
level'. 4 Bacon approved of John of Garland 5 and, of course, had a
great interest in grammar, and wrote in his Parisian period a Summa
grammatica, which has been printed. 6
The evidence of questions asked in Paris from 1225 to 1235 supports
Grabmann's contentions. O. Lottin has printed a list of such ques-
tions contained in MS. Douai 434. None of these questions, nor the
incipits of those not included, seems to give even a hint that the
libri naturales or the Metaphysics were being discussed during those
years, though, of course, such negative evidence cannot in itself be
conclusive. 7
Bacon's own evidence on this subject is interesting, but we cannot
place any actual date on the dropping of the prohibitions from these
particular remarks, since they come from the Communia naturalium,
which was composed over a long period of years, and was revised
and added to after his works to the Pope. 'The natural philosophy of
Aristotle', he says, 'which has been lectured on for barely thirty
i Grabmann, I Divieti ... p. 125. a Ibid., pp. 127-28.
9 Prior, at least, to Peter's departure for Siena in 1246, where he taught natural philosophy.
His logical work belongs to his Parisian period. Van Steenberghen, Siger de Brabant ... p. 422.
* G. Sarton, Introduction to the History . . . (1931), II, 530.
6 CSP, p. 453. fl Steele, Fasc. XV, 1-190.
7 O. Lottin, 'Quelques quaestiones . . .' (1933), pp. 79-95.
Professor at Paris 43
years (vix a triginta annis always means less than thirty years) and by
few men, and these have not written on him, still cannot be known
apud vulgum. 1
Dom Lottin has also discovered in later researches the increasing
influence of the logical and ethical works of Aristotle in the Faculty
of Theology at this period, and concludes that there was an interplay
between die two faculties as a result of their mutual interest in
philosophy, however much it may have been officially frowned
upon. 2 It is quite possible that a percolation of the ideas of the
Faculty of Arts into the Faculty of Theology did dispose the latter
to modify its oppositions, which may not have been altogether of its
own making, but more as a result of pressure put upon it by Pope
Gregory IX and its own more conservative theologians. 3
I have been impressed by Professor van Steenberghen's suggestion
that there would have been much comment in Paris that the foremost
university of the world should be behind its English competitor in
the matter of public lecturing on the works of Aristotle, 4 and that the
opposition in Paris is likely to have gradually collapsed, the conserva-
tive theologians having enough trouble of their own, between the
older generation of scriptural exegesists and ' Augustinians' and the
younger generation who wanted to use their philosophy. Moreover,
the Bishop of Paris, as we know, found nothing specially wrong with
1 Steele, Fasc. H, 12.
2 Lottin, 'Psychologic et morale . . .' (1939), pp. 182-212.
3 From Davy, Les Sermons universitaires . . . esp. pp. 292, 340, it can be seen how the reigning
theologians severely rebuke those of their own number who mingle theology and philosophy.
In the Faculty of Arts during these years was Alexander of Hales who, according to Bacon
(Opus Minus, p. 326), did not know the Metaphysics of Aristotle because it had not yet been
translated. This, of course, is not true, but Bacon is never very sound on events that happened
before his day, and, in fact, the Metaphysics Vetus t which he uses himself, had been translated
already in the twelfth century. Actually Alexander had a considerable acquaintance with
Aristode, including the Metaphysics, though he objects to the use of him as an authority, and
thinks Anselm and Augustine should be more believed. He tries himself to set up a system
of metaphysics free from the impure physics and astrophysics which are typical of the work of
Aristotle in this field. See especially the December 1945 issue of Franciscan Studies, which is
exclusively devoted to Alexander of Hales. P. Boehner, in one article on the metaphysics of
Alexander, concludes that the Sutnma Minorum> that part of the Summa Theologiae which can
with probability be ascribed to Alexander himself, is 'truly Aristotelian' (p. 414). In the article
by M. M. Curtin in the same number, the author thinks Alexander has been too favourable to
Aristode, that he uses the scholastic conception of the intellects agens and the intellects possibilis
unnecessarily, and tries without success to reconcile it with the philosophy of St. Augustine,
The work of Albertus Magnus in the Faculty of Theology is probably too late to be of
importance at the period under discussion and is dealt with below in Appendix B.
But it is clear from a fuller consideration of these faculties in the 1220's and 1230's that the
old contention (especially propagated in the works of E. Gilson) that the theological faculty
was Augustinian, while the Faculty of Arts was Aristotelian is too bald a distinction to be
seriously maintained to-day.
* Van Steenberghen, Siger de Brabant ... pp. 429-30. I have considerably expanded his few
brief sentences.
44 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Aristotle, although he advised a cautious attitude towards him; and
he was ignorant of the dangers of Averroes. Everyone must have
realized that the prohibition could not be kept in force indefinitely.
Even Toulouse, which had been founded as a bulwark against
heresy, was free of restrictions till 1245.* The university authorities
had probably given up hope that a suitably expurgated edition of
Aristotle would ever be made, since no progress had been visible
along jhis line in years, and apparently no one was working on it.
But in the University of Paris any such innovation as public lectures,
in direct contravention of the official decree, could not pass unnoticed.
From what quarter could opposition come? Surely only from one
place, the highest seat of authority in Christendom from Pope
Gregory IX, who was now in his nineties 2 but not lacking in vigour,
as can be seen from his stubborn fight against Frederic of Hohen-
staufen, the Emperor. This Pope had always looked upon Paris as
the apple of his eye; and, as we have seen, he had been an uncom-
promising opponent of Aristotle as long as his works had not been
expurgated. It would still not be safe for the Parisian authorities to
tangle with him, or back might come one of those terrible letters,
or even the thunders of excommunication.
But at last, in 1241, .Gregory died, and Frederic shut up the Cardinal
electors in an Italian castle until they could agree on a successor
favourable to himself. They elected one, but he only survived his
ordeal for a few days, and again the throne was vacant. Not until
June 1243 was Innocent IV finally elected. And in spite of his former
friendship for Frederic it is impossible for a pope to be a Ghibelline,
said Frederic he found it necessary to oppose him, and by a stratagem
he fled from Italy to a safer place. So, with his hands full with his
own affairs, Innocent could pay little attention to the curriculum of
the University of Paris. Not until 1245 was he free to give it a little
thought, and then he merely repeated, in essentials, Gregory's letter
of 1231, promising the expurgation but not appointing any scholars
for the job, and then extending the prohibition for the first time to
the University of Toulouse. 3 But by this time the damage had been
done. For nearly four years all initiative had rested in the hands of
the local authorities, and they had taken fuH advantage of it.
This line of argument seems to me to be as convincing as anything
in history for which there is only circumstantial evidence. The times,
1 Chartularium ... I, 185-86.
a Born in or about 1147, according to Dictionnaire de thdologie Catholique.
* Chartularium ... I, 185-86.
Professor at Paris 45
the intellectual atmosphere, the personnel available, were right. And
we know that if not in 1241-44, at least very soon afterwards, Bacon
was lecturing publicly on Aristotle at Paris, and using the libri
naturales and the Metaphysics. There is no evidence, of course, that
he was the first to lecture on the scientific works of the period, though
as yet no earlier commentaries or quaestiones are known. But the
arguments given at the close of the previous chapter may show why
Bacon might have been invited or offered himself. It is enough if he
is thought of, as might in any case be inferred from his remarks
quoted above, as among the pioneers.
Against this hypothesis is to be set Bacon's own date of 1237, given
in the last year of his life when he was in the seventies. 1 If this date
be accepted, and there is nothing positive against it, 2 then there was
no special event as far as we know that was responsible for the
re-introduction.
The second part of this chapter will try to show why Bacon was
a good man for the post.
The question of Bacon's fitness for undertaking the delicate work
of interpreting Aristode in a manner likely to cause as little offence
as possible requires the serious consideration of those statements of
Aristode and his commentators which had been objected to, and had
been at least partly responsible for the prohibition. A whole detailed
work could be written upon this, and it would in any case greatly
exceed the space desirable to be expended on it in this study. So only
an outline of a few of the more important arguments, together with
Bacon's replies, will be attempted here.
I. The materialistic-pantheistic argument of David ofDinant*
There is a well-known passage in the Opus Majus where Bacon
tries to demonstrate by mathematical (i.e. geometrical) means that
the statement that matter must be one in number and the same in all
is untrue. He agrees that if this were so, then the doctrine
Id be Very close to heresy or wholly heretical', as the necessary
1 csr, p. 33.
* The vade-mecum, must be after 1230 since the writer is aware of the 1230 Arabo-Latin
translation of the Metaphysics, and it should be before 1240, since he is unaware of the new
translations of the Ethics by Hermann the German (1240) and Grosseteste (1240-43). Van
Steenberghen, Siger de Brabant ... p. 416.
See above, pp. 35-36.
4.6 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
consequence would be that matter is God and Creator. 1 Bacon
chooses this argument as an example of how to reason mathematically
'though reasonings from nature and metaphysics are abundant and
efficacious, concerning which elsewhere a long disquisition can be
made.'
I have not found any direct discussion of this problem in his
Parisian Quaestiones, at least not in connection with its logical
consequence that matter equals God. There are many discussions on
the nature of matter, and he recognizes that this is a question of
extreme difficulty. 2 But the gist of these is that the question is suitably
solved by Aristotle with his distinctions of per se and per accidens,
and potentiality and actuality. Matter, says Bacon, is something
incomplete, most imperfect and ignoble; therefore it cannot be 'una
numero, tamen est numerositate essentie'. 3
Perhaps it was Albert's attack on the unknown Baldwin that
caused Bacon to take the question more seriously, and hence led him
to deal with it directly in die Opus Majus and other works in his later
life. Bacon, of course, does not give this potential heresy as one of
the reasons for the prohibition of Aristotle.
2. The question of plurality of forms.
This question does not become of real importance until the latter
part of the century. Though it had not yet perhaps in Bacon's period
at Paris reached the status of a problem, nevertheless there was
already considerable disagreement on it, and this had originally
stemmed from Aristotle.
'The main point is whether the attributes of the soul under-
standing, opinion, desire, and the like, appertain to the soul as a
whole, or whether each operation is dependent upon a particular
part: that is, whether the soul thinks as a whole, or whether one part
thinks, another perceives, and another desires'. 4
1 Opus Majus, I, 143-46. Cf. also Brewer, Op. Tert. t p. 127, and Steele, Fasc. II, 55.
J 'Nunc ad perscrutationem arduam et dfficilem cause materialis accedamus'. Steele,
Fasc. XI, 53. In his latest commentaries on the Physics (Steele, Fasc. XIII, 49 flf.), Bacon asks
the question: 'Queritur quomodo materia est una, an numero vel genere vel specie'. And he
goes on to ask how prime matter, if it were one in number, could still be prime matter when
universal and particular forms are received, but the universal forms first, which are not one in
number. It is to this objection that he gives the answer above: 'Sic non est una numero, tamen
est numerositate essentie'. Cf. also the other discussions on the nature of matter, Steele, Fasc. X,
59-71; XI, 53-62; XIH, 44-56. See also Sharp, Franciscan Philosophy ... pp. 132-33, but her
account is incomplete since in 1930 she only had Fasc. VII and Fasc. VIII of the Quaestiones at
her disposal.
8 Steele, Fasc. Xffl, 49.
4 This admirable definition is from Callus, 'Two Oxford Masters . . .* (1939), p. 420.
Professor at Paris 47
Aristotle does not divide the soul into parts located in different
organs. But whether there are one or more substances in the soul he
does not determine. He holds that the intellectual soul in man is the
perfection of the sensitive soul, the sensitive in turn of the vegetative
soul. The soul, according to Aristotle, is 'una subjecto, multipHcitas
secundum virtutes'. Averroes, enlarging this in the sense indicated
by Aristotle, concluded that there was one soul 'secundum subjectum'
and many 'secundum virtutes'. 1 The question adumbrated by the
Franciscans in particular, later in the century, especially by John
Peckham, 2 was whether there were separate substantial forms as
against Thomas Aquinas who insisted there was only one. 3
Various opinions had been put forward on this question early in
the century. It was, in fact, certain to be discussed in the study of
theology because of the importance attached to it by Peter Lombard
in his book of Sentences, the standard text-book in faculties of theology
everywhere. 4 It has an obvious theological importance because of
the immortality of the intellectual soul, and the relationship of this
to the vegetative and sensitive souls possessed by animals as well as
by man, and the lack of immortality prescribed for these. Further-
more, the question of the resurrection of the body, with vegetative
and sensitive souls, is closely related to it.
1 Callus, 'Two Oxford Masters . . .' (1939), p. 420.
2 Sharp, Franciscan Philosophy . . . pp. 186 ff.
3 On this whole discussion see also M, de Wulf, Histoire de la philosophic ... II, 255-58,
though there are many scattered references to the subject throughout the volume, which are not
always easily linked together. De Wulf has always been especially interested in this problem,
I think, since his first published work on Giles de Lessines in 1901 (LesPhilosophes Beiges, Vol. I).
It is an interesting commentary on Bacon's remarks about the unavailability of the best works
of the Arabs that Avicenna's views on the soul were not at this time fully known in the West.
Gundissalinus in the twelfth century had purloined many of Avicenna's views and included,
them in his De immortalitate animae, a work so highly thought of by William of Auvergne
that he reissued it, with hardly a change, under his own name. But even Gundissalinus, working
in Spain, still did not have the full works of Avicenna, or else he did not understand him
enough. (For this see Gilson's study, 'Les Sources greco-arabes . . . (1920-30), pp. 1-158.)
A recent and very valuable little study has been made on Avicenna's real thought on the
soul from Arabic sources (M. Amid, Essai sur la psychologic . . . (1940) ). Avicenna insists that
the soul is one, and a substance; and unlike most of the Latins who dealt with the subject, he
draws upon his considerable medical experience to prove his theories. Man has a 'corporeal
soul* and a 'specific soul', the latter only being immortal, and, of course, peculiar and individual
in each person. After death there is no further use for the corporeal soul, and it disappears
with the body; but the specific soul is immortal. In Avicenna, as with the pluralists, there is
a hierarchy of forms, each one embracing the one higher in the scale of being, but the whole
forming a complete unity, as with Aristotle. This theory of the corporeal soul comes from
Simpliciiis, the sixth-century Greek commentator on Aristotle, who evidently felt the need
for a more complete account than the Master had given. The medievals were more interested
in the functions of the soul, and so paid more attention to the intellectus agens and the intellects
possibilis, and Avicenna's views on these are objected to by them. But Avicenna as a medical
man was more interested in the nature of the soul, and his more important work is devoted to
the specific and corporeal souls in themselves, a work unknown to the Latins.
* O. Lottin, 'L'ldentitf de 1'anie . . .' (1934), pp. 191-210.
48 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Peter Lombard had insisted on the unity of substance in the soul,
as Albert and Thomas equally insist later, and as William of Auvergne
and Philip the Chancellor do in our period. The theologian, Richard
Fishacre, who taught at Oxford c. 1236-43, states the difference of
opinion bluntly, and gives three possible views that may be held on
the subject. 1 He concludes by expressing no personal opinion of his
own on which is true (diffinire non audeo). Adam of Buckfield, an
early Oxford commentator on Aristotle who taught there after 1243,
is inclined towards the pluralist interpretation. 2 Richard of Cornwall,
who lectured on the Sentences at Oxford, 1250-53, and at Paris,
1253-55, and was regent master of the Oxford friars from 1256,
with whom, as we have seen, Bacon violently disagreed on other
matters, regards the theory of the plurality of forms as contrary to the
teachings of die saints. 3 Among all the masters of theology who were
really considered authorities, only William of Auxerre, one of those
appointed by the Pope in 1231 to expurgate Aristotle, gives pluralism
his full support. 4
Albertus Magnus points to the existence of a real problem in his
commentary on the De anima* But much earlier, in his Summa de
creaturis, written in the 1240'$, he had already said that no reputable
philosopher upholds the plurality of forms, and he mentions the
names of Avicenna, Aristotle, Boethius, and St. Augustine as being
against it. 6 This position is also taken by Richard of Cornwall. 7
Robert Grosseteste and Thomas of York had, however, implied
pluralism without definitely stating it. 8
Potentially it is clear that the problem was an explosive one. And
it did explode in the time of St. Thomas, and during the archiepis-
1 The opinions are as follows:
'1. Estimant enim aliqui, quod vegetabilis et sensibilis et rationalis sunt una et eadem forma,
et variantur tantum secundum operationem.
*2. Alii posuerunt quod in homine est anima unica forma numero.
'3. Tertii ponunt quod sunt tres formae et tria haec aliquid in hominibus a quibus sunt istae
tres operationes cui plena contradicit Magister Augustinus*. Quoted by Martin, 'La Question
de 1'unit* . . .' (1920), pp. 107-112.
* See Callus, 'Two Oxford Masters . . ." (1939) for a fuller account, pp. 420-24.
* Callus, 'Two Oxford Masters . . .' (1939), pp. 424 flf.
* Lottin, 'L'ldentte de Tame . . .' (1934), also 'La Pluralite" des formes . . .' (1932), pp. 449-67.
5 'Hunc errorem . . . sequuntur quidam Latinorurn philosophorum . . . qui dicunt esse
diversas substantias et anirnam unam in corpore hominis, adducentes Aristoteles viditur dicere
in sexto-decimo librorurn suorum de animalibus'. Albertus Magnus, Opera ... V, 184
(Lib. I, De anima t Tr. I, cap. xv). He deals with this problem by speaking of the analogy of the
light of different candles in one house.
* Albertus Magnus, Opera . . . XXXV, 97 (Pt. H, Summa de creaturis, Tr. I, Qu. 7, Art. 1).
The Summa de creatwis is dated 1240 or 1241 by O. Lottin, 'Note sur les premiers ouvrages . . .'
(1932), p. 82.
7 Callus, 'Two Oxford Masters . . .' p. 432.
* Sharp, Franciscan Philosophy ... pp. 28 ff., 83-85.
Professor at Paris 49
copates of Robert Kilwardby and John Peckham in England. And,
since it does arise in its acute form from the study of Aristotle and
Averroes, it may already in Bacon's day have had to be considered
in connection with his work. Unfortunately, the discussion would
be likely to arise during the study of Aristotle's De anima and De
animalibus, and though, as we shall see, Bacon seems to have given
courses on these books, his questions or commentaries have not been
preserved. 1
In Bacon's extant lectures there is no direct discussion of the
problem; the arguments for and against plurality might have been
most interesting. In the absence of specific statements we are forced
to fall back upon arguments that seem to indicate the view he held.
One of the beauties of scholastic reasoning is its consistency and logic,
so that it is usually possible to see in what direction an argument is
tending, and then transfer it to another subject matter, and reach
conclusions which the master himself would probably have reached
by the same methods.
Thus in the first series on the Physics Bacon states that there are
certain animals, to wit men, whose perfection is the intellectual soul,
but with vegetative and sensitive souls also. Of these beings a double
distinction must be made. If we consider 'material dispositions', that
is, vegetative and sensitive, then men in this sense are natural beings
and derived from nature. As far as the intellectual soul is con-
cerned, its substance and essence and capacity for willing are not
'natural'. But as far as its existence in a body is concerned, it is
natural, not because it is produced by nature, but because it is the
actuality and perfection of the natural body, 2
Here, of course, Bacon is not speaking of the soul as a substantial
form, but of the capacities of the soul. There is a distinction between
the soul itself and its capacities, like the Thomistic distinction between
God and His attributes. But under this definition the capacities do
not each require a substantial form, as under the theory of pluralities.
Finally, in what its editor considers the ktest series of extant
lectures, on the pseudo-Aristotelian De causis, Bacon does for a few
lines deal directly with the soul. 'The corruptible and the incorrupt-
ible', he says, 'are not in communication in any simple subject, . . .
but they can communicate in a composite substance, as in the soul of
man. For the soul of man is made up of a sensitive and vegetative
soul which are corruptible, and an intellectual soul which is in-
corruptible and yet from these is made one soul secundum subjectum,
1 Steele, Fasc. XEI, rxx-xxxi. * Ibid., Fasc. Vm, 52-53.
5O Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
which is the perfection of man and is one composite essence, not a
simple one; and it happens to be essentially composed of matter and
form, and is one, though it is of diverse simple essences ... as in the
second book of De anima it is proved that there are three simple
essences, and yet from these there is one composite, not simple,
which is the soul of man and his perfection'. 1
While this might leave room for the plurality of forms, it is far
from being stated. So we cannot say without the lectures on the
De anima, in which the problem could hardly be avoided, what were
Bacon's complete views at this time. On the other hand we do know
what they were at the time of the Communia naturalium (perhaps
1260-63, or kter, according to the version); he has become much
more definite, and seems to come right out for at least the main
features of the current theory of plurality. Now he says that there
must be matter corresponding to the various differences in form, e.g.
forma corporalis, forma corporalis non celestis, forma animalis; but these
are all moved and controlled by the forma intellectiva which completes
the whole. 2
The conclusion that must therefore be drawn is that we do not
know enough about Bacon's Parisian period to be certain what his
views were on this question but that later he would be in sympathy
with the preponderant Franciscan position of the day. It is, however,
unlikely that the question was yet of enough moment in the 1240'$
for an orthodox and unorthodox position to have established them-
selves, of which he would have had to take account when delivering
these lectures.
3. Specific objections to Aristotelian doctrines put forward by William of
Auvergne, Bishop of Paris.
It has already been said that William objected to Aristotle on
several grounds. Some of these will now be considered. He himself
states so admirably the principle he intends to use in his criticism
that it may be quoted in full: 'Although Aristotle must be contra-
dicted in many things, as, indeed, is right and just, he must be regarded
suspiciously in all his sayings in which he contradicts the truth, and
he must be sustained in all those things in which he is found to have
been of the correct opinion'. 3
1 Steele, Fasc. XH, 158. A more thorough treatment of Bacon's attitude to this problem is
given in Crowley, Roger Bacon ... pp. 136-52, which had not been seen when the passage in
the text was written.
1 Steele, Fasc. n, 58 ff., 83. See also Sharp, Franciscan Philosophy ... p. 134.
8 William of Auvergne, Opera . . . n, Supp. p. 82 (De anima).
Professor at Paris 51
(a) In his De universe William attacks the view of the 'followers of
Aristotle', as he calls them, that creation was carried out by intelli-
gences and not by God Himself. 1
This is one of the questions on which Bacon adopts a position with
which it would be difficult to quarrel. When he is dealing with the
problem from the standpoint of physical and natural philosophy, like
Aristotle himself he sees no need for creative intelligences, and there
seems no room for them. When he deals with it from the point of
view of natural theology, he uses his belief that there are intelligences
or subsidiary causes, in order to show that power may be communi-
cated from one being to another under the Creator's direction.
In his questions on the Physics he says that 'the movers of the
inferior orbs are naturally apt to obey the movement of the superior
orb . . . although the orbs are discontinuous, yet because the virtue
which moves the first orb is of infinitive potentiality, so it can move
the other orbs'. 2 This is a straightforward scholastic position, and
deals with communicated motion. So there is no question of any
possible creation by the inferior orbs.
But in his questions on the De causis Bacon has now to deal with
a neo-platonic position which he still believes to be Aristotelian. 3 The
argument, however, is quite familiar and to be expected. Much of
the Liber de causis is devoted to the relationship between primal and
subsidiary causes, and we are therefore out of the realm of strictly
physical arguments, and dealing with a group of ideas amongst which
the relationship between the first cause and its subsidiaries would
take a natural place. Bacon always insists that the influx of power
from the primal cause is the deciding factor in creation. Is a medium
needed, he inquires, between the first cause and the inferior created
things, either (a) for the operation of creating, (6) for the production
of inferiors, or (c) to continue them in operation?
The answer Bacon gives to this is that the medium is not necessary.
The Creator is in no way impelled. But He may, from His goodness,
make use of a medium between Himself and His inferiors. If, there-
fore, there is a medium, this will merely be for the sake of order,
1 William of Auvergne, Opera ... I, 618-22 (De universo).
* Steele, Fasc. XIH, 420-21.
8 This series of Quaestiones, found, like the others, in MS. Amiens 406, is as clearly Bacon's
as any other, even though it is not directly named as his in the MS., which is in any case very
defective. There is a little more use in it of his theological beliefs, but the emphasis is dictated
by the different nature of the subject matter. The manner is exactly the same, and many of the
arguments; and he quotes several times from his own earlier Quaestiones (e.g. pp. 64, 97, 113,
138). It can only be supposed, therefore, that Little places it among Bacon's doubtful works
(Essays ... p. 408, item 40) because he had not in 1914 yet been able to examine the text of the
MS. which was not printed till 1935.
52 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
and not ' on account of weakness or powerlessness or any defect on
the part of the Creator'. He could produce without a medium if He
wished; but He does not wish. And not only would He communicate
His goodness to His creatures, but would even communicate more
so that they could hand it on. Likewise He could keep creation going
by Himself if He wished. But 'I say that in some operations He acts
through a medium for the sake of order . . . and not only can He
Himself rule, but even one creature can rule another. But no creature
could bridge the infinite gap between something and nothing'. 1
(i) William objects to what he calls the 'cultus stellarum', and all
who say that the world or stars are ensouled. He complains of
Avicenna, who said that the world was an animal obedient to God,
and of 'Aristotle and all his followers who claimed that the heavens
were animals, and allowed them to be of a separate substance and
endowed with intelligence'. 2
Bacon is quite specific on this point, discussing the two questions
directly since they arise out of the text of the pseudo- Aristotelian De
plantis. Is the sky a 'noble animal', as his text says, or has it life? In
favour of this idea is his text, and many other philosophers, as he tells
us. Aristotle also says in his Physics that self-motion is animal motion;
the sky moves by itself, therefore it is an animal motion. Against this
theory is the argument that the animal is only an animal because of
its capacity for sense-perception which the sky does not have. Bacon
defends Aristotle by saying that he is not here giving his own opinion,
but the opinion of others. And for the rest, the sky does not move by
its own power, but by communicated motion from a created or an
uncreated intelligence. On the question of its life, the same answer is
given. It is its movement that makes us say it has life; but it is the
most noble life of its mover that communicates motion to it, and the
sky itself is only an instrumental cause of the further movement of
inferiors. 3
William does not like the idea that it is a 'natural' thing for human
beings to have a soul, and that it came into existence per generationem,
and not by a special creation. 4
On this point again we have a specific treatment from Bacon.
'Substantial form', he says, 'is induced immediately, but we can speak
of a generation which is the last transmutation and introduction, and
this takes place in an instant'. There is a 'successive transmutation in
^Steele, Fasc. XH, pp. 105-7.
1 William of Auvergne, Opera ... I, 77 (De legibus).
Steele, Fasc. XI, 190-91.
* William of Auvergne, Opera . . . U t Supp. p. 65 (De anima).
Professor at Paris 53
time before the sudden introduction of substantial form'. Nature
operates in accordance with its own power and the nature of things,
but there is an intensio potentiae ex nichilo when creation takes place,
and this is what happens in the case of the introduction of substantial
form or the soul. 1
The above are a few of William's objections. With a more
thorough examination of his very extensive work, more would no
doubt be uncovered. But this, while possibly an interesting study in
itself, lies outside the scope of this study, and would altogether
unbalance it, to the neglect of Bacon's own work in which we are
primarily interested. It has only been intended to show how well
Bacon conformed at this period of his life to the standpoint of the
Bishop of Paris, and how far he was from any views that could be
considered heretical or dangerous, and thus how suited he was for a
position as pioneer lecturer in the natural philosophy of Aristotle;
and how impossible it is that he could be considered, at this time, as
a rebel against authority and his scholastic contemporaries.
4. The value of dream interpretations.
Bacon himself states that the books of Aristotle were banned on
account of the arguments for the eternity of the world, and because
of Aristotle's remarks in the third book of the De somno et vigilia. 2
Before coming to the great question of the eternity of the world
it may be mentioned that there might well have been objections to
Aristotle's writings on the divination of dreams which occur in this
book, but it is difficult to think that the whole of the natural scientific
work of Aristotle could have been banned for such a small reason.
Aristotle argues in his naturalistic way that 'it is not easy to take
dreams seriously and to believe them*. They are merely natural
movements, and if they happen to correspond to what actually occurs
later, this is better to be explained as coincidence. It is clear from
observation that animals have them, and the weak-minded person
is more likely to have them than the wise. If, then, it had been God
who sent them, for a definite purpose, why would He not have
chosen to give diem more to the wise, and in the daytime? It seems
an inefficient method of revealing the future if that had been God's
intention. Dreams are a confused picture of ordinary daytime events,
like pictures we see mirrored in water, and the best interpreter is one
who is able to relate them to the daytime experiences on which they
29-30. CST,p.33.
54 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
are based, or, as Aristotle calls it, the confused 'motion' to the actual
'motion'. 1
Such brilliant common sense must have been hard to take in the
medieval world which, on the whole, believed so strongly in the
divinely-sent dreams of the biblical characters, if not in their own.
The practice of divining the dreams of contemporary men is some-
times supported and sometimes condemned by the writers of the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Albertus Magnus defends Aristotle's
view as superior to other opinions on dreams, though he also finds it
'naive, unphilosophical and imperfect'. But he does not suggest that
ordinary dreams come from God, preferring to take the side of
Aristotle in this. 2 He finds that Aristotle was too sceptical of dream
interpretation since certain dreams can be interpreted. According to
Professor Thorndike, Albert 'seems to have had no particular objec-
tion, either moral or religious, to the interpretation of dreams even
if it is a branch of magic'. It seems, however, unlikely that punitive
action would have been taken against the whole of the Master's works
for such slight reason. There would be much disagreement with
Aristotle's views amongst the strict upholders of biblical inspiration;
but it would be easy to say that Aristotle, being a pagan, could not
know about the rare occasions when dreams were sent by God.
Though I have found no specific comment on the subject in Bacon,
I believe this would be his attitude if he did not content himself with
saying that the De somno et vigilia was either incomplete, or too badly
translated to be of value in ascertaining Aristotle's real views !
5. The eternity of the world.
There can be little doubt that this was the central problem of the
time, and remained so until 'Averroism', the doctrine of the single
intellectual soul for all human beings, came into importance during
the second half of the century. It was the chief obstacle to any belief
in the infallibility of Aristotle. If anyone held that the world had not
been created, then it followed that the book of Genesis was not true
which belief was heretical. There is no doubt that it was the general
opinion in the thirteenth century that Aristotle had, in fact, denied
creation. And this appears even in the famous 'Platonic' passage in
XII Metaphysics, where Aristotle hypostasizes the logically necessary
first mover as God, and proceeds to predicate qualities of him. But he
1 Aristotle, De somno et vigilia iii, 4626-4646.
s Thorndike, History of Magic ... II, 575-77. The question is also discussed in connection
with several other thinkers of the period. See index, sub. Dreams.
Professor at Paris 55
still does not become a creator, and the other famous passage in
VIII Physics seems even more definite. 1
William of Auvergne is most forthright on the matter. "Whatever
may be said, and whoever may try to excuse Aristotle, this undoubt-
edly was his opinion that the world is eternal and that it never had a
beginning, that he thought likewise about motion, and Avicenna
after him, and they adduced reasons and proofs of this. Similarly
other expounders of Aristotle*. 2 After devoting several pages of
argument to refuting these views and others to be deduced from them,
William proceeds to give ethical and moral reasons against the
eternity of the world. He spends more space in attacking this than
upon any other problem in his De universo.
Albertus Magnus in his commentaries on the Physics and Meta-
physics never actually says that it was the opinion of Aristotle that the
world was ab eterno, but by using Aristotelian methods and arguments
he tries to show that it is not necessary to accept this eternity. No-
thing, he says, can come from nothing per generationem, but something
comes from nothing per actum causantis. Generation is always per
acddens, which presupposes a prior generation per se; prime matter
cannot take on form without an agent, though it is in potency per se.
But the chief Peripatetics do not deny that the essence of prime
matter and substantial form is 'drawn forth into being by God', and
even Aristotle in his (?) book De natura deorum says that the world
was created by 'God the Artisan' (a deo opifice). 3
Elsewhere Albert says that on this subject we should not proceed
from things proved, or known per se, but we should rather 'transcend'
those things which cannot be comprehended by reason such as
creation, and the method of creating everything at one and the same
time. The physicist must prove that naturaliter motion must begin,
and naturaliter it will never come to an end. 4 Then Albert promises
that in his book on the Metaphysics he will show by good arguments
(verisimilibus rationibus) that 'the world was created and not ab
eterno'. But in the relevant passages in his commentaries on the
1 Michael Scot is careful to dissociate himself from the views of Averroes and Aristotle,
whom he had translated. In his general preface to three treatises on astrology he says: 'Ob
hand causam dicunt multi quod mundus sit ab eterno . . . et quod mundus non sit eternus patet
aperte*. Quoted by Haskins, Studies in the History . . . (1924), p. 285.
* William of Auvergne, Opera ... I, 690 ff. (De universe). Cf. I, 34 (De legtbus)'. 'Error
AristoteHs quo posuit aetemitatem mundi/
8 Albertus Magnus, Opera ... m, 530 (VHI Phys. Tr. I, cap. iv).
4 Albertus Magnus, Opera . . . HI, 524 (Vffl Phys. Tr. I, cap. i-ii). *Non procederemus et
probatis vel per se notis, sed potius transcenderemus ea quae ratione non valent compre-
hendi . , .'
56 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Metaphysics* he refers back to the Physics, and as far as I have been
able to discover he never makes his proof. Thomas Aquinas, on the
other hand, admits freely that creation cannot be proved naturaliter,
but only through revelation. 2 Bonaventura and Philip the Chan-
cellor, while believing in creation themselves, thought Anstode did
also, and Bonaventura in particular strongly defends Aristotle from
those who claimed that he had posited a world ab eterno?
Bacon also thought that Aristotle actually allowed creation, though
frequently in the course of his long discussion of the subject it might
seem to a twentieth-century reader that the opposite is shown by the
very passages of Aristotle that he quotes. In the course of the argu-
ments he valiantly tries to stick to his philosophy, but every now and
then he inserts illegitimately arguments into the discussion that are
drawn from his religious beliefs. His students, if it was indeed the
actual students who expressed the doubts and queries, give him little
peace; and the considerable space that Bacon devotes to the discussion
shows how important the problem was, and how necessary it was to
deal with it exhaustively. His anxiety to save the letter of Aristotle
is everywhere apparent, and remains with him through his later life,
though, as we shall see, in kter years his reasons were different. In
the process Averroes, who had taken it for granted that Aristotle had
denied creation, comes in for some severe criticism, and is made the
scapegoat for Aristotle's errors. Later Bacon is able to blame the
translations, but this magnificent idea has not yet occurred to him. 4
Though the problem is touched on lightly in several other passages,
the main discussion, as might be expected, occurs in the consideration
of the text of Aristotle's Physics, book VIII. In Bacon s earlier series
of comments on the Physics he does not reach the eighth book, so
that we have only one set of comments on the eternity of the world.
But fifty-eight of the pages in Steele's edition are devoted to it, and
nearly every argument that could be thought up seems to be used. 5
It is impossible in this study to go into the whole discussion and
Bacon's attempt to handle it, extremely interesting though it is, and
revealing the vitality of Bacon's reasoning power at this time, the
1 Albertus Magnus, Opera ... VI, 611 (XI Met., Tr. H, cap. i).
* Thomas Aquinas, Swnma Theologka, I, Q. XL VI, Art. ii.
1 Sec tbe passages quoted by F. Ddorme in Steele, Fasc. XHI, xxxvi, and the special study
of Bonaventura contained in Van Steenberghen, Siger de Brabant . . . pp. 446-58.
A *Thc Commentator speaks falsely and does not understand Aristotle because he always
imposes on Aristotle that he meant the world was eternal which is false. Because the world
was made and is not eternal. 'Non tamen recipitur, si factus est, in vacuum nee in plenum sed
in nichil, ct ideo mundus non est eternus secunduin Aristotelem et veritatem*. Steele, Fasc.
XHI,223.
1 Steele, Fasc. Km, 370-428.
Professor at Paris 57
depth of his faith, and the bewildering variety of arguments at his
disposal. What are we to say of this argument? If God created the
world at all, why wasn't the reason for creating it always there?
Doesn't this make it a creation per deadens? If He couldn't create it
in a determined time, then this detracts from His omnipotence.
Quo d conceden dum est \ The principle of sufficient reason. If there was
sufficient reason for creating the world at all, this reason always
existed, and so why not the world? To which Bacon can only reply
that this principle only applies in naturalibus, and is not valid in cases
that involve the will, nor must a cause of God's will be sought 1
Again he gets into trouble on eternity and time. Creation supposes
non-being before being. But time is the measure of motion, as the
point of transition took place in time. "If non-being terminated in
being, then being is subsequent to non-being. When there is a
before and an after, then there is time'. If there is time then there
must be motion, because motion is the measure of time. So time was
before motion. Time then must be eternal.' 2 One cannot escape the
conclusion that Bacon had a real problem on his hands, and the
'students' for the most part seern to have the best of it. If only he
could have been allowed a world ab eterno one thinks he would have
been far happier in his reason if not his faith ! This argument on
time he clinches for himself by saying that if nature came into being,
it must be in time; this must be understood to refer to the things
which can be measured, not to the measures themselves (i.e. time).
As to whether the world will last for ever, Bacon says that for
anything to have an infinite duration it must have an infinite 'virtue',
and this the world does not have though the primal cause, if it
continues to fill it with 'virtue', could make it possible. But the
eternity of the primal cause does not extend to created beings. So
the world receives 'virtue' modo finite; it cannot last for ever, but it
can be prolonged indefinitely. The primal cause could cease now to
move the world, though it does not and here Bacon inserts illegiti-
mately an argument from. Scripture that it will cease when the
number of the elect is complete. 3
Finally he comes to Aristotle. 'It is seen', he says, 'per intentionem
eius that he has suggested nothing against the faith. For he says there
1 'Non valet in voluntariis nee est querenda causa, sue voluntatis*. Steele, Fasc. Xffl, 376-79.
Steele, Fasc. Xm, 380.
s Steele, Fasc. Xm, 382-83. This argument about the elect has already been used to show
that generation is not perpetual either (ibid., p. 377). The number of the elect, of course, refers
to the 144,000 of the Book of Revelation (chap. vii). Presumably there is no limit to the number
of the damned who will comprise all the remainder.
58 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
will have been no motion when there was no time; so he only meant
that motion did not begin in time, which is true. Aristotle argues
elsewhere that there must be a first of everything or there would be
no later things, so why not a beginning of the world? It is a natural
deduction from his Metaphysics. But no one can blame Aristotle or
any philosopher for saying there is no end to the world or motion,
because this is not to be proved philosophically, though they ^ dp
assume a beginning'. On the other hand, Bacon goes on and this is
his supreme piece of apologetics for the Master Aristotle does say
in his Ethics that 'we shall be happy like the angels, but not in life, for
happiness is after death ... this can only be if we posit the resurrection
of the body, and this will not be until the number of the elect is
filled. So', he concludes triumphantly, "it is clear that Aristotle well
understood that motion comes to an end I' 1
Even now the 'students' will not let him go. Assuming that the
world is not ab eterno, nor motion, nor even time, might it be possible,
they ask, that the world could have been from eternity although it was
not, according to the truth ! 2
But even to this temptation Bacon will not yield. Everything, he
says, came from either something or nothing. Which raises the
question, what was this something? It, too, must come from either
something or nothing, and so ad infinitum. So ultimately only one
thing can be from eternity, and more are impossible. It is not only
by faith that we are led to this, but even by reason. And this it was
that Aristotle and the other philosophers meant, and Aristotle did not
put forward reasons for showing the world or motion was eternal,
except against those who said that motion began in time.
After considering the care with which Bacon has gone over this
argument I cannot think that it is only an apologetic. He believed in
creation, and, in spite of his lapses from philosophy to faith, was
prepared to defend it publicly by philosophical and metaphysical
arguments, from which even later philosophers of greater renown
shrank It is surely possible that Bacon was permitted to teach
Aristode publicly just because he had a philosophical answer. In his
old age, as we have seen, he picks out just this eternity of the world
as the main reason for the prohibition. Could it be that it was fixed
in his mind as the central point in his own teaching, and the reason
for his appointment?
* Stede, Fasc. Xffl, 389.
1 Steele, Fasc. XIII, 390. It is this really outrageous question that tempts me to think that
these were real students, and not only the doppelganger of the professor.
Professor at Paris 59
m
As a result of a careful examination of the works they edited in
their fine edition of the hitherto unedited works of Bacon, Steele and
Delorme came to the conclusion that at least twelve series of lectures
on the libri naturales and Metaphysics, including the pseudo-Aristotelian
books on plants and 'causes', were given by Bacon in Paris. Eight
have been printed, and the other four are only known from cross-
references, and no MSS. are known for them. But these editors have
also printed another work, which was not ascribed to Bacon in any
bibliography, and does not bear his name on the MS. 1 It is not a
series of quaestiones, but a regular textual commentary on Aristotle's
De sensu et sensibili (or sensato, as Bacon calls it), and appears, not in
MS. Amiens 406, like the Quaestiones, but in BM Add 8786. Except
for the Perspectiva communis of John Peckham, all the other works in
this MS. are by Bacon. A discussion of the genuineness of this work,
the reasons why I attribute it to Bacon, and some of its characteristics,
are given in Appendix C below.
Steele, in his introduction to this work, tentatively pkces it as 'later
than the Quaestiones of Amiens 406, but before the first draft of the
Communia naturalium, and most certainly before his Perspectiva, as
shown by the much greater range, of quotation in the corresponding
parts of the latter'. 2 While not minimising the significance of the
greater range of quotation, for reasons given in the Appendix I am
inclined to put this commentary even earlier, and actually within the
Parisian period. There are no other certainly known commentaries
of Bacon, as distinct from series of questions, but Little in his biblio-
graphy draws attention to the feet that there used to be in St. Augus-
tine's Abbey at Canterbury a commentary on the De sotnno et vigilia
of Aristotle, and this was attributed in the MS. to Bacon. Unfor-
tunately the MS. has now disappeared. 3 We do not know therefore
whether it was, indeed, a commentary by Bacon or whether it was
Albert's more well-known commentary of the same tide. But it
may have been Bacon's.
Now there is no real reason to suppose that the Parisian books
referred to by Bacon in his various series of Quaestiones were actually
books of questions at all. In his cross-references Bacon always calls
1 Steefe, Fasc. XIV, 1-134.
Z6*U, Fasc. XIV, v,
* Litde, Essays ... p. 408, item 41. The tract is No. 834 in die catalogue of M. R. James.
6o Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
them 'books'. There may well have been a commentary on the De
generation, on the De animalibus, or the De coelo et mundo, or on each
of these. Delorme, in his list of the Parisian courses, calls them Quaes-
tiones supra librum de generation, etc., but this is his own inference
from Bacon's remarks. He could have written commentaries, as well
as quaestiones, for his Parisian lectures.
If Bacon did, indeed, write a number of close textual commen-
taries of the type of the De sensu et sensato, this could supply a reason
for the omission of some of his Parisian material from the huge MS.
Amiens 406 which contains the Quaestiones. The ex-student or scribe
who collected the Quaestiones from the booksellers of Paris and had
the copy made 1 might have been only interested in the Quaestiones
because he attended the lectures. The commentaries fall into a
different category, far less lively, if no more closely worked out. The
missing four books are all on the shorter works of Aristotle, nearer to
natural science and further from metaphysics. It is quite possible that
Bacon chose a different method for dealing with these shorter works,
and wrote commentaries rather than quaestiones on them. Though
this is only a hypothesis and cannot be confirmed until some of these
missing works are discovered, I am tentatively changing Delorme's
list of the courses given by Bacon on the libri naturales, and making a
separate one for the missing books and the known commentaries.
The chronological order has been compiled by Delorme from internal
evidence, especially cross-references. 2
1. Quaestiones prime supra libros Physicorum.
2. supra undecimum prime philosophic.
3. IV libros
4. altere supra XI libros
5. libros Physicorum.
6. iy prime philosophic.
7. supra librum de plantis.
8. causis.
(Fasc. VHI, 1-266)
VII, 1-122)
XI, 1-170)
vn, 125-51)
XIII, 1-428)
X, 1-336)
XI, 173-252)
xn, 1-158)
The commentaries would then be as foEows. The order can be
pkced by references in the Quaestiones, except for the De sensu et
sensato, and the De somno et vigilia* There are, however, in the former
commentary two apparent references to what seems to be Bacon's
book on the De generatione, and not to Aristotle's book of the same
1 For this hypothesis of Steele's see below, p. 63.
Stede, Fasc. XIH, xx
Professor at Pans 61
name. 1 This would establish a relative date, placing the De sensu after
the De generatione.
1. Commentarium supra librum de generadone et corruptione.
2. XVIII libros de animalibus.
3-
4-
5-
6.
librum de anima.
de coelo et mundo.
de sensu et sensato.
de somno et vigilia. 2
In addition to these scientific works there is reason to suppose that
several works on logic and grammar, required courses for the degree
in the Faculty of Arts, were also given by Bacon at this time. The
following seem to belong to this period: the Summa grammatical the
Sumulae dialecticesf and die Summa de sophismatibus et destructionibus*
These courses may have been given at any time during Bacon's
career at Paris. Steele places the Sumulae dialectices as the last work of
Bacon's university career, though he does not state his* reasons. 6 It
might be considered more likely that he would give at least the elemen-
tary courses in logic and grammar before natural philosophy, since
this was the usual cursus studiorum at Bologna and other universities.
Without knowing the length of the missing works, nor what
others there may have been that have not yet been found or examined,
it is impossible to determine how many years' work was needed for
all these courses. But it does not seem likely that it can have been
fewer than seven, and it might have been spread over more than a
decade.
The method of treating problems adopted by Bacon 7 had developed
1 See Appendix C below, p. 232.
* The first four of these are not at present known, the fifth has been printed by Steele in
Fasc. XIV, and the sixth has been lost, but was formerly at St. Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury.
3 Steele, Fasc. XV, 1-190. This course is obviously given in connection with the required
study of Priscian's De constructionibus. The first qwestio of the book begins with the definition
of the central theme De constructions. Prisa'an himself is quoted on the first page.
* Steele, Fasc. XV, 193-359. There have been doubts of the authenticity of this logical
discussion. But an interesting argument D appelatione recalls, as its editor suggests, Bacon's
later treatment of the same problem in connection with Richard of Cornwall (xx-xxii) ; and
there are no special reasons otherwise for doubling it. Bacon will in any case have been expected
to give lectures on logic at Paris.
s Steele, Fasc. XIV, 135-208. This book gives instructions on how to deal with one group
of sopkismate, those universal distributive propositions which have an indefinite extension.
There are many interesting discussions in the book, such as on equivocal and univocal proposi-
tions, composition and division, etc, I noticed a specially valuable one on the uses of the word
onmis. But I have not, for the purposes of this study, considered any of these logical and
grammatical works in detail.
Steele, Fasc. XV, xx. .
7 The method is formally discussed in Bacon's Summa <fe sopkismatibtis et festnuftonibus.
Steele, Fasc. XIV, 135-208.
62 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
in the European schools over a period of more than a hundred years.
First a question is posed or a doubt raised Then the argument begins
with a 'quod sic videtur' or 'quod non videtur . If there is more than
one argument on the same side they are tabulated in order, item . . .
item with perhaps an occasional 'note'. Then follow the arguments
on the other side (contra). If these are accepted, the master gives a
'quod concedendum est', Mowed by an answering of the objections
raised on the other side. Or, if there is something to be said on both
sides, nothing is conceded, but a solutio is given, and objections are
answered. , . -
There is an extraordinary intellectual honesty about this approach
which is difficult to reconcile with the prevalent idea that medieval
scholars were slavishly subservient to authority. While the solution
of the master no doubt had to be accepted, it was certainly not
for the want of considering the arguments put on the other side. A
thirteenth-century student might prefer the arguments brought
forward by the prosecution, and we to-day may think in some
instances that the master's solution was not the best of those sug-
gested. It looks, however, as if the student had a remedy; he could
put the next question, and force a restating of the arguments in slightly
different form. It may be added that in Bacon's Quaestiones, though
authorities may be quoted on either side, they are never decisive,
and it is always the argument itself and not the master who pro-
pounded it that must prevail.
In reading the commentaries of Thomas Aquinas one does not have
the same impression as with Bacon's that students were actively
participating. St. Thomas seems to be creating his own opposition,
and sometimes allows himself to have too easily the best of the
argument. But one can feel the pressure being put upon Bacon by
intelligent and experienced students, and sometimes, rather patently,
he does not have the best of the argument. In a discussion on the soul
of plants that will be given below in some detail as an example of
Bacon's method and ingenuity, it is clear that he had to change his
original views in response to the new questions that were fired at
him. I do not think there can be much doubt that these Quaestiones
consist of actual discussions, no doubt, as Delorme says, 'revu par le
professeur et mis au point', 1 but substantially as they were delivered,
and not as they were lucubrated in the silent study or cell of the master.
This is confirmed by the frequency with which Bacon drops into the
vocative case (tu obicis) ; and I think there is a difference also between
1 Stede, Fasc. VIII, vi.
Professor at Paris 63
the formal 'queritur' and the less frequent 'dubitatur'. The latter
seems to cover cases where more doubt may have been expressed on
the problem by the students themselves. And some of the questions
are so amusing (as, for instance, the one mentioned on p. 58 above)
that only the students can be blamed for them, preserving their doubts
for posterity. They are, in short, just the questions you or I would
ask in a similar class if we wanted to push the professor into a corner !
On the other hand the students can hardly have had as much detailed
information on the works of Aristotle as is contained in the various
questions, or they would not have been still students in a fairly
elementary course. So the editing by the professor must have been
considerably more than mere revision for publication. My con-
clusion would, therefore,- be that the form and substance of the
original^ discussions have been retained, but that the professor took
care to increase their value for the scholarly public by adding copi-
ously from his own erudition.
Reference was made above (p. 63) to a suggestion of Steele that
the huge MS. Amiens 406 was compiled towards the end of the
thirteenth century by an ex-student of Bacon who had remembered
his master's courses with gratitude, and went round to the Parisian
booksellers picking up any copies that were still available, and
collecting them within one MS. This would account for the in-
completeness of several of the series, especially the De causis, since by
that time some of the works could not be found. The existence of
the MS. must in any case be explained by some hypothesis, and this
would fit all the known facts excellendy. 1 There is no reason to
suppose that Bacon's philosophical opinions were ever taken very
seriously by the important scholastics of the time, and he certainly
never became an authority in the schools. He was only one of many
masters teaching the same subject, and he was still young and probably
of only local reputation. These Quaestiones cannot be shown to have
ever been quoted elsewhere; but Bacon's own pupil might have
remembered them. There is certainly no other series available in
print which gives so much the impressive of actual discussion in the
classroom, and they constitute a mine of information on the methods
and subjects discussed there in the first half of the thirteenth century.
It is, therefore, perhaps for the history of education that they offer
the most material for study*
As for the master who gave them, they show us first his really
outstanding knowledge of Aristotle, even if he has not always
1 Stedc, Fasc. XII, xv.
64 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
understood him, 1 but not so wide a knowledge of his commentators
as he later acquired. 2 On the other hand it was hardly necessary for
him to know, say, the Canon of Avicenna for his classes^in philosophy,
and there are a few quotations from the first book in his commentary
on the De sensu et sensato where such knowledge would be valuable.
His vitality of mind and his ingenuity are most stimulating, though
this was probably a characteristic of the period, and a natural result
of this particular kind of education.
I have, on the other hand, noticed very few references to his own
experience, though they are not altogether missing. In one argument
on astronomy, for instance, he says that something is 'according to
sense and Aristotle'. 3 His knowledge of things of common observa-
tion in the plant world is brought in not only in his special philo-
sophical discussion of plants, but in his examination of the powers of
nature. 4 He has a few interesting things to say on astronomy, and
shows some knowledge of this science, though nothing on astrology.
As Steele points out in his essay on the science of Roger Bacon, his
astronomy uses only the oldest authorities, which were already out
of date by the time of his lectures, and is unaware of those used by his
supposed master, Robert Grosseteste. 5 This is partly remedied during
the course of the lectures. In the second series on the Physics there are
several discussions on light, as also in the later De causis, while they
are missing in the first series on the Physics which covers the same
material. 6 In fact, this second series in is every way better, fuller,
more interesting and authoritative than the first, and shows consider-
able development in the powers of the master over the years, and
justifies his own later statement that he 'had always been studious'.
In conclusion it is perhaps worth while going into some detail on
Bacon's manner of dealing with a subject which obviously offers
interesting possibilities, and has already been referred to briefly
(p. 23). When a plant is grafted, what happens to its vegetative soul,
1 The references are very accurate, as befits a teaching master, and greatly superior to what
we find in the works of his maturity.
* The quotations from Averroes increase in the later lectures; the second series on the Physics
(Fasc. XIII) has many more than the first (Fasc. VIS).
* Steele, Fasc. XIII, 420.
* For example, the delightful discussion of whether a sport (monstrum) in a plant is the
result of sin, and if the plant can, in fact, sin. (It can't !) The students, to judge by the questions
Bacon answers, have a similar knowledge of common animals, reminding us of the usual rural
background in this age.
Steele, 'Roger Bacon and the State of Science . . .* (1921), pp. 130-31.
Steele, Fasc. XIII, 206, Fasc. XII, 52. In another place, commenting on the Metaphysics
(Fasc. X, 153), Bacon states on one side of the question that Al Hazen and Aristotle are more
to be believed than Boethius and Augustine, and then proceeds to show that the problem is
also to be solved in the sense of Augustine.
Professor at Paris 65
and what kind of a soul has the new plant? The difficulty has a
certain added spice because Bacon has no Aristotelian or even pseudo-
Aristotelian authority to fall back upon.
The first question asks whether it is possible to insert a part of one
plant into another, so that both continue living. 1 Bacon answers
that he knows from experience that it can be done, and Aristotle
agrees though part of an animal cannot be inserted in the same way
into another animal. Parts of animals, say Aristotle and Bacon,
unaware of facial surgery, lose their life when separated from the
original organism. But the plant still has roots and organs which
make it possible for it to continue its life afterwards.
The Opposition (students or doppelganger) : Does the graft, then,
receive a new soul? It can't retain its old one, or there would be two
souls in the new plant. If so, when? After it has been inserted, and
before the fruit and flowers ? On the other hand, as the effects are the
same, it must come from the same cause i.e. it keeps its old soul.
Bacon sustains the objection. The old plant would die if the
climate were too different or it were transported too far. But, then,
this would be the fault of the new locality and not of the change per
se. As it does not, therefore, lose its old life, it cannot need a new
soul.
The Opposition: What about the plant into which it is inserted?
Does it need a new soul? The trunk is now going to produce a new
species of fruit. How can it do this, with its old soul? On the other
hand, the trunk would make its own fruit without this interference,
and tie graft makes its own. Both are bearing at the same time from
the same tree.
Bacon concedes this point also, but doubt remains. 'Dubium est
tamen in aliquibus'. The solution follows. The formal cause is two-
fold. Either the true form which gives actuality to the material is
its own, in which case the matter is transformed into a new species,
and then the trunk is not the true matter; or die formal cause is not
the form and perfection of the tree on which it is grafted, but it is
only called the formal cause per appositionem. And thus we must not
say that such material is transformed into another species, but rather
that the trunk has its own form and material, different from the form
of the graft*
The Opposition refuses to accept this. One of the souls, either of
the g^aft or of die trunk, must be corrupted. A fundamental concep-
tion of Aristotle is urged against die professor. 'Everything which is
1 Stede, Fasc. XI, 245-51.
66 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
received in something is received according to the mode of the
receiver and not the thing received'. 1
At this point it looks as if the master begins to flounder. At all
events his arguments fall thickly one after the other. A staggering
blow is received from the student, if he was a student, who reminds
him that "the slave receives from the master and vice versa. The graft
receives from the trunk as from a servant, and from the root. The
trunk alone is a servant, and receives from the graft as from a lord !
So is the nature of the trunk turned into the nature of the graft?'
Aristotle's Metaphysics is quoted. 'The living does not come from
the dead except through resolution into prime matter' which does
not happen in this case. So how can the old, dead trunk get a new soul
without such resolution? On the other hand, no new branches of
this kind will spring up if the graft is not inserted.
Bacon hedges. 'Prime matter', he says, 'may only mean proximate
matter', and not omnino remota; and the old tree is only received into
materiam communem proximam, which is common in the transmutation
of the dead and living, and as happens, indeed, in the transmutation
of elements.
The Opposition again offers the Metaphysics in rebuttal. 'Out of
matter and form is made one thing per essentiam* The trunk is the
material. Can the shoot be the only form required for the new
substance? And where has the first form gone to ? Are they not both
form, and both in actu, the old and the new alike?
Bacon at last gives way; but it is certainly not what he said so
easily at the beginning. There always remain, he says, two forms
which make diverse fruits and leaves 'vel secundum speciem vel
secundum numerum*. Both retain their own soul, when one is not
fully converted into the other's nature.
This decision Bacon sticks to, in spite of some further efforts by the
Opposition. The new formula he has found, whatever the philoso-
phical difficulties, seems to have been forced upon him by the facts,
and it even suffices to cover the grafting of different species of plants
altogether. The master has changed his mind.
1 'Omne quod recipitur in aliquo recipitur ad modum recipientis et nou per modum recepti.*
1 'Ex materia et forma fit unum per essentiam.'
CHAPTER V
THE PROMISED LAND-
VISION OF A UNIVERSAL SCIENCE
IN the twenty years or less between Bacon's departure from the
University of Paris and the writing of the Opus Majus, only one
work can be dated with certainty, the Computus, in which Bacon
mentions 1263, 1264, and 1265 as being the current year of writing. 1
Other works we know were written in these years, and in a later
chapter we shall attempt to establish a chronology for them. The
total activity of these years must be pieced together from Bacon's
own statements written in 1267 and afterwards. We also know from
the Opus Majus that he saw the leader of the Pastoureaux rebels in
Paris in 1250 or 125 1; 2 but we do not know from this whether he
was teaching or had just finished teaching there. It certainly is not
possible to infer that he had remained in Paris because he was able to
witness this event'. 3
In order to build a possible chronology it is proposed here to take
into consideration not only the works which can with confidence be
ascribed to this period, and not only his own direct statements, but
the psychological probabilities which may serve to show how he
could have written his works the intellectual and spiritual develop-
ment in the man himself and the influence of external events in his
own life and the life of the time. This procedure must necessarily be
based on our understanding of his total character as it is shown by his
works. We have no contemporary evaluation of him. There are, in
fact, no references to him in any contemporary writer except one
trivial anecdote by an unknown chronicler of no importance. 4 An
occasional remark in the works of Albertus Magnus has been taken
to apply to him. But the reference is by no means certain, and Bacon
is not mentioned by name. 5
1 Stede, Fasc. VI, 17, 32, 165, 192, 1%.
* Opus Majus, I, 401.
* Bridges makes this inference. The Ufe and Work . . . (1914), pp. 25-26.
4 Anon, Liber exemphrum, p. 22.
* Bacon's name does not appear in the published letters of either Adam Marsh or Robert
Grosseteste, whom he reveres; nor in local English chronicles or the more elaborate histories of
Matthew Paris; nor yet in the list of the important figures (personae valentes in saeculo) who
joined the Franciscan Order in the thirteenth century, published by Brewer, Monwnenta
Frandscana (1858), I, 541-43. The curious misprint (?) in Luard's edition of Grossetcste's
67
68 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Bacon himself sometimes referred to his contemporaries by name
when he was attacking or praising them. But this was by no means
the usual medieval practice outside the chronicles and histories. Much
more usual is the plain c quidam\ The vast bulk of our knowledge of
medieval personalities comes from their own work, and is a matter
primarily of inference. Later legend is particularly unreliable in
regard to Bacon, because before very long all real knowledge of him
seems to have been lost and he was regarded as a necromancer and
magician; and fancy and subjective opinion took the place of fact.
Perhaps the one important inference to be made from this lack of
contemporary information is that Bacon was a person of no particular
importance to his contemporaries. He was one of many regent
masters in the Faculty of Arts in Paris, he was a rather obscure student
of sciences at Oxford, and then a friar who was certainly not treated
as of any consequence totally unlike Alexander of Hales who,
according to Bacon's own account, was treated with such exaggerated
respect by the Order and whose entry brought it such renown. 1
Bacon may have been well enough known in the universities, though
we have only his own word for it; 2 but, as so many academicians at
all times, not so well known to the public and to chroniclers and
historians.
If it is urged that he was well enough known in small circles to
receive the honour of a request from Pope Clement IV for his
opinions, this may well have been the result in the first instance, as
will be shown later, of an initiative taken by Roger himself. His
proposal was transmitted through a personal friend who happened to
be in the employ of Cardinal Foulques, as he then was before be-
coming Pope. This resulted in a request from the Cardinal with which
Roger was unable to comply. But when the Cardinal became Pope,
Bacon again took the initiative, this time sending his message through
an English envoy who was presumably known to him. The Pope
was still interested, and sent Bacon the important mandate which he
obeyed in due course. 3
letters (p. 64) may be mentioned here. It is impossible that the text, which reads 'fratre Rogero
Bachun* can be correct, as the letter refers to Grosseteste's recent appointment to his bishopric
(meae novitati), and Bacon is quoted in the passage as an authority, and called 'frater', which
he cannot possibly have been in 1236. Robert Bacon was surely meant, and, indeed, Luard
gives 'Robert' for this passage in the index.
1 Opus Minus, p. 326.
1 He speaks of himself as exiled in his convent, from his former University fame. ']zm a
decem annis exulantem usque ad famam studii, quam retroactis temporibus obtinui.' Brewer,
Op. Tert,, p. 7.
* Little, Essays, p. 10. Gasquet, p. 500. See below, pp. 146 rT.
The Promised Land Vision of a Universal Science 69
None of this gives us any grounds for believing that the Cardinal
would ever have heard of Bacon by reputation. Indeed, we can be
reasonably sure that he would never have become known at all in
such high ecclesiastical circles if it had not been for his own initiative
and that of his friends. I do not wish to imply that Bacon was
deliberately neglected, much less opposed, by die great men of his
time, with a possible exception which will be mentioned later. He
was simply a relatively obscure Englishman, working in a field which
did not bring him into much notice. And it is usually a private
demand from a friend or relative that calls forth his writings. 1 Indeed,
it will be suggested that the desire to obtain more recognition and
assistance was one of his reasons for becoming a friar.
For it is clear from all his work that he was not meek or retiring by
nature. He liked being a teacher, and he thought himself a good one,
much better than his contemporaries. 2 As suggested earlier, he wanted
desperately to be considered an authority, and was jealous of everyone
who was accepted as such. He was proud of his ability, and like most
writers of the time, had a profound contempt for the 'common run
of students and philosophers' (vulgus studentium et philosophan-
tium). It is our contention that he ruined his chances of fulfilling his
ambitions by not choosing the one academic study that he believed
could have brought him into real prominence; and that the substitute
he chose, however strongly he advertised its value, did not bring him
the fame he sought. This, more than all the difficulties he had from
his poverty and neglect and possible persecution within the Franciscan
Order, made him the embittered man he was in 1272 when he wrote
the Compendium studii philosophiae, which should have been the
masterpiece of his life, but is in its present form nothing but a
1 His Liber de retardations acddentium was written at the suggestion of two acquaintances as
being something in which an elderly pope and prince would be interested (supra, p. 24, n. 4),
and he states that he would have composed books for his brother the scholar, and many other
dear friends if, as a friar, he could have communicated freely (Brewer, Op. TVrt., p. 13), and
he did compose *a few chapters on one science and another at the insistence of friends' (Gasquet,
p. 500).
I cannot agree with Professor Thorndike that his writings, instead of being neglected by his
age, *are so valued that they are pirated before they are published* (History of Magic . . . pp. 626-
27). What Bacon says is that it is unsafe to let scribes handle the work because they 'tran-
scriberent pro se, vel aliis, vellem nollem, sicut saepissime scripta per fraudes scriptorum Parisius
divulgantur* (Gasquet, p. 500). Surely Bacon is here speaking of the current practice; and he
cannot risk this, not because his writings are so popular, but because the Pope has asked for
them to be sent secretly. He does not say 'scripta mea*, but just 'scripta* in general.
* See especially his remarks on the speed and efficiency with which he could teach languages
that had taken him years to learn (Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 65) ; and on the teaching of geometry.
He claims to be able to teach more in two weeks than his competitors in ten or twenty years,
because they 'are ignorant how to teach usefully* (Gasquet, p. 507).
yo Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
scurrilous and unfair attack upon his contemporaries in every rank
of society.
But in the 1240*5 and 1250*5 he may not yet have been embittered.
For some unknown reason he ceased to teach in the University of
Paris, and turned his attention to the natural sciences. The immense
knowledge that he acquired of the scientific writings of the Arabs,
the by no means negligible contributions of his own on many
scientific subjects, including his extensive monograph (the De multi-
plicatione specierum) on a subject of especial interest to the Arabs,
above all die fervour with which he pleaded the cause of science as
'pulcherrima et utilissima', testify to the tremendous emotional drive
he put behind his study. It is not really to be wondered at if his
friends marvelled that he was able to live under such pressure of work,
both in alio statu and afterwards. 1
The inferior and derivative nature of his medical works written at
this time show also that the new knowledge was not being properly
assimilated and thought through. This is just what was to be expected
of such a thoroughgoing student who had left his philosophical
training behind. 2 Aid even by the time of the Opus Majus the
assimilation is not yet complete.
What, then, was the nature of this emotional drive, and what led to
the decision at the conclusion of his Parisian teaching? 3 There was an
old medieval academic saw which says 'non est senescendum in
artibus'. One should not grow old in the arts. This maxim Roger
probably felt with peculiar force. He had lectured on almost every
course in the curriculum. He had read and mastered the relevant
authorities; and it was not part of his particular talent to try to see the
wider application of this kind of learning. To build it into a Summa
Theologica would have been as beyond his powers as it was alien to
his desires. Besides, he did not know formal theology, and such an
undertaking would necessarily have to be fitted into the current
formal framework. The famous book of Al Hazen on optics, though
he had read it, had only so far been pressed into service as an aid to
1 'Nullus in tot scientiis et linguis kboravit, nee tantum; quia homines mirabantur in alio
statu quod vixi propter superfluum laborem: et tamen postea fui ita studiosus sicut ante.'
Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 65.
1 As Little has pointed out (Essays ... p. 9), it would be bad for Bacon's reputation if his
competence in philosophy were to be judged only by the published fragment of his Metaphysica
(Steele, Fasc. I), a work subsequent by many years to his Parisian teaching. The Quaestiones
on the Metaphysics (Steele, Fasc. X and XI) are greatly superior from every point of view.
* I should like to suggest that he took his two years' vacation at this time (Gasquet, p. 507;
Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 65) ; but, of course, there is no evidence for this, unless his statement in
the Liber de retardatione (Steele, Fasc. IX, 39) that he has at some earlier date been 'in partibus
RomaruY could be considered such.
The Promised Land Vision of a Universal Science 71
philosophy. It had not yet become for him the fundamental text-book
for his favourite science as it has by the time of the Opus Majus*
As a man Bacon was evidently of the disposition that the medievals
called irascible, or choleric. Though potentially a man of action, he
had, for unknown reasons, turned early to the study of books. But
he attacked books in the same way he would have attacked problems
in the outer world. It was not enough for him to acquire a little
learning and fit into a niche as a minor scholar in the medieval
academic world, but he must be an authority. He couldn't look with
a tolerant eye on the vagaries of his contemporaries. He felt deeply
about them, about everything. He felt called upon to offer his
opinions publicly in the dispute between the Orders, pointing out
not only the errors of the other Order, but of his own. And he tries
to show (by logic !) that their quarrels are the signs of the coming of
Antichrist, only to meet the retort: 'Quite right so you must be a
heretic and a disciple of Antichrist*. But they don't see, he insists
with the pathetic confidence in the justice of his own viewpoint so
characteristic of his kind, that the conclusion follows from the
premises, and *I have found no one who can dissolve the argument !' 2
1 am always talking', he says again, 'about the condition of regulars
and seculars, and how Judas was in the highest order, and yet was
most imperfect and, in fact, altogether evil'. 3 His intellectual arro-
gance and conceit in his own knowledge are also shown by the way
he amuses himself in Paris by setting geometrical problems that no
one can solve, 4 and again he tells us how he confounded a lector who
was speaking on the law of Moses. The lector, according to Bacon,
made five statements about the chirogrillus of which four were
wrong. Bacon publicly told him so; but this was mild treatment,
since Bacon tells us that all five were in fact wrong. 5
He was not an easy man to get along with, and surely not one to
make friends in high places, though he speaks warmly about his own
devoted circle of familiares* A sense ot diplomacy so noticeable in
the great churchmen of his day, for instance, his own Robert
Grosseteste and Adam Marsh, was not a part of his make-up. Nor
* 'Si pulchra et ddcctabilis est consideratio quae dicta est, haec longe pokiirior ct ddectabilior,
quoniam praecipua ddectatio nostra est in visa, et lux et color habent speciakm pulchritu-
dinem/ Opus MajuSi n, 2.
* CSP, pp. 429-30. * IbM.> p. 431.
* Brewer, Op. Tat., p. 139. It is significant that this conceit in one's own supposed kpow-
kdge (presumptio mentis hrnnanae) should appear in Bacon's works as the famous fourth
and worst cause of error. 'Ulum modicum quod scit vd estimat scire, licet nesoat, gaudst
imprudenter ostentare/ Brewer, Op. Tert., pp. 69-70.
* Optis Minus, p. 354. ' Brewer, Op 9 TarL, p. 16.
72 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
was the ability to criticize himself. It is clear that he had no thought
of applying his remarks to himself, however appropriate they must
have been, when he said of the angry man: 'It is the vice by which
man loses himself, his neighbour, and God, which forces him to
break peace with all, even with his dearest friends. He disparages
everyone with insults and assails everyone with injuries, and he does
not omit to expose himself to all perils, and is not afraid to blaspheme
God 5 . 1
But, as another passage from Parisian days seems to show and his
life, indeed, was a witness to it Bacon could himself be neither
broken nor coerced. In a discussion of the distinction between
necessity and violence, and the realms in which they operate, he says :
'Man, in so far as he is man, has two things, bodily strength and
virtues, and in these he can be forced in many things; but he has also
strength and virtues of soul, that is, of the intellectual soul. La these
he can be neither led nor forced, but only hindered. And so, if a
thousand times he is thrown into prison, never can he go against his
will unless the will succumbs'. 2
So when we watch him later making his attempt to storm the
fortresses of science, we must not expect him to do it half-heartedly.
Nor perhaps in his lifetime to find some little stone to add to the
building that is slowly rising, constructed out of many little stones.
No, nothing is fitting for him but a knowledge of all the sciences.
While this may not have been an unusual desire in the Middle Ages,
Bacon's insistence that a man's knowledge is worthless unless it is
complete is surprising, even for his age. The unnamed master,
though he has written a few useful books, is ignorant on the whole
because he has not learned the science of perspectiva; so, according to
Bacon, 'his building cannot stand'. 3 A mere part cannot be known
(nisi in suo toto cum aliis), and he quotes Cicero as having held the
same view. All sciences are connected, and help each other, *as the
eye directs the whole body, and the foot supports the whole body'.
The part is useless without the whole, 'like an eye which has been
plucked out, or an amputated foot'. 4
This, I think, is Bacon's personal credo, and the key to his whole
work. And I think it must have been this vision of a universal
science which inspired him to begin his study and to pursue it so
unfalteringly. In spite of its exaggerated expression, it is one of the
few things of value of which Bacon can still remind our modern
1 Little, Op. Tert., p. 60. a Steele, Fasc. X, 106.
Brewer, Op. Tert., pp. 38, 42. * Ibid., pp. 17-18.
The Promised Land Vision of a Universal Science 73
scientists. And Bacon's viewpoint gains more adherents in the
twentieth century than in any period since science first became
'modern'. 1
But the idea cannot have sprung fully armed from the head of
Bacon like Athena from the head of Zeus. Did he learn it painfully
as he progressed? Or did he find it somewhere and it set him on
fire with enthusiasm? I think he had it from the beginning, and it
was this that gave him the impulse for the work of the rest of his life.
As a philosopher he knew Aristotle as the prince of philosophers,
the "master of those who know'; but he did not in 1247 know quite
the full scope of his knowledge. Above all he did not yet know the
knowledge itself as utilissima. He was not aware of the other Aris-
totle, the adviser of kings the philosopher and scientist who from
his profound wisdom could tell the greatest monarch of the world
how to win battles, and how to rule conquered countries by 'changing
the air so that the complexiones of the inhabitants would be altered and
they would become more pliable'. 2 He did not yet know that in the
past this unity of knowledge had once existed but was lost owing to
sin. He must have known the story of the gift of wisdom bestowed
on Solomon, but without associating it with the secrets of science;
nor that, long before Solomon, the sons of Seth and his descendants
the patriarchs had also had these secrets revealed to them, and God
had granted them their long lives so that they might meditate upon
this knowledge and assimilate it. And Bacon had never before
realized that Aristotle himself had learned his knowledge from the
Hebrews by way of the Egyptians and Chaldeans, though his under-
standing had been limited because he was a pagan and lacked the gift
of grace and was ignorant of Christian revelation.
This precious knowledge Bacon owed to the Secret of Secrets, one
of many so-called secret works which had flourished among the
Arabs, but which differed from others in so far as it was generally
believed to be from the hand of Aristotle himself. A new and more
complete translation of this work into Latin was made by Philip of
Tripoli, according to Steele's calculations, in I243*. 3
1 *Si enim particularem sdentiam et propriam onuslibet primo petit, tune de necessitate
ingenium obruetur difBcultate, memoria fragiKs confundetur multitudine et ejiciet sicut recipit
lubrica, et abominans evomet quodcunque receperit* Brewer, Op. Tfert., p, 19.
* *Ut . . . eHcerent bonos mores.' Opus Majtts, II, 216.
* Steele, Fasc. V, xx (Secretum secretorum cum glossis et notodis Fratris Rogeri). Incidentally, if
this date of 1243 is correct, then Bacon cannot have written the Liber de retardatione as early as
1236, since it contains many quotations from the Secretum which are not to be found in the
earlier translation of John of Spain.
The passage on the har>A'r>g down of this knowledge occurs in die Secretum in a much
simplified form (p. 64). Bacon must then have gone to the sources and found the passages in
74 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
But this recovery of the knowledge that had once been possessed
by Aristotle and the pagans and the ancient Hebrews was still not
enough for Bacon. For there was one significant and all-important
difference between their rime and his own the coining of Christian-
ity. All was now changed. It was possible for a Christian, as it had
not been for a pagan, to know all science if he were granted the grace
of God. Time and again Bacon makes it clear that the moral character
of the recipient determines the extent and truth of the revelation; and
though this idea was a commonplace of medieval thought, Bacon
gives it a new emphasis. 'For this reason', he says, 'true philosophers
have laboured more in morals for the honour of virtue, concluding
in their own case that they cannot perceive the causes of things unless
they have souls free from sin. Such is the statement of Augustine in
regard to Socrates in the eighth book of the City of God. For it is
not possible that the soul should rest in the light of truth while it is
stained with sins, but like a parrot or magpie it will repeat the words
of another which it has learned by long practice'. 1 Elsewhere Bacon
jeers at the unnamed master, saying that he could not have received
a revelation entitling him to be ranked as an authority, because he
had not lived in the right manner. 2
'Virtue, therefore/ Bacon goes on, 'clarifies the mind so that a man
may comprehend more easily not only moral but scientific truths.
I have proved this carefully in the case of many pure young men
who because of innocency of soul have attained greater proficiency.
. . . The bearer of the present treatise is quite young, not a man of
great genius or of retentive memory, and there can be no other cause
the grace of God which, owing to the purity of his soul, has
Josephus that have a bearing on it, since he quotes Josephus whenever he makes the statement.
But even in Josephus the statements are very brie and in at least one case, the handing down
of the knowledge to the sons of Seth, Bacon deliberately changes the sense of Josephus who
only said that the sons of Seth had founded the science of astronomy (Ant. i. 2). But Josephus
does say that *God afforded the patriarchs a longer time of life on account of their virtue and
the good use they made of it in astronomical and geometrical discoveries which would not
have afforded the time of foretelling the periods of the stars unless they had lived for six hundred
years. For the great year is completed in that interval' (Ant. i. 3). The third thing of importance
that Josephus said was that 'Abraham communicated to the Egyptians arithmetic and delivered
to them the science of astronomy; for that science came from the Chaldeans into Egypt and
thence to the Greeks' (Ant. i. 8, all translations by W. Whiston (1839) ). Neither in Josephus
nor in the $eeretum> therefore, are to be found specific statements that the knowledge itself was
revealed by God. This is Bacon's own contribution, as is the use he makes of his authorities,
as will be discussed later. In one passage he says, with truth, that 'most philosophers are un-
aware of this revelation* (Little, Op. Tert., p. 4).
1 This passage (Opus Majus, IT, 170) is considerably enlarged a few years later when Bacon
goes into detail as to the means by which sins of all kinds prevent the attainment of wisdom,
the nature of each of these sins, and how they affected learning in his day. CSP, pp. 408-12.
* Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 31.
The Promised Land Vision of a Universal Science 75
granted to him those things which, as a rule, it has refused to show to
all other students*. 1
Bacon does not, however, think there is any need for a special
revelation from God; only that philosophy cannot be understood by
the unworthy, as he shows in one of his most eloquent passages. *As
God wishes all men to be saved and no man to perish, and His good-
ness is infinite, He always leaves some way possible for man through
which he may be urged to seek his own salvation. So that he who
would wish to consider this way may have the power to do so; and
thus urged may see clearly that he ought to seek those things which
are needed beyond this way, that he may know through it that
revelation is necessary for him and for the whole world. . . .
'Every man may come to this grade of the truth, but no further.
For this reason the goodness of God ordained that revelation should
be given to the world that the human race might be saved. But this
way which precedes revelation is given to man, so that if he does not
wish to follow it nor seek a fuller truth, he may be justly damned at
the end. . . . Therefore this way, which precedes special revelation, is
the wisdom of philosophy, and this wisdom alone is in the power of
man, yet supplemented by some divine enlightenment (illustratione)
which in this part is common to all; because God is the intelligence
active in our souls in all cognition, as was earlier shown. This is what
moral philosophers teach . . . and show that a revelation is necessary,
by whom it must be revealed and to whom. And it is not surprising
that the wisdom of philosophy is of this kind since this wisdom is only
a general revelation made to all mankind because all wisdom is from
God. . . . But we assume a special revelation when we say that
revelation is made outside philosophy*. 2
So we see that there is a philosophy which includes all sciences,
and there is a higher knowledge which completes this. And this
'philosophy', as he is never tired of telling us, is not only what in his
time was called philosophy, the scholastic discipline including
1 Opus Majtts, H, 171. The translation of *h and the preceding passage is drawn from
Burke,
1 Little, Op. TVrf., pp. 64-65. It will be noticed that the quotations giving Bacon's thought
are taken from any of his works. The principle used in selecting quotations is simply to choose
the passage where it seems to be best expressed. Since both the Opus Minus and the Opus
Tertium, and to a lesser degree the Compendium studii phUosophiae and the Commttnia naturalium
restate what has already been said in die Opus Majus, this seems a legitimate procedure, im1<<s
I am trying to show development of thought between the writing of these works. As it
happens, many passages are better expressed in the Opus Talcum, which is to be expected since
much of it was apparently written under less trying conditiom, and after Bacon had had a
little more time to put his thoughts in order. For Bacon's belief in revelation, Carton's mono-
graph UExperi&xt mystique . , . (1924) may be consulted.
76 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
'physics' and metaphysics, but all the sciences which have since been
called empirical. All have their contribution to make to the gaining
of what he called 'integritas sapientiae'. Aristotle and others had
what was possible to them, but since the coming of Christianity the
crown is now revealed science, which comes from God. I do not think
it altogether accurate to say that Bacon wanted to use the sciences
for theology; this is too rigid a distinction. All forms of knowledge,
including the knowledge of God which was to be obtained from
theology, were part of the integritas sapientiae. 1 It is to be practical
and speculative. 'Either we contemplate the splendour of wisdom in
studio, or we experience its power in operation while we make it
ready for the Church and the other three uses'. 2
This, then, was the vision he glimpsed, and to him, and surely to all
unprejudiced people, it was a noble, and, as Bacon calls it, a 'most
beautiful and magnificent' one. Writing of its value for the human
being, Bacon says, though, of course, the sentiment had been a
commonplace even in the time of the Old Testament, and had been
stated eloquently in the Proverbs : "The unspeakable beauty of wisdom
naturally attracts and holds our minds with full admiration. Its
magnificence and dignity force us by its infinite virtue to tread in its
footsteps (adhaerere vestigiis eius) . . . whatever is natural to man,
whatever becoming, whatever useful, whatever magnificent, whether
in this material or another, is altogether worth while to be acquired
in the pursuit of wisdom'. 3
The vision was only to take form after the study of years; but
Bacon seems never to have despaired until the very end. The rest
of his life he was fighting against time. His complaints to the Pope
that he had nothing ready for him, the way in which he offers
different sets of excuses each time he writes, only show that it was
impossible for him, with all his enthusiasm, to translate his still
chaotic thoughts into convincing words. The lack of scribes, the
lack of money, the weariness and sickness, his slow working, the
demands made upon him by his superiors, all these may have been
perfectly true in detail; but they only served to mask his inward
understanding that the task that he had set himself was impossible,
that he had perhaps got as far as anyone could in his time, but that
1 *lntegritas eorum qtiae ad sapientiam completam requiruntur.* GSP, pp. 393, 396.
CSP, p. 394.
* C$P, p. 396. It is significant that in this very passage on the value of wisdom he should
once again show what was in his mind by saying that Alexander the Great, by the counsel and
wisdom o Aristotle, in spite of an army much inferior in numbers, yet succeeded in subduing
the Hngr of die Orient. GSP, p. 395.
The Promised Land Vision of a Universal Science 77
no one could achieve such an illusory end, the end only a perfectionist
could have offered to himself. He had read everything he could lay
his hands on, he had made desultory experiments, he had thought
through part of his synthesis but only part. Everything could not
be put in its place. Those parts of his great series of Opera that he
had thought through, of which he was certain, he includes in every
work he writes. In every work of his maturity appears his statement
on the transmission of philosophy to the patriarchs that he first found
in the Secret of Secrets, which he has nailed to his masthead to remind
him of his goal; in every work appear in slightly changed form the
causes of error; in every work come his general statements on the
necessity of studying the sciences. And those sciences he knew best
and their relation to the study of God are never missing. Who else
would have written the Opus Minus and the Opus Tertium merely on
account of the perils of the road? He could not bear that this chance
of a lifetime should fail through the lack of any effort on his part.
The heart of the work must be offered again to the Pope in case the
great man had been too busy to read tie first. Then both works
must be supplemented by things he had forgotten, or written too
quickly to include. This is the compulsive activity of a man who has
had a prophetic vision which he must communicate while he has the
chance, but which may fail to convince because it is not perfect. It
may lack the one touch that would make all the difference, the magic
word that would touch the heart of the Pope and spur his action.
Every perfectionist clings to this pathetic belief to account for his
failure.
No other work of the Middle Ages is, as Thorndike rightly
remarks, 1 quite like the Opus Majus, nor has there been, one like it
since. There never can be another like it, because no one believes
now that we shall ever have a universal science that can be known by
one man. Even Aristotle, who laid the groundwork for all sciences,
who really did the work for his own day to which Bacon aspired,
would probably not have believed that science would ever be
complete an 'integritas sapientiae*, or 'scientia perfecta' as Bacon
conceived them. Perhaps no one in the Middle Ages would have
imagined it possible if it had not been for their Platonic heritage and
their belief in Universals, a Universal Church, a Universal Cure (the
elixir of life or the philosopher's egg), as well as the Universal Wisdom
of Roger Bacon.
And Bacon himself might never have acquired his belief if he had
1 Xhomdike, History cfMagu ... n, 678.
78 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
not read in a book he thought was by Aristotle that this knowledge
had once been held in the early days of mankind by the sons of Setb,
who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God. 1
n
The book of the Secret of Secrets, ascribed by Bacon and Albertus
Magnus to Aristotle, 2 is, from many points of view, a most interesting
work. Professor Thorndike has analysed it, 3 showing that it is by no
means a 'wretched compilation of philosophical mysticism and varied
superstition* (Steinschneider), and mentions the instructions in king-
craft as displaying shrewdness and common sense. Of its medicine he
makes the dry remark that 'one would infer that the art of healing at
first developed more slowly than the art of ruling in the world's
history'. 4
Our interest here is focused on a different feature of this work its
persuasive power on a medieval scholar who, up to this time, had been
one-sidedly interested in philosophy. As Faust, in Goethe's poem,
had come to the end of all earthly knowledge, and had decided that
life was no longer worth living, and then was recalled from the fatal
potion by the sound of the Easter bells; so perhaps Bacon awaited a
revelation and received one. As Mephistopheles came to show Faust
the way to the world of beauty and sense that he had never known,
and above all showed him a vision of endless activity, so perhaps did
Bacon awake to a new world. The reading of the Secret of Secrets may
well have awakened lis dormant sense of wonder. He had a vision
of what was to be the activity of his life, and he found it 'beautiful and
useful*.
In this section we intend to show in some detail the use Bacon
makes of this book in his later years; and by a study of the work
itself as it has come down to us in Philip's translation with Bacon's
personal glosses, we shall try to show what there was in it that could
have so stirred him.
We have seen that the book states that there are secrets of know-
ledge in all fields of science which have been withheld from those
who are not qualified to receive them. Aristotle himself only divulged
them to Alexander because 'God has granted you such grace in your
understanding, quickness of invention and reading of the sciences',
and because Alexander has been a good pupil in those things which
1 Lake in. 38. * Steele, Fasc. V, xviii. Thorndike, History of Magic ... II, 268.
* Thorndike, History of Magic . . . H, 267-78.
<JKi, n.273.
The Promised Land Vision of a Universal Science 79
he has been able to give him in the past. 1 And if God wills, his fervent
desire to know will lead him to his desired end. 2 Even now Aristotle
jells him that he must speak partly in secrets and enigmas; but the
most glorious and wise God will illuminate his reason and clarify his
understanding so that he may perceive the 'sacrament of knowledge*
the mystic word sacramentum would be likely to appeal to the
religious fervour of Bacon's nature and he may truly become his
own successor in wisdom. 3
This is not new knowledge, but knowledge that was long ago
known when God revealed it to His holy prophets, and to those
whom He had chosen and illuminated with die spirit of divine
wisdom. 4 Some say that Enoch had it in a vision, and this Enoch was
the same as that Hermogenes (Hermes) whom the Greeks greatly
commend and praise, and they attribute to him all secret and heavenly
science. 5 And Enoch, as Bacon would at once remember, was taken
up into heaven without seeing death.* Moreover, it was even said by
the Peripatetics that Aristotle himself did not see death, but was
carried up to heaven in a column of fire. 7 This last statement Bacon
cannot accept without question. In his gloss he remarks that only
those who are either Christians or were instructed by prophets can be
saved. But Aristotle had also believed in a Trinity (even if it was only
the natural trinity of beginning, middle and end) and we cannot
assume the damnation of some most worthy men, because we are
ignorant of God's actions. 8
This, then, is the kind of authority that the supposed writer of the
Secret of Secrets possessed. He writes it in a secret book which,
although it is published, yet will not be understood by the vulgus, but
only by those who can by the power of their soul penetrate its secrets.
What are these secrets, and how do they make their appeal to the
naive philosopher that Bacon then -was?
The world is one, says the pseudo-Aristotle. "The substance of the
world is one ... its differentia is only in accidents; its existence is in
form and colours*. If, therefore, there are no real differences, such
differences as there are are not substantial but accidental. Whatever
we see in the corruptible world is divided into parts, that is, the four
elements. Whatever change there is from die original form, the
cause of this is the universe itself. It therefore appears that lesser
1 Stede, Fasc. V, 40. * Ibid., Fasc. V, 41, * Ibid., Fasc. V, 42.
*Ita*.,Fasc.V,64. * JK*. Fasc. V, 99. Gen,v.24.
*Stcde,Fasc.V,36.
JW, Fasc. V, 37. C Brewer, GSP. p. 423, where Bacon repeats this, in order to show
how superior in every way die pagans were to moderns who claim to be Christians.
8o Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
forms are ruled by supercelestial spherical spiritual forms and this
is the reason for the validity of incantations (music of the spheres).
The things of the world receive impressions from without, according
to their susceptibility. Whatever is found in inferior things comes
from impressions of superior bodies, hence astrology. 1 Plants and
stones also partake of this power, but this is hidden from men. 2
All things are generated from a single substance. 'I will tell you,
Alexander, the greatest secret of the stone which is not a stone, which
is found everywhere and in every time and in every man; it can be
converted into every colour, and in it are contained all the elements.
So it is called a lesser world' (minor mundus). 3 'Each kind of plant
has its own disposition . . . and imitates the disposition of one planet,
and has another property which is associated with the virtues of two
or more planets. And the rational soul gathers together all these
properties and they are combined with it and changed by it'. 4
The crown of all this is man. 'There is not found in the universe
any animal or vegetable, or simple mineral, or heaven or planet or
sign or any single being of all kinds of beings which has anything of
its own that is not found in man'. 5 It is for this reason that he, as well
as the philosopher's egg, is called a 'minor mundus'. The very
organism of man is compared with a state, and political wisdom
comes from this understanding. He has five chamberlains, the five
senses, each with a different office and different means of communica-
tion. 6
Into this world-conception astrology fits naturally, since man is a
minor mundus and earthly bodies are affected by heavenly bodies. 7
The heavenly bodies leave their impress upon the pregnant woman, 8
a theory which is expanded at considerable length by Bacon in his
famous passage in the Opus Majus on the reasons for the study of
astrology. 9 'Consider the disposition of the firmament 5 , says 'Aris-
totle', 'and the ascending signs . . . and compare this operation with
the generation of human beings or other animals, plants, and stones.
Make a scheme of the heavens, and you will see that it will be of great
advantage to you'. 10
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the enormous difference
1 Steele, Fasc. V, 157-58. * Ibid., Fasc. V, 114.
* jfWeL, Fasc. V, 114-15. * Ibid., Fasc. V, 120.
6 Ibid., Fasc. V, 143. But cf. also p. 130: 'Convenerunt in eius compositione omnia universe
res que pariuntur et inveniuntur in entibus simpHcibus et compositis quia homo est ex corpore
denso commensurate* et ex anima que est simplex substantia spirituanY.
Steele, Fasc. V, 132. 7 Ibid., Fasc. V, 157.
* *Ydeas et simflitudines rerum et earum formas.* Steele, Fasc. V, 157.
Opus Mqus, I, 3% ff. 10 Steele, Fasc. V, 161-6Z
The Promised Land Vision of a Universal Science 81
between what Bacon now learns from the book of Secrets and all
that he had previously studied was that the knowledge now acquired
is practical. Aristotle is shown as a practical man advising kings;
Bacon in his vision sees himself also as a practical man, though within
the framework of the ideas of his time. It is possible, he still thinks, to
change the air and govern peoples by this means, and it is possible to
defeat armies by using a certain kind of stone. We know he thought
so, because this is what in later life he advises the Pope to do. 1 It is
practical to use judicial astrology the greatest error in medicine, he
tells us, is that it does not use astrology enough, or, if it is used, the
theory on which it is based is neglected. 2 Alchemy explains inorganic
medicine. 3 All the secret cures advised by 'Aristotle' may be used to
preserve the life of princes and popes. 4
As we have tried to show earlier, Bacon wanted to be, and was
temperamentally fitted to be, a practical man. Secret knowledge not
possessed by the vulgus, practical knowledge that could be used to
shape events, a view of the interrelationship of all the phenomena in
the universe which lent intellectual respectability to these secrets
these, I think, appealed with irresistible force to the visionary in
Bacon, and to his own suppressed longing for power. And above all
it gave him a goal, a wider, *more beautiful and useful' goal than the
endless discussions of the book of Sentences in the Faculty of Theology.
This did not mean that he had discarded theology as worthless. He
was to return to his first love, in which he had been thwarted; but
not at once. Only over the years will the vision take full shape the
utility of the natural sciences for theology.
I think the words addressed to Alexander by Aristotle will have
sounded with peculiar, solemnity in the ears of Bacon, supplying the
motive impulse that sustained htm through the years of frustration
and overwork that ky ahead. 'Those who have been of quick
understanding and have a good mind for acquiring knowledge, and
who have investigated what was Bidden from them by what was
clear to them, have confirmed for themselves things whose knowledge
was certified by authority. . . . And after they have learned and
investigated its utility and permanence they have concealed and
hidden it, so that those who have not such an apprehension and
knowledge should not share it with diem, since the divisions of the
All-Highest, whose power and gifts are glorified in those of His
creatures who live according to His own disposition, will, according
1 Opus Majus, H, 216-17. * Stede, Fasc. DC, 16$ (De erroribtts medicorum)*
* jBli, Fasc. DC, 169. 4 ML, Ease. EX, 1-83 (Liber de retardatwtte)* passim.
82 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
to His wisdom, be bestowed upon those whom He has willed and
approved. And the glorious God will not debar you from the number
of those who have this knowledge since you are one of those who
desire to acquire it and who long to gain the victory. . . . How many
secrets and how much occult knowledge of universal things and their
details do men pass by, and they are not known because their minds
are turned to other things and their objectives are different P 1
But Bacon is a Christian. He holds certain beliefs from his religion.
And all the time he was reading the book and it was speaking to him,
like any medieval he will have been thinking: 'This pagan knowledge
is still not enough. We are a part of a peculiar community, and
through our revelation we know more than pagans.^ Is it likely to be
true? There is so much that is strange in it could it be the work of
demons? Astrology and alchemy, are they contrary to Christian
teachings?' Did he have any doubts on the authenticity, of the work?
These would be merely idle speculations if it were not that we
happen to have Bacon's own edition of the work, and his own
glosses. These are probably the earliest of his scientific works, with
the possible exception of the Liber de retardatione, and the glosses may
be even earlier than this. It seems certain that they are earlier than
the introduction to the Secret of Secrets, in which there is a reference
to a comet of 1264, and which is one of Bacon's more learned and
complete scientific expositions; while the glosses show almost no
specialized knowledge of the material, such as is acquired kter. The
glosses serve to give us a most valuable insight into the workings of
Bacon's mind, and his reception of the work It may be mentioned
at once that he has no doubt of the authenticity of the book, though
he is aware that it has been questioned. He has a very sarcastic note
on people who try to deny Aristotle's handiwork, and reminds us
that according to Pliny and Censorinus there were even three genuine
Aristotles. 2
1 Stede, Fase. V, 158-59. The influence of this passage and the general tone of the Secret of
Secrets is to be seen in the remarkable precautions Bacon took to maintain secrecy when he
sent his alchemical formulae to the Pope. 'Since, therefore', he says, 'the works of this science
contain die greatest secrets . . . they must not be written openly in case they should be under-
stood by those who are not worthy of them. For when Alexander of Macedon asked Aristotle
about these things, and blamed him for hiding them from him, the chief of philosophers
replied to him in the book of Secrets that he would be the breaker of the heavenly seal if he
revealed this to unworthy people. And so he wrote most obscurely so that no one who had
not listened to his oral teachings could understand him, Take this stone which is not a stone,
etc.* Little, Op. Tert., p. 80. The hiding of alchemical formulae, as a form of esoteric know-
ledge, was a long established custom, and requires no hypothesis of persecution to account
for it. Surely Aristotle himself was not supposed to have been in danger of persecution from
his pupil I The above is only one of many instances of Bacon's imaginary identification of
himself with Aristotle. "We shall meet others in the course of this study.
*Steele,Fasc.V,93.
The Promised Land Vision of a Universal Science 83
Bacon's first gloss of importance, already referred to, claims
Aristotle as at least a possible Christian before the time of Christ,
and allows that he may not have been condemned to hell since we
cannot know what God may do. He reminds us also that Avicenna
preached the resurrection, and Democritus (this last on the authority
of Pliny). 1
In another long gloss he explains that the effect of changing the
air and water of a territory will only be to change the 'complexions'
of the inhabitants, and does not coerce their will; it only inclines it
by virtue of the change in their physical organism. Bacon, unlike
some later astrologers, is always careful to make this point and bring
it into accord with Christian teaching on the freedom of the will. 2
Later on, in another gloss, he emphasizes the same point'. 3
In a prohibition of murder for the sake of revenge the text says:
Vengeance is mine, I will repay'. Bacon reminds us that Aristotle had
read the Old Testament and the prophets. Plato used the same name
for God as Moses (*I am who I am'), and Avicenna accepted the
authority of Scripture. Bacon is very anxious indeed to give the
pagans a certificate of Christian respectability. 4
The text gives some information on the number of planets and
fixed stars. Bacon reminds us that the pagan philosophers did not
discover these sciences, but the Hebrews (who are unaccountably not
mentioned in the text!). He quotes Albumazar, Josephus, and
Ptolemy to prove that Noah knew these sciences and taught them in
Babylonia. 5
When Alexander is exhorted to take the author's counsel so that
he may have comfort and riches, the Christian moralist glosses, 'that
is, necessary but not superfluous riches, because they induce too much
care for their multiplication, and fear that they may be lost, and very
great sorrow when they are lost and these three are the worst things
ofalT.*
When the author carelessly speaks of a 'virtutem superiorem
universalem', Bacon adds, 'scilicet, through the virtue of God and
the angels, and through universal nature*. 7 Later on, he inserts
another note when intelligences are mentioned, and says this means
angels (though, in fact, angels are not in Christian theology ascribed
such powers as the text gives to these intelligences).*
1 Steek, Fasc. V, 36-37.
* JWi, Fase. V, 3&-39. Bacon emphasizes the same point in Opus Mqus, I, 391 ff.
IMd^ Fasc. V, 121. 4 Ibid^ Fasc. V, 56. * Itat, Fase. V, 62-63.
JWai,Fasc.V,95. * fl&L. Fasc. V 119. * IW&, Fasc. V, 132.
84 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
The anonymous author has gone into some detail on the ages of
life, and the rime of the entry of the anima sensibilis into the body. 1
This happens to be something on which Jerome and Gregory have
expressed themselves, and Bacon has a definite Christian teaching at
hand. He says that the distinction between these ages is drawn chiefly
from Scripture and the teachings of science and philosophy, 'but it
would be too long to explain authorities and reasons'. But the truth
is that the passage Bacon is glossing is clearly of Platonic inspiration
and assumes the pre-existence of the anima sensibilis which comes from
that place to the habitation of men. But Bacon either deliberately or
unwittingly glosses the words 'de illo loco' with a 'scilicet, de utero',
a meaning it surely cannot bear. 2
Almost at the end of the book comes what is, perhaps, Bacon's most
important gloss if we are looking for evidence of his attitude towards
this new knowledge. The author has explained that it is possible to
detect the true nature of a man from his outward appearance, with
the assistance of astrology. 3 Bacon says that this is a science of the
utmost beauty and utility; but there is a limit to its application to
Christians because the grace of God can conquer an evil disposition
of soul to which all the other things in the body's complexion might
lead them. So the wise man will only consider die natural disposition,
and hesitate to give a final judgment until he knows of his conversion
to good morals. Bacon adds with his usual tact that kings and great
men should know this science when they choose their friends and
ministers, because, although they were good men when first elected
to the courts of kings and prelates, they are quickly depraved by
riches and pleasures, honours and gifts (never, of course, by the cares
of office, which would not occur to a man, of Bacon's stamp). Pre-
sumably it can be seen in advance whether they would be likely to
deteriorate under such temptations.
These, thai, are the lines along which Bacon's mind has been
working, and his glosses are mainly directed to the purpose of con-
vincing his readers that there is nothing unchristian in the book of
the Secrets. For the rest, they are the immature comments of a recent
1 Steele, Fasc. V, 130-31.
* 'Operatic ergo hujus vis generative . . . tune transmittit ipsam animam animalis sensibilis
dc illo loco usque ad egressionem ad habitaculum, scilicet hominum et adquirit aliud regimen
usque ad complementum A annorum*. Steele, Fasc, V, 130-31.
* Steek, Fasc. V, 155-66. I fear that if this is true, the famous modern statue of Roger Bacon
at Oxford would never be recognized by any of his contemporaries I A photograph of this
statue appears as the frontispiece in Burke's translation of the Opus Mojus. The predominant
expression is one of calm serenity.
The Promised Land Vision of a Universal Science 85
convert. The positive correlation of this new material with Christian-
ity, the tremendous use of all this scientific knowledge to constitute a
wholly new understanding of Christianity itself, must have been a
conception that grew slowly with the years. In his minor medical
opuscula 1 only the Liber de retardatione, which may have preceded in
time even the glosses, contains extensive quotations from the Secret of
Secrets (twenty-five in all). 2 The remainder make occasional, but not
excessive use of it. But in his great Opera the influence is everywhere
apparent, only at a different level Bacon speaks of the value of
extracting the allegorical meanings from astronomy and astrology
for the deeper understanding of the scriptures, 3 of the value of
speculative alchemy for understanding such mysteries as the com-
position of the bodies of Adam and Eve after the fall. 4 There is no
sign of any such use of his scientific knowledge by the time of the
glosses.
In the introduction to Bacon's edition of the Secret of Secrets most
of the space is given to an exposition of astrology that goes far beyond
anything in the book itself or the glosses, and Bacon has now dis-
covered in the works of Ptolemy the words experimentalis scientia of
which we shall hear so much later. 5 At the time of the glosses he is
unable to add much in the way of information to what is included in
the text, confining himself to a few elementary calculations, and
remarks on the history of the Amazons. 6
Many other items might be quoted showing the specific use Bacon
makes of the book of the Secrets in his major works, right up to his
very last book on theology; but it is not the details that are important
so much as the general application of the whole body of ideas and
their practical nature. The suggestion of powers to be gained by all
who will follow the path was a potent inspiration to one who, like
Bacon, was at this time probably almost waiting for just such a vision
to give meaning to his life. And if it could be a path that was in some
ways original and interesting, something different from the theology
of the schools but yet potentially useful to it, something that would
give him a Weltanschauung appealing to his seeking soul, that was
all that could be asked of a vision. I think this book gave it to him.
1 These are all printed together in Steek, Fasc. DC, edited by Little and Withingtonu
1 This leaning on the authority of 'Aristotle* in the Liber de retardatume was to be expected,
in view of the fact that he is again in the position of a layman instructing a potentate, and he
can identify himself with Aristotle addressing Alexander. This gives Bacon the opportunity to
write very impressively on the great value of what he is saying.
Opus A4#oJ, 183 *Optts Mims, pp. 367-75.
*Stede,Fasc.V,9. Mi, Fasc. V, 155.
86 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
His whole later life and the emotional intensity with which he pursued
it can be traced to the impact of this book. 1
So for these reasons, even without corroborative evidence, I am
offering the hypothesis that towards the end of his life in Paris, or
perhaps after he had finished and was taking his two-year vocation,
someone put this book into his hands. And it proved as epoch-
making for him as when Descartes spent his sleepless night from which
came tie vision of analytical geometry, when Rousseau heard that a
prize was offered for a composition on the pkce of science in civiliza-
tion and sat down and wrote his first book and won it, or when St.
Augustine heard the child's voice saying: 'Take and read P
1 There is one further point of interest in these glosses. Bacon has continual difficulty with
the Arabic words in the text, which evidently infuriate him. Several times he says that he has
had to consult other MSS. but without result, and on other occasions had to consult the doctors
who used the drugs given in the text in Arabic. This may be the dawning of the idea that
other works of Aristotle had been mistranslated, an obsession of which we hear much later in his
career.
CHAPTER VI
'TWENTY YEARS HAVE I LABOURED../
WHEN Bacon finally made his decision to undertake his study
of science he probably, though not certainly, returned to
England at once. In England "were men who were interested in
science, the older generation of scientists so highly praised by Bacon,
of whom Grosseteste was chief. After resigning his chair at the
University of Paris I think Bacon's first impulse would be to leave
the city and go back to his native land where he presumably had
friends from his youth and could find an atmosphere congenial to his
studies. Even if he did not as yet know the scientists personally, he
would have been aware of their worth and reputation. Moreover, at
least one brother in England was still rich, 1 and could help him if
Roger had no patrimony of his own.
Writing in 1267, Bacon tells the Pope that from his youth he has
laboured *in scientiis* (his philosophical studies could be classed as
scientiae), but that during the twenty years in which he has made a
special study of wisdom by unusual paths he has spent more than
two thousand pounds for secret books, experiments, tables, etc. 2
This would seem to indicate a definite change to a specialized and
unusual study about the year 1247. Even taking into account Bacon's
habitual use of round numbers, the change can hardly be placed later
than 1250, and in my view probably coincides with his return to
England.
Now, though Bacon may have been a hardy beggar, as Litde calls
him, 3 and as he shows himself later when trying, as a friar, to raise a
mere fifty pounds from his friends, 4 it seems impossible that he could
either have begged or borrowed any such sum as two thousand
pounds. This can only have come from his family or have belonged
to Bacon as his own patrimony- I think he probably decided, as soon
as he determined on his study of science, to spend this money in
equipping himself with the tools of his new professipn. This meant,
1 Brewer, Op. Trt, p. 14 .......
1 'Jam a juventote laboravi in sdentiis, ct Imguas et omnibus praedkos muraphater . . . per
vigniti anoos quibas specialiter laboravi in studio sapienriae, negkcto sensu vulgi . . .* (Brewer,
Op, Tert., pp. 58-59). The statement that he had sttidied languages also from his youth may
only refer to the French, and "Pngfaih vernaculars in addition to latin.
'Littk, Essays., .p. 6. * Brewer, Op. Tert., pp. 16-17.
87
88 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
in particular, the purchase of great numbers of books, some of them
perhaps very expensive. And, as we know, he also searched for
classical MSS. such as the De republic*? of Cicero, which he did not
find, 1 and the De ira of Seneca, which he ultimately did. 2 It seems
very possible that the expenditure of all his private funds was one of
the reasons for his putting himself later under the protection of the
Franciscan Order, though perhaps not the most important one, as
will be shown.
Though we do not know for certain that Bacon returned to Oxford
as soon as he left his Parisian chair, we do know that he was there
when he came to write the glosses for the Secret of Secrets. For he
speaks of having just found at Oxford four mutilated exemplaria of
the book, whereas in Paris he had had perfect ones. 3 We know also
that he heard Richard of Cornwall lecture on the Sentences at Oxford
about the year 1250.-*
It is interesting to note the names of Bacon's associates in England
and France, as they are occasionally revealed in his scientific writings,
and it seems to me that they throw a little light on his period of
studying and working in each country. In the first recension of the
Communia mathematical the mathematicians whom he praises are
Robert of Lincoln, Adam Marsh, and one John Bandoun. 6 For
various reasons, as will be shown later, this recension should, in my
view, be dated in the kte 1250'$. In the Opus Tertium, which can be
dated with certainty as from 1267 to 1268, Bacon speaks of only two
first-class (perfecti) mathematicians, John of London (perhaps the
same as John Bandoun) and Peter de Maricourt. Not as good as these,
but still good, are Campanus of Novara and Master Nicholas. 7 Now
we know how much he admired Peter de Maricourt; and it seems
very unlikely that he would not have been included in the list in the
Communia mathematica if Bacon had been aware of Peter's work when
he wrote it. I conclude, therefore, that Bacon only met Peter de
Maricourt when he went to France later as a friar, but that the
Communia mathematica was written in its first draft before he left
England, or soon afterwards, and at a time when he only knew the
1 Brewer, Op. Tcrt., p. 56.
1 Opus Maju$i n, 323. Incidentally, this successful search, even though made by one of his
fr^r^j, shows that Bacon was not, even as a friar, entirely without access to funds.
1 'Exemplaria quatuor que nunc invent Oxonid non habuerunt ilia, nee similiter multa alia,
set Paxisios habm exemplaria perfecta*. Steele, Fasc. V, 39.
4 GST, m>. 52-53. This is actually an inference, but an almost certain one. Bacon knows the
contents of Richard's lectures, and says he knew Richard well.
1 Steele, Fasc. XVI, 71-135.
IbuLr Fasc. XVI, 118. Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 34.
'Twenty Years have I Laboured . . / 89
older generation of English mathematicians. Of English mathematics
he merely says : 'There are few who study in this science, and Latin
students have the greatest difficulties in overcoming the obstacles'. 1
Throughout Bacon's works the names of Robert Grosseteste and
Adam Marsh continually reappear. Both are considered great
scientists and mathematicians, as well as examples of saintly lives.
Since we have not conceded that Bacon studied under Grosseteste
before his stay in Paris, and he shows no signs of having been
influenced in thought by the great Bishop by the time of the Parisian
lectures, at what period in his life did he meet him and study with
him, if at all? Grosseteste died in 1253.
Now it is a striking fact that in all his eulogies of Robert Grosseteste,
Bacon never speaks as if he had known him personally. He is 'the
Bishop of Lincoln of happy memory', or 'of sacred memory*, 2 but
there are never any revealing anecdotes of the kind he relates about
Adam Marsh. 3 But he does know a good deal about his works,
enough to say, with some exaggeration, but with substantial truth, 4
that "he neglected altogether the works of Aristotle and his method,
but followed big own way of experimenting, using other authorities'. 6
Bacon knows, of course, that Grosseteste brought translators to
England, and he tells us in 1272 that some of them are still living, 6 but
this was doubtless common knowledge at the time in academic
circles. Though he knows that in Grosseteste's theology classes the
biblical text was used rather than the Sentences^ this again will have
been well known to any interested outsider. 7 Elsewhere Bacon says
that Grosseteste knew enough languages to be able to understand the
works of the saints, philosophers, and wise men of old time, that he
knew mathematics and optics, and that he did not know enough
Greek and Hebrew to translate himself, but had many helpers. 8 He
* Steele, Fasc. XVI, 118. * Ifc, Fasc, XVI, 118; CSP, pp. 469, 474.
1 Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 186. * See above, pp. 14
* CSP, p. 469. This opinion is supported by AegicHus of Lessines in his work on comets.
'Expositio autem Alberti videtur conveniem textui AristoteKs secundum ixanslationem que
de arabico est, sed expositio UncoJniensis fundatur super exemplum experimentale de respkn-
dentia radiorum soKs ____ * Thomdike, Latm Treatises on Comets* p. 109.
CSP, p. 434.
*CSP, p. 329. C also Grosseteste's own fetter to the Faculty of Theology at Oxford in
which he advises this procedure. Grosseteste, Epistolac ... pp. 347-48.
*CSP p 472. S. H. Thomson, in his recent study of the known, doubtful, and spurious
writings of Grosseteste (The Writings ofKj&ert Grosseteste (1940) ) says that it is extremely
unlikely that Grosseteste knew Hebrew himself; as he can find no trace of such knowledge in
his writings, where it would have been of die greatest value to give the original text (pp. 38-39)
if Bacon really implied tfcat Grosseteste knew Hebrew, as Thomson suggests, it might be an
important argument against Bacon's dose knowkdge of Grosseteste's capacities. But if there
is any such implication, it can only be tfcat Grosseteste knew a little Hebrew, as much, perhaps,
as he might pick up from his personal translators,
9O Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
mentions the names of Grosseteste's works, though as a rule under
different tides from those given in the extant MSS. of Grosseteste. 1
We have akeady seen that it is improbable that Bacon attended
any of the lectures given by Grosseteste to the Franciscans, which in
any case were on theological subjects; 2 and prior to 1229, when
Grosseteste ceased to give lectures at Oxford and devoted himself
instead to the Franciscans, Bacon was certainly too young to have
listened to him with understanding. Though there are some works
of science that can definitely be attributed to the later years of
Grosseteste's life when he was a bishop, his letters written in these
years show that his time was very much taken up with his diocese;
and there is no sign at all that he was lecturing. Bacon says that
perspectiva was lectured upon twice at Oxford to his knowledge, but
never at Paris. 3 If the lecturer had been Grosseteste, I feel sure that
Bacon would not have omitted to record the fact.
It is possible that Bacon did in these years meet the great man
personally, but it seems to me unlikely. 4 Such an admirer of the work
and sanctity 5 of the bishop would hardly have failed to improve on
the occasion by referring to it. But it seems more probable that
Bacon became acquainted with his work, firstly by his reputation
which will have been familiar to all Oxford students in the 123 o's,
and then with his actual writings. The influence of Grosseteste's work
upon Bacon's is adequately explained, in the case of a student like
Bacon, by his familiarity with the bishop's writings. It seems possible
that even this familiarity was not acquired until he became deeply
interested in the subjects on which Grosseteste had written; and this
may not have been before he became a friar. As a Franciscan he will
have had access to Grosseteste's own library which the great bishop
bequeathed to the Franciscan convent at Oxford, 6 for this was almost
certainly the first convent Bacon entered when he joined the Order.
1 Thomson, The Writings ... pp. 93, 101, 107, 109.
Thomas de Ecdeston, De adventu . . . pp. 60, 114, 123. As a contemporary, Ecdeston
would surdy have known o and noted in, his chronide, a matter of so much interest as
scientific lectures to friars. For the whole question of Grosseteste's lectures to the Franciscans,
and the supposed courses on scientific subjects, see Appendix A bdow.
1 Brewer, Op. Tert.> p. 37.
4 In the Opus Majus Bacon does say 'vidimus aliquos de antiquis qui multum laboraverunt
sicut fidt dominus Robertus (I, 73), but this need not mean more than that he was aware of
Grosseteste's work. In any case there is no reason why he should not have seen the great man
on occasions, but this does not mean an acquaintance. The present writer has seen the English
King and his father, three Presidents of the United States, and a Shah of Persia, but claims no
personal acquaintance with them. C GSP, p. 428, where Bacon uses the same expression.
He may, of course, have heard Grosseteste preach, as the bishop of his diocese.
* 'Cuius vitam paud prdatL imitantur.* GSP, pp. 431-32.
* Grosseteste, Epistolae . . . bociv and note; Little, 'The Franciscan School . . .' (1926), p. 836.
1 'Twenty Years have I Laboured . . / 91
The presence of these books may indeed have been a contributing
factor in his decision to become a friar. In the relative peace of his
first years in the Order, Bacon will have had time to study these
works fully, and the influence of Grosseteste upon his own studies
can thus be fully explained. As we have seen, Bacon's first interests
in science were probably medical, in accordance with the suggestions
he received from the Secret of Secrets. Mathematics, required for
astrology, and optics which was connected with geometry, may well
have come later. Mathematics and optics were the chief scientific
interests of Grosseteste; he could have been of little help to Bacon in
his medical studies.
Bacon's relations with Adam Marsh are in some respects more
mysterious. There is no doubt that Roger knew him personally, and
what he says about Adam must therefore be considered seriously.
This does not mean that we must unconditionally believe everything
he says about him. For it is extraordinary that if Adam had really
possessed all the learning in mathematics and languages, even in
scientia experimental , that Roger attributes to him, this knowledge
should never be exhibited in any of Adam's extant works, and no
one else should ever have attributed it to him. Grosseteste's erudition
and interests appear in his letters, but Adam is remarkably successful
in concealing his from public view. A great many of Adam's letters
have been preserved, 1 for he was a very busy and important person-
age, but they are prolix in the extreme, their style is tortuous, and
they do not exhibit the clarity and lucidity we might expect from an
accomplished scientist. However, this is, perhaps, not a fair argument,
since even in our own time scientists may not always carry their
scientific lucidity over into their own private and official correspon-
dence. But Bacon in one pkce even goes so far as to imply that
Adam assisted Grosseteste with his books, 2 a suggestion that Russell
in a recent study of Grosseteste's helpers believes must be discounted. 3
It is difficult to see how and where Adam could have found the
time to acquire his learning in science and languages, since he was so
fully occupied, at least in his later life during which he was friendly
with Bacon, with public affairs. It is possible that he studied with
Grosseteste before entering die Franciscan Order (latest date 1232),
but such early studies would hardly merit Bacon's encomia on die
perfection of his knowledge, which should surely have emerged in
some written masterpiece. We cannot, of course, deny categorically
1 Brewer, M&numente Frandsema, I, 77-489. *OpusMqus, 1, 106,
* J. C. Russdl The Preferments and Adjetores . . / (1933), pp. 167 flf.
92 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
that he ever wrote such a work, but there is no record of it; his extant
writings, apart from his letters, are exclusively theological. 1 Matthew
Paris calls him 'senex et literatus*, which, of course, he was, 2 and we
know that he was learned enough in theology to break the Franciscan
tradition that their lectors or regent masters in theology at Oxford
should be appointed from outside the Order. 3 A letter of Grosseteste's
shows that, if he had desired it, Adam could have had the most
important chair of theology at Paris reserved to the Franciscans,
previously held by the great Alexander of Hales. 4
Since, therefore, none of the known facts of Adam's life support
Bacon's statements, is it possible that he exaggerated, and if so, why?
It is noticeable that on the only two occasions when Adam appears in
Bacon's work without having his name coupled with Grosseteste's, it
is in his capacity as an authority on theology. On the first occasion
some friars ask him the nature of the intellectus agens, and Adam
answers that it is 'the raven of Elias', 5 and on the other occasion it was
another question, this time put personally by Roger, on whether
demons can be in hell and on earth at the same time. 6
The most probable explanation is that Adam did in his youth
indeed study the sciences with Grosseteste before he entered the
Franciscan Order; but after entering the Order he specialized in
theology. As it happens, there is a record of his having gone abroad
with St. Anthony of Padua to study theology after admission to the
Order, but this evidence is not trustworthy, coming from the some-
times unreliable Chronicle of the Twenty-four Generals , 7 The story may,
however, be true; though, if so, we should have expected Eccleston
himself to have mentioned it, as he was a contemporary, and Adam
appears frequently in his pages.
It is, however, certain that Adam had taken holy orders before
becoming a Franciscan, 8 and we should have expected a man of his
scholarly attainments and capacities to have undertaken the long and
strenuous study of theology at an earlier age, since in any case he was
destined for the Church. It is extremely unlikely that he collaborated
with Grosseteste in books written during the latter's episcopate; but
prior to his entry into the living of Weirmouth in the I22o's he may
for some time have been one of Grosseteste's favourite pupils and
1 Little, *The Franciscan School . . / (1926), pp. 836 ff.
* Matthew Paris, Ckronica ... V, 619.
* Thomas de Eccleston, De adventu ... pp. 63-64.
4 Grosseteste, Epistolae . . . pp. 334-35.
* Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 75. TfaU, p. 186.
7 Thomas de Eccleston, De adventu ... p. 23 and note b.
* Eccleston, De adventu . . . p. 23, note b.
Years have I Laboured . . / 93
assistants at Oxford. This may, indeed, be the beginning of the long
friendship which is so fully attested by the letters of each. In this case
we must merely assume that any letters written by one to the other
on scientific subjects have not been preserved. As to the matter of
languages, there is no need to connect Adam's studies with those of
Grosseteste in this field. He may have acquired them when Grosse-
teste invited his Greek scholars to England. Or it is possible that he
may have made special studies at the time when he planned to go as
a missionary to the East, an ambition with which Eccleston credits
him. 1 There is simply no information on any of these points.
But it is also possible that Bacon had an ulterior motive for singing
the praises of Adam. He may have been a personal friend, perhaps
Roger's only friend in high places. He had been a famous enough
man for his name to carry weight with the Pope, and Roger may
not have thought it would do him any harm to mention his personal
acquaintance with him. 2 Adam died in 1258 or 1259, long before the
works to the Pope, and it was quite safe to praise him, use him as an
authority for his opinions, and even to ascribe to him an excellence
he did not possess in life. On the whole it seems to me probable that
Adam has gone down in history as a great scientist as well as a great
churchman and theologian largely by the lustre reflected on him
from the association with Grosseteste and from the praise bestowed
on him by Roger Bacon for reasons not necessarily connected with
his real excellence. Unfortunately for Bacon, Adam had no prevision
of his posthumous fame, or Roger would have rated at least one
entry in Adam's voluminous letters, which remain as silent as if Roger
Bacon had never been born and never made inquiries on the ubiquity
of demons.
It is possible that Bacon made acquaintance with Adam after his
return from Paris. Adam lectured in theology at Oxford until 1250,
and Bacon could have been greatly impressed by his lectures and the
scientific examples, culled from his earlier studies, that he used after
the manner of Grosseteste. We know tiat Adam did have a remark-
able influence upon another student, Thomas Docking, though this
was in the stimulation of theological rather than scientific researches. 3
But this attendance at theological lectures must have occupied only a
small portion of Bacon's energies at this time. Grosseteste's scientific
influence had persisted at the university, and many thinkers in the
1 Ecdestou, De ad&entu p. 23,
1 Bacon's two references to his personal acquaintance with Adam are both to be found in the
Optts Terttttm, a work <kstined for the Pope,
* Lkde Thomas Docking aod Ins Rektioos to Roger Bacon . , ,* (1927), p. 301.
94 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
thirteenth century, especially among the English Franciscans, were
attracted by his theories on light, as was Bacon. 1 Bacon, therefore,
could have begun his studies on optics. But his interests in medicine,
already aroused by the Secret of Secrets, were also important to him,
and he mentions in one of his glosses that some drugs are not obtain-
able in England and must be procured from Montpellier, which
suggests that he was engaged in some medical research. 2 He may also
have lectured himself at Oxford, perhaps on philosophy, though there
is no evidence for this. I think it psychologically improbable in view
of the urgent nature of his new interests and the fact that he had given
up a position in Paris to devote himself to them. He would not yet
be sufficiently well qualified to lecture on his new studies, even if
there was a place for them in the curriculum. The mathematical
disputes already referred to took place in Paris at a later period of his
career. 3 Before considering in greater detail in the next section the
work Bacon accomplished during his * twenty years' labour', a side-
light on his possible university activities will be presented in the form
of a hypothesis concerning his relations with Richard of Cornwall,
which may help also to explain partly the neglect that Roger suffered
later when he entered the Franciscan Order.
We have already noted that Richard of Cornwall came out
strongly against the plurality of forms, and that Bacon admitted his
high reputation among the vulgar, though he was 'the stupidest of
men in the opinion of the wise'. 4 In the same work Bacon gives us
some details about Richard's teachings, and his philosophical doctrine
from which the theological deduction can be made that Christ was a
man for three days before the resurrection, which idea could be con-
sidered heretical. Bacon tells us also that Richard was able to make
his doctrine stick, as it was still flourishing in Oxford forty years kter.
Now this teaching is by no means new, having had a long and
chequered history. A considerable article on the subject 5 manages to
discuss it without reference to either Richard or Bacon. Moreover,
Bacon says that at Oxford, Richard was followed and accepted,
while at Paris he was 'reproved*. On the other hand, Eccleston says
that Richard had the brightest reputation both at Oxford and Paris, 6
and on another occasion that at Paris he 'was considered a great and
1 Sharp, Franciscan Philosophy . . . passim. * Steele, Fasc. V, 106.
* Brewer, Op. Tert. t p. 139. Supra, p. 114.
* A. M. Landgraf, *Das Problem utrum Christus fuit homo in triduo mortis in der Frtih-
scholastik,* Melanges Auguste Pelzer (Louvaia, 1947), pp. 109-58.
* Tarn Oxoniac quam Faiisius fama darissimus.' Eccleston, De advent* . p. 24.
'Twenty Years have I Laboured . , / 95
admirable philosopher*. 1 Evidently, if Richard was reproved -at
Paris, Brother Thomas had not heard of it. Adam Marsh, as we shall
see, also had a high opinion of Richard's capabilities, and put himself
to much trouble on his behalf. We know that Bacon already in his
Parisian days disapproved of Richard's philosophical views on this
particular problem on logical grounds, though at this time he did not
ascribe it to Richard; 2 but it is a different matter to say that everyone
else agreed with his estimate and that wise men considered Richard
a fool for holding it. It would appear that the opinion was at least
an arguable one, and not formally heretical, whatever Bacon may
have thought. Yet Roger even in his last book remembers it against
Richard, and reserves for him some of the choicest language of his
entire career. It certainly looks as if there were some personal
animosity on Bacon's part which cannot be entirely accounted for
by a mere disagreement with Richard's theological and philosophical
opinions.
Not a great deal is known, at present, about Richard of Cornwall,
D. A. Callus, in his study of MS. Balliol 62, a commentary on the
Sentences given by him during his Oxford period, remarks, however,
on the special character of his disputing. Richard's aim, he says, is to
stress opposition between the different outlooks on the plurality of
forms, rather than to reconcile divergence of opinion. He busies
himself more with denouncing the tendency of philosophers to
expound views in conflict with theological truths, than in giving
information on what they actually say. He 'shows independence of
fnind, is outspoken, and ready to criticize' in short, a character not
unlike Bacon's own. 3
"We have also some information about Richard from the letters
of Adam Marsh. From the first letter, written m 1248, it appears that
Richard has received permission from the Minister-General of the
Franciscan Order to go to lecture in Paris on the Sentences. But now
he does not want to go, and Adam is begging the Provincial Minister
to excuse this change of mind and allow him to stay. Oxford will be
delighted to keep him. The reason given is Richard's poor health. 4
In the second group of letters, which is still full of praise for
Richard, Adam asks the Minister to allow him to go to Paris after alL
These letters are dated by Little 1252 or 1253.* This time the reason
1 *Magnus et adimiraMKs plnlosopiira judkatm cst.* Ecdeston, De adventu p. 65.
Steek, Fasc. XV, rrir-xxiL
CaHra, Two Oxford Masters . . .* (1939), p. 431.
4 *Propter mnkimoda valffrKtmfrm suarum <fascrimma.' Brewer, Momtmenta ... 1, 330.
* Little, The Franciscan School . . / p. 842.
9<5 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
is *ob vehementiores perturbationum occasioned. Richard, says
Adam, has come to an 'inexorable' and 'irrevocable' decision that he
must go, in accordance with the permission of the Minister-General
previously granted. He adds that it is Very urgent'. 1 Elsewhere
Adam refers again to Richard's 'inexorable intention', and asks for
the assistance of the Minister in providing necessaries for him. 2
Now this is all very extraordinary if, as the Catholic Encyclopaedia
suggests, 3 the 'perturbationes' were merely local riots in Oxford.
Why should Richard be so urgent to leave? The only reason that
seems feasible is that in some way he personally was mixed up in the
riots, or that they were directed against him, for it is clear that no one
else is trying to escape from Oxford, and Adam himself, though he
is doing his best to help, does not approve of the decision. If Richard
had been in any real trouble Adam would have concurred in it.
Professor Little once threw out the suggestion that perhaps Bacon
was involved in these disturbances, but he did not pursue the matter. 4
Could Bacon have pubHcly challenged the doctrine of Richard that
he so much detested? In 1252 and 1253 he was certainly at Oxford,
and he was an accomplished disputer. He may have been gkd of the
opportunity to deflate a master of theology, a class of person he
disliked on principle. In his attack on Richard in his last work he
says that Richard was teaching this detested doctrine from 1250, and
that he knew him well. 5 All these facts are consonant with a public
challenge about the year 1252.
If Bacon had publicly attacked him, Richard, being the kind of
character he was, might have felt so gravely insulted, especially if
Bacon had had some support among the students who created a
disturbance, that he would want to leave at once and go to Paris,
where he would be more appreciated. This might explain the urgency
of his pressure on Adam Marsh, and Adam's apparent reluctance to
indulge a personal whim which he felt was not in the best interests of
Oxford. The use of the words 'irrevocable' and 'inexorabile' suggests
that Adam had tried to talk him out of it So Bacon may have
enjoyed a brief triumph, and in due course Richard received his
permission and went to Paris. 6 Here Bacon says he was reproved,
1 'Insipiens factus sum; postulantis urgentia me coegit.* Brewer, Monument* ... I, 365.
* Brewer, Momtmenta . , . I, 560. * Art. Richard Rufus of Cornwall.
* Little, The Franciscan School . . .' p. 842.
s 'Optime novi pessimum et stultissunum istorum errorum autorexn.' GST, pp. 52-53.
* Eccleston, in giving his account of the original profession of Richard, says that he entered
the Order in Paris; but in the disturbances caused within the Order at that time over Brother
Elias, Richard came to England and professed 'calmly and with devotion*. It would look as if
Brother Richard had a special dislike for disturbances. Eccleson, De afoeniu ... p. 65.
'Twenty Years have I Laboured . . ! 97
while Eccleston says he gained a high reputation. It is possible that
Richard did get into some trouble in Paris since in the mid 1250*5 the
struggle between the religious and seculars was raging, and for a time
both Orders of friars had to suspend their lectures. But this can have
had little to do with Richard's opinion on the three days during
which Christ was a man. And we do know that Richard was recalled
to Oxford in 1256 to take up the position of regent master of the
Franciscans in theology, the highest academic position in the gift of
the Order, and a definite promotion. In this position, which he held
until his death, it is just possible that he was able to be a considerable
nuisance to Roger Bacon who was by 1257 a friar, and subject to
discipline within his Order. Richard's influence may have been one
of many that prevented him from rising to any degree of dignity
within this Order in spite of his intellectual attainments.
Though this hypothesis may have no direct evidence to support it
and must therefore be considered gratuitous, it does satis&ctorily
explain a few definite facts, such as the sudden decision of Richard,
and the long continued enmity of Bacon. There is nothing inherently
improbable in it. On the contrary, it fits Bacon's character excellently
he was never a man to keep his opinions to himself and it is in
accord with the little we know of Richard. I think that a man
capable of changing his mind so suddenly and putting pressure on
his friends and superiors, if it was for the personal reasons I have
suggested, would have been quite capable of turning his personal
attention to Bacon within the Order and helping to ensure ids con-
tinued subordinate position. This fact in my view does need some
additional explanation, for, if he had been nothing else, at least
Bacon had been a magister regens in the Faculty of Arts at Paris, and
this, though not a very high academic position, was superior to any
held by the majority of his fellow-friars.
I
After an undetermined time as a secular student of the natural
sciences, Bacon entered the Franciscan Order. His relations to this
Order, his reasons for joining it, and the effect it had upon his work
will be studied in the next chapter. There can be no doubt that
if he had remained a secular master and student of the sciences,
supporting himself and his research out of his private means and
giving occasional or regular lectures to augment Ms income, then the
corpus of his work would have been entirely different, and it is doubt-
ful if even his great Opera to the Pope would ever have been written.
98 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
At all events he did join the Order, and his writings were modified
accordingly. But for the purposes of analysis, and the establishment of
a chronology for the twenty years* work prior to 1267, this influence
will be arbitrarily ignored in this chapter, and Bacon as a writer and
student will alone be examined.
It has always been difficult to establish the chronology of the works
of most ancient and medieval writers from external evidence.
Though astronomers and astrologers, working in a field where exact
dates are important, usually take the trouble to state the year and
even the month when they are writing, the remainder do not seem
to have thought that posterity would be interested in such informa-
tion, and it would already be known to their contemporaries. A
speech of Isocrates or Demosthenes may be successfully dated, but
not the contemporary works of Plato and Aristotle. It is only in
comparatively recent times that another approach has been utilized
which takes account of the fact that a man does not necessarily think
the same thoughts at the end of his life as in his early twenties. This
may be called the 'genetic* approach, and it tries to trace the develop-
ment of thought, and does not confine itself to the thought when it
has reached its highest point of maturity.
The tremendous work of Werner Jaeger on Aristotle in our own
century was a pioneer effort in this direction, 1 even though Jaeger
was by no means the first to realize that the method was applicable
to Aristotle. Others followed in his footsteps, questioning many of
his findings, especially in the fields where they were more competent
than Jaeger. 2 In 1914 Dr. Grabmann attempted a similar service for
the commentaries of Thomas Aquinas on Aristotle, and much of his
work has been accepted by subsequent scholars. 3 There are two
distinct schools of thought on Albertus Magnus, some (with Man-
donnet) putting his scientific work early in his life, while others, with
Pelster, attribute it to his last years. 4
In the case of Aristotle the work had to be accomplished almost
entirely by the use of internal evidence. Even if the result is not
historically accurate, this procedure serves its main purpose, to point
out that there was a distinct change in the method of dealing with
his material, and that apparent inconsistencies could be explained by
X W. Jaeger, Aristoteks Grundtegung einer Geschichte seiner Entwickltmg (Berlin, 1923).
English translation {2nd edit.; Oxford, 1948).
*E.g. F. Nuyens, UEvalvtion de la psychologic d'Aristote (Louvain, 1948).
M. Grabmann, *Lc$ Commentaires . . / (1914), pp. 229-31.
4 P. Mandonaet, 'La Date de naissance , . / (1931), pp. 253-56; F. Pelster, 'Zur Daticrung
emiger Schriften , . .* (1923), pp. 475-82; 'Urn die Datienmg Alberts des Grossen . . .' (1935),
pp. 145-61.
'Twenty Years have I Laboured . . / 99
the assumption of a real deepening of thought and its application to
a wider range of phenomena. This, with Aristotle, was connected
with a progressive emancipation from the persistent influence of
Plato, his master. For a student only interested in the thought-
content of a philosopher or scientist, it is invaluable to know what
was his 'latest' thought. This gives him a solid foundation. When
characterizing his subject's thought he can relate all the transitional
opinions to this one. He can then re-imagine the process by which
he arrived at the final stage of his thought, and place his earlier
tentative efforts in relation to it. He can even make use of the mathe-
matical procedure of 'interpolation' and suggest further transitional
stages which may not even be represented by extant works. 1
But when the historian is also trying to reconstruct a biography
and relate the production of different works to known events in his
subject's life, it is essential that he should have at his disposal at least
some indisputable facts for Aristotle these are very scarce and
doubtful and some works which can be dated with certainty. For
Bacon, most fortunately, we have the solidest point d'appui we could
wish for. There is no doubt at all that the great masterpieces of his
life were written between 1264 and 1268, and these represented the
culmination of his thought. In the early part of his life we have the
Parisian lectures which can be dated to within a few years. This alone
might justify the use of the 'genetic' method; but there are also
various single works such as the Computus and the Compendia of
philosophy and theology which have internal evidence of their dates.
There are also other works which provide dates before which they
could not have been written, such as the introduction to the Secret of
Secrets, which mentions the comet of 1264. Finally there are works
which must be pkced as subsequent to others because of unmistakable
references in the text to the earlier ones.
Nevertheless, these materials are far from sufficient for the establish-
ment of a convincing chronology for the whole twenty years
between the Parisian teachings and the Opus Majus, and we are forced
to examine the development of Bacon's thought, the various subjects
on which it was exercised, and to re-imagine his method of working
and see how it was ever possible for him to write the Opus Majus> and
what were the stepping-stones to this crowning achievement.
Bacon's biography is also complicated by one factor which is also
true of Aristotle and Albertus Magnus, though not perhaps to the
1 Tlie importance of the commentaries on the Sentences, given in their early years of study by
so many woo later became masters of theology, has already been pointed out
ioo Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
same degree the difficulty of knowing for certain which works are
authentically his, and the rarity and poor conditions of his manu-
scripts. Later legend attributed to him many works which were
certainly not his, and others are probably his, though without
definite' manuscript attribution to him. 1 Even to-day several impor-
tant fragments have not yet been published, and this writer has had
no access to them, though he has made inquiries from the prospective
editors on several important points. No one who has not worked
with Bacon can realize the tremendous job done by A. C. Little in
his appendix to the Commemorative Essays of 19 H, 2 which, though
there may be disagreement in detail, must remain the basis for any
subsequent study. Little here has attempted to compile a bibliography
of the works actually written by Bacon, though we do not possess
them all, even in MS. He uses Bacon's own references to works
intended and written, and gives his opinion as to whether they
remained only in his mind or were actually started or completed.
But he attempts no chronology, and only gives the dates of those
works which can be indisputably established, and suggests a few
others from internal evidence. P. Glorieux, who included, in my
view mistakenly, Bacon amongst the masters of the Faculty of
Theology of Paris, repeats this bibliography, but adds very little to
it, 3 and his new dates seem to me highly doubtful. 4
I believe enough biographical and literary material is available on
Bacon to make feasible a further refinement of the genetic procedure.
This has already been suggested, and to some degree used. But a
formal statement at this point may be of value. I have attempted to
infer Bacon's psychology from his writings. I shall now take this
psychology as my initial postulate, add body to this by drawing on
such knowledge as is available on the psychology and work-methods
of later writers and thinkers, and see how this may explain certain
other features of Bacon's writings prior to the Opus Majus, and such
indisputable facts as we possess. It is recognized that this is a tentative
and delicate procedure, and can give rise to no certainty. But once
the 'prediction* is made it is possible that confirmation of certain
particulars may come from MSS. as yet undiscovered and unedited.
In continued working with the material after the hypothesis had been
1 An example is the commentary De sensu et sensato which I, like its editor, believe to have
been written by Bacon. See Appendix C below.
little. Essays ... pp. 375-419.
Glorieux, Repertoire des mattres . . . (1933), H, 60-76.
* Glorieux states, as if it were an undisputed fact, that die date of the Liber de retardations was
1281 and that it was dedicated to Pope Nicholas IH (Repertoire ... p. 64). His variations from
little seem to be based on Vanderwalle's monograph, Roger Bacon dans Fhistoire. . . .
'Twenty Years have I Laboured . . / 101
framed, various passages which had hitherto appeared unimportant
already tended to confirm it, and gave some assurance that it
approximated to the truth. 1
The following facts need some explanation :
1. Bacon was a thoroughly competent philosopher by the time he
left Paris, fully equipped to deal with disputed questions in the current
scholastic manner. Yet he shows himself in the fragment of the
Metaphysics, undoubtedly written after his Parisian days, as apparently
unequipped to deal with philosophical questions. 2 And though the
whole of this work is not yet published, there is sufficient philosophical
matter in the fragment printed by Steele 3 for a judgment to be formed
on his method. Yet in the treatise De multiplicatione spederum sent to
the Pope, 4 Bacon shows himself once again thoroughly competent to
deal with scholastic terminology and method and to apply them to
a field of inquiry in which he had made considerable observations.
2. Although he wrote several medical works after his Parisian
teaching, Bacon never makes any attempt to deal with this subject
in a philosophical manner. He is usually naive and credulous, though
he thinks his work to be of great importance, and even originality. 6
Only in one medical work does he attempt to think through his
subject matter and relate his knowledge of other sciences to the
science of medicine, and even in this work the credulity is still very
noticeable. 6 Furthermore, although he has tried in the 1260'$ to teach
his favourite pupil John everything lie knows, he makes no reference
to medicine as part of John's curriculum. 7
3. It has been frequently pointed out how Bacon repeats himself
ad nauseam and incorporates material from one writing into another,
usually verbatim. 8 This was not the customary medieval practice.
Even when a writer uses the same material for a second time, as in
many of the great Summae, in the later work the subject matter has
undergone considerable transformation according to the new purpose.
4. Many of Bacon's works were apparently left unfinished, and
1 1 am aware that this procedure commits the logical sin of 'affirming the consequent* if A
then B; B is the case; therefore A is the case. But even in the physical sciences to-day this is
customary, and accepted, with reservations, as permissible. F. S. C. Northrop, The Logic of the
Sciences imd tke Humanities (New York, 1948), pp. 146 f
* Little akeady pointed this out in 1914. Essays p, 9.
* Steele, Fasc. I. Hie MS. from which he worked, however, is very defective, and before
much can be said on tins suiject we must await the publication of the whole Metaphysics
promised by Mgr. Pdzer.
4 Printed by Bridges with die Opus M$us t H, 407-552.
* Steele, Fasa DC Vteti&terfas}, p. 117.
Ibid., Fasc. DC (De errorifats mefaotum), pp. 15O-79. 7 Gasquet, p. 506.
* tittle, Essays ... p. 22; Tfaocedike, History cf M^ic . . . H 630.
102 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
several manuscripts of the same work are often known, usually with
substantial variations. The latter may be accounted for in part, as
Bridges suggests, by Bacon's practice of making several copies of each
before he was satisfied. 1
5. Even in his major works there is evidence of a very unequal
grasp of his subject matter. In places there is extensive direct quota-
tion without any attempt to correlate this with his own thought and
philosophy, while elsewhere in the same work it is clear that the
subject matter has been fully assimilated. The most notorious
example is the section on moral philosophy in the Opus Majus, which
is greatly inferior to the rest of the work, though Bacon regarded
moral philosophy as the highest and most dignified form of know-
ledge.
6. There is an apparent discrepancy between Bacon s statement
that prior to 1267 he had only composed 'a few chapters, now on
this science and now on that', 2 and had finally 'decided to compose
no more', 3 and die actual fact that there is a fairly extensive body of
work that must be allotted to this period.
We think that all these points can be satisfactorily explained, and in
the process we shall hope to cast some light on Bacon's method of
working which should prove consistent with what we have been able
to infer of his chara'cter.
Most writers of imagination and vision at all periods of history
have not developed in a uniform manner, but experienced intervals
of retrogression. This, I think, depends to a considerable degree upon
the enthusiasm with which they undertake their work, and how they
deal with their rare moments of vision and inspiration. A prolonged
effort of thinking and imagination, warmed by enthusiasm, leads
them to a certain point of vision where they are able to reach out
beyond themselves and write something which in later years they
cannot see how they were ever able to accomplish. All the world's
masterpieces have not by any means been the latest to be written by
their authors. Dante's Divine Comedy, which he even claims to have
been an actual vision on the night of Good Friday, 1300, was un-
doubtedly a work of supreme vision which he was unable to match
later; the first part of Goethe's Faust, while perhaps surpassed in depth
and understanding by the second part, cannot be considered inferior
in poetic inspiration. Rimbaud used to be ashamed of his early Une
1 Opus Mtyus, HI, xiii-xiv.
1 *RrocuIdubio nfhil composui i"si quod aliqua capitula mine de una scientia, mine de alia.'
Gasquet, p. 500.
* 'Dccrcvi quod omnino cessarem de componendis scripturis.' Gasquet, p. 500.
'Twenty Years have I Laboured . / 103
saison en enfer, and even, in his later life deny he had written it, because
it was the product of youthful inspiration. The process may be seen
at work even in modern novelists, who may be persuaded by a
publisher's insatiable demand to try to repeat an earlier success. But
it is impossible merely to dot the i's and cross the t's of their earlier
work; they find they cannot stand still because the vision recedes
with the effort to recapture it, and the retrograde movement begins.
But Bacon did not lose his vision; it continued to increase until the
great Opera to the Pope. And he did not lose confidence in the value
of what he was doing except for a few years during which external
events were proving too much for him, and which, as we shall see,
he describes so eloquently in one of his prefatory letters. Even then
it was not so much that he ceased to believe in himself as that he
could see no means of interesting anyone of authority in it, and
research was not worth the trouble if nothing came of it in the
end.
I think, therefore, that there was a real development in his work,
and that the apparently inferior writings that he occasionally produced
are more to be explained by a temporary lack of familiarity with the
method and subject. If for years we concentrate very seriously upon
a subject and even master it, we cannot at once turn back to it with
an equal facility when our attention in later years has been absorbed
in another field of activity. One can observe a retrogression after the
great Opera to the Pope have failed of their main purpose, but this is
understandable. Many obvious reasons may be used to explain it,
and we shall attempt to give some of them in due course.
But when he left his chair in Paris, Bacon could not foresee the
future. He had read the Secret of Secrets, caught the vision of a uni-
versal science, and he set to work. If we imagine what it was like to
study natural science in the thirteenth century, with no preparation
but a specialized training in scholastic philosophy, we may appreciate
the extent of Bacon's researches in the following years. At first,
being above all a writer and a teacher, and having no frame of
reference to work with, his writings came out in much the same way
as they were taken in. They are not much more than compendia of
his readings, with innumerable quotations of passages that seemed
interesting to him as he read. There is a perfect example of this kind
of work as late as the Opus Majus itself. Here he tells the Pope that he
had only recently discovered die De ira, Ad Helvium and other works
of Seneca for which lie had searched from his childhood. Since his
exalted reader might not have seen these books himself, Bacon gives
104 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
the gist of them at inordinate length without troubling to assimilate
them to his own thought. 1 I believe the De retardations was a work
of the same kind, relying heavily on his recent reading of the Secret
of Secrets, and the medical works of Avicenna and the Arabs.
As the shape of the synthesis he hopes one day to perfect takes hold
of his mind, certain parts of his readings become assimilated, and he
is able to write without so much direct quotation. He is learning to
penetrate his material with his imagination and perceive its 'useful*
implications. First he is able to perceive how science can be useful
for the spreading of Christianity changing the air, and thus the
'complexions', of its enemies, enabling them to be governed; the use
of burning glasses to win battles, 2 the prolongation of life and health.
The second stage is to see how scientific teachings can be reconciled
with Christian thought, what is wrong with present-day thought and
method (his work on astrology, the De signis et causis ignorantia
modernorum, the Metaphysics which is concerned with the errors of
theologians), and, of course, how these things should be improved.
The last stage in his purely scientific development would be the
ability to use the scholastic method on a totally new set of ideas from
those dealt with in the schools, a procedure not so easy as it sounds. 3
His most fully thought-out piece of scientific work is surely the
De multiplicatione specierum which he himself also thinks is his best. 4
1 Opus Majus, II, 276-365.
Brewer, Op. TVrf., p. 116.
* There is great difficulty for anyone to relate the theoretical prime matter of St. Thomas and
the scholastic hylomorphists with actual prime matter which no one has ever seen or ever will
see, and is, indeed, ex hypothesi invisible and imperceptible to any of the senses. Heisenberg
has shown in modern times that no 'physical* prime matter is capable of being perceived by
any instrument. In both cases prime matter is a theoretical or mathematical entity. But the
medieval alchemist was dealing with perceptible data, trying to 'transmute elements' and not
merely theoretically postulated entities. Hence when the question arose as to whether this
tamsfbrmation took place only via prime matter, it was clear tfcat this was impossible if prime
matter was only a theoretical entity. Change, as Bacon saw, did take place; so there must be
some real substance, which was not prime matter, but had some of its theoretically postulated
characteristics, e.g. more or less unlimited potentiality. It is this extraordinary difficulty of
equating theoretical conceptions with visible objects that has occupied so many philosophers of
science, even in oar own time, and has made it difficult to say whether the Multiplication of
species* of Bacon and his contemporaries is the equivalent of the 'propagation of force*. (Opus
Majus, I, bcv-txnc.) And even 'force* is not a physical entity. One remembers how Clerk-
Maxweil tried to make models to fit his field theories of physics which had been worked out
theoretically first, but failed to do so. The problem is a fascinating one, but obviously cannot
be entered into here.
* *Per haec aperta est via stiendi omnia in omni scilicet actione, sive in visum, save in
auditum, sive in tactum, sive in alios sensus, sive in intellectum, sive in totam mundi hums
nutmani* (Brewer, Op. Tcrt., p. 117). It is clear that Bacon's work in this field has been greatly
influenced by Al-Kindi, *the first and only great philosopher of the Arab race* (Sarton, Intro-
duction ... I, 559), to whom, as far as we know, the theory of the propagation of force in rays
should be credited. Indeed, Bacon gives him this credit, though the use he makes of the
theory himself is all his own. See especially Part H, ch. ix, of the De multiplicatione, printed by
Bridges with Opus Mqus, n, 494-96, and Thorndike, History of Magic ... I, 642-46.
'Twenty Years have I Laboured . . / 105
It is clear that his penetration of the science of optics, even though
much had been done on it before and the lines had been laid down
for his own researches, was more thorough than anything else he did.
Though he regards his scientia experimental as more important, in so
far as it occupies a key position in 'universal science*, he does not do
much constructive work in it, and, indeed, the most important
section of his work on this 'science' in the Opus Majus is only an
extension of his work on optics. The last stage in Bacon's develop-
ment, then, is the production of his synthesis, and the use of all his
scientific knowledge, and the relation of the particulars to the whole.
His last word on optics is probably the long passage in what appears
to be the last revision of his Opus Tertium, where he links up this
science now with the powers of the soul, taken from another study,
and carries it one stage further beyond the separate study on optics
in the fifth part of the Opus Majus. 1
A man like Bacon beginning this kind of research would at once
come up against the language difficulty. Already from his Secret of
Secrets days he had found himself impeded by his ignorance of Arabic
medical terminology, and, as was pointed out before, he had to
have recourse to practitioners who were often as ignorant as he. 2
This probably set him to thinking over the problem of Aristotle,
and the inadequacy of his translations, which he had not troubled
about in his lecturing days in Paris. So Bacon set himself the task
of learning at least enough Greek to enable him to understand the
original Greek works. In later years when he has his synthesis fairly
clear, he knows that he is going to need Hebrew also for his study of
biblical texts, and the full interpretation of certain passages in the light
of his scientific knowledge. Probably his language studies were
pursued at the same time as his other activities, since they were to be
only the tools of his research. His urge for writing would not compel
him to write a grammar unless he actually needed it for a useful pur-
pose; he. did not need a written grammar for his own work, and it
would mean neglecting his scientific studies for the time necessary to
write it. So, if he wanted to share his grammatical and linguistic
knowledge with the public, we should expect him to prefer to wait
until he had sufficient leisure. External and internal evidence from
the grammars he did write stiggests that they were, in fact, composed
after the great Opera. In the Opus Tertium he makes it dear that he
has not yet composed a satisfactory one, if he has even composed one
1 little. Op. Tert. 9 pp. 23 %>m, p. 86 no. 1.
106 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
at all, 1 while he still has it in mind to compose a dictionary later, at the
time he is writing the so-called 'Oxford' grammar. 2
I expect, therefore, that Bacon at once sought out teachers of
Greek, and that he continued this study side by side with whatever
branch of science occupied him at the time. The only way in which
he could achieve the amount of work that he did, and write as much
as he did, was to concentrate upon one branch at a time, whether it
was medicine, astronomy, geometry, alchemy, mathematics, or
optics and his urge for teaching and writing would lead him in
every case to crown his efforts with a book, or several books, on his
speciality of the moment. These I should not expect to be finished
or perfect productions, nor perfectly digested. Such a book as the
first recension of the Communia mathematica would be the result of a
prolonged period of study of this kind. 3 Then if he had the time and
interest later in his career he would go back to it and improve it,
reveal new uses for the science which he had perceived since the first
draft. The result would be that he produced a far more finished piece
of work. And this has certainly happened in the case of the Communia
mathematica. The first pages printed in Steele's edition, which are
evidently later in date, are much more fully thought out.
This procedure left him with a large number of more or less
unfinished works on hand at any given time. We learn from Bacon
himself that he did not always keep all his manuscripts, and could not
at once have access to them. Presumably they would circulate within
the scientific circle of which he was a member, and they might or
might not be returned to him. He needed them all when the Pope
requested a scriptum prindpak from him. Raymund of Laon, who,
according to Bacon, misunderstood his message to the Cardinal, who
kter became Pope Clement IV, and told his master that Bacon had
writings ready, could easily have been deceived when he saw so
many smaller manuscripts (aliqua capitula, as Bacon, called them)
circulating amongst his friends. 4
Writing in this manner, his interest in a subject he had studied a
few years before would necessarily wane as he branched out into a
new field; and he could not return to it at once with his old enthusi-
asm nor his old facility. When the Pope or a friend asked him for
1 Brewer, Op, Tert., p. 88.
* Nolan and Hirsch, The Greek Grammar of Roger Bacon . . . (1902), p. 68. There are two
different versions of Bacon's Greek Grammar, which the editors call the 'Oxford* and the
'Cambridge*, from the libraries where the extant MSS. were discovered. Since a passage in
the earlier 'Cambridge* grammar corrects a philological error in the Opus Tertlum^ both may
be placed subsequent to the latter, (Ibid. t xxxm-xxxiv.)
Stede, Fasc. XVI, pp. 71 * Gasquct, p. 500.
' 'Twenty Years have I Laboured . . .' 107
some work in a discarded field there was only one tiling to do pick
up the earlier work and add a few touches, or a prologue if there was
time; or, if not, then send it off just as it was. This is not a piece of
laziness. He might very well not know any more on the subject than
he had when he had done his research many years before. Yet it was
a part of the integritas sapientiae, and could not be omitted mzpersuasio
that claimed to be complete. When a friend asked him for a book on
baths, he wrote it 1 because he had some knowledge of what authori-
ties had said on the subject; when a friend suggested to him that the
Pope, a secular prince, or 'my brother E/ 2 might value some advice on
how to live longer, Roger dutifully obliged. But when the Pope
asked for his opinions on the value of science for theology, this meant
putting all the scientific knowledge he had into it. Naturally he felt
pressed for time. And there was only one thing to do incorporate
everything he had ever done, and try to think out some of the
implications as he went along. His earlier work on optics is probably
incorporated without a change. 3 The De multiplicatione specierum, as
Bacon himself tells us, was sent in two different versions, as a separate
work from the Perspective although it covered much of the same
ground. 4 Much of his Metaphysica, poor as it is, is included in Part VII
of the Opus Majus. 5 Bacon sent four treatises on alchemy to the Pope,
two of which were inserted in the Opus Minus, as he thought he had
not said enough on this subject in the Opus Majus. The greater part
of these are still awaiting publication by Mgr. Pelzer, though the
fourth has already been printed by Little as part of the Opus Tertium*
A separate treatise, De laudibus mathematicae, appears to have been
included also in Opus Majus, Part IV. 7
From the foregoing it will be seen that I am inclined to explain the
i Steele, Fasc. DC, 96-97 (De balneis).
* Ibid., Fasc. DC, 120 (Liber de conservationejuvetitutis).
9 Many MSS. exist of part V of the Opus Majus alone (Perspectiva), and it was published at
Frankfort in 1614 as a separate treatise before there was any printed text of the Opus Majus
as a whole. In this edition there is an introduction evidently not addressed to die Pope, which
is printed by Bridges (Opus Majus, n, 1-2), who wants to place this introduction as subsequent
to the Opus Majus. In it Bacon speaks of the De multiplicatione as already finished, and required
reading if the Perspectiva is to be understood. I should prefer ;to place both of these works as
prior to die Opus Majus die Perspective incorporated in it instead of being re-written, and
the De multiplicatione sent separately. We know that die De multipUcatione was composed
before die Opus Majus, so there is no reason why the Perspectiva should not have been another
of the 'chapters* Bacon had made. Since die Op*u Majus itself; long as it is, was not a scriptum
principals, but only a persuasio, we can have some idea of what Bacon thought of as a book,
and what as a chapter.
* Brewer, Op. IVrt, pp. 38, 99. Bacon also started a diird version of dus work, winch,
according to Little (Essays. . . p. 386), was to have formed part of die Commuma naturatium.
which he regards as Bacon's projected scriptum prmdpak.
* Little, Essay s ... p. 407.
!&*., p,393,item 14. * I, pp. 393-94.
io8 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
duplication of so much of Bacon's work by the hypothesis of the
incorporation of earlier unfinished attempts into the kter master-
pieces rather than by the alternative hypothesis that some copyist or
literary pirate, or even Bacon himself, made extracts from these
masterpieces and published them separately. Both hypotheses are, of
course, equally possible, and, indeed, the truth may lie between the
two. Both processes may have been at work. But the first explains
so many more known facts and apparent discrepancies above all,
the speed with which the Opus Majus was composed and seems so
much in accord with what Bacon himself says about his activity in
the years prior to 1266 that I am adopting it. Let us now see how this
helps in establishing a chronology, by imagining exactly how Bacon
worked during these years.
He learned his languages, as has been already said, and at the same
time he devoted himself to the principal study suggested by the Secret
of Secrets medicine. In working with medicine he began to realize
that true diagnosis was impossible without astrology, which would
inform us of the 'complexions* of unknown human beings, and thus
the kind of medicine required for each different person. At the same
time the Secret of Secrets had suggested alchemy, and this study was
fully compatible with a parallel study of medicine. Later, in his most
complete and Baconian medical treatise, he tells us how necessary
both astrology 1 and alchemy 2 are for medicine. The study of meta-
physics completes this science.
But in the process of his studies Bacon began to be drawn farther
afield, as the relationship between the separate sciences began to dawn
on him. Alchemy could be studied more or less as a separate science,
but astronomy and astrology could not. They needed, above all,
mathematics, and, indeed, in the Opus Majus astronomy and astrology
are treated as part of this discipline. Mathematics and astronomy took
him to perspectiva and the latter to the attempt to generalize his
theories, culled from geometry and applicable especially to optics,
in a theory of universal force. He had predecessors in all these par-
ticular fields, and there was no need in most of them to do more
than understand and discuss with competent authorities 3 what they
had said, and take note of the experiments they were performing.
But he had had no predecessor as a synthesist since Aristode !"
1 Stede, Fasc. DC, 154-55 (De erroribus medicontm).
I&M^Fasc. DC, 155-58.
* 'I have sought out the fiiendship of all wise men among the Latins.* Brewer, Op. Tert
p. 58.
'Twenty Years have I Laboured . . / 109
a fact of which Bacon himself is very well aware. 1 Meanwhile he had
never lost sight of his original purpose, to build up a theology on
different lines from those of his contemporaries. His meditations on
all the sciences, and his study of the Bible, continually reaffirmed the
possibility of using his science both for theology and for the practical
work of the Church.
When we consider the systematic classification of the sciences
which Bacon produced in the works of his maturity, 2 we must not
imagine that this was the way Bacon himself studied them. On the
contrary, this idea of the interrelationship of the sciences, and the fact
that science, to be worthy of the name, must include all sciences,
though it must have been always with him since the days of the
Secret of Secrets, never took on formal shape until he had progressed
much further. This is the reason that he claims to be able to teach
all he knows in far less time than it had taken him to acquire this
knowledge, because it had now become possible to make a systematic
compendium 3 and use the power of association for remembering
facts that are related to each other. 4 So his students could avoid
wasting the time that he himself had lost through unsystematic
study.
The following diagram suggests a way in which Bacon himself
may have proceeded. No new bibliographical material is given here,
but the attempt is made to explain and account for the material
provided by Little in his bibliography. 5 The numbers in parentheses
refer to the separate items in this bibliography. Tides are only given
when the book in question has been referred to in this study, and so
will be familiar to die reader, or is of some special significance.
i. Preliminary requirements: Logic, grammar, languages. The first
two were already acquired during his formal education. The lan-
guages were picked up during die next twenty years as opportunity
offered.
1 'Hie facere non omittam, et sic fecit Aristoteks in scientia natoralL* Stede, Fasc. n, 3.
* The best of these is in the Commtma n&turat&tm, which shows the projected plan of Hs work,
though he did not accomplish it all. His 'agriculture* and animal psychology, for instance,
remain rudnnentary; this, however, was less important, since Aristotle had already done this
work from his own observations, which Bacon does not seem ever to have tried to duplicate,
* Tamen certus stun quod infra quartam ancm, ant dimidiurn arm?, ego docerem ore meo . . ,
quicquid seio de potestate scientiarmn et KngBanim dnmmodo composuissem primo quiddam
scriptom sub compendio/ Brewer, Op. Tot., p. 65*
4 *Si enim particubrem scJenttam et pcopriam atjaslibet primo petit, tune de necessitate
ingemom oforuettir diffioutate, memoria rragrfe coafondetnr muMtudine, et ejiciet skut recipit
lubrica et abominans evomet quodcomquc receperit.* Brewer, Op. Tert,, p. 19. An admirable
educational observation!
* Lkde, Essays ... pp. 376-419.
no Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
2. The works of preparation in science. (Aliqua capitula, nunc de
una scientia, nuuc de alia.)
SECRET OF SECRETS (Glosses, L 6)
MEDICINE (L 23-30 inclusive)
ASTRONOMY & ASTROLOGY
(L9> 15,
L 35 (Vol. HI, lib. ii*)
L 10 (Item IV, *) )
ALCHEMY (L 14, 20, 21, 22
L 4.6 (possibly)
L 3 5 (Vol. IE, lib. Hi*)
PHYSIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY 1
L 19 (Excerpta de Hbro Avicenna de
anima)
(For the influence of alchemy on
this subject see Opus Minus, pp.
MATHEMATICS
(L 5 (on weights)
L 1 6 (De laudibus mathematicae*)
L 8 (De termino Paschali)
L 7 (Computes)
L 35, Vol. II (First rescension
Communia mathematical)
OPTICS
(L I7a, i?b,
L 10, Part V (First version Perspectiva*)
L 10, Part VI (Treatise on rainbow (?) 2 )
PHYSICS
(L ii (De multiplication* specierum) )
SCIENTIA EXPERIMENTAL^
(including technology: L 18)
* Works later incorporated in full in one of the syntheses.
1 D. W. Singer, The Alchemical Writings . . / (1932), gives some information on the con-
nection between this subject and alchemy. Avicenna's work, which interested Bacon enough to
persuade him to make extracts, is primarily alchemical, though its official subject, the soul, has
suggested to me that the classification of 'Physiological Psychology* would be appropriate.
I have not, however, seen die MS.
1 The first part of the section on scientia experimentalis in the Ctyw* Mafus (H, 166-202) forms
a substantial treatise by itself, and is closely connected with optics, being a discussion of the
rainbow. Although this was no doubt revised for the Opus Majus, as Bacon says that he had
to make some observations before it could be completed (Opus Minus, p. 317), I suggest that
the am body of the treatise may already have existed before the Opus Majus was written,
and was incorporated into it. This wul be further discussed when. Bacon's scientia experimentalis
is dealt with in more detail in Chapter LX below.
'Twenty Years have I Laboured . . .' in
3. Chronology of the works of preparation. 1
1. Liber de retardations c. 1250
2. Glosses on Secret of Secrets* c. 1253
3. Medical opuscula 3 1250-60
4. Alchemical works 1250-56
5. Astrological works c. 1252-56
6. Excerpts from Avicenna (alchemical) c. 1254
7. Metaphysica 1255-60
8. De erroribus medicorum c. 1255
9. Pjeprobationes on. weights c. 1256
10. De laudibus mathematical c. 1257
11. Communia mathematica (first rescension) c. 1258
12. De secretis operibus naturae c. 1260
13. De termino Paschali c. 1260
14. Communia naturalium (first part) 1260-67
15. De multipHcatione specierum c. 1262
1 6. Perspectiva c. 1263
17. De signis et causis ignorantiae 4 c. 1263
1 8. Computus 1263-65
19. Treatise on rainbow (?) 1263
4. T7*e uw&s of synthesis.
Opus Majus
Opus Minus
Opus Tertium
Introduction to Secret of Secrets
Communia naturalium (second pan)
Compendium studii philosophiae
Compendium studii theologiae
One further point concerning Bacon's work in these years requires
attention the question of his friends and associates in his studies.
1 These dates should be understood only as suggestions for a possible work programme.
They take into account all noticed references to work as already written, and are therefore
more likely to be relatively than absolutely correct. The more strictly scientific works are
placed later tKan the 1260 censorship imposed by the Franciscans (see next chapter). Items 7,
14, and 17 might equally be regarded as the first attempts at synthesis and inclucled in list no, 4,
* The terminus past quern for these glosses may be given as 1252, since there is a reference in
them to a disease suffered by Alphonse of Poitiers in 1252, and to his subsequent recovery.
(Steele, Fasc. V, 105; C. J. Webb, 'Roger Bacon on Alphonse . . .' (1927).)
* These medical opuscula can be partly dated relative to each other; but they may have been
composed any time during the period, since they show no increasing knowledge. The De
erroribus medicorum is the only one of these works which attempts to relate the sciences and
should not therefore be dated before 1256.
* A. Pelzer discovered a special work entitkd Episfola de signis et catisis igttoratttiae modemontm
as long ago as 1919, and publication was promised. Bat the promise has not so far been fulfilled.
From the title it would appear to be sirmkrr in content to the first part of the Opus Majus, and
therefore probably incorporated in whole or in part in this work. Pelzer, *Une source in-
conmae. . / (191% pp- 45 f
H2 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
We hear of isolated workers such as Peter of Maricourt, a real
experimenter and the author of a treatise on the magnet. And we
have already noted how Bacon tells us that he 'sought the friendship
of all wise men among the Latins', but comes eventually to admit that
it is impossible for one man to have a really adequate knowledge of
all the specialized fields of science, and that assistance should be
requested by the Pope from other workers in the field. 1
Though he makes no systematic effort to give us any account of
these other workers, perhaps because he is anxious to exalt his own
contribution, Bacon does give us many hints that he is not working
alone, and that there are some people who agree with him in many
of his criticisms. Perhaps the most definite statement occurs in the
Communia naturalium, which work shows no signs of having been
written for a Pope or anyone in authority, and is therefore more likely
to be describing the true state of affairs in the study of natural science
at the time. 'Some of these men', he says, 'seeing that they could not
know natural philosophy through the help of Aristotle and his com-
mentators, are turning themselves (present indicative) to the seven
other natural sciences, to mathematics, and to the other authors of
natural philosophy, as, for instance, to the books of Pliny and Seneca
and many others, and so are coming to the knowledge of natural
things, concerning which Aristotle, in his common books, and his
expositor, cannot satisfy their interest in nature'. 2
In his discussion of new inventions in the De secretis operibus naturae,
Bacon does not claim to have invented flying-machines and self-
propelling boats himself, nor the 'instrument, small in size, which
can raise and lower things of almost infinite weight', which, although
only 'of the length of three fingers, could lift a man and his com-
panions out of prison, and raise and lower him'. 3 He has not read of
these things only in books either, for he tells us that he knows a wise
man who has explained them to him. Elsewhere he says : 'Let no one
be astounded, for these things have been made in our days'. 4 He does
not doubt that with the Pope's aid certain good and holy persons
could be trained to work against Antichrist, 5 and a whole school
1 Gasquet, pp. 501, 504, etc.
* Or, perhaps, 'satisfy their native diligence*. The words, *non possunt satisfacer^ natura
stttdio' could mean either. Steele, Fasc. n, 13. Cf. also Opus Majus, U t 215-16, 'via experinien-
talis ... ad quam intendunt multi fidelium. philosophorum*.
* *Instruinentum, parvum in quantitate ad elevandum et deprimendum pondera quasi
infinite/ Brewer, De secretis operibus . . . pp. 532-33.
4 Steele, Fasc. XVI, 43-44 (Cotnmunia nuttkematica).
* Little, Op. Tert., pp. 17-18.
'Twenty Years have I Laboured . . .' 113
of workers could be organized to give effect to his views on
'philosophy'. 1
In other passages in his works Bacon describes himself as a kind of
publicist for science. 'Wise Latins', he says, 'are experienced in these
things (experiments), though they have not wished to compose
writings about them'. 2 He hopes that 4 others may go forward by the
help of my works to greater things 7 . 3 Such passages as these suggest
that Bacon knew well what his contemporaries were doing, but that
he was not part of their inner circle. He appreciates their efforts,
and tries to understand them and see their significance; but he himself
is primarily a scholar and thinker. Neither in the section on scientia
experimentalis in the Opus Majus, nor in his letter on the secret opera-
tions of nature where he goes into such details as the technical
inventions that are to be expected in the future, does he say that he
ever carried out a serious experiment himself. His knowledge dis-
played in the Opus Majus comes from books, and from information
he has obtained orally. The exception is in the field of optics, where
he has undoubtedly made numerous observations which could be
called experiments, and which fulfil Webster's definition of an
experiment as *a trial made to confirm or disprove something
doubtful*. It is perhaps rmfor to expect him to have carried out what
we should call to-day 'laboratory experiments* planned to discover
some unknown principle or effect (Webster's second definition),
although the contemporary alchemists were undoubtedly striving in
this direction.
It is fairly clear that Bacon has observed the stars and paid special
attention to the rainbow, with the aid of such simple 'experiments'
as holding water in his mouth, then spitting it out (or blowing
bubbles? spargo is the word used), and noticing that the drops
reflect different colours, and using hexagonal stones and crystals to
watch the refraction of light. 4 From die way he writes of these it is
quite dear that he has performed the experiments; elsewhere there
seems to be no sign of personal observation at all, except when others
perform the experiments, as in the case of the goat's blood and die
diamond referred to earlier. 5 I cannot find that he had direct access
even to an astrolabe, though he knows all about them, and suggests
1 Brewer, Op. Tart., pp. 54-56.
1 Stede, Fasc. H, 10.
1 Stedse, Fasc. n, 1L An interesting reference to otiier experimenters may be found in
Tbomdike's book Latin Treatises on O*w*& (p. 140), where Aegiditis of Icssines quotes the
opimoa of those 'sidled in tfac experimental art*. *Hec est enim scntentk maaocmn in arte
experimentaE pentomm. . . .*
*tistsEl74~ *!&*, H, 168.
114 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
improvements in them. 1 All his remarks seem to be from hearsay, or
from books, and the little touches one would expect from actual
observers and experimenters that reveal personal knowledge, touches
that can so easily be detected in works of fiction and non-fiction alike
by even the comparatively unskilled reader, are missing almost com-
pletely in Bacon's work. In one place he says that he 'sent across the
sea to various other districts . . . (that he might) see natural things with
his own eyes and prove the truth of the creature with his own sense
of sight, touch, smell, and hearing per certitudinem experience ', 2 but
I am extremely sceptical of the truth of his statement. He may be
telling the truth, but this invites the comment that he received
singularly little value for his money and trouble, since he adds nothing
in any of his works to the knowledge of his time of any natural
creature and there was surely room for improvement in the medie-
val knowledge of 'natural creatures !' This particular boast is addressed
to the Pope and can be reasonably explained as an attempt to impress
him. And I think he gives himself away completely in the next
sentence by adding 'as Aristotle sent many thousands of men'.
Aristotle sent men out scouring the earth during the expedition of
Alexander. I fear Bacon is only up to his old habit of identifying
himself with Aristotle. We have a long account of the information
he gained from a returned traveller, Friar William Rubruck', 3 and no
doubt he questioned other friends and acquaintances who returned
from abroad. But I fear the picture of himself as the director of an
army of far-ranging scientific investigators existed only in his
imagination.
But he knows very well what it is that alchemists do, and he sends
their most secret formula to the Pope in enigmas. 4 He may have
been allowed to witness their experiments, but none of the extant
passages suggests personal experiments of his own. 6 Bacon's great
claim to fame as a scientist does not rest upon his technical work, but
on his attempt to think through the implications of the work of
others, and this is surely no less important. He has carried out this
task in a masterful manner, as we shall try to show in a kter chapter.
But it remains the manner of an armchair scientist. I think he was
always on the fringe of a circle of active workers, amongst whom
was the solitary and disdainful Peter of Maricourt, and the homo
1 Opus Majus, H, 202-3. * Gasquet, 502.
Opm Majus, I, 305 fil 4 little, Op. Tert., pp. 80-89.
* Parison Muir in his article on Bacon's relation to alchemy and chemistry comes to the
same conclusion. 'He does not appear to have studied these events at first hand.' little,
Essays... p. SIS.
'Twenty Years have I Laboured . . / 115
sapientissimus, the famous critic of the biblical text, whom Bacon so
much admired. 1 For these active workers Bacon acted as philosopher,
synthesizer, and publicist, and there is every reason to believe he
would be gladly welcomed in this capacity. 2 This would be in
perfect conformity with his position as a poor friar who could not
afford expensive alchemical experiments, unless his Order provided
the means and the equipment and metals, often precious, that would
be required for them.
In optics, however, he needed no raw materials and an absolute
minimum of equipment; and it would be most suitable and simple
for him to spend die long solitary hours gazing at the sun and moon,
and at the rainbow, thinking out and checking the work of Ptolemy
and Grosseteste, Al Hazen and Al Kindi on the reflection and refrac-
tion of light, and 'cosmic rays', theorizing on the 'multiplication of
species' and meditating on tie divine illumination of the intelkctus
agens which plays so important a part in his psychology.
He tells us that he spent more than two thousand pounds on his
work, on 'secret books, different kinds of experiments, the acquisition
of languages, instruments, tables, and other things'. 3 It has already
been suggested that much of this money had to go for books, and for
the services of copyists and the purchases of parchment when he was
writing his own works. The experientiae variae and the instruments
may have been nothing more than the optical experiments he men-
tions, and the stones and crystals from various countries, and magni-
fying glasses which were all that he needed for them. He says
nothing of raw materials needed for the more expensive alchemical
experiments. We know he spent sixty pounds on the writing of the
Opera alone, and this needed no books other than what he already
possessed, although he tells us that he did need tables. However, two
thousand pounds was certainly an enormous sum of money in those
days though, of course, we have only Roger's own words for it
that he spent it, and this, in a work to die Pope and it may seem a
large sum to lay out for a library, even of secret and expensive books.
But this library of scientific works probably had to be built up from
nothing, and, as we know, he did search for manuscripts of rare
works. I do not think that it would be impossible for him to spend
1 Opus Minus, p. 317.
1 lliese would no doubt be the 'nnzhf who thought be was composing a magmtm opus at a
time when he claims to have been idle (Gasquet, p. 500). His presence at a kind of magical
seance on one occasion is attested by the book of an anonymous writer who saw him there.
Anon, Uber exempfantm* p. 22.
* Opus Tedium, ed. Brewer, p. 59.
Ii6 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
such a sum on books, tables, services of copyists, and the purchase of
writing materials, especially since he was very particular about having
first-class copies and wasted much parchment. And he could have
made monetary contributions to his alchemical friends, and he could
have exaggerated the sum in order to impress his patron with the
extent of his disinterested services to the cause of science. I am
anxious to give Bacon all credit where it is due; but I am not greatly
impressed with the evidences in his work of the detailed factual
knowledge that should have been his if he had engaged in the
extensive experimentation with which he has too often, been
credited.
I picture Bacon as an indefatigable reader and writer and thinker,
perhaps teaching at the University of Oxford in the days of his
earlier scientific interests, and later in Paris paying visits, listening to
lectures, and sometimes publicly criticizing, as we have seen, and
setting mathematical problems no one could solve. Then, returning
to his study or, in later times, to his friar's cell, and thinking out the
implications of what he had studied, seen, and heard that day; and
finally after many years reaching the synthesis of knowledge to which
he was to give such full expression in his Opera.
Meanwhile, as we shall see, his superiors made him do his regular
work at the convent, 1 which he resented, as any thinker resents being
taken away from his thoughts which he is striving so hard to put in
order; and he also paid has debt to society and fulfilled one of the
greatest needs in his nature by teaching. The prodigy John does not
seem to have been his only pupil, at least not in earlier years; for
Bacon tells us that he 'instructed young men in languages, figures,
and numbers, tables, and instruments, and many necessary things'. 2
He had learned how to proceed, and what help he needed for his
tasks*.
Amongst friends who were engaged in work he respected, from
whom he learned, and from whom he had nothing to fear, he was no
doubt a very different Roger Bacon from the jealous hater of author-
ity and the somewhat sour moralist he shows himself to be in his
relations with his superiors. There is no reason to disbelieve his
numerous references to the very dear friends whom he loves; and
though I have no doubt he was a hard taskmaster with John, and he
both overpraises die kd, and congratulates himself unduly on the free
1 *Affuit enim fptfantia prdatomm meoruzn coridiana ut als occupationibus obedirem ct
idco non potui aggredi que volebam.* Gasquet, p. 500.
1 Brewer, Op. Tert^ p. 58.
'Twenty Years have I Laboured . . / 117
instruction and nourishment 'he 5 gives him (it was, after all, his job, 1
and the expenses were paid by the Order, as Bacon himself admits
elsewhere), 2 he probably did not lack the domestic virtues in his
private life, and unquestionably he was a man of great courage and
independence. Martin Luther was also a very different person when
urging the German princes to destroy the peasants from the peaceful
figure he presents in the evening of his life with his wife and children
around him.
1 Bacon emphasizes the fact (to the Pope) that he had no obligations to John, and that he
helped him pro amore Dei (Brewer, Op. Tcrt., p. 59; Gasquet, p. 506) and on account of 'the
goodness of the boy*. But it is interesting to sec what the Constitutions of Narbonne (1260)
have to say about the obligations of the friars to work. 'Since the rule says that the brothers
to whom the Lord has given the grace of working must work faithfully and devotedly, we
ordain that the brothers, both lay and clerical, be compelled by their superiors to write, study,
and exercise themselves in the other labours for which they are competent, and if anyone shall
be found to have been markedly idle he shall be set apart from the others ad condignafii satisfac-
tiottem'. Archiv.fiiT Litteratur und Kirck&igesdiichtt des Mittctolters, VI, 104-5 (hereafter cited as
Afchiv.), Roger may have been aware of this rule when he makes the pointed remark that his
superiors did not force him to write, Gasquet, p. 500.
a John, he says, 'servivit eis qui ipsi vitae necessaria exhibebant*. Gasquet p. 506,
CHAPTER Vn
BACON AS FRIAR
BACON never tells us when or why he became a Franciscan when
he was already in middle life, and there have been many specula-
tions on the subject. It is not now believed that he professed on the
very day that he entered the Order, though there is no reason why,
in view of his maturity, he should not have done so. But the passage
in Eccleston 1 which tells of an R. Bacon who did this is concerned
with the Dominicans and not the Franciscans. The text, therefore,
clearly refers to the Dominican Robert Bacon, who also entered his
Order at a relatively late age, and who died in 1248.
In this study it will be suggested that there was a combination of
many reasons for Bacon's decision; and though no certainty will be
reached, a fairly brief discussion may reveal a few important traits in
his character which have not yet been touched upon, and throw some
light on the very limited area of choice available to the medieval
scholar who wished to pursue his researches. As Charles suggests, if
Bacon were unable, for financial or other reasons, to pursue individual
unsupported research, he must obtain the patronage of either the
Bong, the Pope, the Orders, or a University. 2 It is probable that
Bacon examined all these possibilities, in addition to the alternative
of continuing his studies unaided. But we shall try to show also that
it may not hive been only material advantages that determined his
final decision. In spite of the unhappiness that he endured within the
Order, its discipline and mode of life were not altogether alien to his
character and temperament.
With or without a source of income, Bacon was not the kind of
man who would have made a solitary experimenter, free, but without
authority and influence in the world. His hero, Peter de JMaricourt,
was such a one. Bacon admires him, even envies him, and mentions
with approval Peter's refusal to lecture to the Parisian crowd; but I
cannot see Bacon emulating Mm, For all his contempt for the
vulgus, he still needed its applause. He liked to teach, and he wanted
to be an authority. These desires could not be fulfilled if he retired
from the world.
1 Ecdeston, De adventu. ... p. 101. * Charles, pp. 19 ff,
118
Bacon as Friar 119
We have no knowledge that Henry DI of England ever patronized
scientists, but Louis DC of France employed the distinguished Domini-
can encyclopaedist, Vincent of Beauvais, as librarian and tutor to his
children. 1 Bacon may have approached him, but if so, we know
nothing of it. The only evidence of any notice extended to him by
secular authorities is the fact that he appears to have edited a second
edition of his book on the accidents of old age for the benefit of some
carissimus princeps. This, however, may have been only an initiative
on the part of Bacon, and not a mandate from the prince. Bacon may
already have tried out the Papal Curia, as suggested earlier, and been
rejected by the incumbent Pope. In any case, as the future was to
show, popes hold office for too short a time for them to be effective
as permanent supports for research. The University of Paris was
engaged in other serious matters at this time, and Bacon's ideas had
little relevance to them. Albert the Great was just laying the founda-
tions of his enormous reputation; and Albert's approach to Aristotle,
science, an$ theology was essentially different from Bacon's, although
in some respects superficially similar; this particularly applies to his
understanding of the relations between these subjects. 2 It is probable
that Bacon knew of Albert's work, and it is doubtful if he would have
cared to face the competition.
We may, I think, assume that Bacon hoped that his own University
of Oxford, still under the influence of Grosseteste as it was, would
give him some support, and that he made efforts to influence the
authorities. But his ideas were not altogether those of his contem-
poraries, and especially his approach to theology was different and
appealed to few of those who were in charge. And, as suggested
earlier, he may already have made a powerful enemy, as well as an
influential friend. This friend, however, was also a friend of Richard
of Cornwall. Adam Marsh, in any case, ceased to lecture at Oxford
in 1250, and in 1253 he had a serious quarrel with die university over
the appointment of Thomas of York as regent master of the Fran-
ciscans without having a degree from the Faculty of Arts. 3 There can
be litde doubt that the jealousy of the influence of the Franciscans was
already simmering at the university; and Adam, especially after the
death of Grosseteste in 1253, may not have been the best kind of
sponsor for an original investigator with a sharp temper.
iThorndike, History cfUa&c...^ 458.
1 Since this jiidgment may appear difficult to sustain, the reader is referred to Appendix B
below, where a more complete account is given of the relations between Roger and Albert,
and their differing Ideas, especially on Aristotle and theology.
* litde, "Ite Franciscan School . . .* (192, pp. 823 ff.
120 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
So by eliminating the other possibilities it becomes clear that
Bacon's area of choice was restricted to the two mendicant Orders,
a monastery, or continuance in private life. The attractions offered
by these Orders in the thirteenth century were so manifestly superior
to those of the old monastic Orders that he probably never even
considered the latter. I think also that, of the two, the Franciscans
were the natural choice for an Englishman. The Dominicans in
England, however strong they were in France, were not so rich in
learned men as the Franciscans, nor did they enjoy the support of
Grosseteste. Moreover, Bacon may have found it difficult to imagine
himself in the same Order as his rival, Albertus Magnus, even though
Albert was not working in England.
Assuming, then, that the Franciscan Order was a reasonable choice
for him, there remains the impulse to join an Order at all to be
accounted for. Edward Hutton, in his book on the Franciscans in
England, has made an eloquent defence of Bacon's action, which
might have been more convincing if he had had a greater knowledge
of Bacon, and perhaps a little less sympathy with the 'persecuted'
master, He comes to the interesting conclusion that Peter de Man-
court and Bacon's friendship for him were the deciding factors. For
Peter, according to Hutton, was a Franciscan. 1
Now Bacon never speaks of Peter as 'frater', but always 'magister',
which would be most unusual if he were indeed a Franciscan. Neither
Father Huber, Chevalier, nor Little acknowledge him as a Franciscan,
nor Charles, who devotes several pages to Peter. 2 Wetzel, in the
Catholic Encyclopaedia, however, states it as a feet, and gives Schlund
as authority. But the curious thing about Schlund's article 3 is that he
himself comes to the conclusion that it was improbable ! Schlund
spends several pages trying to equate Peter with a certain Peter of
Ardene, who was undoubtedly a Franciscan, but does not even
succeed in convincing himself; and though he would like to retain
his hypothesis he is forced to admit that there is little, if any, evidence
in support of it. This has not prevented the latest biographer, Wood-
ruff from giving us an attractive picture of the lonely worker Roger
Bacon in his convent at Paris, hard at work experimenting with
Peter, and developing a deep friendship, with the kindly friars
presumably smiling benignandy in the background! 4 So on this
evidence I am unable to support the suggestion that Bacon's friendship
1 E. Hutton,. The Franciscans in England . . . (1926), pp. 138-42.
* Charles, pp. 16-30.
E. Schlund, 'Peter Peregrmus . . .' (1911), pp. 436-55.
4 F. W. Woodruff Roger Bacon* a Biography (1938), p. 58.
Bacon as Friar 121
with Peter can have been a reason for his joining the Order. In any
case it seems most probable that Bacon became a Franciscan when he
was in England, and he was later transferred to France by his Order.
And I have tried to show earlier that it is very unlikely that Bacon
knew Peter at all before his days in the convent at Paris, or he would
have included his name as an eminent mathematician at the time of
the Communia mathematical (first rescension), 1 If reasons of personal
friendship were influential in Bacon's decision, I think it far more
probable that it was his friendship and reverence for Adam Marsh,
who may also have been his teacher at a cruckl period in his life.
Thorndike's reasons, though he only devotes a few lines to the
matter, are on much sounder ground, when he says that both Orders
were rich in learned men, including students of natural science. 2
Bartholomew of England was a Franciscan; Thomas of Cantimpre,
Vincent of Beauvais, and Albert the Great were Dominicans. 3
Amongst the really important men of science, contemporary with
Bacon and mentioned in Thorndike's work, only Peter of Spain did
not join an Order. But Peter seems to have had a lucrative profession
already, being a practising physician which Bacon never was, as well
as being an authority on logic in the schools. 4 There is therefore no
reason why Bacon should not have found himself a suitable niche
within the Franciscan Order, had he not happened to be Roger
Bacon, unable, like Servetus after him, to keep out of trouble with
theologians. That Bacon never came up against a Calvin, and lived
in a more enlightened age, was his good fortune rather than any
superior endowment of tact and savoirfaire.
I think that Bacon's material motives were mixed and various. He
needed protection and leisure; and though he knew he would have
to endure personal poverty, this will not have distressed him unduly.
There is no sign in any of his work that he cared for personal posses-
sions. His single-tracked mind was proof against worldly tempta-
tions, and he was certainly not indolent. He needed money for books,
and for such experiments as he hoped to make; but if the Order had
been interested in his work this need have caused no obstacle. Money-
could be found. His error of judgment seems to have been in his
estimate of the Franciscans. He must have thought that they would
be interested in. his particular brand of theological and scientific
inquiry, which consisted, not so much in a disinterested search for
1 Supra, p. 88. * Thonadike, History cf Magic ... n, 620.
*&**.,& pp. 406, 374, 458.
*md^ S, 488-89.
122 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
truth, as in the application of his scientific findings in the study of
theology; and that they would appreciate and support what he was
trying to do, and be content to put up with his rude independence
and sharp tongue. It was a great deal to expect; but it might have
been possible had anyone of importance believed in him, or had he
already been a man of renown when he entered the Order as Alex-
ander of Hales had been, and thus a glorious acquisition to it. The
Franciscans could certainly have exalted him within the Order had
they so desired it; and the fact that they evidently did not is to me the
strongest proof that Bacon had no great public reputation when he
entered it. Failing this, it would be much more natural for them to
treat a man of his arrogance as a menial, as a pretentious person of no
particular account, and lacking in Christian humility. 'They forced
me with unspeakable violence to obey their will in other matters', he
says. 1 And die death of Adam Marsh may have removed their sole
impediment from treating him as they wished, especially if he had
made an enemy also of Richard of Cornwall, the chief academic light
in the Order in England after I256. 2
I do not think in Bacon's case that it is sufficient to consider only
his material reasons for joining the Order. He was far from despising
the ideal of holiness. He tells us himself that the Orders have a
'magnam speciem sanctitatis'; and so for this reason the world
approves of them. Men in the Orders 'do not pretend to more than
tney can perform'. 3 And yet, he goes on, writing in 1272, we see that
in these times all the Orders are corrupted a fairly clear indication
that, when still in the world, he believed them to be holy. Until now,
he says later, the status of the religious has always been held superior
to that of seculars, although the masters in Paris were now openly
teaching the contrary, and supporting it with many arguments. 4
Although he admits their faults, Bacon nevertheless defends the
religious against the seculars, by saying that perfection is twofold
one in the field of government, and the other in spiritual virtue. The
Orders in the Western Church are vowed to chastity, as they are not
anywhere else, in the East, or among the Greeks. They have a very
far-reaciting (largam) obedience. 'Bishops certainly have to obey
archbishops and the Pope, but they can go where they want and do
1 Reading 'in aliis* rejected by Brewer, but contained in the two best MSS. Brewer, Op.
Tert., p. 15.
* This attitude may not unfairly be compared with that of the traditional regular Army
sergeant dealing with a conceited new private who has a Ph.D., but no other visible qualifica-
tions for a military career !
CSP,p.426. *JfcU,p.430.
Bacon as Friar 123
everything freely. But the religious cannot move a foot, or do any-
thing without the express permission of his superiors. Pleasures and
the pomp of the world are repugnant to the religious status, though
they are tolerable or excusable in prelates'. 1 There, at least, speaks
pride in his religious status.
Having once accepted the position of a religious it would, of course,
be natural for Bacon to defend it. He does not necessarily accept its
discipline gladly, but he recognizes its moral superiority; and this,
for a man of Bacon's intense convictions, was important. He was
certainly a moralist and a minder of other people's morals; and being
a man of singular enthusiasm, I should expect him to have the
courage of his convictions. The asceticism of his Order would not
be without appeal for him. He never writes as if the delights of the
world tempted him. We have seen that in his glosses to the Secret of
Secrets he makes a special note of the fact that the possession of riches
leads to great sorrow because of the fear of losing them, 2 and that
courtiers are quickly depraved by riches and pleasures, even though
they were good men when first chosen for their position; 3 of another
pleasure he offers an earnest gloss that it may be useful as a medicine
in old age, but not necessary ! 4 He could devote himself more whole-
heartedly to the single love of his life, his work, if he were forbidden
any source of temptation. Moreover, as Thorndike suggests, he could
also be relieved of some of the burdens of teaching.
I do not think specially relevant the argument put forward
nearly a century ago by the anonymous writer in the Westminster
Review that 'the Franciscans were compelled to observe facts, devise
remedies, and adopt measures which were not the methods of the
schools*, and so were of necessity experimentalists. 6 For, as the same
writer says later, Bacon cared very little about the human race, or
about anything that did not directly bear upon his philosophical
system.* There may be more in the writer's suggestion that Bacon
wrote his medical works for friends within the Order, and there is
some evidence for this that he gives. 7 If Bacon had been a real
experimentalist, and if the Franciscans had also been experimentalists,
they might have found themselves in sympathy, and Bacon could
*CSP, pp. 428-29.
* Stede, Fasc. V, 95. Supra, p. 83.
*!&*., Fasc. V, 165-66, Supr*> p. 84.
4 'Medicma necessark tibi est amplecti poeHam f?Tufom ct speaosani( I), to wrudi .Bacon
glosses, *idest,atilis*. Steek, Fasc. V, 73, n. 4.
* Westminster Review (1864), p. 16.
Ibid., p. 29.
7 IbuL* p. 22 and note.
124 &g r Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
indeed have gained material support for his experiments. But I find
the spiritual affinity between the 'experimental' methods of Bacon
and die empirical work of the Franciscans an over-subtle idea, and
very dubious in a man of Bacon's forthright and extremely unsubtle
character.
Perhaps the key to his decision is to be found in Bacon's attitude to
knowledge, and his belief that only the man of good morality could
practise true philosophy and receive the illumination necessary for
its understanding. Probably the most moral action that could occur
to Bacon's mind would be to join a mendicant Order, and we shall
see later in this chapter how he seems to favour the stricter 'spiritual*
side of the Franciscan movement. We have seen how he approved
of Grosseteste's sanctity of life. He also praises Aristotle and the
ancients for the same thing. 'These philosophers', he says, 'had no
divine grace bestowed on them, which makes man worthy of eternal
life . . . yet beyond all comparison their life was better, both in the
honesty of their living, and in their contempt for the world and all
delights, riches, and honours, as anyone can read in the books of
Aristotle, Seneca, Tullius, Avicenna, Alfarabi, Plato, Socrates ( !), and
others; z&dpropter hoc they came to the secrets of wisdom, and found
all sciences. But we Christians have found nothing worth while, nor
can we understand the wisdom of the philosophers, for the reason
that we do not have their morality. Because it is impossible that
wisdom can exist at the same time as sin, but perfect virtue is required
for this/ 1 *
Bacon then tells us how these men lived, and the moral value of
their lives. 'He (Aristotle) teaches men to aspire to future happiness
and to despise transitory things. And this he taught not only in his
public writings, but by deed and example, and he, as perfect teacher,
together with his most noble and wise disciples, confirmed it. For,
despising the world and riches, delights, and honours, he went into
perpetual exile with his companions and they never returned to their
own again, For he explained privately that this solitary life is more
like the life of God and the angels than the common life of men, and
in it he could more freely have time for wisdom and the contempla-
tion of future happiness as not only his books testify, but those of
other philosophers, and not only Greeks but Latins/ 2
Whether Bacon had, in fact, read any such thing in the apocryphal
literature about Aristotle, or had invented it, or filled in a few casual
references from his imagination, it is surely significant that he should
1 CSP, pp. 401-2. Ibid., pp, 423-34.
Bacon as Friar 125
assign such statements to his hero Aristotle. The passage may not tell
us much about Aristotle, but it is revealing about Bacon. While at
the time of writing this work he was acutely depressed by the dis-
orders around him, and he may not have had a similar belief in the
moral excellence of a withdrawal from the temptations and charms
of the world at the time he entered the Franciscan Order, yet it seems
significant that it should no\v come to the forefront of his mind. It
was at least something of which he had persuaded himself during his
fifteen or twenty years in the Order.
And on the value of sinlessness for cognition Bacon says : * When
therefore anyone from his youth falls into mortal sin, his soul is
corrupted by a new corruption beyond what he has from original
sin; and so he has in himself causes of many kinds of infinite depravity,
so that he cannot behold the light of wisdom, nor does he wish to see
it, nor could he if it were not for the grace of God. For this reason
the Scripture says "Wisdom will not enter into the wicked soul, nor
will it dwell in the body given over to sins". And this is not to be
understood only of divine wisdom, but of wisdom of any kind. As
Algazel says in his Logic that the soul is disordered by sins as a rusty
mirror, old and dirty, in which the images of things cannot appear,
and so no impression of anything can be made in such a soul. And he
adds that a soul adorned by virtue is like a clean new mirror in which
the species of wisdom shines, for which reason Socrates, the father of
philosophers, when he was asked why he did not study the speculative
rather than the moral sciences, said that he could not perceive the
light of wisdom unless his soul had been cultivated with virtue and
then he would see God Himself and contemplate the causes and
reasons for things, and sciences, truly in Him', and thai Bacon follows
with a discussion of how each specific sin, pride, envy, anger, and the
like, clouds the vision. 1
Though these were no doubt commonplaces at the time, they
should not, therefore, necessarily be disregarded. If the medieval
man had a very definite consciousness of sin, and the desire for holiness
was fostered by his Church and society, Bacon belonged to this
society, and was influenced by it to take a step approved by it, and
for precisely those reasons that led others to take the same step. But
Bacon had a supreme thirst for knowledge, and a belief in revealed
knowledge, as we shaH see when we come to study his science. He
knew that if he were to be fit to receive such a revelation, then lie
must live the most moral life possible to him, and with his earnestness,
1 CSP > pp. 407-8.
126 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
it might be, in medieval eyes, very moral indeed. And certainly in
the thirteenth century any searcher after holiness would join an Order.
So, therefore, while the material advantages of his entry into the
Order may have weighed seriously with him also, I do not think they
can be said to have been necessarily predominant in his decision. At
his best Bacon had some awareness of his faults, and at times he could
be disarmingly humble; and at all times piety towards God was mixed
with his arrogance towards men. So our only conclusion can be that
many considerations, intelligent and emotional, entered into his
decision, as into every decision made by human beings. And that
even the bitter complaints that he voices against his poverty, ill-
treatment, and the censorship exercised by his Order, were probably
not a sign that he had regretted his decision and would have been
happier anywhere else. He sought for happiness in a peculiar way,
and it could not be expected that he would find it.
For Bacon's life within the Franciscan Order we have two sources
of information one first hand and direct, being Bacon's own
remarks in 1267, and the other inferential, drawn from our knowledge
of the Order taken from other sources. But even Bacon's remarks
are not to be understood, and his actual life reconstructed by the
historian, unless the effort is made to trace the relationship between
Bacon and his Order. He himself, chafing against the restraints placed
upon him and his work, is likely to be less than fair; and it is entirely
possible that he was not aware of high matters of policy decided by
his superiors, which are available for die consideration of the historian
seven centuries kter.
The hypothesis will be presented in this study that Bacon was a
sympathizer with the left-wing' group in the Franciscan Order, those
reformers who in the following century are known as 'Spirituals', and
ultimately fall into heresy and are dealt with by the Inquisition. In
Bacon's time these Spirituals are still only reformers, but they are
very dangerous to the unity of the Franciscan Order, though not yet
to the Church itself. It will be suggested that Bacon's sufferings were
at least partly due to his sympathies with this group, for which he
would be more likely to be disciplined, within the Order, than for
any scientific views he may have held. It was not, therefore, any
official attention by the Church or its instrument, the Inquisition, that
afiected him, but rather local antagonism by his fellow-friars and
Bacon as Friar 1 27
superiors among the Franciscans, In order to present the evidence for
dais hypothesis which, as far as I am aware, has not been suggested
elsewhere, it is necessary to trace the development of the schism
within the Franciscan Order at greater length than might seem
justified in what purports to be a biography of Roger Bacon, and
especially to say something about the prophesies of Joachim of Flora,
which I believe to have been the determining influence in Bacon's
attitude.
The mendicant Orders had arisen in response to certain definite
needs in Christendom, and their potential value was clear to the
ruling hierarchy in the Church which had consistently supported
them since their foundation. From the end of the eleventh century
the Church had taken an ever more active part in secular affairs, to
the neglect of its spiritual duties, and members of the older Monastic
Orders, as well as prelates and high officers in the Church, no longer
could lay claim to any special sanctity of life. Many earnest Christians
had become anti-clerical, some even falling away altogether into
heresy. St. Dominic, believing that ignorance of Catholicism was at
least partly responsible for this lapse, founded an Order which bid its
emphasis upon preaching, while St. Francis, a man of greater feeling,
but of perhaps lesser intellect, perceived the problem differently. By
long meditation upon the life and passion of Christ he was able to
see in a flash of intuition the immense power that Christ had wielded
by His example; and he believed that Christendom could be re-
generated by the power of the example of many lives lived after this
pattern. By going amongst the lowest of the people, and especially
those who had fallen away from the Church because of its hated
wealth and ostentation, by preaching perhaps, but specially by acting,
helping, curing, tending the sick and the poor, he believed that they
would return to Mother Church. So he chose voluntarily, he, the
son of a rich merchant, to embrace poverty as his bride.
So came into existence at almost toe same time the two mendicant
Orders, both pledged to poverty; the one, the Order of Preachers, to
tell die people what it was they should believe; the other, the Order
of Minorite Friars, to inspire them with a passion for living the lives
of Christians, and showing them that the great, all-embracing Church
really cared for them, low as they might be in the social scale, and
neglected by the worldly prelates and ignorant parish priests whom
alone they had hitherto seen as its representatives. Innocent IH and
his successors, while doubtful at first, soon accepted these Orders as
a heaven-sent inspiration, and showered their favours upon them.
128 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
From this time onwards they were to be the active missionary move-
ment within the Church, its good right arm-a task die Jesuits also
assumed centuries later, when an even greater schism threatened and
was partially successful.
Both the Orders were a menace to all the vested interests ot the
dav. The ordinary clergy, not vowed to apostolic poverty, and
content with the rewards that came to them from the holding of
ecclesiastical office, objected to their mode of life and their dedication
to their self-imposed aims, as we all dislike those who are obviously
more saintly than ourselves; they objected still more later when the
ereat power of the Inquisition, with all its tremendous possibilities,
was thrust into their hands. They objected to the permission soon
riven to them to receive confessions, say masses, and administer the
sacraments, for these had always been their own regular source of
income. And it was natural that the ordinary Christian should prefer
the services of the saintly friars to their own more tainted rmnistra-
tions The friars offered an unfair competition, against which they
had no remedy unless the sources of their support could be under-
mined. , j.j ,
When the friars entered the universities, as they soon did, the
secular masters, the students of law, and all who had been satisfied
with things as they were, resented and feared them, and especially
disliked the support given to them by the Papal Curia. They fought
aeainst every privilege granted to the friars by the Papacy, and they
tried to restrict their advance, especially at the University of Pans;
but always the Orders gained the initial victories. When the Parisian
students dispersed to their homes in 1229, the Orders continued to
teach and were granted chairs in theology at the university. All the
privileged classes saw their security threatened; but while the Orders
enjoyed the support of the Papacy and the respect of the people, they
could do nothing serious against them. The only resource remaining
to them was to try to undermine this support by attacking the whole
way of life of both Orders, showing that they were not poor mendi-
cant friars, but avaricious robbers, not supporters of the Church, but
its most dangerous enemies, riddled with heretical tendencies; not
holy saints, but licentious profligates.
This is the background of the tremendous polemic De periculis
novissimorum temporum published by the distinguished and remarkably
courageous theologian, William of St. Amour, in 1255, which was
itself only the culmination of a fierce campaign carried on by secular
masters and students against the friars. This campaign had a brief
Bacon as Friar 129
success in 1254 with the issuance of the bull Etsi animarum by Innocent
IV a few weeks before his death, under which the privileges of the
Orders were seriously curtailed. But the bull was repudiated by
Innocent's successor, Alexander IV, and William of St. Amour
published his polemic. Though the polemic was officially suppressed,
the struggle continued, and every weapon that could be found was
used against the Orders. 1 The distinguished leaders of both Orders
replied to the attacks, and the secukrs in turn pressed their arguments
to the utmost. Every mistake made by the Orders, or any of their
members, added more fuel to the controversy; and there is no doubt
that the 219 errors condemned by Bishop Tempier in 1277 included
some of the teachings of Thomas Aquinas because he was a Domini-
can, and condemnation of him would bring some more discredit upon
his Order. 2 But long before this the Franciscan Order had been split
from the top to the bottom by a controversy that had its roots in the
teachings of the founder himself. And on this even the papal hier-
archy was forced to take sides against the too strict application of the
teachings of Francis.
For it was impossible that any established institution could support
absolute poverty unless it were itself prepared to abdicate. A small
band of apostles could manage to avoid holding property, and could
rely on daily begging for their needs. But not an ecclesiastical body,
dedicated to serve above all the interests of the. Papacy. A strict
Franciscan follower of St. Francis could not help but become anti-
clerical if the Church failed to reform and divest itself of its wealth
which would, of course, mean the abdication of its necessary worldly
responsibilities. And this anti-clericalism and the emphasis laid on
leading a good life here on earth could hardly fail to lead to certain
forms of heresy Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism at the least, or
Donatism, which claims that grace cannot be transmitted through an
unworthy priest. The Poor Men of Lyons, the Waldensian heretics,
were not far from the Franciscan ideal; yet these were proscribed and
punished, as were the later followers of Wyclif, the Lollards.
1 For the history of this quarrel between the seculars and regulars, or religious, in its early
stages, see H. Bierbaum, 'Bettelorden und WeltgeistBchkeit . . / (1920). Extracts from the
text of the De periatlis are given in Bicrbaum's study, together with a selection of the replies
of the friars, and counter-charges by the seculars. Bacon's own account of the quarrel, which
he tefls us in 1272 had been going on for twenty years, is to be found in CSP., pp. 429-32.
For die bull Etsi animarum (November, 1254), see Huber, A Documented History . . . (1944),
p. 134, and a lively and accurate story in die old work of H. C. Lea, A History of tfte Inquisition
(1887), I, 283-84. Huber is at a loss to account for the severity of the bull; Lea attributes it, as
does Bierbaum, to the influence of "WilHam of St. Amour and the gradual loss of patience with
the whole controversy, and a doubt whether the feiars were worth what they were costing.
... I, 544-55.
130 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
The Franciscan Order, then, can be considered as always potentially
anti-clerical, if it lived up to its ideals. But there was a possibility that
it could remain as an example in itself of the ideal of poverty, and thus
draw to itself those Christians who longed for a life of self-abnegation,
and felt this was the best way to express their religious ideals. This
might have been possible if the Order had not had duties to perform
on behalf of the Church which were only possible for an organized
institution, administering, if it did not own, property, and with a
secure source of income. The leaders of the Order were divided from
the beginning into those who wanted to perform the tasks of the
Papacy, as an institution, and those who had joined it because of the
ideals of poverty and self-abnegation. The division is seen even
among the generals of the Order from the very time of St. Francis.
Brother Elias was an 'institutionalise, the first of those who were
later to be called 'conventuals', while John of Parma, who was
probably General at the time of Bacon's entry into the Order,
belonged to the opposite, or 'spiritual' party. And though Brother
Elias was deposed by his fellow-friars, having been premature in his
desire to retreat from the stricter Franciscan ideal, it was, on the whole,
his outlook that prevailed within the movement in later years.
It is possible that the views of St. Francis, which were, in any case,
not always clear to his followers, would have been satisfactorily
modified by his successors as soon as his personal companions, who
had known what stress he laid on poverty, had disappeared from the
scene. Without a renewal of the message of St. Francis, his teachings
might have been conveniently forgotten, for there were other aspects
of die Rule that could have been kept by 'conventuals' and 'spirituals'
alike. But probably more important than even the memory of St.
Francis was the influence exercised by a work of peculiar evangelical
appeal especially to Franciscans. This was the series of books which
came kter to be known as the 'Everlasting Gospel', ascribed to
Joachim of Flora, a Calabrian monk who had died around the turn
of the century. The seductive appeal of these books, which utilize to
the full the method of allegory and personal exegesis of the sacred
words of the scriptures, tempted the spiritually rifted friars to try
JL ' JL JL / O J
their own powers at prophesying, and Joachim became the posthum-
ous foster-parent of great numbers of activist heresies which persisted
for many centuries, and created the profoundest disorder, especially
within the Franciscan Order. In all ages of history human insecurity
has led to the belief in prophetic visions which purport to reveal the
future, preferably a future in which the individual believer is persuaded
Bacon as Friar 131
that he will be on the right side, while his enemies will perish.
Such beliefs are food for martyrs and the very stuff of heresy , from
the tiny persecuted group of Christians at the time of Nero to the
adherents of British Israel and Jehovah's Witnesses in our own day. 1
Joachim of Flora proclaimed that there would be three ages in the
history of mankind, corresponding to the three persons of the
Trinity. The first was the age of the Father, who ruled through
power and fear (the period of the Old Testament), the second the
age of the Son, when the wisdom of the Father would be revealed
through the Son (the period of the New Testament and the Catholic
Church). Finally there would come the age of the Holy Spirit, a new
dispensation of universal love in which there would be no further
need of disciplinary institutions. Latins and Greeks would be united
in the new spiritual kingdom, and the Church would be freed from
everything carnal and worldly, and the 'eternal gospel' would abide
until the end of the world. 2
It need hardly be added that the age of the new dispensation was in
the near future, specifically in 1260. Life would go out of the first
1 The fundamental research on the whole Joachite (following Lea, I am adopting this form
of the word in preference to the more awkward Joachimite, favoured by Webster) movement
is to be found scattered through the first six volumes of the Archiv fiir Kirchengeschichte des
Mittelalters (1885-92), edited by frL Denifle and F. Ehrle. Probably the fullest, and even the
fairest, account (certainly the best in English to this day) of the social and religious implications
of the movement and its history through several centuries is still to be found in the old work of
H. C. Lea, A History of the Inquisition . . . (1887), even though he could only base his research
on the recently completed studies by Denifle and Ehrle. Nothing of much importance has
been contributed to the picture in this century, and the carefully slanted and selected recent
work of Father Huber makes one wonder sometimes whether he and Lea are writing about
the same subject. The problem of the 'spirituals* and their attitude towards ecclesiastical
corruption is not to be dismissed simply with such words as : *In reality they were nothing more
than proud recalcitrant religious who tried to force their own whims on an Order that already
had its mode of living dearly defined by the Holy See* (A Documented History ... p. 186) .
However factually accurate this may be, it would surely be more judicious in the twentieth
century to face some of the questions the author so consistently begs. Obedience to the
superiors in the Order moy.be the supreme Christian virtue; but must it be exercised to the
exclusion of all others?
* It is still not known how much of the Joachite literature belongs to Joachim himself and
how much to the numerous pseudo-Joachims who followed him. On this subject there is an
extensive monographic literature, especially in Italian; but it is of no great importance for this
study, in which we are interested in the prophesies tfiemselves and not their authors. I have
consulted the sumptuous edition of the Istituto Storico Italiano of the Tractatus super quatuor
etrangcUa, edited by Ernesto Buonaiuti (Rome, 1930), and shall have occasion to refer to it
again. The minor works of Joachim and his condemned book against Peter Lombard were
also printed by the same institute, but are of no importance for us. These books are generally
conceded to be genuine works of Joachim. For our purpose the most important thing is mat
Joachim was one of the first and certainly the most influential of a long line of prophets who
interpreted the scriptures in the Middle Ages according to their own private revelations. The
process, once initiated, was extremely infectious. The Spiritual Franciscans, and later the
Fraticelli* could always make use of some of this literature to support their views, and call
down thunder on the Church, as the Hebrew prophets had thundered against the kings of
Israel in their day, and for the same reason.
132 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
two gospels in 1200 *ut fieret evangelium eternum'. 1 The forces of
Antichrist, who was to come first, would be arrayed against the
forces of Christ and would suffer defeat. But the children of the Holy
Spirit must prepare themselves for this glorious era, and be ready to do
battle with Antichrist, or he would conquer. And the signs of the
coming of Antichrist, who had already been prophesied in the clearest
terms in the Bible, were dissensions and feuds. 2
Now the Franciscans, by virtue of their whole history, as members
of a movement founded by one whom even his greatest opponents
would admit was a saint, could be expected to regard themselves as
the spearhead in the fight against Antichrist. And Joachim had been
indiscreet enough to suggest that just such a movement as this would
arise, even though he called it an order of 'monks', since friars had
not yet been thought of. 3 And if one of the weapons of Antichrist
was the power to offer the delights of this world to those who were
ready to worship him, then it was clear that only by retaining the
pristine purity of the Order could the spears of the defenders of
Christianity be kept sharpened. In his lifetime the Emperor Frederic
II was widely regarded as the Antichrist, others believed that Genghiz
Khan was more fitted for the role. Salimbene, the Italian Franciscan
chronicler, only abandoned his belief that Frederic was the Antichrist
when Frederic died before the great year of I26o. 4 Cardinal Regnier
accused Frederic in violent language of being the 'precursor of Anti-
christ*, 5 in a letter which was published throughout Europe. But
whoever was to be the great protagonist of the forces of evil, these
forces at least could be recognized by the faithful, and they must
make ready for the day when they would appear.
In 1254, as the year 1260 approached, a certain Franciscan brother,
Gerard of San Borgo, wrote a book which he called the Introduction
to the Eternal Gospel. This made far more specific and pointed the
more vague and general prophesies of Joachim, and set up the three
most important books of Joachim as constituting in themselves the
'Everlasting Gospel', by which name they came to be known there-
after. 8 Gerard's work also rekted the prophesies of Joachim directly
to St. Francis, who was the 'angel of light', and the 'order of the sign
1 Archiv ... I, 99.
Joachim, Tractattts ... pp. 99, 164-65, etc.
8 Archiv ... I, 103, 115-16, etc.
4 *Sed postquam mortuus est Fredericus . . . et annus ducentesiinus sexagesimus elapsus,
dimisi totaliteristam doctrinam et dispono non credere nisi quae video/ Salimbene, Cronica . . .
pp. 302-3,
* Traenuntius Antichristi.' Matthew Paris, Chronica ... V, 61.
*Arckiv.. .1,100.
Bacon as Friar 133
of the living God*. The 'monks' of Joachim now became specifically
the Franciscan Order, which, according to the protocol of Anagni
which condemned the Introduction, he had 'incredibly exalted'. 1 The
book created a furore, and was condemned in a special meeting called
by the Pope at Anagni, the proceedings of which have been printed,
and which give us die official reasons for the condemnation. 2
At another time the book might have escaped the attention of the
authorities, or been quietly suppressed by the Order itself. The
Franciscan general at this time was John of Parma, a man of pro-
nounced 'Spiritual' leanings, who would never have condemned it on
his own initiative, and was, indeed, suspected of having written the
Introduction himself. 3 But it was pounced upon by William of
St. Amour as evidence for his charges against the mendicant Orders,
and he went specially to Rome to attack it. Though it was written by
one of their number, the Franciscans did not dare to defend it since
it was obviously heretical; and its exaltation of the Franciscan Order
would naturally arouse the enmity, not only of the seculars, but of
the Dominicans who were otherwise their natural allies against the
seculars. Under attack already for their way of life, die Franciscans
now had an even more serious charge against them; and if William
of St. Amour had not overplayed his hand by publishing his De
periculis the following year, and if the Orders had not been so badly
needed by the Papacy and found in Alexander IV a Pope who was
especially favourable to them, William might have convinced the
Holy See. The bull Etsi animarum of Innocent IV, already referred to,
was probably issued in revulsion against the excessive pretensions of
the Orders as shown by Gerard's book. 4
The learned and famous leaders of the Orders were also far from
impotent in the battle of words. Thomas of Cantimpre", a Dominican,
gives credit to the eloquence and. learning of Albertus Magnus for the
defeat of William and the condemnation of the De periculis with
greater publicity than the relatively quiet suppression of the Introduc-
tion at Anagni 5 William was forced into exile, where he continued
his polemics, until his peaceful death some years later. But Gerard,
being a friar, was disciplined by his own Order, being thrown into
a dungeon from which he was never to emerge in the eighteen years
of life remaining to him.
1 ArcMv ... 1, 101, 116. IfoU, I, 92-142.
* Hubcr, A Documented History ... p. 141 ; Lea, History of the Inquisition ... I, 285; HI, 22.
4 %ra,p!>.128-29.
* Thomas of CanrimpcS, Bomtm wtiVmak, n ix, quoted by Lea, History of the Inquisition . .
JH, 23.
134 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Now it seems evident that in the struggle between the two groups
in the Franciscan Order, Roger Bacon was on the side of the 'Spiri-
tuals'. 1 There is, in my view, enough evidence in his work to show
a very considerable sympathy with Joachite ideas and methods, and
on one occasion he actually tells die Pope that the prophesies of
Joachim ought to be taken seriously. 2
If our reasons for Bacon's joining the Franciscan Order are correct,
one of the attractions it had for him was its ideal of holiness. And
though, as a scholar, he chafes against the restrictions placed upon
him in the Order, he never suggests they should be relaxed. As we
have seen, he vigorously defends the Franciscan ideal against the
attacks of the seculars in 1272* In this he would only be following
what was probably the majority opinion in his Order at the time, and
would be in line with the policies and views of Bonaventura, the
current Minister-General. None of this would in any way render
him suspect to his superiors. But in his attitude towards prophesies,
and his constant stressing of the immediate expectation of Antichrist,
he goes much further than the majority of tils contemporaries, and
seems to range himself by the side of die heterodox Spirituals, and
could have laid himself open to the reprisals which accompanied the
forced resignation of the previous Minister-General, John of Parma,
and the publication of the Introduction to the Everlasting Gospel.
We know that in 1267 Bacon was in Paris, and that he had Tor ten
years been exiled from his former University fame', and that he had
regarded this exile as distasteful, that he suffered from the 'unspeakable
violence' of his superiors, that he therefore did not feel like writing at
all, and that he was weary and languid. 4 In "Wood's life of Bacon,
printed by Brewer, there is also reference to a curious passage in the
Opus Minus which has not come down to us in the so-far-published
fragments, but which there is no reason to doubt that Wood in his
time was able to consult. He gives the actual passage as follows:
'For my superiors and brothers, disciplining me with hunger, kept
me under close guard and would not permit anyone to come to me,
fearing that my writings would be divulged to others than to the
chief pontiff and themselves'. 5 While this, as will be shown later,
only has reference to the period when Bacon was composing his
1 The use of the word 'Spiritual' to describe the group that was interested in Joachim and
the stricter interpretation of the Rule is an anachronism in the second half of the thirteenth
century and does not properly apply until the fourteenth. The word as it will be used in this
study, hereafter without quotes, should be taken to apply to these left-wing* groups.
* Opus Majus, I, 269. * CSP, pp. 431-2.
4 Gasquet, p. 500; Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 15.
* Brewer, Op. Tert. (introduction), p. xciv.
Bacon as Friar 135
works for the Pope, strictly contrary to the regulations of the Fran-
ciscan Order, 1 the totality of the references do seem to show that he
was under some kind of restraint in the Paris house, even if it never
amounted to as much as imprisonment. His transfer from Oxford to
Paris also requires some explanation, as it would not seem to have
been voluntary on Bacon's part. I suggest that this may have been
due to his local reputation as a Joachite, rather than to any suspicion
that his works contained magic, astrology, or any of the other
supposedly dangerous ideas which Charles and others have thought
were responsible for his persecution. 2
In the Opus Majus, as we have seen, he reminds the Pope of the
prophesies of Merlin, the Sybil, Sesto, and Joachim, and tells him
that these are to be taken seriously. Curiously enough, when he
refers to the same prophesies five years later, the name of Joachim is
omitted. 3 This may have some significance, since the closing years of
the I26o's were full of more polemics than at any other period, and
the name of Joachim might have increased in disrepute. The impor-
tant thing about these prophesies is that they do not date from
biblical or classical times. Even the Sybil is not taken from the distant
Roman past, but refers to recent apocalyptic literature, which took
the form of utterances of a cryptic nature in the ancient 6 Sibylline*
manner, though, as Matthew Paris informed us, there had always been
great interest in the original Sibylline books, and conjectures as to
their contents. 4 Merlin does not come from some mythical Arthurian
legend, but is supposed to be the 'author* of a number of modern
prophesies. They were, of course, collected under his name because
of Ms fame as a wizard. 5 We have no information on Sesto, but he
also probably belonged to the current crop. In fact, Bacon tells us
of one prophet who is still alive and expecting to see his prophesies
fulfilled within his own lifetime.
'Forty years ago*, Bacon tells us, 'it was prophesied, and many have
had visions on the subject, that there would be a pope in these times
who would purge the canon law and the Church of God . . , and
there would be justice universally without the noise of litigation
(strepitu litis) . . . and it will happen that the Greeks will return to
the obedience of the Roman Church, and the Tartars for the most
*Charks,pp.45&
* Opus Myus, I, 269; GSP, p. 402.
4 Matthew Paris, Chronica ... I, 50-52.
* L. A. Paton, Les prophecies & Merlin (1927). The prophesies arc printed in VoL I, and
interpreted in VoL IL For the Sibylline utterances see II, 8-10, 154, and for the general connec-
tion of the prophesies with those of Joachim, chapter VI, pp. 157-268.
136 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
part will be converted to the Faith and the Saracens will be destroyed. 1
Again, later, he says: 'One most blessed pope will arise who will take
away all corruption . . . and the world will be renewed and the
fulness of the nations (plenitudo gentium) will enter and the rem-
nants of Israel will be converted to the faith'. 2
These passages should be compared with the account of the com-
mission of Anagni which dealt with the book of Gerard of San Borgo
and condemned it. The quotations are derived from Joachim's book
of the concordance between the Old and New Testaments. 'The
people will fall from their pride and become one people with the
Gentiles, and there will be rule by the saints over the people called
Joseph. And at that time the succession of the Roman pontiff will be
from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth/ 3 Joachim
makes use himself elsewhere of the same passage from the Epistle to
the Romans as Bacon, speaking three times in his Tractatus with the
same fervour of the plenitudo gentium, which is at hand.*
Bacon, it will be noted, insists that his Pope will do the things
which he personally favoured, reform the canon law, etc. It is one
of the manifest advantages of apocalyptic prophesies that they can be
changed to suit the visionaries' own views. And, in fact, as we have
seen, Bacon does not attribute the prophesy to Joachim at all, but to
some prophet who lived only forty years ago, while Joachim had
died in 1202. Bacon's prophet is still saying it. 'Per revelationem dixit
et dicit', Bacon tells us; and, moreover, he has prophesied that he
himself will live to see the day. 5 And if this should be thought to be
merely a piece of polite flattery for his exalted reader, this suggestion
can be discounted, for the prophesy is again repeated by Bacon five
years later, when Clement IV is dead and there has been an interreg-
num in the Papacy.
The whole tone of the early pages of the Compendium studii
philosophiae, published by Brewer, belongs to the apocalyptic litera-
ture of the time. Morals are decaying, the Papacy has been vacant
for years, dissensions are rife, and there seems to be no cure except a
divine intervention. All this heralds the immediate approach of Anti-
christ. The work of Joachim and the pseudo-Joachims is of the same
1 Brewer, Op. Tert.> p. 86. Salimbene quotes some verses which evidently refer to Pope
Gregory X (1272-76) as this *p a P a sacer', and their use by Merlin shows that this particular
prophesy was composed after Gregbry's elevation to the Papacy, and thus after Bacon's appeal
in tine Opus Tertium. So Bacon cannot be relying on 'Merlin' for his prophesy* Paton, Les
Prophecies . . . H, 177-78. Salimbene, Cronaca ... p. 492.
* GSP, p. 402, Arduv ... 1, 108.
*Joachim, Tractates . . . pp. 80, 99, 116 (Romans xi. 25).
Brewer, Op. Tert^ p. 86.
Bacon as Friar 137
nature. Antichrist is coming, as the Scriptures foretold; and his time
is near. Joachim uses the geography of the Bible in the same way as
Bacon, he quotes Scripture to tie same purpose, and he is full of
allegory. 1 And one of his most popular books, the first part of the
Everlasting Gospel concerns the concordance of the Old Testament
and the New, from which Gerard draws inferences for the third age
which is now being ushered in in the thirteenth century. 2 And Bacon,
as we have seen, is continually referring to the 144,000 of the elect,
and makes use of the idea even in his classes in philosophy in his
Parisian days. 3
I think it therefore clear that Bacon is steeped in the Joachitic and
apocalyptic literature of his time, and is greatly influenced by it in his
own work and his attitude to life, and he is especially impressed by
the idea of the imminent approach of Antichrist. This, however,
was far from peculiar to him. The important thing is what result his
beliefs had upon his overt acts and whether these could lead him into
any trouble within the Order. We have seen how he tells his fellow-
friars that the signs show that Antichrist is at hand, and they retort
to him that he is himself a disciple of Antichrist and a heretic. 4 This,
however, may not have any more significance than when we call a
man who has presumed to vote for the current President of the
United States a 'communist*. A heretic was no doubt a usual term of
mild reproach in the Middle Ages. But at least the passage shows
that Bacon could not keep his mouth shut about his views. The
extreme urgency of Bacon's appeal to the Pope is stressed by saying
that Antichrist when he comes will know science and be able to make
some use of it (the 'Bolshevik bogey'). So Christians must themselves
learn how to counteract this science with better science of their own.
This is Bacon's personal contribution to the prophetic literature, and,
of course, bears the imprint of his own interests and desires upon it. 5
As Professor Thomdike has pointed out, 6 it is unlikely that Bacon
was punished for views on astrology and science that were common
at the time, and approved by respectable theologians and authorities
such as Albertus Magnus. He finds no evidence that even magic,
which Bacon did not practise and, indeed, condemned, was the
object of criticism by die authorities; and he has pointed out in many-
other places how widespread the interest in astrology was in Bacon's
1 Joachim, Tractates ... 42, 146, and passim.
* Huber, A Documented History ... p. 139; Ar&v ... I, 99-100, 116-17.
Steck t Fasc.Xm,384. *CSP,p. 430.
* Opus Mafus* n, 221; Littk, Op. Tert. % p. 17.
Thomdike, History of Mo$c . . . H, 674-77.
138 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
time. Indeed, Thorndike's whole work shows how unlikely it was
that these were the 'suspected novelties' for which Bacon, according
to a late fourteenth-century chronicler, was later condemned. 1
But theological novelties were a different matter, and Bacon was
undoubtedly to some degree guilty of introducing these. But I doubt
if these would have been even understood by most of his contem-
poraries, so different were they from the usual scholastic subtleties
which did not interest him, as aids for theology. He was merely an
extreme conservative in theology in so far as he wanted to return to
exclusive scriptural exegesis; the only innovations he wanted were
improved interpretations resulting from an increased knowledge of
the natural sciences and geography. But his criticisms of theologians
were a different matter, and they could certainly have been partly
responsible both in 1257 and 1278 for measures of restraint placed
upon his writings, and perhaps his person. But the offence which was
considered most dangerous of all by his superiors, for which the
stiffest penalties were imposed, was the attempt to provoke schism
within the Order. 2 And the Joachites and Spirituals were above all
accused of just this crime. If Bacon was a Joachite, or of Joachitic
sympathies, with or without committing any overt acts of con-
spiracy, this would have been known to his immediate superiors; and
knowing also that he was an accomplished writer, they may have
feared that he would use his talents to promote Joachitic views. And
these could easily have been reconciled with his science, and not only
reconciled, but actually used to emphasize the importance of his
scientific knowledge. This suspicion might have been enough for
the authorities to suggest a removal in or around 1257 to Paris, where
he might be kept under closer supervision than in England. In
England he had friends and a family, and possibly means for publish-
ing his work without the formal sanction of his Order would have
been more easily available. It is certainly not suggested that he was
actually imprisoned in his French convent, nor prevented from
carrying on his legitimate studies; but he may have been to some
extent quarantined from the outside world. This is consistent with
1 Chronicle of the Twenty-Four Generals, p. 360. Crowley (Roger Bacon ... pp. 55-67) dis-
agrees. His arguments carry considerable weight and are worthy of close study; but they do
not seem to take sufficient note of the universality of astrological beliefs in Bacon's day, though
there might have been opposition to them within the Franciscan Order. Crowley emphasizes,
as is emphasized equally in this study, the fact that it was his own Order that disciplined him.
* *We lay under a perpetual curse anyone who presumes either by word or deed in any way
to work for the division of our Order* If anyone contravenes this prohibition he shall be con-
sidered as an excommunicate and schismatic and destroyer of our Order. . . . Brothers in-
corrigible in this sMl be imprisoned or expelled from the Order.* Extract from the Constitu-
tions of Narbonne, Afduv . . . VI, 116.
Bacon as Friar 139
what he relates of this period, and the attitude of the friars towards
his work.
The trouble within the Order came to a head in 1257 with the
forced resignation of John of Parma, and this is the period when
Bacon himself says he went into exile, either from the university or
from his native land or both. The hypothesis is therefore offered that
Bacon entered the Franciscan Order in England some time before the
publication of Gerard's book, say about 1252. He would be less
likely to have entered it afterwards, as he might have realized the
potential danger to himself of his Joachitic views. He was relieved
of some of his teaching duties, but allowed to continue his studies in
the natural sciences and make such experiments as he wished, and to
continue to observe and perhaps take part in the experiments made
by his associates. This life was satisfactory to him, and he made much
progress. But it was interrupted by the troubles consequent upon the
publication of Gerard's book, and the De periculis the following year
(1255), ^d perhaps by the return of Richard of Cornwall to England
in 1256. At all events, during the years 1254 to 1257 he became
suspect, and was unable, as usual, to keep his views to himself. He
believed that he was supported by the well-known views of the
Minister-General. But when John's enemies were able to force him
to resign, Bacon also paid the penalty of his indiscretions, and, as a
preventive measure, was transferred by his superiors to Paris.
Bacon reacts to this by weariness and languor and unwillingness to
do any further work. 1 Moreover, as his superiors have sent him there
for disciplinary purposes, they are no longer willing to let him spend
all his time in scientific pursuits, but insist on his doing his regular
work in the convent, from which he may have been excused before.
It may be worth noting that his new Minister-General, Bonaventura,
was not apparently very favourably impressed with the science of
astrology, 2 at all events at the time he was studying in Paris, only a
few years before his appointment as Minister-General. And though
I should not expect him to be even aware, at this time, of Bacon's
existence, the latter could not expect much sympathy for at least this
part of his work from his General. Bonaventura certainly has his own
synthesis of knowledge, which takes little account of natural science,
and is thus poles removed from Bacon's.
1 Gasqoet, p. 50Q.
t ^ doling with t3ie question: 'Utrum ex impressionibus huninanum causetur in nomimbus
diversitas moram', Bonaventora condemns the idea that the stars actually cause anything in
htmian beings, saying that this is contrary to Christian faith and the evidence of the senses.
Opera.. .11,361 (Comm. in Sent, Dist. XIV). See also Crowky.R^cr Bacon. . .pp. 55-58*
140 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Finally in 1260 comes the official censorship announced by the
decrees of the Chapter of Narbonne, and thereafter Bacon knows
that he cannot have anything further published without permission
from his Order. The only way to avoid this censorship is to obtain
the support and patronage of one even higher than Bonaventura, and
this opportunity is not presented until the arrival of the mandate
from the Pope in 1266. The same Pope, when only a Cardinal, had
sent Roger a mandate, but even this was not a high enough authority,
unless he also tried to use his influence with the Franciscans. And
though he may have set to work at once, as Thorndike suggests, 1 or
at least tried to raise the funds necessary for it, as I shall suggest in the
next chapter, he cannot do anything with the work until his patron
finally becomes Pope.
If it is asked why Bacon never refers to his part in the Joachitic
controversy, we can only reply that it is characteristic of him, and
quite natural for him to believe, that it is the neglect of natural
science by all authorities that is at the root of the evils of the day, and
presumably his own troubles too. He tells us that no one since Robert
Grosseteste and Adam Marsh has understood mathematics and optics,
his own fields of activity, that no one experiments except the obscure
Peter of Maricourt, that doctors do not use astrology as they should,
that languages are little studied, and so on. This exalts his own
contributions and makes them unique and himself more interesting
and important as a lone investigator in possession of the truth. This
is a piece of psychological self-defence; yet, as we have seen, it is by
no means true, as he admits elsewhere. But one can justly feel oneself
to be a martyr if one is persecuted for the truth's sake. Few convic-
tions are more comforting to us than the certainty that we are right
and the rest of the world is wrong; and if we suffer for it, that is a
part of the painful pleasure involved. But if we are merely one of a
crowd, punished for an indiscreet tongue or a petty infraction of
discipline, there is little enough romantic in that, and we prefer to
convince ourselves, and inform the world as publicly as possible that
we are persecuted for righteousness' sake. We could not have been
wrong, or perverse or misguided, oh no !
There is no reason to suppose that any of Bacon's associates had
Bacon's vision of the way in which the facts of natural science could
be used for the greater understanding of theological truth, nor for its
supreme value and practical importance in the coming conflict with
Antichrist. There is no reason why, even in the thirteenth century,
1 Thorndike, History of Magic . . . n, 622-24.
Bacon as Friar 141
any ordinary scientific worker should place special emphasis on
prophesies. It is these prophesies and Bacon's evident belief in them
that would seem more suspicious to Bacon's superiors in the Order
than experiments, astrology, alchemy, or any of his mathematical or
optical studies. But his transfer to France, and the subsequent censor-
ship, would hit all his writings equally, and increase his feeling that
he was a lone struggler against the darkness of ig$orance, waiting
to be rescued by a magnanimous and enlightened patron the feeling
that suffuses the great Opera (especially the early pages of the Opus
Tertiuni) and has been the inspiration of romantic historians and
biographers ever since.
The new General, St. Bonaventura, was himself a supporter of
apostolic poverty, and had defended it already before his appointment
in a tract in reply to the polemics of the seculars. In his last years he
defended it again from further attacks that followed the death of
Clement IV. 1 In the disturbances of 1255 he had himself been forced
for a time to give up his teaching at the University of Paris, and his
doctoral degree was held up until he had been in office as General for
a few years. 2 So his personal experience of the dangers of schism
would tend to make him take the division in the Franciscan Order
itself seriously. He realized the hopelessness of apostolic poverty for
the Order as a whole, while he desired to move as little as possible
from the ideal of St. Francis, as far as the individual members of the
Order were concerned. Recognizing the moral power of self-
sacrifice, he did not want to abandon it; and he knew also that if the
Franciscans became only one more Order within, the Church, without
any pretensions to sanctity, they would command even less respect
from the people than the already far decayed monastic Orders which
had been the butt of satirists for generations. For, living by daily alms
as they did, the public would be constantly aware of their exactions.
So Bonaventura's policy was one of compromise, giving strict
instructions to the friars that they were to exercise discretion in their
begging, and in no circumstances to lend colour to the accusation of
die seculars that they were robbers. 3 But at the same time the Order
itself was permitted by arrangements with the Holy See to hold
property, but not in its own name, and administered by papal
procurators. 4
1 St. Boijaventura, Opera ... V, 124-65 (Quaestiones fesputatae de paupertote); VHI, 233-330
(Apofogta pmpermn).
^H-^^^AD&came^eiHis^rf...^. 147-48.
* Bomveatera, Opera . . . Vffi, 468.
... pp. 173-76.
142 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Being forced to tread this delicate path, and give offence to as few
as possible, it was absolutely essential that no friars should wantonly
give any handle to the enemies of the Order as Brother Gerard had
done in 1254, and Bonaventura was determined to prevent this if
possible.
It seems that in these circumstances a prohibition against publishing
writings without the permission of the Order was an essential step,
and one that the most ardent proponents of free speech would find it
difficult in the thirteenth century to discredit. It had, at the time it
was imposed, all the features of a modern wartime censorship, for
the very existence of the Order itself was at stake. It should not, I
think, be held against the Franciscans and Bonaventura that it was
inaugurated; and the wording of the decree itself shows how repug-
nant it was to the superiors in the Order.
'Let no one glory', the preamble states, c in the possession of virtue
in his heart if he puts no guard on his conversation. If anyone thinks
that he is religious and does not curb his tongue, but only allows his
heart to lead him astray, then his religion is vain. It is therefore
necessary that an honourable fence should surround the mouth and
other senses and acts, deeds and morals, that the statutes of the
regulars may not be destroyed by perfect men, but kept intact, lest
they should be bitten by a snake when they let down the barrier ----
If anyone think that the penalty for the breach of statutes of this kind
is severe, let him reflect that, according to the Apostle, all discipline
in the present life is not a matter for rejoicing but for sorrow; yet
through it, it will bear for the future the most peaceful fruit of justice
for those who have endured it'. 1
It was unfortunate for Bacon that this censorship prevented the
free exercise of his talents, and that he was not permitted to write and
publish whatever he desired. But there is no reason to believe that
permission for publication would have been refused for any genuine
work of science. Indeed, as his Cotnputus was certainly written during
the censorship, and presumably copied and published, it is shown that
he was not completely reduced to silence. 2 But it was a different
matter for die works written to the Pope, and a study of the decrees
of Narbonne are interesting as showing to what extent Bacon offended
both in letter and spirit against these decrees. It could, indeed, be
...,
* Steele, Fasc. VI. The editor points out (p. xxv) that the work is unexceptionable in tone
except for a. few pages (pp. 146 ff.), and; curiously enough, the original hand in the MS. "breaks
off at this point. Steele suggests that this was due to fear of the altered tone on the part of the
copyist.
Bacon as Friar 143
argued that he was treated very leniently rather than made a 'martyr
of science'.
In the fifth rubric occur the words : 'Let the brothers carry nothing
in words or in writing which could conduce to the scandal of any-
one. . . . Let no brother go to the Court of the Lord Pope or send a
brother without the permission of the Minister-General. Let them,
if they have gone otherwise, be at once expelled from the Curia by
the procurators of the Order. And let no one apply to the Minister-
General for permission unless serious cause or urgent necessity
demand it'. 1
In the sixth rubric is the decree that particularly applied to Bacon:
'We prohibit any new writing from being published outside the
Order, unless it shall first have been examined carefully by the
Minister-General or provincial, and the visitants in the provincial
chapter . . . anyone who contra venes this shall be kept at least three
days on bread and water, and lose his writing'. 2
'Let no brother write books, or cause them to be written for sale,
and let the Provincial Minister not dare to have or keep any books
without the license of the Minister-General, or let any brothers have
or keep them without the permission of the Provincial Ministers'. 3
Finally there is the general provision against anyone who 'by word
or deed presumes to work for the division of our Order', 4 which has
been referred to earlier. Though Bacon's works for the Pope may
not ofiend against this decree, his Compendium studii philosophiae
certainly does, though I am doubtful, as will appear in the last chapter
of this study, whether this work was ever published. But it could
also be argued that the attack on Alexander of Hales, the Franciscan
authority, in the Opus Minus might also make for division within
the Order. And the general JoacHtic and apocalyptic tone of all the
later works show where his sympathies ky. If these opinions were
accompanied by orally given pronouncements to his friends and
companions, and to superiors in the Order, they may well have been
sufficient to account for his troubles. It is, on the other hand, quite
possible that Bacon himself may not have been aware of the true
reasons for his treatment, as the private in an army is not always
aware of the decisions of high policy that affect him, and that he may
attribute to quite other motives than the true ones.
<...,.
*IMd., Vt 110. The regulation is made more severe and prison prescribed as the penalty
in 1279 and 1282. Ifcti, pp. 110-11.
CHAPTER
THE WORKS FOR THE POPE
IN this study of the life of Roger Bacon it will be clear that we have
been minimizing his importance in the history of his time. The
picture we have presented of a brilliant and unstable personality,
prevented, partly by his own faults, from making a name for himself
consistent with his undoubted talents, is not a specially appealing one.
We do not think that he was persecuted for his freethinking, or for
his advanced and unpopular scientific views, but rather that he was
neglected as a relatively unimportant 'crank' until his persistent out-
spokenness, especially on matters outside his professional work,
annoyed his fellow-friars enough to persuade them to have him
disciplined. Bacon might have sunk into a complete obscurity, as
other cranks before and since, if he had been willing to give up, and
if he had not happened to have a circle of friends who believed in
him. And it is their assistance and Roger's continued self-confidence
and initiative that finally bring him out into the full light of history.
This is indeed an appealing and romantic episode, that this obscure
writer and research worker should suddenly have received a request
for his opinions and suggestions on what ailed society from the
reigning Pope, the highest authority in Christendom. And when
Bacon in most extravagant terms describes the honour that the Pope
has done to him, *the unworthy sole of your foot*, 1 he was not
expressing only the mock humility of the courtier. For it was indeed
a surprising honour, and an immensely welcome one. We see him
contrasting in his mind the position he had lately held as an obscure
scientist within his Order, and made to do menial tasks, with the new
estimate he can have of himself as the chosen adviser of the Pope. It
is rare, indeed, that such an opportunity ever comes the way of the
neglected cranks and writers of the world, who dream of the great
success that will come to them some day, the recognition that the
public will one day accord them 'y u ^ see > w k en I have my book
published; you'll see when they will come to me and beg for my
invention !*
But to Roger Bacon the miracle did happen; and all his local
1 Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 7.
144
The Works for the Pope 145
enemies had to admit that their despised brother was of some account
after all. The triumph must have been very sweet !
It was not, however, a miracle in the sense of a pure 'act of God*.
Human agents were behind it, though the story is not systematically
recounted in the works themselves, but must be carefully extracted
from scattered information which is, fortunately, fairly copious for
this period. By far the most complete account is to be found in the
'Gasquet' fragment, which is either the prefatory letter to the final
draft of the Opus Majus as sent to the Pope, or perhaps a part of the
Opus Minus which also accompanied the Opus Majus to the Pope.
The early pages of the Opus Tertium, as printed by Brewer, were, in
my view, originally written as a second preface to go with the major
work, and also contain much biographical material. The drcum-
stances preceding the receipt of the Pope's mandates, and what Bacon
did to fulfil them will therefore be taken from these two accounts.
I think they are entirely consistent with each other if one recognizes
that they are alternative prefaces, written at an interval of several
months, and in slightly different circumstances.
I have been sceptical of many of Bacon's statements about his
researches, and to some extent discounted them as attempts to
impress his patron. I see, however, no need to regard these pieces of
biographical information with the same scepticism because they are
not likely to impress, nor are they capable of impressing, anyone.
They are different, but not contradictory, sets of excuses for a definite
failure on bis part. Bacon had spent several years in preparing a work
which, his patron believed had already been written when he first
requested it, and he was not entirely happy even with the final result.
He believed it could have been much better if he had had a longer
time and greater resources at his disposal. And in the course of
preparing the work he had become aware of some of his own defi-
ciencies. These facts made an apology and excuses necessary; but
there must be real reasons behind the excuses. Bacon was not lazy
or incompetent; in such circumstances, with such a chance offered
him, he would undoubtedly do the very best of which he was
capable. If he did not succeed as well as he had hoped, if he had to
delay for several years before sending a completed work, there was a
real reason for it and these are the genuine reasons which we must
try to extract from his excuses. And what he says on this subject
seems to me extremely probable, and exactly what I should expect
in view of die drcuinstances in which he found himself, as a friar in
a convent where he was under dose supervision, with a censorship to
146 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
combat, without access to funds, and above all with an injunction of
secrecy imposed by his patron which he had to do his best to honour.
Only such obstacles would have prevented him from doing what he
would have considered a better job of work, and in a shorter time.
The following are the bare facts in chronological order. Some
time before Guy de Foulquois (or Foulques) became Pope Clement
IV, while he was still papal legate and Cardinal-Bishop of Sabina,
Roger Bacon sent him a proposal through a clerk in the Cardinal's
suite. 1 We do not possess this letter, and, indeed, it may have been
only a verbal message conveyed through the clerk, whose name was
Raymond of Laon. But we know that die initiative came from Bacon
because he speaks of it later as *my proposal', and complains that it
had not been properly understood by Raymond, and so had been
incorrectly transmitted to the Cardinal. Apparently Raymond told
his master that Bacon had a writing that he would like the Cardinal
to see. Bacon tells us that his message really concerned 'writings
which he was ready to compose but which were not then written*. 2
The Cardinal replied with what Bacon calls 'your first mandate',
but aware of the fact that the Order prohibited such unauthorized
writing, and knowing that he had no authority as a Cardinal to claim
any dispensation in Bacon's favour, he told him to proceed with
secrecy. 3 No doubt he failed to realize the difficulty that this would
provide for Bacon, but the latter must have been aware when he
took the original initiative that some provision would have to be
made to circumvent the censorship which no mere Cardinal could
overrule and which Foulquois, even when Pope, still had to take
seriously. 4 It is probable also that even such a headstrong character as
1 *Raymundus . . . meum proposition nulktenus intellexit.* Gasquet, p. 500.
1 'Scripturis faciendis, non tune factis.* Gasquet, p. 501.
* 'Pretendit utrumque mandatum quod fui obligatus . . . ne communicarem/ Gasquet, p.
501.
4 1 cannot agree with Thorndike (History of Magic . . . H, 627) that Bacon implies that he was
'exempted from this restriction in the earlier request from the Cardinal as well as in the later
papal mandate*. The relevant sentence says: It was known to Your Magnificence, as both
num^at** show, that I was obligated by a most strict order not to communicate any writing
made by me in this condition, as indeed our whole congregation is known to be obligated, and
so I was disgusted at the idea of writing anything at all I have often seen the most secret
writings divulged through the deceit of scribes, and so I might have had a bad conscience
through transgressing the precept*. The whole passage runs in the Latin: 'Magnificenrie
quidem vestre innotuit ut utrumque mandatum pretendit quod precepto fui obligatus artissimo
ne scriptum in hoc statu a me factum communicarem, sicut et nostra tota congregatio finniter
noscitUT obligari, et ideo componere penitus abhorrebam. Nam componi nichil potuit nisi
scriptoribus traderetur, qui veflem nollem transcriberent pro se ipsis vel amicis, et sic com-
municarent omnibus ut pluries vidi scripta secretissima per fraudem divulgari scriptorum et
incidcrem in consdentiam de transgressione precepti.* (Gasquet, p. 500.)
Now, this passage, it is true, refers to the earlier years and is intended to explain why no
The Works for the Pope 147
Bacon would have had some idea where he was to get the funds.
There was only one possible source for a friar in his position his
brother and family. He tells us that he wrote off to England, but
received no reply, since 'exiles and enemies of the King occupied the
land of my birth'. 1 As Thorndike reminds us, this occupation came
to an end with the victory of the King and the death of Simon de
Montfort in 1265, so that the appeal may be placed definitely before
this time. News from England would not travel so slowly that Roger
would be still unaware of the King's victory by June, 1266, when the
second mandate arrived. It is therefore clear that the attempt to get
money from England was in response to the first mandate, and not
the second. Unfortunately for Bacon, even though the occupation
was over by 1266-7, his family had been ruined, and he had not
'heard from his brother until this day*. 2
In the early part of the year 1265 Guy de Foulquois was elected
Pope, and some time in this year or the early part of the next Bacon
again took the initiative, sending a request this time through Sir
William Bonecor, an English envoy who was carrying messages from
King Henry IE to the Pope. We know that Bacon sent a 'letter with
writings were ready when Raymond took his first message. But has the situation cfcanged
after receipt of the mandates? Bacon goes on to tell us that his superiors were mostent that te
perform his daily occupations, and he 'neglected to write his scientific work until he received
the Cardinal's mandate (magnifica sapientie spectacula . . neglexi antequam pnmum vestre
dominations recepi mand^L). Then: 'After I received the papal letters I deliberated xnsu
secretissimo what could be done', and he tells us how he sent to England for money without
success. 'And besides all these things I suffered a special difficulty fiom my superiors because
they make demands of me and I could not excuse myself fully because your Lordshipbad
commanded me to take care of mis business secretly nor dad your Glory ask anything of them .
(Et preter hec omnia hahui spedale impedimentum ab eis qui rmhi presunt co quod alia a ms
^me excusare ad p&non^omi quia juuaat vestra **>^*^***
Sgocium tractarem, nee aliquid eis vestra gloria demandavit. Gasquet, p. 502). Bacon makes
the same complaint again m almost die same words in Brewer, Op. TVrt, p. 15. Baopn, how-
ever in this pLage Sakes the matter even more dear wr^ he says: 'I^mum impedimentum
fuit per eos qui mihi praefberant quibus cum nihil scripsbtis in excusationem mcam, * eis no*
t^m^ a-
implies this when he complains that the Pope had not asked; anything from the Order-^en
SSewouldhave been no^eedto hire copyists outside the Ordered incur his l^vypens^
Or if he had merely gone outside the Order because he wanted to. he could hardlyluve
Sected the Pope JrSmbtirse him. What he is saying is that the uaforttmate rnjuncfcon to
mm to go outside the Order for copyists; but that even this was dangerous
p^werlumdiahle. I <k> not see how the passages quoted can bear any c*ber
iTseems to me quite dear from these passages that the work was to be kept
Order, as mndf as from everyone else, and that boA mandates had enjoined
secrecy upon him.
'
m Oe Cardinal,
temda from e arna, o e
same Ordinal who had no^ become POJ TT* or iy diapfcrs rf JeQjw
not so systematic and refer almost entirely to the second mandate whtdi Bacon
wftb the <Kffic D Jtks wkk he succcsfelly overome.
148 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
verbal explanations', but again this letter is not extant. 1 It may,
however, be considered certain that he will have referred to the first
mandate and explained the difficulties he had experienced in carrying
it out, and I think if he had already started the Opus Majus he will
have said so. From the tone of the reply it would appear that he also
insisted on the urgency of the matter. Bacon, in referring to this
message, later tells the Pope that the messengers were careless, since
they had not fully explained his financial difficulties. 2 From which it
would seem that in the letters he had referred to the difficulties
within the Order that prevented him from writing freely, and the
financial difficulties were reserved, as was natural, for verbal explana-
tion. At all events the Pope replied to this communication with a
letter which is extant and dated June, 1266. In this he asks Bacon to
send him his writings and his remedies for current evil conditions;
but he is to do this with as much secrecy as possible, and notwith-
standing any prohibitions of his Order. 3 We know that Bacon, in
spite of the difficulties, was ultimately able to do this; but it is still
uncertain in what order and what years he wrote the works, what
was his original intention, and how much of it he carried out, and
how much he abandoned as unfeasible.
Professor Thorndike 4 thinks that Bacon started to work at once
on the receipt of the first mandate, and that the Opus Majus was
nearly finished if not sent by the time of the arrival of the second;
but that Bacon had had no news of it and so prepared the Opus Minus
and presumably also the Opus Tertium to take its place in case it had
not arrived or the Pope had found it too long to read. Thorndike
shows that the Opus Majus could have been sent to a cardinal and
not a pope, since in this work the epithets suitable only for a pope are
not so common as in his other works, and could, for the most part,
apply equally to a cardinal. Chapters obviously addressed to a pope,
such as the last chapter of the first part of the Opus Majus, occur in
other works in almost the same form and could have been transferred
later. Father Mandonnet, on the other hand, thinks that the Opus
Minus and the Opus Tertium were composed at the same time as the
Opus Majus or before, 5 and that they were eventually not sent at all,
being incorporated in the major work as far as was necessary, and then
1 'Tuae devotionis litteras gratanter recepimus, sed et verba notavimus diligenter quae ad
explanationem . . . Bonecor . . . viva voce nobis proposuit.' Opus Majus, I, 1-2 and note.
* Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 16.
8 Opus Majus, 1, 1-2 and note; Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 1. (The version of this letter provided
by Bridges I have used since it appears to be the better text.)
* Thorndike, History of Magic . . . II, 624 rT.
5 Mandonnet, *Roger Bacon et la composition . . .* (1913).
The Works for the Pope 149
abandoned. He does not think the Opus Majus was sent until 1268,
thus explaining Bacon's numerous excuses for delay in obeying the
mandates.
Both of these hypotheses require consideration in some detail, but
the truth, in my view, lies somewhere between the two. I think that
Roger did begin to compose a work for the Pope on the receipt of
the first mandate, that he assembled much scattered material, and did
what preliminary work he could without finances. The years 1264
to 1265 were largely spent in trying to procure funds for his work
from his family; but on his hearing the news that nothing was to be
obtained from this source, he temporarily abandoned the enterprise
until his patron became Pope, when a new opportunity offered. But
I cannot accept the suggestion that this work Bacon was engaged on
in response to the first mandate was the Opus Majus or that it was
largely finished at the time of the arrival of the second, and certainly
not sent. I believe Mandonnet's evidence to show that there is a fair
possibility that the Opus Majus, as sent finally to the Pope, contained
much that had originally been in the other works, but I do not think
these other works were abandoned when the Opus Majus was
despatched. I do not think the Opus Tertium was sent, but I think the
Opus Minus accompanied the larger work. My reasons for these
conclusions and my hypothesis as to exactly what Bacon was doing
in the years from 1264 to 1268 will follow in due course.
I cannot accept Professor Thorndike's hypothesis for the following
reasons :
i. He fails to attach sufficient importance to Bacon's second
initiative, the letter sent by Sir William Bonecor. He says: "When
Roger learned that Foulques as Pope was still interested in his work,
visions of what the apostolic see might do for his programme of
learning and himself flashed before his mind, and after a fresh but vain
effort at a scriptum prindpale which kept him busy until Epiphany, he
composed the supplementary treatise the Opus Minus with its
analysis of the preceding work for the benefit of the busy pope'. 1
Now how did the friar learn that the Pope was still interested in
his work? He learnt it because he himself had sent a letter via
Bonecor. Although this letter has not been preserved, we know from
the reply that it was a suggestion as to how the evils of the time could
be remedied. It cannot have been the Opus Majus itself. If the Opus
Majus were already composed, or even in the process of being com-
posed, wouldn't Bacon nave mentioned it, and elicited some kind of
1 Thorndike, History of Magic . . . n, 624.
15 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
reply from the Pope, instead of merely sending a verbal explanation
and a letter? If, on the other hand, it had been temporarily abandoned
and the first mandate had therefore not been obeyed, Bacon might
well have taken another initiative as he did, apologized for not
obeying it, and pleaded his insuperable difficulties, and asked his
patron if he were still interested. From the point of view of Bacon's
position within the Franciscan Order, a cardinal would have no
power over his superiors, whereas Bacon would think a pope had
only to command and be obeyed. Support of this kind would war-
rant his resumption of his abandoned task. The project was therefore
more practicable, from Bacon's point of view, than earlier, if he could
obtain papal support. The second initiative and mandate are thus
folly accounted for by this hypothesis, as I do not find they are in
Thorndike's.
2. In all three of the Opera and in the Gasquet fragment the emis-
sary is spoken of as Bacon's favourite pupil, John, 1 and in the Gasquet
fragment and in the Opus Tertium Bacon gives him an elaborate
introduction. He also goes into some detail on John's capabilities in
the Opus Majus. Now if John had already taken the Opus Majus to
Rome, and he was still available to take the Opus Minus at a later
time, then he must have returned from the Curia, in which case
Bacon would have known of its reception. There would, therefore,
be no point in speaking of sending a digest because of the perils of
the road. However, Bacon may have been sitting at home waiting
for news, and in the interval he could have started work on the other
Opera. But in this case, why make another elaborate introduction for
John who, if he returned in time to take them, would already be
known to the Pope? If he did not return, then he would not be the
emissary, and again, there would be no need for an introduction. I am
unable to account for the two separate introductions for the lad
except on the supposition that they are alternates, and that one
repkces the other. But that there was only one journey taken by
John and only one intended, I believe to be certain.
There are several discrepancies in the account of John given in the
various passages in the Opus Tertium where he is mentioned. But
only in the first passage is the present tense used, and only there is
there an introduction to him. All these other passages are consistent
with John's presence in Rome, and the last instance,! shall give seems
1 Gasquet, p. 506; Opus Majus, HI, 23-24; Opus Minus, p. 315; Brewer, Op. Tert., pp. 61-63.
The Works for the Pope 151
to be consistent only with the fact that he is already there. The
following are the passages in question:
(a) 'The lad John has taken the crystal . . . and I have instructed him in how to
demonstrate it.' 1
(b) *If you have no time to examine these difficulties, John is more capable than
anyone.' 2
(c) 'John, whom I sent, will be able to prove this before your eyes/ 3
(d) 'If you want to see (this) more fully, bid John write out the more complete
treatise in good letters/ 4
(e) 'As I proved in the treatise De radiis, which John took with him in addition
to the principal works/ 5
(f) 'But the third writing (on alchemy) I sent from my hand by John that it
might be transcribed for your glory/ 6
(g) 'So now I am sending a corrected exemplar so that John and his companions
may correct what had remained uncorrected/ 7
I am therefore entirely in agreement with Professor Thorndike that
most of the Opus Tertium was indeed composed after the Opus Majus
had been sent, but not that part of it which contains the introduction
for John, the biographical information about his own difficulties in
composing the work which is duplicated in the Gasquet fragment,
nor various other parts which are incorporated more or less com-
pletely into the Opus Majus. But I agree that much of the Opus
Tertium does indeed consist of afterthoughts of which Bacon thought
the Pope should be informed. It was not, however, to be sent by the
hand of John, but by some other emissary, who was to communicate
with John when he reached Rome. As we shall see, I do not believe
that this part of the work was ever sent, nor probably ever com-
pleted, for the Pope had died in the interval.
3. If the Opus Majus was partly composed I find it difficult to
explain what it was that Bacon was writing and abandoned 'before
1 *Puer vero Johannes portavit crystallura . . . et instruxi eum. in demonstratione.* Brewer,
Op. Terr., p. 111.
* 'Si tempus non habueritis examinandi has difficultates, Johannes potens est in his plusquam.
omnes/ Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 135.
8 *Et hoc potent Johannes quern misi probare ante oculos vestros/ Brewer, Op. Tert.,
pp. 225-26.
4 'Si vultis copiosius videre jubeatis Johanni ut faciat scribi de bona littera tractatum plen-
iorem.* Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 270.
6 'Ut probavi in tractatu De Radiis quern Johannes extra prindpalia opera deportavit.'
Brewer, Op. Tert. t p. 230.
'Tertium autem scriptum misi de manu mea per Johannem. ut Vestre Glorie transcriberetur.'
Little, Op. Tert., p. 82.
7 4 Et ideo nunc mitto exemplar correctum ut Johannes cum. suis sociis corrigat ea quc reman-
serant incorrecta.' Little, Op. Tert., p. 61.
152 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Epiphany', after the arrival of the second mandate. 1 We are told that
with all his strength he tried to obey the Pope's request, but he could
not complete it,, and therefore started another different project. If he
had started already, and made considerable progress with, the Opus
Majus after he received the first mandate, and then, on the arrival of
the second mandate, instead of continuing this he set to work on
another opus altogether, what he calls his scriptum principale, and then
abandoned it also, this would seem an extraordinary thing to do.
Thomdike calls it a 'fresh, but vain, effort'. 2 But why should he
undertake it j ust then ?
We do know that Bacon had always wanted to produce a real
scriptum principale, and this is what he would have liked most of all
to produce for the Pope. I believe, with Thorndike, that he did in
fact try to compose it after the arrival of the second mandate, but I
find it difficult to believe that he would do so if he had a nearly com-
pleted persuasio, the Opus Majus, at his disposal. If, on the other hand,
he had already sent die Opus Majus and he feared it had been un-
successful, then he might try his hand at a more inclusive work. But
what were his reasons for writing the minor works we know he did
produce? Why in these works does he give digests of the major
work, and point out in some detail the parts he considered most
important and interesting? He tells us himself. The Pope is a very
busy man, and might not have time to read even the Opus Majus.
So it would be most unlikely that, with this thought in his mind, he
should start to compose an even more difficult and comprehensive
work after he had finished and sent the Opus Majus. I think that the
order of composition, or at least the order of undertaking his works,
must have been in decreasing order of difficulty, i. The scriptum
principale (abandoned). 2. The Opus Majus (composed). 3. The Opus
Minus (a digest of 2, plus supplementary information). 4. The Opus
Tertium (a digest of 3 and 4, composed, for the most part, after the
despatch of these, when he had leisure to think over their omissions).
Then, with more leisure in the years that followed, and after the
death of his patron, he set to work again on the abandoned scriptum
principale, no longer for a pope, but as a compendium of all his
knowledge.
In one respect, however, both Thorndike and Mandonnet have
helped to draw attention to an outstanding difficulty, though they
1 'Omni virtute conabar usque post Epiphaniam . . . sed non potui . . . perficere concupita/
Gasquet, p. 501.
* Thorndike, History of Magic . . . H, 624.
The Works for the Pope 153
propose to solve it in different ways. The second mandate was only
received in 1266, and both the Opus Majus and the Opus Tertium
from internal evidence were apparently written in 1267* and the
Opus Minus is clearly written before the Opus Tertium. This is a
tremendous body of work. And yet Bacon explains the enormous
difficulties he experienced in producing it, and apologizes profusely
for the delay. This can only be accounted for by counting the years
from the first mandate and not the second (Thorndike) or by putting
the despatch of the first work well on into 1268 (Mandonnet). I do
not think Thorndike satisfactorily accounts for Bacon's apologies on
his hypothesis that the Opus Majus was already sent by the time of
the arrival of the second mandate. But if it was only in the process
of composition, and it was not finally ready until 1267, then the
apologies were warranted if we consider that it was in answer to the
first mandate. It is my own view that much of the preliminary work
for either a scriptum principale or a persuasio like the Opus Majus had
been carried out after the receipt of the first mandate. Chapters of
various separate works had been assembled which are incorporated
later into the Opus Majus hence the absence of references to the
Pope in these parts but could equally have been put into a scriptum
principale. I think that Bacon attempted the latter and abandoned it
after Epiphany, 1267. What was needed to make these separate parts
into a persuasio was not so very much in total quantity, and this was
accomplished in the early part of 1267. And I shall try to show that
those parts of the Opus Majus that are really new and written specially
for it, are the worst and least digested part of the work.
Mandonnet's hypothesis has already been briefly stated, and several
points in it have been touched upon in the course of the foregoing
discussion. The following are his main contentions.
(a) Bacon did not start work until the second mandate. The first mandate, in
my .view, and evidently Professor Thorndike's, has been unaccountably
neglected.
(&) Bacon then started work on a large persuasio (the Opus Majus) and a small
persuasio at the same time, the ktter because of the dangers of the road, and
Bacon's fear that the Pope was too busy to read a large work.
(c) A first edition of the Opus Majus was completed in 1267, but Bacon was
dissatisfied with it, and did not send it.
(d) In the course of 1267 the Opus Minus was abandoned in favour of the Opus
Tertium.
1 The passage on the reform of the calendar, referred to later, appears in Opus Majus, I, 281,
'sicut hoc anno 1267 accedit*.
154 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
(e) Before Epiphany 1268 both minor works were abandoned, and various
passages in them incorporated into a new and revised edition of the Opus
Majus.
(f) A new introduction was written in early 1268 (the Gasquet fragment),
containing the biographical information from the Opus Tertium. This was
attached to the revised edition of the Opus Majus, and both were sent.
Vanderwalle has dealt in considerable detail with what Mandonnet
has been able to put forward as evidence for his hypothesis. 1 He has
certainly succeeded in showing how unsatisfactory most of it is, but
to some extent he has himself neglected the real difficulties in the
traditional view. And he makes clear how much of Mandonnet's
hypothesis rests on the assumption (for it is little more) that the
Gasquet fragment is the prefatory letter to the Opus Majus. I also
believe the fragment belongs with the Opus Majus, but since I think
the Opus Minus was also sent, it is not of the first importance to which
work it was attached. I think in any case it was the only biographical
information sent, and the only introduction for John. Gasquet' s own
arguments for his contention that it was a prefatory letter for the
Opus Majus have never been refuted, as far as I am aware, and they
still carry much weight. 2
Stripped of the assumptions and conjectures, Mandonnet's evidence
amounts to the following.
(a) The Gasquet fragment can be placed as subsequent to the
biographical information in the Opus Tertium, because John's age is
given as at least a year less in the latter work.
(b) Bridges, in his edition of the Opus Majus, used two groups of
MSS. which are substantially different, particularly in the first part
of the work, and, above all, with a different opening paragraph.
(c) The numerous duplications in the works, especially between
the Opus Majus and the Opus Tertium.
Vanderwalle dismisses the first point as either an error in detail on
the part of Bacon or a copyist, or a loose way of speaking, and
instances other cases of Bacon's use of round numbers. I agree that
this is too slender a thread to build a whole hypothesis upon; but I
1 Vanderwalle, 'Roger Bacon dans 1'histoire . . .* (1929), pp. 177-95.
2 Gasquet's arguments are as follows: 1. The fragment appears to be complete in itself.
2. Another summary of the Opus Majus, longer than the one in this fragment, is contained in
the Opus Minus. Two summaries of the same kind were not necessary in the same work.
Therefore the fragment does not belong to the Opus Minus. 3. The account given of the
Opus Minus in the Opus Tertium contains nothing which could be taken as referring to this
fragment. 4. The document itself is described as a letter. 5. The Opus Majus, to judge from
its opening paragraph, had such a prefatory letter. In 1897, when Gasquet wrote, Bridges had
not published his revised version of the Opus Ma]us\ but the letter in the new edition is referred
to in unmistakable terms 'secundum tenorem. epistolae precedentis' (Opus Majus, III, 1).
The Works for the Pope 155
cannot dismiss it quite so peremptorily, since the years are stated in
definite terms by Bacon, and there is no question of round numbers
when one is dealing with the difference between six and seven.
In the Gasquet fragment Bacon says of John: 'Nee vidi eum nisi
Parisius a 7 annis', and: 'Hie adolescens meo consilio instructus est a
7 annis'. 1 In the Opus Tertium he says: 'Propter hoc consideravi unum
adolescentem quern a quinque vel sex annis feci instrui'. 2
We might legitimately say that 'five or six' years is a loose expres-
sion, though Mandonnet insists that Bacon uses it, not because he
did not know how long John had been with him, but because it was
between five and six years. The passage could therefore be dis-
regarded if it were not that Bacon makes a further reference to the
lad in the next two pages.
He says: 'Quamvis juvenis sit viginti annorum aut viginti et unius
ad plus', 3 and *Cum enim hie juvenculus quindecim annorum venit
ad me'. 4 This surely means, and can only mean, that John had been
with him between five and six years.
Mandonnet's second argument that there was a second edition of
the Opus Majus is dismissed by Vanderwalle on the grounds that most
of the known revisions apply only to the early pages of the work, and
do not justify us in calling it a really new edition. 5 Only a very
careful examination of the MSS. of the Opus Majus can support or
refute Mandonnet's contentions. While this, of course, is true, as I
shall point out formally later, the purpose of putting forward hypo-
theses is not so much to establish, at this stage, the truth, but to show
where the probabilities lie, and to indicate lines that might be taken
in research with the MSS. Two important differences between the
two 'editions' may be pointed out here. In the opening paragraph of
the first version published by Bridges the words 'secundum tenorem
epistolae' occur. In the revised version the word 'precedentis* is
added, as well as other matter. 6 Bridges himself did not see the
significance of the change, but continued to think that the word
referred to the Opus Minus which was originally conceived of as a
letter, and was, indeed, probably meant in die first version. But it is
difficult to see how tie Opus Minus could be called an 'epistola
i Gasquet, p. 506. s Brewer, Op. Tert. t p. 61.
* Ibid.] p*. 63. Mandonnet's arguments on this subject appear on pp. 60 ff. of his mono-
5 Vanderwalle, 'Roger Bacon dans Thistoire . . .' pp. 180 flf.
The words Monec certius scriptum et plenius compleatur* are also inserted, showing that
Bacon still had the intention of writing a longer work at his leisure, an intention he also
expresses in the Gasquet fragment. Mandonnet, p. 169.
156 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
precedent. 1 The second important difference is the exclusion of a
whole chapter from the Opus Majus in the revised version. But it
has not disappeared altogether; on the contrary, it turns up in its
entirety in the Gasquet fragment. As this chapter contains a request
for a minimum support for scientific activity, and emphasizes that the
author is demanding no radical changes, it is easy to see why Bacon
would want to call it especially to the Pope's attention by inserting it
in his final preface. 2
Mandonnet's third argument on the duplications in the different
works is important. The duplications must be explained, but no
certainty can be arrived at by these means alone as it is rarely possible
to decide in which directions the transfers, if any, were made, or if
Bacon used the same passages in different works, quite intentionally
in case the Pope should only read one of them. Only when we have
decided which works were sent can we decide whether the duplica-
tions could have served any purpose.
Taking Mandonnet's hypothesis as a whole, I find myself unable to
accept it, though in framing my own hypothesis it will appear how
much I am indebted to him for certain suggestions. Above all I find
it impossible to ignore the really considerable evidence there is for
Bacon's intention to send more than one work, his reasons for sending
them, and his actual descriptions in the Opus Tertium of what was
contained in the others. In the Opus Minus he says that in case the
work he is describing (obviously the Opus Majus} should be lost
owing to the uncertainties of the road, he has made a summary of the
whole tract in a compendium. 3 In the Opus Tertium (early pages) he
says: It was necessary (past tense) on account of the very great
dangers of the road to compose another opusculum in which I might
make clear the gist (intentio) of the scriptura principalis > Again: 'If
by any chance it should happen on account of the perils of the road
that the Opus Majus should be lost, you would have its gist here . . .
so that my work may be known to Your Wisdom, and so that some
things may be treated better and more clearly, and other things
changed and others added'. 5
In the fragment of the Opus Tertium edited by Little, Bacon is quite
specific. 1 touched on these matters concerning pkces of the world
1 Bridges expresses this view in Opus Majus, IE, 159. The two different versions he prints in
Opus Majus, I, 1-2, and IE, 1.
3 Opus Majus, I, 31-2; III, 34-35 (Part I, chap. xvi). In Vol. IE Bridges prints the chapter in
parentheses.
* Op us Minus, p. 322. * Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 5.
IfeiU,p. 67.
The Works for the Pope 157
and the alteration of places and things through the heavenly bodies,
and concerning judgments and secret works, but I did not put them
all in the Opus Majus, but only what concerned places. Other things I
put in the Opus Minus when I came to deckre die gist of that part of
the Opus Majus. For I did not then propose to treat more things in
the Opus Majus, as I wished to hurry on account of the mandate of
your Holiness.' 1 Again: 'Because these things are very difficult
(discussion of the vacuum) I thought that I would take note of them
in one of the works. But in the first and the second I did not give
much thought to them, not enough to excite me to write about them,
or I omitted them purposely because of the length of the work and
because of my great haste/ 2 This last passage comes from the later
pages of the Opus Tertium as edited by Brewer. I believe both passages
quoted in this paragraph were written by Bacon at leisure, after the
other works had been despatched, and suggest that they can bear no
other interpretation. Since Little, in his examination of the MSS. of
the Opus Tertium, found clear evidence that the work was written in
sections at different times, 3 this will be taken as a fact, requiring
explanation in my hypothesis.
To sum up again briefly, the following points need to be covered
by any hypothesis :
So) What was Bacon doing between tne first and second mandates ?
6) Did he reply to the Cardinal by sending a work, and if not, why not?
(c) When he received the second mandate, what did he do?
(d) Why did he compose the Opus Minus and the Opus Tertiuml
(e) Why are there two variants of the Opus Majus and numerous duplications
between this and the other works?
(J) Why was the Opus Tertium composed in sections ?
(g) What works did Bacon ultimately send and when?
Let it be said at once that no certainty can be arrived at without
a very complete investigation of the Baconian MSS. to see how far
really separate editions of his work can be traced. And, even if this
is done, it is quite possible that not enough MSS. are known for
anyone to be able to do more than frame yet another hypothesis.
The purpose of presenting one here, which, like Professor Thorn-
dike's, 4 is only made on the basis of the printed texts, is only that it
may be able to suggest certain lines of investigation for anyone who,
1 Little, Op. Tert., p. 18.
2 Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 199.
8 Little, Op. Tert., pp. xv, xxi. Cf. also the passages which suggest John's presence in Rome,
pp. 150-51, above.
4 Thorndike, History of Magic . . . H, 625, n. 1.
158 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
unlike myself, is competent to undertake the formidable task of
scrutinizing the MSS. What I have tried to do is to suggest a way in
which the works may have been composed, which, as far as I can see,
both takes care of all the known evidence, and appears psychologically
possible, if not probable. If my scheme is complicated, this, I hope,
is the reflection of Bacon's own unsystematic manner of working,
and not of any personal preference for the obscure.
If we take the date of the receipt of the first mandate from the
Cardinal as 1263 or 1264, it is first necessary to consider the state of
Bacon's work at this time, and the chronological chart given on
p. in above may be consulted, even though this too is conjectural.
If the Communia naturalium of Bacon, as appears from internal
evidence, had already been begun several years before the Opera, then
Bacon had already outlined a scheme for a compendium of the
sciences. 1 In the Gasquet fragment he also tells us that he had had the
intention of committing to writing what he knew, and this fact was
known to many. 2 But he had not made much progress, partly owing
to the censorship and his own weariness and languor. He had, how-
ever, composed 'some chapters, now on one science and now on
another*. 3 But, as these were imperfect, he had taken no care of them,
and he no longer had them in his hands. 4 It is clear that Bacon
needed some encouragement to proceed with his labours, some belief
that someone of importance would read his works if he composed
them. This, therefore, in Bacon's own words, is the background for
the first initiative taken through Raymond of Laon.
His hopes realized, and the first mandate in his hands he must first
decide what to write for the Cardinal; and the relatively clear and
systematic account given in the Gasquet fragment gives no indication
that he had ever anything in mind but the compendium of the
sciences, which had been planned and partly executed. This work
was an ideal that Bacon had set himself, and even when he finally
sends the persuasiones to the Pope he still has it in mind, as we have
seen.
The first necessity, however, was money. And to obtain this he
sent off to his family in England. There was no hope of obtaining
anything from his Order, because he could not even tell his superiors
i Steele, Fasc. II, 3-9.
3 'Verum cnim est quod a multis retroactis temporibus proposui litteris mandate que nosco,
et hoc pluribus innotuit.' Gasquet, p. 500.
* 'Proculdubio nihil composui nisi quod aliqua capitula, mine de una scientia, mine de alia.
Gasquet, p. 500.
4 'flia que conscripsi non habeo, nam propter imperfectionem eorum de ipsis non curavi.'
Gasquet, p. 500.
The Works for the Pope 159
about the project since he had been told to observe secrecy. The
second necessity was to assemble all the chapters he had already
written, the De signis et causis, the De laude mathematicae, the Perspective!
and probably other works that could not ultimately be used in the
Opus Majus, but which could have formed part of a scriptum prindpale.
And we know he made progress from 1263 to 1265 on the Computus,
though this was extremely technical.
His hopes, however, must have received a disastrous check when
he heard of the rebellion in England and knew he could expect no
funds from there. But there was one new thing in his favour. The
Cardinal, whom he had disappointed so far, had now become Pope.
A mandate from him would be an altogether different affair from a
mandate from a cardinal. He could, perhaps, obtain money from the
Curia, and at all events the Pope's commands would weigh heavily
with the Franciscans and perhaps win him some official support from
his superiors. So he composes a careful letter to the Pope, hinting
that he has 'remedies' for the evils of the time, and mentioning
briefly his difficulties resulting from the censorship of the Franciscans,
and explaining why he had so far been unable to produce anything
for his patron. At the same time, as we have seen, he sent a verbal
message by Sir William Bonecor, probably a friend of his own or of
his family from English days, delicately mentioning the matter of
money.
The reply that he receives from the Pope in due course both raises
his hopes and dashes them. There is, indeed, a mandate from the
head of Christendom; but there is no money and no instructions to
the Franciscans to support him. On the contrary, there are the same
instructions to keep the whole matter secret. This put Bacon in an
impossible situation. He had now the chance of his life, but no way
of taking advantage of it. I have tried to show that he was already
suspect to his superiors. If now he tried to raise funds he must explain
why he wanted them. He had technically broken a regulation of the
Order when he approached the Pope, 1 and though this might be a
venial offence since the regulation was primarily intended to prevent
the brothers from making personal petitions, it could not be expected
to endear him to them.
Bacon tells us what he did. He 'solicited many great men*; he said
'that some business of yours had. to be transacted in France', though
he did not 'say what it was that needed so much money'. But he was
continually repulsed so that he knew he could not proceed in this
1 See above, p. 143.
ido Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
manner. So in dire straits he forced his friends and poor men to
expend their all, and sell many things and mortgage the rest, even
going to the usurers and promising them that he would send an
expense account to the Pope. But he finally decided that he would
not send an expense account until he had been able to send him a
writing which would please him as evidence for his expenditures. 1
Now I do not think Bacon could have done all this without telling
the friars at least something of his venture. They could not fail to
know that he had a writing in progress, and that he was trying to
raise money for it. If the work was carried out under their auspices,
Bacon could have used copyists within the Order, and the use of
outside copyists, for whom he was trying to raise money, would at
once have aroused suspicion. I think it probable, therefore, that
Bacon did show his superiors his letter from the Pope, which was in
itself fairly harmless, and let them know that he was replying. But
the letter gave them die reason for the secrecy and for the use of
outside copyists. The friars would then only know enough to make
them jealous and suspicious, and extremely inquisitive; but Bacon
would have technically complied with the Pope's injunctions. What
follows, then, becomes explicable. In view of the source of the man-
date the friars would not dare to forbid the enterprise altogether; but
they would make it difficult for him, by refusing to relax their regula-
tions and making him do his usual work. 2
At last Bacon succeeds in raising sixty pounds. But meanwhile he
could not afford to remain idle, and he tells us that he worked with
all his power until after Epiphany to finish his intended work, and
he collected many things, but he found he could not complete what
he had desired. 3 I think there can be little doubt that this work,
which he abandoned after Epiphany, 1267, was the scriptum principale.
In the same Gasquet fragment in which he gives us this information
he tells us why he abandoned it. For a real compendium of science it
1 'Considerans igitur vestram reverentiatn et praeceptum, solKcitavi multos et magnos . . . ct
dixi quod negotium quoddam vestrmn debuit tractari in Francia per me, licet illud non expressi,
cujus executio indiget pecunia magna. Sed quotiens reputatus improbus, quotiens repulsus,
quotiens dilatus spe vana . . . Etiam. mihi non credebant amici, quia non potui eis negotium
explicate; unde per hanc viam non potui procedere. Angustiatus igitur . , . coegi familiares
homines et pauperes expendere omnia Et etiam propter vestram reverentiam decrevi quod
non facerem rationem de expensis antequam aliqua mitterem quae vobis placerent, et quae
oculata fide darent testimonium expensarum.* Brewer, Op. Tert., pp. 16-17.
a 'Et primum impedimentum fuit per eos, qui mihi praefuerunt, quibus cum nihil scripsistis
in excusationem meam, et . . . instabant ineffabili violentia utin aliis eorum voluntati obedurem.*
Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 15.
8 'Omni virtute conabar usque post Epiphaniam Domini quatenus opus postulatum destin-
arem et multa collegi talia, sed . . . non potui propter impedimenta que occurrebant perficere
concupita/ Gasquet, p. 501.
The Works for the Pope 161
was necessary that one man should write on one subject, and another
on another. 1 It was necessary also to consult other workers in the
field and obtain advice. 2 Bacon, after having made the attempt, came
to the conclusion that he himself was not competent to prove the
details of the sciences. He was apt to become confused unless talking
about the truth which he personally knew, 3 But it was possible for
one man to explain the possibilities of science. So he determined on a
second-best, a persuasio> which would whet the appetite of the Pope,
and perhaps persuade him to subsidize and give his support for a real
co-operative effort, details of which will be given in the next chapter.
This persuasio, of course, was the Opus Majus.
Bacon tells us a little about his method of composition, which
will no doubt apply to all his works to the Pope. Evidently he was
one of those writers who write first and think afterwards, revising
their first copy rather than planning the whole in advance. He tells
us that he never writes anything difficult without reaching the fourth
or fifth exemplar before he has what he wants. 4 In this case also he
needed to complete experiments or observations, taken not only in
the daytime, but at night, as he had to wait for a lunar rainbow to
observe its colours. 5 But in spite of the difficulties he did succeed in
producing the Opus Majus.
The reason that it was not an impossible task for him to produce
the Opus Majus, and even in a fairly short time, was that much of the
preliminary work had been done, and he had been able to assemble
the separate parts already written. He already had his synthesis fairly
clear in his own mind on nearly all the separate parts of his universal
science. What was required was the unification of the whole, and the
infusing into it of a spirit that would persuade his exalted reader to
action. The causes of error were familiar to him from long brooding
on the subject, his knowledge of languages was sufficient for him to
be able to turn out the short part concerned with these. He had long
ago thought out the way in which the sciences could be used for
theology. Much of the mathematical work was already done in the
1 'Non tamen quod unus sciat singula nee majorem partem, sed aliquis innim, alius alterum.*
Gasquet, p. 502. ,
* *Necessarium igitur est in tantis rebus quod consilinm alterius habeatur . ... acut arofcx . . .
indiget variis cesoribus ac sculpentibus et componentibus ea que fariliora sunt.' Gasquet, p. 501.
8 "Me non oblige ad singularium probationem nee sumcio solus . . . non sum confusus
loquens de veritate quam scio.' Gasquet, p. 504.
4 'Nihil scribe difficile quod non transeat usque ad quartum vel quintum exemplar antequam
habeam quod intendo.* Gasquet, p. 501. 'Nam quantumcumque bene sciret earn . . . exem-
plaria quinque vel sex multiplicari oporteret, antequam unum haberet electum et fidditer
consummatum.' Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 14.
* Opus Minus, p. 317.
162 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
form of the De laude mathematicae, and Perspectiva was complete. The
first part ofstientia experimentalis may have been already prepared in
the form of the treatise on the rainbow. This left him with what
should have been the crown of his whole work, moral philosophy.
And this he has neither thought out, nor prepared anything for,
except the inferior Metaphysica, which he uses all the same, poor as
it is. The bulk of this part is occupied with a quite undigested report
on Seneca's De ira which he has recently found. But die whole of
the moral philosophy reads as if Bacon was writing quickly and
without much thought, and mostly the platitudes and common-
places that would be the stock-in-trade of any medieval friar, who
had listened to his required number of mediocre sermons. It is with
reason that Mandonnet wonders how any Master of Arts who had
studied the ethics of Aristotle 'a ete reduit a traiter si improprement et
confinement de la philosophic morale'. 1 Nevertheless, the Opus
Majus as a whole, in spite of its piecemeal character and unevenness
of style, was a masterpiece of persuasion and enthusiasm. Bacon's
guiding thought of the unity of science and its value for theology
was enough to give the whole work unity and direction.
So far our account has been reasonably straightforward, and I
believe the foregoing pages are an approximately true account of
Bacon's labours up to the production of a first edition of the Opus
Majus. What follows will be more hypothetical, an attempt to deal
with the discrepancies and difficulties set forth in the early part of this
chapter.
We have suggested that Bacon wrote the Opus Majus at consider-
able speed, and we have mentioned the fact that he was not satisfied
with the part on moral philosophy. This he tells us himself in three
passages in the Opus Tertium, the first in one of the early pages, and the
other two in the part that I believe was never sent. In the earliest
passage he says that he only 'touched upon 5 the sixth part of moral
philosophy. 2 In another he does not say how many parts he wrote,
but he tells us that all the parts which follow the excursus on Seneca
were not corrected or signed, and he is sending now a corrected copy. 3
In the third passage he tells us that he excused himself from the sixth
part altogether. 4 In the account of the Opus Majus contained in the
Gasquet fragment there is no mention of a sixth part either, though
Tert., p. 52.
propter quod modo mitto
Tert. 9 p. 76.
exemplar correctum.' Brewer, Op. Tert.> p. 305.
4 'Excusavi me ab expositione istius partis/ Little, Op.
The Works for the Pope 163
this is not conclusive, as the digest in this fragment is very short,
though otherwise it appears to be complete. 1 I think this evidence
is enough to show that Bacon at least made some changes in the part
on moral philosophy and that he was dissatisfied with it.
I think, however, that he sent off the Opus Majus to the copyists
to be put into 'bonae litterae* as the Pope had desired. This would
take some time, as the work was of a considerable length. But it was
already three years since the first mandate, at the least, and he dared
not delay much longer. Now as soon as the work was at the copyists
Bacon, left with nothing to do, begins to think of all the things he
has omitted from the great work. He is afraid also, or at least he tells
himself, that there is a danger of the work being lost on the way. So
he starts to work at once on another writing, intending at first to use
it only as an introductory letter to the Opus Majus. It may even have
been started before the Opus Majus went to the copyists and "was the
work referred to in the opening paragraph of the first edition. 2 In
order that this new work would be still of some use if the major
work were lost, Bacon gives in it a digest of the most important
material in the Opus Majus; this would also be useful if the Pope were
too busy to read the greater work. This new work is the Opus Minus.
This work could, indeed, have served as an introduction to the
Opus Majus if Bacon had been content to let well alone. But it is
apparent that more and more things occurred to him that he ought
to have inserted in the Opus Majus. Supposing the Pope should think
he didn't know anything about alchemy, or astrology, because they
had been handled so briefly in the Opus Majus. And he had not been
specific enough about the sins committed by theologians, the seven
sins of theology. So these inexcusable omissions are put into the Opus
Minus, which now becomes a formidable opus in its own right. But,
having written it, Bacon cannot bear not to send it. So off it goes,
too, to the copyists to be put into good letters. But time is running
short, and the work, being much longer than he had bargained for,
is also going to be more expensive. And the Opus Majus still needs
an introduction, of which it has just been robbed. Both works, it
may be imagined, are now at the copyists and there is going to be
a large bill to pay when they come back, or before.
With money on his mind he begins what should have been the
introduction to both works. And in this Opus Tertium we have the
long and moving account of his 'impediments'. But, strangely
enough, in addition to this we have also the remark that he has been
1 Gasquct, p. 510. a Supra, p. 155.
164 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
relieved of some of his impediments. And there is an air for a few
pages of a new freedom, when he compares himself with Cicero
recalled from exile. Specifically, he states that he has 'gained the
remedies for his former impediments', and is now able to add some
necessary things which he could not put in before. 1
I should like to suggest that at this time, when he had sent nothing
to the Pope, and when financial troubles were threatening to over-
whelm him, he finally gave up the attempt to produce and despatch
the works in secrecy, and turned to his superiors for support. This
necessitated his showing them a copy of the Opus Majus, so that they
could see it was in no way harmful to them or discreditable to the
Order. The Opus Majus, in fact, is reasonably restrained, and in it
Bacon refrains from personal attack on his enemies. The friars may
even have given the work and its author their grudging admiration.
But it is surely true that, if Bacon had been relieved of any of his
difficulties, this could only have been through action taken by the
friars. He needed money and he needed assistance; and above all,
perhaps, he wanted to be relieved of his menial duties. I cannot see
who else could have helped him unless he had received some gifts of
money. And, as we shall see in the final chapter of this study, this
hypothesis is consistent with what we know of Bacon's later life.
We know that he did not tell the Pope of this minor defection.
But in reading the early pages of the Opus Tertium one is .continually
struck by Bacon's emphasis upon his troubles; this might well be a
way of explaining his defection to his own conscience. * What tre-
mendous efforts I did make, and you, sitting on top of the world,
were, of course, unaware of them. How could I help myself?' 2
Moreover, since it seems almost certain that the Pope had not re-
ceived any work by the time Bacon began the chapters of the Opus
Tertium that contained the introduction for John and the long
account of his own troubles, he could expect no new initiative from
the Curia. Bacon himself, as we have seen, had already decided that
lie would not ask for any subsidy until he had sent the Pope some-
thing that would please ham. If he had already despatched even a part
of his work he would have mentioned the fact, and might well have
now found himself able to request financial assistance.
So he starts to work on the Opus Tertium, still, I think, originally
1 'Et impedimentorum remedia priorum nactus, potui aliqua addere necessaria, quae prius
ponere non valebam.' Brewer, Op, Tert., p. 5.
1 'Non miror vero si non cogitastis de expensis his, quia sedentes in culmine mundi habetis
de tot et tantis cogitate, quod nullus potest mentis vestrae sollicitudines aestimare.* Brewer,
Op. Tert. p. 15.
The Works for the Pope 165
intended as an introduction to die Opus Majus. But the temptation
is too much for him, and he begins to make this into a major work
too. Perhaps the passage on the calendar, of great importance for
the Church, but expressed too technically in the Computus, occurred
originally in the Opus Tertium. 3 - At all events, the same passage occurs
word for word in the Opus Majus. In the Opus Tertium, also, is the
account of John, and the mention of his age which we have discussed
earlier in this chapter.
While the Opus Tertium was approaching a formidable size, with
much new and much that had been better thought out, I suggest the
first edition of the Opus Majus returned from the copyists, and Bacon
was greatly distressed, for it no longer represented Ms best thought,
and in the cold light of the morning the part on moral philosophy
offended him. His best thought was now also to be found in the
Opus Minus, where it could stay since it would be sent. But the
Opus Tertium could not be sent as it was, nor could the Opus Majus
without revision. There is only one thing to do revise parts of the
moral philosophy, and cut out the rest. This, he tells us, in the latest
version of the Opus Tertium, he accomplished. And here I accept
Mandonnet's suggestion that he proceeded to extract the parts of the
Opus Tertium that he wanted to put in the major work, and sent the
revised version to the copyists, or perhaps now gave them to brothers
in the Order to copy. But by now it must have been the end of 1267,
a busy year, indeed, for Roger ! He had sent no word to the Pope
because all this time he had been expecting to have a completed work
ready for John and his companions.
If we consider the state of his work at this time, we shall see that
he would have a more or less complete Opus Minus, a revised Opus
Majus, and a seriously mutilated Opus Tertium. In addition he nad
a number of separate works that he planned to send to the Pope, that
were never incorporated in the Opera? There is no point in preparing
a further version of the Opus Tertium at this stage, for what is wanted
is an introduction only, including a recommendation for John. John,
however, is a year older than when Bacon first wrote an introduction
for him in the Opus Tertium. So Roger prepares a new, brief, and
systematic introduction, in the form of a letter, with an entirely
accurate account of the Opus Majus as it was finally sent, and, as we
have mentioned earlier, he takes a whole chapter which sums up his
needs and his suggestions for the study of science, and incorporates
1 Brewer, Op. Tert., pp. 272-91.
Ibid., pp. 199, 227, 230; Little, pp. Xerf., pp. 61, 82.
1 66 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
this into the introductory letter. This, of course, is the Gasquet
fragment. John and his companions take everything except the
mutilated Opus Tertium. And it may be some confirmation of the
hypothesis here set forth that the Gasquet fragment, Bacon's original
copy of a part of the Opus Majus with his own notes in the margin,
and a more or less complete Opus Minus have all been found in the
Vatican library, while no MS. of the Opus Tertium has yet been found
there, in spite of a lengthy search. 1
So the works are at last on their way, and Bacon is left alone, and,
as usual, more things occur to him that he has not said, and he is still
worried that John and his companions may not arrive safely. And he
is still not happy with the part on moral philosophy, and especially
those that he has not corrected and signed. 2 So he starts to work once
more on the Opus Tertium, though it is really substantially a new
work. Many passages in it are superior to the similar parts of the
Opus Majus, and there are many new discussions altogether, such as
the analysis of the vacuum. 3 But I do not think the work was either
finished or sent, since Pope Clement IV died towards the end of 1268,
and there was no longer a patron of authority ready to listen to him.
In fact there was now an interregnum in the Papacy, Bacon's reaction
to which will be discussed in the final chapter of dais study.
It is possible that Clement read the books that Bacon sent to him,
but if so, there is no record of the fact. There is no further mention of
John in any extant writing of his master. The only reference that
Bacon makes to his own labours of these years and the great works
he had sent to the Pope is to be found in the Compendium studii
philosophiae, where he merely says that he sent an account of the
opinions of the ancient philosophers about the truths of Christianity
to the lord Clement in the form of a compendium. 4 Presumably this
refers to the part on moral philosophy in the Opus Majus. Of his
works on science and their reception there is never a word.
1 A. Pelzer, 'Une source inconnue . . .' (1919), p. 47. Only the marginal notes are in Bacon's
hand.
* Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 305. 3 Ibid., pp. 149 ff. CSP, p. 424.
CHAPTER IX
THE UNIVERSAL SCIENCE OF ROGER BACON
IT has sometimes been supposed that the science of Roger Bacon is
full of contradictions. He believed in revealed and experimental
knowledge at the same time; he thought of theology as the queen of
sciences and the crown of all knowledge. Even George Sarton, who
has understood Bacon in many ways so well, seems to think that his
'fundamentalism' was somehow at variance with his scientific vision,
a kind of atavism that he had not yet thrown off in spite of his
'modern' approach. 1
H. O. Taylor, in the chapter on Bacon in his Medieval Mind, gives
.his considered judgment as follows:
His writings remain, such of them as are known, astounding in their originality
and insight and almost as remarkable for their inconsistency. They are marked by
a confusion of method and a distortion of purpose, which spring from the contra-
dictions between Bacon's genius and the current views he adopted. 2
While in some respects this is a fair criticism, I think it can only be
fully justified if we look upon Bacon as a modern born out of due
time, which, indeed, is to some extent Taylor's view. I do not find
the writings inconsistent to the same degree when they are considered
in relation to his knowledge and outlook. Medieval scientists make
assumptions different from our own, but they are not altogether
unreasonable in view of the meagreness of the material at their
disposal.
On the other hand, Raoul Carton has made a tremendous attempt
to establish Bacon as a philosopher in his own right. His three long
monographs, based only upon the work of Bacon's maturity, and
without benefit of his earlier Parisian lectures, seem to me to form
a superstructure too heavy for the foundations. Carton, in my view,
takes too seriously the few passages in Bacon which are relevant to
his scheme. While the result may be of interest to students of medie-
val philosophy in general, I find it comparatively little value for an
understanding of Bacon himself. 3 Of the seven hundred pages that
Carton devotes to Bacon I have found it impossible to make much
1 Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, H, 960.
* Taylor, Medieval Mind, H, 516. (4th edit., 1925.)
* For Carton's monographs see complete bibliography.
167
168 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
use. And it seems to me that the modest attempt at constructing the
philosophy of science which is implicit but never stated in Bacon's
work, is as much as is necessary for the understanding of the scientific
synthesis which he himself projected.
I do not believe that it is necessary to make excuses for Bacon.
His science, including his 'fundamentalism', seems to me remarkably
consistent, and in accordance with the best knowledge of his time.
He is not, however, a good apologist for himself because his gift for
systematic analysis is greatly inferior to his imagination and vision.
He does not clearly state his assumptions and postulates, which he
largely took for granted, and are those of his time. He has not yet
found it necessary to keep his religious beliefs and his natural know-
ledge in separate compartments; he is far, indeed, from the doctrine
of die double truth, associated with the name of Averroes, that what
is true in philosophy may contradict the revealed truths of religion
and vice versa. Bacon's belief in revealed knowledge in no way
vitiates his claim to be a scientific thinker. It may be alien to the
modern viewpoint, but it is consistent with his own, and his theory
of psychology supports it. The active intellect is God, or, in Adam
Marsh's phrase, the 'raven of Elias', and the human soul is capable of
receiving knowledge from this source through its own highest faculty,
the intettectus possibles*
In this chapter, therefore, rather than state the scheme adopted by
Bacon in his work for the Pope which has in any case been effec-
tively done by Bridges in his introduction to his edition of the Opus
Majusvre shall endeavour to sketch the philosophy of science which
Bacon took for granted as his intellectual framework, but himself
never stated in formal terms. Bacon was primarily a thinker (if not
a systematic one) and his contribution to the details of scientific
knowledge is meagre; it seems, therefore, fairer to make any judg-
ment of his work dependent on our understanding of his achievements
as a scientific thinker and philosopher. This intellectual scheme has
been drawn entirely from Bacon's own statements, though in some
details I have drawn out to their logical conclusions various remarks
which are only suggestions. And I have used his illustrations, which
are of so much interest to himself, as indications of the thought behind
them, even when his thought is not explicitly stated. Since the whole
of his work has been utilized for this purpose, specific notes and
references will not usually be made unless there is some passage where
1 Brewer, Op. Tert. t pp. 73-75.
The Universal Science of Roger Bacon 169
Bacon himself states his theories in unequivocal terms, and consulta-
tion of this particular passage will be of value to the reader.
I. How can nature be known?
Before ever he starts to investigate, the scientist, faced with all the
varied phenomena of nature, must, above everything else, have some
form of belief. He must believe that knowledge of at least some part
of nature is attainable; as a human being he will probably also have a
belief in the potential usefulness of his endeavour. What he considers
useful will likewise depend upon prior beliefs. If he thinks that the
life of every man upon earth is of great value, then he may hope that
his work will serve to prolong this life upon earth. If he believes that
life should be pleasurable, then he will guide his research in such a
way as to make the lives of his fellows more pleasurable. If, like
Bacon, he accepts a goal of salvation in the next world through faith
in a certain religion, he will order his scientific work in such a way
that the number of believers, candidates for salvation, will be in-
creased, that the understanding of existing believers will be deepened
and their faith strengthened. No scientific worker can be without a
belief, whether it is stated explicitly or taken for granted without
question.
But he must also have a belief that there is a possibility of finding
out the truth about a certain range of phenomena. Again, this need
not be explicitly stated, even to one's self. We may reasonably deny
the possibility of absolute truth, and say that truth is only what is
perceived to work in practice. We may hold the theory that we can
only perceive the appearances of things, but never the things-in-
themselves. In this case we shall only investigate the appearances, and
the relations between them. At least, then, the relationships are true,
and the fact that the knowledge works is true.
Modern science in general has been based upon the realization that,
in the natural world, we can never know either the 'what* or the
'why', but only the 'how 5 . By the examination of the successive stages
of a process, and learning how to repeat diem at will, we can in fact
learn how the second stage follows die first. And we say glibly that
the second is caused by it, though we have known ever since Hume
diat diis is not really so. But we have ceased altogether to try to
discover the other why, the Tor the sake of which', die final cause in
Aristode's metaphysical scheme. And though we have been able to
disintegrate matter into electrical charges, we still hesitate to say that
this is what matter is, because die principle of organization cannot be
170 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
simply disregarded. Yet this limited knowledge of modern times is
of immense practical value because we can repeat the 'cause' and
'effect' at will. And we can erect a theoretical science of causes and
effects throughout the whole of nature. This is always subject to
checking, and is entirely effective for practical purposes within the
limited area to which it is applicable.
Now the medieval man had the use of a most remarkable aphorism,
which does not seem to modern scientists to be true. But, even if
true, it was not originally based on verifiable empirical facts; nor can
it conceivably be proved. It is, in short, an entirely illegitimate and
unscientific assumption. Yet this cardinal tenet of medieval science
was regarded in the thirteenth century not as a pleasing moral
aphorism, but as a scientific axiom, as true as any geometrical axiom
from the system of Euclid, and as useful for deducing further data
by the syllogistic method. 'Natura nihil tacit frustra 9 , said the medie-
val. Nature does nothing in vain.
If this beautiful and sublimely simple axiom can be accepted as
true, at once the whole of natural knowledge becomes potentially
available for man. It supplies the synthetic principle that can never
be inferred empirically from the data. Nature, instead of being a
collection of disordered and chaotic phenomena, only to be investi-
gated in its separate parts, becorties an ordered whole, bound together
by purposes\ and these, being analogous to human purposes, are
comprehensible to the human understanding. A parasite growing on
a tree does not just happen to grow there because the seed took root
in a favourable spot, which is all that can be verified by empirical
methods. To a believer in purposes the parasite could be there
because it did something for the tree, because it benefited the plants
in the neighbourhood, because it fed the animals and birds that ate it,
or conceivably for the purpose of decorating the baronial hall for
Christmas festivities, or even to act as a symbol for man of mutual
aid in the kingdoms of nature. It could, for the medieval, be any or
all of these things. The doctrine allowed scope for die human
imagination, and it really did explain natural phenomena in a way
which was satisfying to human aspirations. To understand these
phenomena it was only necessary to transfer our own knowledge of
human purposes to the field of nature; if one went far enough and had
enough knowledge, it was possible to know the whole of nature,
even without personally examining every phenomenon. Universal
science was not beyond the possibility of man. When Bacon was
asked in the course of his Parisian lectures whether plants had a sense
The Universal Science of Roger Bacon 171
of touch, he could and did confidently reply in the negative. The
sense of touch, he said, is useful for animals and human beings because
they have the power of locomotion. What would be the use of a
plant's ability to feel if it could not do anything about it, if it could
not escape from its enemy? Nature would not give it this power in
vain. Therefore the plant has no sense of touch. 1
Now to our science this question is insoluble. We cannot identify
ourselves with a plant, and therefore cannot know subjectively
whether it feels. We know that it lacks a central nervous system, and
therefore does not feel through the same mechanism as man or
animal. On the other hand, we have observed plants that react in
a specialized way to the near presence of certain animals. We call
this an 'automatic reaction'; but this is only a verbal explanation,
giving no positive information. We smile at the medievals for
thinking that the question was even legitimate and could have an
answer.
The modern ecologist, one of the few synthetic scientists of our
day, has set himself the task of observing the behaviour of living
creatures in relation to their environment. His fundamental hypo-
thesis is that nature does preserve a balance amongst living creatures;
from which it follows that much can be learned from this natural
economy. He has discovered that if we change any important factor,
there will be a chain reaction of events, any one of which may cause
serious disturbance in fields far remote from tie one in which the
first change was made. Nature, as he puts it, seems to 'hang together'.
He speaks of the various activities in nature as having a relation to
others; his science is descriptive and normative, or practical. But it
cannot really be speculative in the sense in which Baconian and
medieval science was speculative, because there can be no verifiable
laws in this modern science, no universals to which the ecologist can
relate his particulars. If he speaks of &e function of an animal or plant
in nature, he is careful to explain that this implies no anthropo-
morphism; he is only stating what the plant or animal actually does
in nature.
The medievals, in the absence of the tedious observation and
inquiry that show how each part of nature is in fact dependent on
another, contented themselves with simplifying science and we may
excuse them on the grounds of their ignorance. And if we ask them
ironically how they are going to inform us of the purposes of natural
phenomena which appear to have no connection whatsoever with
Fasc. XI, 186-87.
172 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
man or with any living creature, they would reply that it is quite
true that such purposes can never be determined by observation
and inquiry. But this does not mean that they are unknowable,
and that men may resign themselves to their ignorance. On the
contrary, this information has been given by God in the form of
revelation.
It should be understood that revelation was not to the medieval an
alternative form of knowledge to empirically acquired data. It was
an absolutely essential part of it if there were to be any final under-
standing of a phenomenon which included its purposes. It was one
of the primary tasks of the scientific investigator to complete, and, as
Bacon emphasized, to confirm, the knowledge given in summary or
occult form in the Scriptures, and in the writings of the Saints and
Fathers of the Church, and of anyone who had had direct access to
the revealed knowledge. 1
The knowledge least accessible to man, the purpose of those
heavenly bodies that seem at first sight to have nothing to do with
man, was, according to Bacon, the first of all to be revealed, to the
sons of Seth, the grandsons of Adam. The reason we cannot believe
in astrology to-day is that we cannot conceive of any possible mechan-
ism by which the stars,. which our instruments may tell us are millions
of light years away, could affect humble man. Billions of stars,
galaxies, and nebulae, which can only be seen at all by the aid of the
most powerful telescope, according to our way of dunking can have
no relation to man. In our search for efficient causes in the universe,
cosmic rays have been discovered, and these make sense to us; and
we proceed to investigate the means of their transmission. Our 'why*
is answered by the statement that such or such a body gives off these
rays by a recognizable process which we can even duplicate in the
laboratory on a small scale. When the only stars that could be seen
were those visible to the naked eye, it did not seem so impossible that
there was a relationship between their movements and the vital
processes of the human being, or even his path of life. Each planet,
according to its position at a given moment in the sky, would have
its effects on earth. For nature was one. Superiors ruled inferiors,
and rays from the planets converged on the central earth.
This was the kind of knowledge that could only come originally
1 Cf. p. 73 above and note 3, on how Bacon changes the sense of Josephus who had
claimed that the patriarchs had lived for such long periods in order to be able to make astrono-
mical discoveries. Bacon explains their longevity by the necessity to understand what had been
revealed to them.
The Universal Science of Roger Bacon 173
from revelation. However far back into the past the observations
went, they could not make astrology into an empirical science, what-
ever might be said of true astronomy. For the relations of the
observed movements to man must necessarily be hidden. We see a
star in the sky and observe its movements; but the correlation with
man's activities or with parts of his body is a theoretical one and can-
not be based solely on observation. But once the knowledge had been
revealed, as long as it was not lost but preserved through the genera-
tions, it could be checked empirically. Bacon suggests that this should
be done, and it is the heart of his scientia experimentalis. If the revealed
knowledge (hypothesis) could be confirmed by observations in the
world of sense, this would help to confirm faith in all revelation,
including the truths of religion. It was not enough to accept the
revelation on authority alone; since, as Bacon realized, we can never
be really certain until a thing is demonstrated to be true by the
evidence of our senses. But at the same time everything that had
been revealed could not at once be demonstrated to be true by
experience. It was necessary to accept certain kinds of statements on
the basis of authority, on the presumption that they were true; this
acceptance depended upon the nature of the authority. As we have
seen, Bacon had no objections to prophesy if the source were satisfac-
tory to him. He might have even accepted scientific revelations if
they had come from Joachim or St. Francis, since they had lived the
kind of lives which make revelation possible. It is not unlikely that
Bacon himself hoped for a personal revelation. But in the absence of
any sign that moderns were fit to receive them, it was safer to believe
that all scientific knowledge had been revealed long ago, and there
was no need to repeat lie revelations. However, these original
revelations had become distorted by translation from one language
to another, and by being transmitted through unbelievers. The truly
scientific method was surely to try to discover in all their pristine
purity the revelations first given to the sons of Seth, to Solomon, to
the Hebrew prophets, and so on down to Aristotle and Avicenna,
each being a lesser authority than his predecessors.
Now in most scientific fields revelation of this kind was a necessity.
The medieval man could only hope to learn a little from empirical
inquiry in comparison with die enormous amount that he could
never know; and heavenly purposes were completely hidden from
him. If a man were suffering from a stomach ailment, the medieval
scientist had not yet the technique to determine the interrektionships
between the stomach and the rest of die body. Even to-day these
174 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
relationships are very imperfectly understood. But a medieval would
have thought it ridiculous to say that these relationships were
confined to the body as we see it before us; for the body itself was
composed of matter and form, of soul and body. And the soul-
element could not be observed by means of the five senses. Though
the soul separated from the body at death, it could not be seen
escaping; it was a non-physical entity. Moreover, there were other
non-physical entities existing in the world which could also b$ neither
seen nor touched angels and demons. And it was quite possible that
these entities might have taken possession of the soul, being of similar
substance. A demon could, like electricity, only be perceived in its
outward manifestations, and, being evil in nature, it could cause all
kinds of diseases if it were united with the soul. Furthermore, man
himself was also part of the universe, a minor mundus, or lesser world,
in himself. His temperament or complexio was ruled not only by the
elements and humours within his bodily organism, but by his
relationship with the heavenly bodies. Finally, these same heavenly
bodies which ruled the temperament and the bodily organization of
man were themselves intimately connected with the rest of the
universe, and especially with the plants and minerals that might be
used for his cure. A plant that was especially subject to the influence
of the planet Venus might be the required remedy for a disease of the
kidneys ruled likewise by Venus; or perhaps an extract of copper,
the mineral under the influence of Venus, might be indicated. But
again, this would depend upon the man's own make-up. If he were
especially choleric, the remedy might be contra-indicated for him,
while it might work for others. The time of the year the disease
occurred, and the climate of the country, would also have their
effects.
It can, therefore, be seen at once that medieval medicine would be
far from simple, and an enormous amount of 'knowledge* would be
needed, both for diagnosis and prescription. But it did not rest on
nothing but ignorance. It was based upon the appreciation of the
relation between man and the universe which had been revealed as a
necessary supplement to our feeble empirical knowledge. A medieval
man would have considered it wildly unscientific to treat man as an
organism in isolation, analyse a few mechanisms, and call it know-
ledge or science. Where medieval medicine would no doubt break
down would be in its real ability to predict, or effect apparent cures.
And it is one of Bacon's more lasting titles to fame that he suggested
empirical verification of the data of revelation. It was not due to any
The Universal Science of Roger Bacon 175
scepticism on his part of the fact of revelation. But he wanted to
separate folk-lore and magic from the genuine data of revelation.
The testing by experiment of the old wives' tale of the ability of
goats' blood to crack diamonds is a case in point. 1 Bacon's reverence
for the text of Aristotle, and his irritation with the bad translations
that were in circulation among the Latins, and his own consequent
studies in philology, are a result of this belief. How could a corrupt
text be used as deductive material for science, any more than an
incorrect equation in mathematics? Ultimately the best experimental
proof for the correctness of our mathematics is the verifiable fact that
the George Washington Bridge has so far withstood the theoretically
calculated strains put upon it in practice. The experiments in Bacon's
time probably failed to confirm the deductions from the 'hypotheses'
provided by revelation. But it was truly scientific of him to see the
need for such experiments.
When Bacon stated that the first stage of knowledge was credulity,
the second experience, and the third reason, 2 he was not recommend-
ing credulity; he was merely stating the obvious fact in medieval,
and, indeed, in all science. We must first believe those who claim
to have made an experiment, or those who have received or heard
of a revelation. This is not the belief of certitude, but the equivalent
of what we should call a hypothesis, a provisional belief. As Bacon
says, we only finally believe it after proving it by experience, and
then the soul can rest in the light of truth. Bacon himself instanced
the fact that a magnet attracts iron, an improbable fact, but never-
theless true. We first hear of it through an experimenter. When
kter he makes the famous statement that he will believe anything,
however apparently incredible, as long as it comes from a good
authority, this does not mean that he denies the necessity for proving
it by experiment. But as an attitude towards the phenomena of the
world, it is a more probable prelude to discovery than a severe
scepticism which refuses to believe in anything until it has been
proved. The importance of the method, of course, lies in the insis-
tence of the scientist on the provisional nature of the belief. As we
sTiall see kter, Bacon does not deny the possibility of attaining
provisional truth also through reasoning, the mathematical method;
but again, even in this sphere, certitude only comes from experience.
1 Opus Majus. n, 168.
*'Non oportet hominem inexpertum quaerere rationem ut pnmo intdligat hanc ennn
nunquam habcbit nisi post experienriam : iinde oportet primo credulitatem fieri donee sccundo
sequator experiexrtia ut tertio ratio comitetur.* Opus Mafus, n, 202.
176 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
This means that experience is fundamental for both forms of know-
ledge:
Revelation and
Belief.
Natural philosophy
Mathematics.
Experience ~> CERTITUDE
Nature, as we have seen, can be known by revealed knowledge and
certified by experience. Is this the only knowledge of nature? Can
it be known, and is the knowledge trustworthy, by experience alone?
Bacon seems to take the knowledge obtained through the senses,
as far as it goes, for granted. He is worried by no epistemological
problem. It might, therefore, be considered surprising that he seems
to have no conception at all of the so-called 'natural history method
of inquiry', the inductive method favoured by his later namesake,
the attempt to find laws' of nature from a series of planned experi-
ments and observations.
The reason that I think Bacon would give to justify his omission
would be that experimental knowledge by itself is worthless, but only
gains philosophical validity from its position within a theoretical
framework. This is the point of view we should expect from a man
who was primarily a thinker in search of universal knowledge. But
even modern science would admit this. There is no limit whatever to
the number of experiments one could make. But it is useless to make
them unless there is some way of either interpreting them or using
them. And this is precisely what Bacon suggests.
'The science of experience', he says, Verifies all natural and artificial
things ... not by arguments as the purely speculative sciences do, nor
by feeble and imperfect experiences as the operative sciences'. 1 Then
he goes on to describe the activities of Peter de Maricourt, and explains
that Peter knows the natural sciences by experience medicine,
alchemy, astronomy, and astrology and he makes inquiries even
from old women, soldiers and farmers, and would be ashamed if he
did not know as much as they. But lest all this should be construed as
experiment for its own sake, Bacon adds that without this kind of
work it would be impossible for philosophy to be completed. 2
1 Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 46. Ibid., p. 47.
The Universal Science of Roger Bacon 177
It would, therefore, seem that the operative sciences by themselves
have no great value for philosophy. But Bacon has great respect for
those who make these experiments, since they will verify the specula-
tive scheme. Moreover, they are of great practical use when con-
trolled by a Christian ethical system.
2. The philosophy and ethics of the study of nature.
Bacon's conception of the origin of scientific knowledge might
have led him to advocate only a return to the ancients to see what
they had said, check it by experience, and call this a universal science.
In the Opus Majus, indeed, he urges as strongly as he can the full
study of die ancients and the more recent Arabs, and the establishment
of a definitive Latin text of their works. But this is by no means the
whole of his message. He might have been content if the science of
the ancients had been complete, if the knowledge possessed by
Solomon had been recovered in its entirety. Then all that was
necessary would have been a checking with experience.
But Bacon's ambition was far greater than this. He wanted to
create a theoretical framework which would take care of all branches
of science, even those which had not been dealt with by the ancients
in any of the books available to the Latins. And, above all, he wanted
to make use of this knowledge. It has already been pointed out how
Bacon viewed himself as another Aristotle, trying to do for his own
time what Aristotle had done in his. Such a work was, in fact,
necessary. Aristotle had done a gigantic work, nothing less than the
founding of a systematic science out of a heterogeneous mass of
philosophic speculations and a limited quantity of sense data, most of
it observed personally by himself and his associates. Aristotle had had
to formulate methods of describing and classifying these phenomena,
he had even to show how to think about them how, in short, to
direct the human mind purposefully in its thinking so that concentra-
tion upon a limited set of data was possible. In this he had much
help from his predecessors, especially from Plato, who had shown
the possibilities of pure thought, untrammelled in the world of
ideas, but without die limitations of form that are necessary to the
practical scientist. t
So Aristode had to start from the very beginning and say: What
do we mean when we say that a thing k?* the categories of being
and take die principles of description he then formulates over into
all die fields he can investigate. As a true Greek he searched for
understanding and knowledge, and at his death he left a methodical
178 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
body of knowledge, drawn up according to systematic and logical
principles, capable of being understood by students in the ages that
followed, once they had mastered the logic that informed it.
But in the fabric of this colossal theoretical work, surely unequalled
in the history of mankind, two things were faulty a Metaphysics of
being which does not account for man, and, as a consequence of this,
a failure to unite the sciences of nature and the sciences of man. It is
the sign of Bacon's genius that he saw both of these clearly and tried
to remedy them.
The Christian Fathers had already seen that a metaphysics of being
was insufficient to carry the scientific structure; it gave the principles
that underlie all sciences, but it did not place man within the structure,
and did not give him a purpose commensurate with all the works of
the universe which he was capable of understanding. Since they
believed that these very purposes had been revealed to them in their
religion, they chose another metaphysics more in keeping with these
high purposes. Then, since Neo-Platonism laid little stress on the
sciences, and, indeed, to some degree emphasized the worthlessness
of human knowledge, science was neglected as unimportant. It fell
into the hands of practical men who used it, but were not capable of
giving it its due place in a total view of the universe.
Bacon, as a Christian and a student of science, refused to accept this
neglect of science by the Church as the proper policy for Christians.
He explains at considerable length the reasons the Father neglected it,
and tries to point out that this was due to the abuses of science or
philosophy rather than to any inherent evil in it, 1 or to their ignorance
of it because translations were not available to them. 2 But Bacon
knows that the burden of proof is upon himself, and it is therefore
essential that both the theoretical structure of his science and his
precepts for its use be welded into a grand whole that is altogether
Christian in its foundations.
It was necessary, then, that the two inadequacies of Aristotle should
be repaired, and a different emphasis laid upon the whole. The under-
lying thought must no longer be: 'All men by nature desire to know',
though Bacon had always admitted this desire. In his Parisian
Quaestiones on the Metaphysics he had said that any orderly and
discreet person would naturally desire to know, but not a disorderly
and confused person. Moreover, the corporeal complexion of the
1 'Non igitur propter aliquod malum philosophise , . . sed propter abusorcs eius/ Opus
Majus, 111,32.
* *Non fuerunt in eorum temporibus translatae nee in usu Latinorum ct ideo ncglcxcrunt
eas.' Opus Majus, Hi, 33.
The Universal Science of Roger Bacon 179
person might prevent the natural appetite of the soul from expressing
itself. 1 Elsewhere he defends the natural desire against the argument
that it is acquired for the sake of gain. 2 It is interesting how little
Bacon stresses the Greek ideal of knowledge for its own sake in his
later work. He had been entirely won over to the idea of the beauty
and usefulness of knowledge. The beauty is seen by the student
because even a little knowledge is part of the great whole, the wonder-
ful works of God; the usefulness lies in its contribution to the last
end of man. The Christian influence is unmistakable. Knowledge
cannot be an end in itself, but must be a means to an end; intellect
must ultimately be subordinated to the will. The acquisition of
knowledge ceases to be a natural instinct, of no ethical value; or all
knowledge would be given by nature, as Bacon had argued even when
he was still only a philosopher. 3 It becomes a moral virtue to seek
for knowledge now that he has become a scientist. But now also
the merit lies not in the mere search but in the application of the
knowledge in accordance with ethical principles. Man must search
for knowledge and apply it. Completed knowledge which is of
surpassing beauty will incidentally benefit the soul; but its value is
not exhausted thereby.
Now when Aristotle analyses the relationship between the sciences 4
it is primarily a logical analysis. He sees the way in which each
contributes to the other, and he recognizes that the relationship is
one of subalternation. He even sees the hierarchy of higher and lower
sciences. But the emphasis Bacon gives to this is subtly different.
He knows the subalternational relationship, but he does not state it in
logical terms. He emphasizes rather the manner in which each helps
the other, providing its tools so that it may progress further. And the
whole picture is changed by the insistence upon the supremacy of
moral philosophy or ethics. The whole structure of universal science,
beautiful as it is, might not be worth struggling for if it were not to
be used,
Now this again is different in Aristotle. His Ethics, wonderful as it
is, is not based on his knowledge of science, but upon his knowledge
of the nature of man and his ordinary life as a citizen. Coming from
a man who, as Mandonnet points out, must have studied in the
1 Steele, Fasc. X, 2-3.
* Ibid., Fasc. XI, 1.
8 'Finis intentus hominis est felicitas quam acquirit per meritum et non mereretur per scientias
et virtutes si haberet a natura; acquiritur ergo scientia homini per laborem doctrine et virtutis
ut possit magis acquirere finem intentum.* Steele, Fasc. X, 5.
4 Aristotle, Post, anal, SI a ff.
i8o Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Faculty of Arts, it is remarkable that Bacon could produce no better
moral philosophy than he gives us in the last part of the Opus Majus.
The reason for this is simple. Aristotle's Ethics cannot tell us what we
are to do with our knowledge; it is in no sense the crown of his
scientific achievements, but only another empirical inquiry, this time
into the nature of man and his place in society. Like his work in
biology and physics, it is primarily an inquiry into principles, derived
mainly from experience by the inductive method. To tell us in detail
on what principles science should be used would have required an
entirely new system of ethics, and this, perhaps, never occurred to
Aristotle; and Bacon had not the rime, and probably had not the
ability, to produce it. He knew that science must in some way be
brought iirto relation with the Christian scheme of salvation. But as
he had not done this thinking except in very general terms it is,
after all, possibly the most difficult question in modern ethics, and
we have certainly not solved it to-day, though the need is far more
urgent all Bacon does in the Opus Majus is give us a few details on
how science could benefit organized Christianity, and how it would
help to a fuller understanding of the Scriptures. In doing this he
neglects Aristotle, since Aristotle's ethics can only be properly under-
stood within the framework of his philosophy and psychology. He
prefers the moral platitudes of Seneca which are ex parte utterances
derived from his own experience of life in the Roman Empire and
the ethical philosophy of Stoicism. But it cannot be denied that
Bacon saw die need for a system of ethics which was the culmination
of his science, even if he did not produce it.
It is to be understood, therefore, that theoretical and practical
knowledge, or what we should call pure and applied science, were
no more separable for Bacon than they are for us. But he did not
make the mistake of thinking that the practical application of pure
science was an end in itself, nor did he assume without argument that
its end was the greatest comfort and pleasure to be obtained by it for
human beings. He gave thought to the problem of the ends of both
forms of science. The pursuit of pure science resulted in, first, the
perception of its beauty, and thus was good for the soul; but at the
same time it resulted in practical inventions which would be good
for the Church, and ultimately able to help in the conversion of more
Christians, all able to share in the hope of salvation. The pursuit of
practical science, as well as helping the Church, served again to con-
firm the faith by proving the truths of revelation, even such esoteric
matters as the Holy Trinity, the Blessed Virgin, and the resurrection
The Universal Science of Roger Bacon 181
of the body which truths could not be discovered by these means,
but, having been revealed, could be confirmed.
Nevertheless,^ for purposes of analysis it may be well to distinguish
between Bacon's ideas on the increasing of knowledge, or speculative
science, and practical science, as he understood it. The key to his
scientific system is, of course, to be found in his special science that he
calls 'scientia experimentalis', which, as suggested in the introduction
to this study, should probably be translated as the 'science of experi-
ence' rather than experimental science, which suggests some kind of
experiments in our modern sense. In the Romance languages the
derivatives of the Latin experimentalis retain this meaning to-day.
We have discussed already the mediating position experience holds
between revealed and natural knowledge, as giving certitude to both.
But this is only one of its functions. It must also add knowledge, and
guide its application^ Indeed, Bacon distinguishes clearly between the
three 'dignities' or 'prerogatives' of this science. Only the first is
concerned with what we should call to-day the 'experimental
method', and is the function we have described already. When Bacon
says that this science is the ruler of the separate sciences, and compares
it with the navigator who gives orders to the carpenter, or the soldier
who gives orders to the smith, he is describing the role of the third
'dignity', the principles which should guide the application and use
of the special sciences.
The second dignity of the science of experience is concerned with
the relating of the knowledge of one field of science with the others.
It is one of the outstanding deficiencies of our modern scientific system
that we lack precisely such a science as Bacon is here suggesting,
though in the twentieth century steps have already been taken in the
direction of providing one. In view of the enormous content of our
special sciences to-day and the way in which each overlaps the other,
we have a very great need for it. But on the other hand this know-
ledge is now so specialized within each particular field that it may be
for ever impossible to provide it. Already it was impossible in
Bacon's day for one man to understand all fields, and Bacon himself
ultimately saw this. When he appealed to the Pope to patronize a
corps of scientists, each working in special fields but contributing his
knowledge to the whole, he was suggesting the only possible measure
that could be taken to provide the basis for this second dignity. 1
Since Bacon did not give it a name, but only called it the second
1 *Omnia enim magnifica ad usum Eujus sdentiae pertinent, licet preparetur operatic mut-
torum per alias sdentias/ Brewer, Op. Tert n p. 45.
182 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
dignity of the science of experience, let us call it simply 'synthetic
science*. It could be a science within its own right, and perhaps some
day it will be. Its function, according to Bacon, was to concern itself
with those great truths which, though they belong to other sciences,
lie outside the scope of their investigation. 1 As an example of what
he means he suggests that the behaviour of animals in the light of
nature may have value in determining the medicines to be used by
human beings who have forgotten these secrets of nature. If the
animal eats a plant that will prolong his life, and the human being
has forgotten the use of it, could he not be reminded of it, and profit
from the example of the animals ? Here we have a direct connection
between the separate sciences of biology, medicine, and psychology
which is very much used to-day, though in practice the specialist in
one science will have to think out the application for himself, and
may be in complete ignorance of the findings of his fellow specialist
in his own different field of inquiry.
These particular sciences are recognized to-day as being closely
connected, and even the specialist will be expected to know some-
thing of the work going on in at least these allied fields. Theoretical
physics and agronomy are not so closely connected that they will be
equally studied by the experts in the biological sciences. But it is at
least possible that the remarkable visible effects in the soil of fantastic-
ally small quantities of such elements as boron, may be worth studying
by physicians who may have insufficiently considered whether small
doses may not have as important effects within the human body as
large doses, even if they do not work in the same manner. And the
fact that valuable minerals may be present in the soil in huge quantities
but unavailable to the plant until certain agricultural practices have
been carried out, might suggest certain useful experiments to dieti-
cians and doctors on die conditions necessary for the proper intake of
minerals and vitamins in the human body. It is even possible that the
'revealed' Christian Science of Mary Baker Eddy or ascetic practices
recommended by the Hindu scriptures may have something to offer
to the specialized studies of physiological and psychological therapy.
It was the ability of all the separate sciences (revealed, speculative,
and practical) to contribute knowledge to the others that Bacon so
continuously stressed. If he had foreseen our age of specialization he
might have been even more emphatic. Was it so unscientific of
him to suggest a special synthetic science, whose business it would
1 'Quod in terminis alianun scientiarum explicat veritates quas tamen nulla earum potest
intelligere nee investigate.' Little, Op. Tert. t p. 44. Gasquet, p. 510.
The Universal Science of Roger Bacon 183
be to examine the findings of the special sciences and co-ordinate
them?
His plan for a compendium of scientific knowledge produced by
co-operative effort under the patronage of prelates and princes,
which would explain the state of each science in tabloid form for the
benefit of non-specialists was a truly remarkable idea for his age, and
is an excellent example of his practical thinking. He states concisely
the seven conditions required for such a compendium as: (i) true,
(2) well-chosen, (3) systematic, avoiding confusion, for instance,
between natural things and metaphysics, (4) moderately short,
(5) clear, though he admits the difficulty of combining clarity with
brevity, (6) proved by trustworthy experience, (7) as perfect as
possible. 1
It would be difficult indeed to produce such a work in our day
without excessive oversimplification; but many undergraduate
schools in the United States have adopted something not unlike it.
And the whole effort of President Hutchins and his associates at the
University of Chicago has been infused with ideas not far different
from Bacon's, and with the same purpose in view.
The third 'dignity* of the science of experience is to Bacon the
supreme one. We cannot call it by the name of any of our separate
sciences, since one part of it concerns the uses to which the results of
all the sciences are to be put. And this brings it at once within the
sphere of the higher science of moral philosophy. But in so far as it
belongs to what we call science, it is concerned with the practical
application of all the other separate sciences. To-day this is the
function of the engineer and technician in the widest sense of these
terms. It is true that the engineer does command the services of all
the pure scientists. The geometrician, to use Bacon's example, does
not make a burning glass, though he studies the principles on which
it must be built. The technician asks the geometrician only for the
practical results of his findings, and then makes his mirror. 2 Or the
physician asks the astronomer for the results of his findings when he
compounds a medicine.
But in Bacon's view the practical scientist or technician has yet a
further task. This makes him, in Bacon's scheme, superior even to
the mathematician, or to the synthesizer who takes the results of one
science and applies them in another. The technician must see the
possibilities in the work of each of these separate sciences. He must
visualize from the work of the mathematicians the theoretical
1 Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 57. * Little, Op. Tert., p. 51.
1 84 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
possibility of building a flying-machine; he must draw out to their
conclusions their ideas which may have been applied only on a small
scale. On seeing a burning glass he must realize that if one were
built that were large enough, a mirror could be constructed on the
same principles, which would burn up everything combustible at a
great distance and annihilate armies. 1 He must see that with a com-
bination of mirrors it would be possible to see to the other side of
the English Channel as Julius Caesar is said to have done. 2 Since
saltpetre in small quantities can make a shocking noise, it must be
possible to use it in such a way that the noise would be greater than
the human being could bear. 3 The Palomar telescope and the block-
buster bomb would not be surprising to Bacon because they are only
applications on a large scale of principles valid on a small. This
ability of the engineer to see the possibilities both of existing dis-
coveries and the theoretical principles on which they are based is to
Bacon the highest achievement of a scientist.
So the total of Bacon's science of experience is seen to make a great
deal of sense if it is split up into its separate parts; and his theoretical
scheme, with its hierarchy of sciences graded according to their
contribution to practical life, seems valid within its own framework.
Schematically it would appear as follows :
MORAL PHILOSOPHY
/ ,\
Third dignity Use
/ \
Second dignity Synthesis
/ N
First dignity Verification
(Separate sciences) /* f \ \ K
Revealed science. Alchemy. Astronomy. Astrology. Agriculture,
etc.
A modern pope might also agree that moral philosophy should be
in the same position at the top to supply direction to the separate
sciences. When Pitts XII made a public statement regretting the
necessity for the hydrogen bomb but supported research looking
1 Little, Op. Tert., p. 52.
1 Qpuf MtyVtf, n, 165.
* 'Per igneam coruscationem et combustionem ac per sonorem horrorem possunt miri fieri,
ct in distantia qua volumus ut homo mortalis sibi cavere non posset nee sustinere.' Little,
Op. Tert. t p. 51.
The Universal Science of Roger Bacon 185
towards its production, Bacon would have approved his utterance.
The engineers and technicians were lords in their own domain, but
even they must bow to the superior wisdom of spiritual advisers who
could state authoritatively whether their endeavours were directed
to the ultimate good of mankind. Only those trained in moral
philosophy could answer this question, not the scientists themselves.
CHAPTER X
THE LAST YEARS
AT least twenty-four years of life remained to Roger Bacon after
the death of his patron, Pope Clement IV. For his last work,
the Compendium studii theologiae, mentions the current year as I292. 1
Tradition has it that after the completion of the Opera he returned to
his native land, and a statement of a fourteenth-century chronicler
says that he was imprisoned by the Minister-General of his Order,
Jerome of Ascoli, for 'suspected novelties' ; otherwise we have no
evidence for his activities during these twenty-four years beyond the
internal evidence of his writings. This chapter will, therefore, again
discuss the probabilities, attempt to make a critical estimate of the
evidence for his supposed imprisonment, and produce a final hypo-
thesis on what may have actually happened and why.
We have seen that in the Opus Tertium there is an indication that
some of Bacon's difficulties with his superiors had been resolved, and
there were fewer impediments to his writing. We have suggested
that this was due to the fact that the friars had been permitted to read
the Opus Majus and found nothing dangerous in it. All through this
study we have tried to show that Bacon, previous to his work for the
Pope, was neglected within his Order and comparatively unknown
outside a small circle. Whether this is true or not, his prestige propor-
tionately increased on account of his mandates, and the works that
resulted from them; and he ceased to be a man of so little importance.
At all events, during the next few years he was able to continue his
writing, though, for the most part, he spent his time making revisions
and completing work that he had undertaken earlier. The introduc-
tion to the Secret of Secrets, as has already been pointed out, 2 was
almost certainly subsequent to the Opus Majus, as were also the
second recension of the Communia mathematica and the greater part of
the Communia naturalium. There are also the Greek and Hebrew
grammars, which are known to be subsequent to the Opus Tertium. 3
But in 1272 there is also the Compendium studii philosophiae, which
shows anything but a calmly scientific frame of mind at the time of
writing.
Where did he write these works? There is no definite evidence
1 CST, p. 34. * Supra, p. 82. * Supra, p. 106, and note 2.
186
The Last Years 187
that he returned to England. Little wants to use the fact that the
glosses to the Secret of Secrets were written in England as evidence that
Bacon returned there now. 1 But since it has been claimed earlier in
this study that the glosses long antedate the introduction to this work,
and only the latter is subsequent to the Opus Majus, this cannot be
used as indisputable evidence. On the other hand, I do not think that
tradition in this case can be altogether disregarded.
If Bacon had been away from his native land all the time from 1257
to 1290 or 1292, and had earlier studied and taught in Paris, as we
know he did, this would mean that the greater part of his life was
spent in France. The bulk of his MSS. in the centuries since his death
have been found scattered through English libraries, and far fewer
are known in continental collections, except in the case of works
definitely associated with his French period. His memory was so
highly esteemed in England that stories and legends soon sprung up
around his name. In particular there is one which associates him with
one Friar Thomas Bungay, with whose assistance Bacon is supposed
to have made by magical means a brazen head I 2
This appears a rather surprising activity for Bacon, who was an
opponent of magic (though a brazen head might be considered
rather a 'secret work of art and nature', of which he did approve);
and for Thomas Bungay, who was the Provincial Minister of the
Franciscan Order in England from 1271 to 1275, an( l at other times
reader in theology both at Oxford and Cambridge. The biblio-
grapher, Pits, certainly attributes a book on magic to Thomas, but
this is not otherwise known; 3 it would seem more probable that Pits
knew the legend and provided Thomas with a bibliography to suit it.
At all events, only a series of questions on the De coelo et mundo are
known to be from his hand, and a few Aristotelian commentaries and
questions which occur in the same MS. as the questions on the De
coelo may also have been his. 4 The Elizabethans who used his name
may have been looking for some pleasant comic alliteration with the
better known Bacon, and have chosen Thomas Bungay as a suitable
figure and a fellow Franciscan. But it is also possible that Roger did,
in fact, know Thomas in the years after the Opus Majus, in which
case this association no doubt occurred in England. Bacon could have
1 Little, Essays ... p. 20.
2 See especially the essay by J. E. Sandys, 'Roger Bacon in English Literature', in Little,
Essays ... pp. 359-72.
3 Dictionary of National Biography, art. Roger Bacon.
4 Little, Franciscan Papers. . . (1943), pp. 136, 191; Little and Pelzer, Oxford Theology and
Theologians (1934), p. 75.
1 88 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
interested the head of the Franciscan Order in England in his scientific
work, and perhaps they made some experiments in England together.
Outside the legend, however, there is no evidence for any association
between them.
If, however, Bacon had been sent to France in 1257 as a disciplinary
measure and to have him in a place where he could be kept under
more supervision than in England, and if he had in 1267 or 1268
made his peace with his superiors and shown them that he was not
writing anything subversive, and if, as a result of his mandates and
the increased prestige resulting from them he became a somewhat
more important man in his Order, I think the reasons for keeping
him in France would be at an end; and I think the friars would be
more likely now to listen to any appeal he made to them for return
to England. In the absence, therefore, of any evidence to the con-
trary, and in view of the tradition which associates him with England,
I think he probably did, in fact, return there soon after the Opus
Majus, and began to revise his scientific work. In this new leisure
much of the Communia naturalium was written, which contains some
of the best work of his entire career. Most of it is very carefully
thought out, though it is more difficult to read, being far more
scholastic than the persuasiones to the Pope. But in the midst of this
peaceful activity we find that Bacon also wrote the most violent and
unrestrained polemic of his entire career. How is this to be explained ?
I think in spite of the 'peaceful activity' just spoken of, Bacon found
it difficult to concentrate on it. Just below the surface was seething
the indignation against society that had always been present. The
failure of the great effort of his life could not be accepted with
equanimity; and in the disorders that followed the death of Clement
IV he really did see the tribulations that were to precede the coming
of Antichrist. He could no longer hope for the reforms he had
proposed to the Pope. In fact, there was no longer a pope at all. The
work he was now doing was severe and required little imagination
and enthusiasm, and he probably did not have his heart in it, since
he could no longer hope to achieve anything with it in his lifetime.
It would be natural for him to pay more attention than ever to what
was entertaining and marvellous, and I suspect the foundation for the
later Baconian legend was laid at this time. This, however, is merely
conjecture, while the state of his emotions in 1272 was expressed
clearly in his polemic. And the polemic itself is in the form of an
introduction to his scriptum principale, which, though it was not
complete, may have been as complete as he thought it was ever likely
The Last Years 189
to be. Now was the time when I should expect him to return to his
Joachism if it had ever existed; and it is from the Compendium, as
evidence of a long-continuing state of mind, that most of our material
was drawn for the earlier period in Bacon's life reconstructed in
chapter VII. It is in this work that he tells us how he tried to prove
by logic to his fellow friars that the time of Antichrist was at hand.
For, indeed, the times were disordered. During the interregnum
following the death of Clement, the struggle between the seculars
and the Orders had broken out afresh, and rivalry between the two
Orders made the confusion worse. 1 Twenty-nine known polemics
were issued by the seculars and religious against each other in Paris
alone during the years from 1269 to 1271; these were attacks on the
poverty and spiritual pride of the Franciscans and Dominicans, and
counter-attacks and defences by the leading lights of the Orders.
William of St. Amour, from his safe haven, already in 1266 had
reaffirmed his previous attack on Joachim, and the status of the
religious in a long and heavily documented work, with copious
quotations from the Scriptures. Though Clement IV refused to
accept this work as any improvement on the banned De periculis,
William was undismayed, and his disciples in Paris, Gerard of
Abb6ville, an archdeacon, and Nicolas of Lisieux, a lay theologian,
were in constant touch with him. And once Clement was dead they
probably thought there was some real chance of humbling the Orders
while there was no pope to stop them. An old polemic of Gerard,
attacking the Franciscans in particular, was reissued in 1269, and was
replied to by St. Bonaventura, the Franciscan General. Nicolas of
Lisieux concentrated on the Dominicans and was replied to by St.
Thomas Aquinas. The moving spirit, William of St. Amour himself,
died in 1272, and the round of polemics ceased. But it had been
violent while it lasted. 2
There were external wars. Italy was overrun by Charles of Anjou,
the succession to the Empire was disputed, and civil war between the
factions still raged. And though Bacon does not refer to it, at the
University of Paris the quarrel between the Faculty of Arts and the
Faculty of Theology was coming to a head, with Siger of Brabant
leading the Faculty of Arts in its opposition to the new teachings of
1 A public dispute on poverty between the Dominicans and Franciscans at Oxford before
the Faculty in 1269 is recorded by Little, and an eyewitness account by a Franciscan is printed
by him. Little, Grey Friars in Oxford, pp. 320-35.
2 For these troubles see the full account based on original sources and examination of the
documents by P. Glorieux, 'Contra Geraldinos, I'enchaJnement des polemiques' (1935), pp.
129-55.
190 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
St. Thomas and the more orthodox theologians, which finally
resulted in the condemnation of the 219 errors in I277. 1
When Gregory X was chosen Pope in early 1272, Bacon does not
seem to have held the high hopes that others did. But there was a
tremendous outpouring of prophesy from other quarters. It seems
almost certain that the main body of the prophesies of 'Merlin* belong
to his reign. The 'holy Pope' is referred to by name as 'Gregory the
Cardinal', who, when he comes to the throne, will establish a reign
of peace and confound the enemies of Christianity. 2 He will even
perform miracles not seen before. Salimbene states that Gregory was
actually influenced in his dealings with erring prelates by certain
prophetic verses known to him before he became Pope; and he gives
a high estimate of his saintly character, quoting a poem that antedated
the prophesies, and no doubt helped to influence the form they took. 3
The prophesies of Merlin announce the miracles of Antichrist, and
set forth the evil works of the clerics under whom the world has
degenerated. Like Joachim, he 'predicts' the rise of the two Orders,
but, unlike Joachim, Merlin says that they too will become a prey to
worldliness. 4 And this was exactly what the stricter Franciscans
within the Order were saying themselves.
It is against this setting that the Compendium of Roger Bacon must
be judged. It is related to Bacon's other work by the fact that it is an
introduction to his scientific scheme, and it ends by a discussion of
grammar which, as Vanderwalle has shown, was almost certainly
replaced by a later, more complete treatment in his strictly gram-
matical works. 5 But it is primarily a polemic of precisely the same
kind that was being put out by seculars and friars at the time. It shows
clearly Bacon's state of mind at the time of writing it. He is almost
in despair at the condition of society, though he attributes it to the
kind of reasons we should expect of him. In addition to the largely
political complaint of the prevalence of Italian trained lawyers, and
the supremacy of the civil over the religious and ecclesiastical codes,
he adduces the neglect of the integritas sapientiae, ignorance of true
learning, failure to follow the good old practices of the time of
Grosseteste, and feeble theology based on the. Sentences. As an
1 Chartularium ... I, 544-55.
2 L. A. Paton, Les Prophecies . . . n, 175-78. Many prophesies had been attributed to Merlin
earlier, and, as we have seen, Bacon calls the attention of the Pope to them (Opus Majus, I, 269).
The series of the 1270's was, however, the fullest and most influential.
8 Salimbene, Cronica ... pp. 488-92.
4 Paton, Les Prophecies ... II, 188-90.
5 Vanderwalle, Roger Bacon dans Vhistoire . . . pp. 104-106.
The Last Years 191
educational theorist, it is the defects in education that he holds
primarily responsible.
But in the Compendium Bacon has no longer anything constructive
to offer. The attack is almost entirely destructive, an emotional
outburst. But the work is valuable as a detailed, if one-sided, account
of the studies of the time. There is no indication as to where it was
written. The studies dealt with are Parisian ; but this was natural since,
as Bacon himself tells us, Paris is still the leader of the world in
theological studies. Bacon in any case was probably more familiar
with conditions in Paris, having spent so many recent years there.
It is, perhaps, more likely that it would be written away from Paris,
in view of the fierce attacks he makes upon conditions and person-
alities there. 1
The work is only known as a fragment, and in only one MS., and
we cannot tell whether it was ever published. 2 Such a fragment,
unfinished as it is, and its later part replaced by a more systematic and
complete work, could have little value except as a polemic. Since it
seems certain that the scriptum principale was never finished, there was
no need for the publication of an introduction, though Bacon might
well have composed one, or the beginnings of one, at a time when
his feelings had become unbearable. Then, having said what he must,
he abandoned it, and set more calmly to work on a separate grammar
which he did complete, and which replaced the later pages of the
Compendium as we have it. I am hesitant to suggest, as Charles and
others have done, 3 that the attacks made in this work were responsible
in themselves for any suppression or persecution that followed later
in the decade. I think it more probable that Bacon permitted himself
the luxury of letting off some of his despair and anger on paper, while
retaining enough restraint not to publish it. If he had allowed such
a damning document to circulate freely, he could have been punished
with some justification for causing schism between the Orders, and
not for the 'suspected novelties' for which, as we shall see, a four-
teenth-century chronicler says he was imprisoned.
1 A further small point may possibly support the theory that Bacon wrote from Oxford.
Nolan, in his edition of the 'Oxford* Grammar, remarks that when Bacon had to choose an
example of a four-figure number, chose 1^24, which is the date of the founding of the Fran-
ciscan convent at Oxford. The choice' might be a likely one if he were living there at the time.
Nolan and Hirsch, The Greek Grammar . . . (1902), pp. Ixxii, 25.
a Brewer finds this fourteenth-century paper MS. the best of those available for the Opus
Tertium which is included, together with a part of the Opus Majus and the Compendium frag-
ment (p. xli). He gives a facsimile of the MS. in the frontispiece to his edition. The MS. is
much corrected, and might have been made by an intelligent and interested scribe from Bacon's
own copy after his death.
8 Charles, pp. 51-53; Bridges, Life and Works ... pp. 29-32.
192 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
This imprisonment has been much disputed. The only authority
for it comes from the Chronicle of the Twenty-four Generals, a work
written in 1370, but containing earlier matter. Inaccuracies in this
chronicle have been pointed out, especially by David Fleming, 1 apart
from the passage about Roger Bacon; and since it calls Bacon a
'doctor of sacred theology' which we have tried to show was im-
possible, this very passage is suspect. However, if the chronicler was
in error, a reason must be found for his very specific statement. On
the advice of many brothers, he tells us, the General, Brother Jerome,
condemned and reproved the doctrine of Roger Bacon, the English-
man, doctor of sacred theology, as containing 'suspected novelties',
on account of which the same Roger was condemned to prison.
Jerome also wrote to the lord Pope Nicholas III that through his
authority the perilous doctrine should be altogether suppressed.^ ^
In order to come to some decision and examine the probabilities
fully, it is necessary to go once again into some detail on the current
conditions in the Franciscan Order, since the punishment, if any,
was inflicted by the General of the Franciscans. The chief question
at issue is: Was there any imprisonment at all? If there was an
imprisonment, then we must ask why, and for how long?
The Abbe Feret, while not altogether denying the fact of an
imprisonment, insists that it must have been mild and of short
duration, 3 Vanderwalle takes substantially the same view. 4 Thorn-
dike points out the unlikelihood of any imprisonment for scientific
novelties, and quotes with approval an opinion questioning the
veracity of the Chronicle? Charles does not doubt the fact of the
imprisonment, and, in keeping with his general thesis, attributes it to
suspicion of Bacon's scientific novelties and his general attacks on the
society of his time, and blames also the tyrannical character of Jerome
of Ascoli, the Franciscan General. 6 Mandonnet, in his customary
manner, put forward an ingenious hypothesis that Bacon wrote a
work hitherto attributed to Albertus Magnus which defended
astrology. And since astrology had been recently condemned,
amongst other erroneous doctrines, by the Bishop of Paris, Bacon
drew upon himself the unfavourable attention of the authorities. 7
This attractive hypothesis, which would explain so many things if it
1 D. Fleming, 'Ruggero Bacone e la scolastica' (1914), p. 542,
2 Chronicle of the Twenty-four Generals, p. 360.
8 P. Feret, 'Les Imprisonnements de Roger Bacon* (1891), pp. 119-42.
* Vanderwalle, Roger Bacon dans Vhistoire . . . (1929), pp. 149-55.
* Thorndike, History of Magic . . . (1923), II, 628-29, 675-77.
Charles, pp. 37-39, 51-53.
7 Mandonnet, 'Roger Bacon et le Speculum . . .' (1910), pp, 313-35.
The Last Years 193
were true, captivated amongst others Little, who had evidently not
examined very closely the basis of Mandonnet's conjectures, and was
not familiar with his virtuosity in overlooking inconvenient facts. 1
Bridges attributed the imprisonment to repercussions resulting from
the publication of the Compendium studii philosophiae*
Feret and Vanderwalle find it difficult to reconcile an imprisonment
of any severity with the production of the De retardatione acddentium
senectutis, which, according to them, was addressed to Pope Nicholas
III in 1281, and with the opening lines of the Compendium studii
theologiae which seem to show that Bacon had been engaged on the
work for some time prior to 1292, and make no mention of any
troubles suffered by the author. "We have tried to show earlier that
the De retardatione was an early work, 3 and that there is no reason to
suppose it was composed for Nicholas, since the only evidence in
favour of this idea is that Nicholas was 'noble on both sides'. In view
of this, it is surprising that Vanderwalle, in his otherwise extremely
critical work, should have said that Charles 'demonstrated' the fact
that it was sent to him. 4 Charles, in fact, adduces no other evidence
beyond the fact that Bacon, in 'the beginning of the work, states that
he has been held up by lack of resources and popular rumour, and
has not been able to 'faire des exp6riences qui eussent ete faciles a tout
autre*. This passage does not even occur in the edition of the De
retardatione by Little and Withington, though Charles says he con-
sulted MS. Bodl. Canonic. Misc. 334, which was collated for their
edition. 5 Even if the passage was in the MS., all that Charles says
does not amount to much as proof, in comparison with the un-
doubted fact that Bacon in his Opus Majus refers to the De retardatione
as already written, and deals with the contents at some length. 6 It is,
however, possible that another edition of the work was sent to
Pope Nicholas III, but the suggestion is gratuitous, as there is nothing
to support it beyond an apparent cross-reference to the Opus Majus
in the De retardatione, and the fact that we know from internal
evidence that there were at least two editions of this work, one
addressed to a secular prince, and one to a pope. As for the cross-
reference, 7 the offending words are omitted in three MSS. of the De
retardatione, and in any case look suspiciously like a gloss. Internal
evidence, so far as can be ascertained, supports the theory of an early
rather than a late date.
1 Little, Essays , . . (1914), pp. 23-27.
8 Bridges, The Life and Works . . . (1914), pp. 29-32. * Supra, p. 24.
* Vanderwalle, Roger Bacon dans rhistoire ... p. 154. * Charles, pp. 48-49.
Opus Majus, II, 209 ff. 7 Steele, Fasc. DC, 54.
194 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Professor Thorndike questions the motive for the imprisonment
given in the Chronicle. He discounts the suggestion that the suspected
novelties could have been of a scientific nature, and makes it clear
that the Franciscans did not object to science as such, as evidenced by
the career of John Peckham, author of the Perspectiva communis. He
remarks that the wording of the Chronicle suggests 'some details of
doctrine, whereas had Bacon been charged with magic we may be
pretty sure that so sensational a feature would not have passed un-
noticed'. 1 Elsewhere he fhows that Bacon's views on astrology were
shared by Albertus Magnus, and he was more of an opponent of
magic than any of his distinguished contemporaries. 2
Charles, in attributing Bacon's imprisonment partly to his out-
spokenness, 3 is probably on the right track, though research in his
time had not yet shown the prevalence of many of Bacon's ideas,
including his scientific ones. He also lacked information on Jerome
of Ascoli, whom he makes the villain of the piece. 4 A short account
of this man, together with an estimate of his character by one who
certainly had no cause to love him, may serve the purpose of clarifying
his position as head of the Franciscan Order at the time of Bacon's
imprisonment, and lay the foundation for the hypothesis which will
be presented later that Bacon was the victim of a 'political' sentence.
In 1274 Pope Gregory X called a council at Lyons to discuss the
troubles in Christendom, including the quarrels between the Orders
and the seculars, to which representatives of both parties were invited.
Before the Council got under way the Franciscan General, who was
still St. Bonaventura, after seventeen years in his position, died, and
was replaced by Jerome of Ascoli. This man had already had a
considerable experience in performing various missions for the
Church, and even during his generalate, which lasted till 1279, the
Church, it appears, could not dispense with his services. He had to
hurry back from a mission to the Greek emperor in order to take
part in the later sessions of the Council of Lyons, 5 and in 1276 he was
again sent by Pope Innocent V to Greece, though he did not complete
the journey. He tried to resign his position as head of the Franciscan
1 Thorndike, History of Magic ... II, 628-29,
2 tin*., II, 675-77.
temps,
ouvertt
propres de son temps/ Charles, p. 53.
* Jerome d* Ascoli, caractere tyrannique et port a la rigueur encore que par la politique/
Charles, p. 37.
* Huber, A Documented History . . . pp. 167-68.
The Last Years 195
Order because he had no time to fulfil his duties properly, but was
not permitted to do so. He was sent in 1277 on another papal mission
to France, and even when he was appointed Cardinal in 1279 he
could not get his resignation accepted until the next General Chapter. 1
He seems to have been genuinely worried that he could not perform
his duties to the Order, and no doubt the Order suffered from his
absence. But there is no impression here of a hard-hearted tyrant.
Angelo of Clareno, a Spiritual who was condemned to prison by
Jerome for his adherence to Joachitic ideas, calls him 'moderate
enough, slow to anger and to inflict injuries, though lax and lukewarm
in his support of good men'. And he illustrates Jerome's character by
telling us of the impression made upon him by the character of
Peter John Olivi, and by his sanctity. The friars tried to persuade
Jerome, after he had become Pope as Nicholas IV, to take punitive
action against Peter, who was the intellectual leader of the Spirituals,
but he refused to take any such action against a man of Peter's
saintliness. And when Jerome did condemn a book of Peter's that
went too far in adoration of the Virgin Mary, Peter at once sub-
mitted, and Jerome said afterwards that he had condemned the book,
not *ad injuriam', but 'ad cautelam'. 2
It was Jerome's misfortune that during the period of his generalate
he should have been forced to deal with a serious schism in his Order
to which he had no time to attend. The punishment meted out to
Angelo and others who actually rebelled against the Order, and
caused what seems to have been a political disturbance in the March
of Ancona, and who later tried to secede from the Order, was severe.
The dissident friars, who had believed that a decision of the Council
of Lyons, which allowed the brothers to dispose of movable goods
without the intervention of papal procurators, meant the end of
poverty for their Order, 3 were kept in chains and deprived of the
sacraments even on their deathbed. They were called schismatics and
heretics; no one was to speak to them, not even the jailers who
brought them food. Angelo describes, evidently as an eyewitness,
the appalling conditions under which the sentences were carried out,
1 Huber, A Documented History ... pp. 169-70.
a Angelo gives a full account of the history of the persecuted Spirituals, which, though
exaggerated, cannot be impugned for its general veracity. The account has been edited by
F. Ehrle in Archiv . . . Vol. II. Of Jerome, Angelo says: *Vir mansuetus et satis modestus et
tardus ad iram et injurias inferendas, licet esset remissus et tepidus in promorione bonorum*.
Archiv ... II, 288. The following are Jerome's words when he was asked to condemn Olivi:
'Avertat Deus a corde et mente nostra, tanto viro, qui excedat penes ornnes homines nobis
notos in devotione et reverentia et amore honoris Christi et matris eius injuriam aliquam vel
molesriam . . . inferre'. Archiv ... II, 288.
8 Huber, A Documented History ... p. 168, n. 8.
196 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
and mentions the case of one friar, who had not been previously
involved, who dared to call the sentences displeasing to God. This
man was treated so inhumanly that he died after a few months in
prison, and his corpse was thrown into a ditch and refused burial. 1
It is impossible to say how far Jerome himself was responsible for
these sentences. But one thing is certain. He had little sympathy for
the left-wing group of his Order, and he was probably, as a busy
man engaged in the diplomatic affairs of the Church, extremely
irritated that he should be forced to give them so much attention.
Indeed, he never carried out his mission of 1276 to Greece because of
the trouble in the March of Ancona. Another incident related by
Angelo shows the degree of his irritation that his attention was con-
tinually being diverted to what he considered trivial matters. Jerome
was one day disagreeably surprised by a visit from Peter John Olivi.
Seriously annoyed (non modicum iratus), he sent for the Provincial
Minister, and said to him: 'Didn't I instruct you to give orders that
no brothers should presume to come here unless I called them? Why
did you give Peter John permission, without my knowledge?' To
which the Provincial Minister replied that Olivi had neither asked
for, nor received permission. Whereupon Jerome publicly repri-
manded Peter for his infraction of the rule. 2 These facts will be
taken into consideration when we come to consider the case of Roger
Bacon, who, according to the Chronicle, was dealt with by Jerome
himself, who also took the trouble to send a letter to the Pope
explaining his decision.
With regard to the thesis of Mandonnet that Bacon in 1277 wrote
the Speculum Astroncmiae, which was a defence of astrology against
those who had attacked it and been responsible for the mention of a
number of astrological errors among 219 doctrines condemned by
the University of Paris, two serious inconveniences are at once
apparent. First of all, Thorndike has shown absolutely conclusively
that there is no good reason for attributing the Speculum to anyone
but Albertus Magnus, to whom the bulk of the MSS. attribute it.
The views are those of Albert and not of Bacon. 3 And Vanderwalle
has shown, equally conclusively, that the Speculum is in no sense to
be regarded as a reply to the particular astrological errors con-
demned, and, indeed, is almost certainly to be attributed to a much
earlier period in Albert's career. 4 Almost as important is the second
1 Archiv ... II, 304. 2 Ibid., II, 291.
8 Thoradike, History of Magic ... II, 692-713.
4 VanderwaUe, Roger Bacon dans Vhistoire . . . pp. 178-96.
The Last Years 197
consideration. Even Siger of Brabant, against whose teachings the
Parisian condemnation was primarily directed, received only a mild
punishment of light imprisonment. 1 There is no reason to suppose
that Bacon was at the University of Paris at the time, or even would
consider himself affected by a local Parisian decree, while the similar
condemnation at Oxford by Robert Kilwardby makes no mention
of any doctrines condemned except certain Thomistic teachings and
the 'Averroist' theses on the unity of the active intellect. 2 And
Robert only calls the opinions dangerous and not heretical, and does
not excommunicate, but only threatens, their holders. Moreover,
Bacon was disciplined by his Order, and by the Minister-General
himself, a quite different proceeding from what would have happened
if he had offended against a blanket condemnation of errors by either
the Bishop of Paris or the Archbishop of Canterbury.
From the above discussion it seems clear that students of Bacon
have not yet agreed on the nature of the suspected novelties for which
he was condemned. If they were not scientific novelties, could he be
said to have introduced theological novelties of a kind to merit
condemnation? I cannot find any such 'novelties', but discussed in an
earlier chapter the evidence for his sympathy with Joachism, and have
mentioned that his work of 1272 was a political tract likely to give
offence, if it was ever published, both to the more conservative
members of his Order, and to the Dominicans who were attacked,
possibly, though not certainly in this work, by name. It breathes the
same spirit as the prophetic literature of the time favoured by the
Spirituals, and is quite unrestrained in its emotional fervour. More-
over, Bacon makes special reference to the fact that he had been called
a heretic when he tried to prove that Antichrist was at hand. Further-
more, at the time of Bacon's supposed imprisonment the problem
that most exercised the Franciscan authorities, and Jerome of Ascoli
in his position as Minister-General in particular, was the problem of
schism within the Order, and not any such minor affair as doctrinal
divergencies on such matters as astrology or even magic. Finally, the
Chronicle tells us that Bacon was condemned on the advice of many
brothers (de multorum fratrum consilio). Whether he had published
the Compendium studii philosophiae or not, wouldn't Bacon's views be
well known to his fellow-friars, and wouldn't they be likely to have
suffered from his tongue? Knowing that certain Spirituals had been
1 'Sous une forme d'ailleurs tres de"bonnaire.* Van Steenberghen, Siger de Brabant ... p. 3.
* Chartularium ... I, 560 and note 3; De Wulf, Histoire de la philosophic . . . II, 262-63.
ip8 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
condemned, wouldn't it have been a good chance to get rid of Roger
also?
Little, Vanderwalle and others have considered the possibility that
Bacon's condemnation was connected with a meeting between
Jerome of Ascoli and John of Vercelli, the Dominican General, which
is recorded also in the Chronicle of the Twenty-four Generals but not
elsewhere. 1 At this meeting the two generals decided to 'exhort their
respective friars to cherish a spirit of friendship amongst themselves,
after the example of St. Francis and St. Dominic', 2 or, more accur-
ately, in the words of the Chronicle itself, it was decided that 'anyone
offending, or who had offended, a brother of the other Order, should
be punished by the Provincial Minister'. Although the 1277 meeting
is only recorded in this chronicle, the presumption that it took place
is supported by undoubted earlier efforts to effect an agreement
between the two Orders, as attested especially by two letters between
the generals published in Dominican records. And Clement IV in a
bull of 1267 had tried to lessen competition between the Orders for
members, one of the more serious causes of dissension. 3 In any case,
in view of the attacks made upon both mendicant Orders by seculars
and clerics, it was clearly to their interest to consolidate their forces
as far as possible.
But if this meeting and resolution were indeed connected with
Bacon's imprisonment, it is curious, as Vanderwalle has pointed out, 4
that the Chronicler does not make the connection. He records both
pieces of information at a distance of only five pages. It is clear, then,
that if Bacon were indeed condemned for promoting dissension, the
Chronicler at least did not know of it. It is time then to discuss the
authenticity of the Chronicle itself and see whether its evidence is to
be relied on at all, or if, perhaps, the Chronicler himself was ignorant
of the true facts of the case.
We do not know who the author was, but he is certain to have
been a Franciscan. He cites no sources, and, as Vanderwalle has
pointed out, since it does not have the character of an official docu-
ment, he may be relying upon oral tradition within the Order. 5
Now if we consider how much is likely to be remembered after
nearly a hundred years, and the authenticity of such information, I
do not think we can dismiss the condemnation of the doctrine as likely
1 Chronicle of the Twenty-four Generals, p. 365.
2 Huber, A Documented History ... p. 170.
3 Ibid., p. 170 and notes.
* Vanderwalle, Roger Bacon dans I'histoirc ... p. 152
5 Ibid., pp. 151-53.
The Last Years 199
to be based on false information. A doctrine condemned in, say,
1278 will still be known as forbidden in 1370 unless the ban had been
lifted. Though MSS. might be read and circulated, there are certainly
no known incunabula of Bacon, and we can be sure that either his
works were not so greatly in demand that it was worth a publisher's
while to print them in the middle of the fifteenth century, or they
were frowned upon by the Church and his Order. Quotations are
made by eminent persons in the century following Bacon's death,
but reading of his works may still not have been officially permitted,
at least, not by the Franciscans.
But the condemnation of the person of Bacon to prison is quite a
different matter. It could have become, within a hundred years, a
tradition to account for the suppression or neglect of his doctrines.
It was more common to condemn a book than a man in the thirteenth
century, as we have seen in the case of Olivi, Joachim of Flora, and
David of Dinant in the course of this study. On the other hand, when
4 man was condemned his books would certainly be condemned with
him. But if his books were condemned, and not his person, we are
left again with the problem that we were concerned with at the
beginning. What was the matter with his books? Could it by any
chance have been the other way round? Is it possible that his person
was condemned, for personal offences, and his books followed as a
matter of course; or even, as a pretext, something was found in his
writings that would never have been condemned in itself?
If we examine this hypothesis to see if it will fit the story in the
Chronicle, it seems to me that everything can be accounted for. I
suggest that the real reasons for his condemnation were a combination
of many his general attitude towards authority, his independence,
his numerous petty infractions of discipline as in his original appeals
to the Pope for support, his attacks on respected members of the
other Order, and upon authorities and practices in his own. More-
over, it is possible that his known sympathies with the Spirituals, his
persuasive and scurrilous tongue, his inability to suffer quietly or
recant any of his views, and above all, his belief in prophecies and his
tirades on the subject of Antichrist, may have excited a genuine fear
on the part of his superiors that at any moment he might break out
with a writing that would be seriously damaging to their difficult and
delicate task of preserving unity within the Order.
If these were the real reasons, why could he not be condemned for
them, instead of for 'suspected novelties' ? These were not good
reasons for a public condemnation, to be announced to the Order,
200 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
wliatever they may have seemed to the friars who wanted him
condemned. Moreover, whatever Bacon may have been before, he
was not now a person of no importance, but the author of the Opus
Majus, and a scientist of some repute. And he had friends in England,
and possibly still a family of some social position. 'Suspected novel-
ties' is such a convenient blanket term, like the modern 'deviationism',
that it hardly sounds like a definite crime at all. It is the sort of thing,
however, that a chronicler a hundred years later might have heard,
and himself been given as the reason when he inquired within his
Order.
Now if the English Provincial Minister, who was responsible for
discipline within the province of England, had wanted to accede to
the demands of his friars, and himself suspected Bacon of Joachism or,
at the least, a desire to promote schism within the Order, he might
well have sent him to the Minister-General to be dealt with personally,
although, as we have seen, it was his own responsibility to deal with
brothers who caused friction between the Orders. Jerome, with the
schism within his Order on his mind, and particularly disliking
neglect of his instructions about handling disciplinary matters locally,
would not have been sympathetic to Bacon. And if the Provincial
Minister, who happened to be John Peckham, or his vicar if he were
away in Rome, as he was for part of his period as Minister, had
wanted to clinch his case, he could easily have chosen something out
of Bacon's writings as a pretext for the action he wanted his superior
to take. If this was so, then the whole condemnation was what we
should to-day call a 'political' one, without reference to the charges
officially offered against the offender. And this would account for
the last statement of the Chronicler that Jerome wrote to the Pope
a special letter asking that 'through his authority the dangerous
doctrine should be totally suppressed'. If there were no dangerous
doctrine at all, or if Jerome had wished to condemn a harmless
doctrine, he would probably, indeed, have written to the Pope
asking him not to interfere with his decision, explaining that it had
been taken on political grounds.
All that the Chronicler, or, indeed, the ordinary members of the
Order, would be told, would be that Bacon and his doctrines had
been condemned, and they were forbidden to read his books; and
long after his death they would remain forbidden until some definite
action were taken to restore them to favour. Generations of good
Franciscans may have wondered what there was in the books that
could have been responsible for their condemnation. But, if there is
The Last Years 201
any truth in our hypothesis, they and scholars in modern times
speculated in vain, for there were no offending doctrines; as there is
nothing in the published writings of Radek or more recent apostates
from the Soviet religion to explain their condemnation, which came
as a result of their deeds and not their words. Under our hypothesis
the truth will never be known what the suspected novelties were,
and there is no further need for speculation.
Very little can be said on the probable length of the imprisonment.
There is no reason to suppose it was particularly rigorous. In view of
the absence of mention of any serious difficulties in the way of his
writing, which he might have mentioned in his last work, the Com-
pendium studii theologiae, and the fact that his mind, considering his
age, was still active, it does not seem likely that Bacon suffered very
much. On the other hand, if there is any truth in his imprisonment
story, the first thing he will have been forbidden was writing.
While there are no writings from his pen that may be attributed to
the I28o's, this might be sufficiently accounted for by the hypothesis
that he was written out, and the state of his emotions was not con-
ducive to good scientific work. And although his grammars are
subsequent to the Compendium of Philosophy, these, of all the works
of his career, require less enthusiasm and fervour than any. Bacon no
longer hoped to be able to change the world by his activity, and
when this hope was lost he probably aged rapidly. We have seen
earlier that when a much younger man, he was so severely dis-
couraged by the censorship and his 'exile' that he did not feel like
writing at all. How much more now that he was older, even if his
actual imprisonment amounted to no more than confinement in the
same Parisian convent where he had spent so many of his years
already. I think, however, that we cannot altogether account for this
absence of work from his pen during these years by this hypothesis,
for that he still desired to write is shown by the fact that he certainly
did attempt another work as soon as he regained his liberty.
In 1289, Raymond de Gaufredi was elected General of the Fran-
ciscan Order, contrary to the wishes and expectations of Jerome of
Ascoli, who had now become Pope Nicholas IV. 1 Raymond, whose
sympathy with the Spirituals was to get him into trouble later,
showed it at once after his election by visiting many provinces of the
Order, and, according to Angelo of Clareno, he took special care to
visit the March of Ancona, where the dissident Spirituals were con-
fined. He examined the sentences passed against the prisoners, and
1 Hubcr, A Documented History ... p. 181.
202 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
said: 'Would that all of us and the whole Order were guilty of such
a charge as this !' And at once he released them, and sent Angelo and
his surviving companions as missionaries to Armenia, where, inci-
dentally, they succeeded in converting the king. 1 Now a late tradi-
tion asserts that Raymond released Roger Bacon from prison, but
as die account is in other respects garbled, it cannot be trusted. 2 Yet,
if Roger had indeed been imprisoned as a suspected Spiritual and
this would be known to the General of his Order, if it was not to an
ordinary friar it would have been natural for Raymond to visit him
and free him also. This would have been in the year 1290; and if
Roger had returned to England immediately after his release he
would have had two years' freedom to prepare and write his Com-
pendium of Theology.
Though this work is that of a tired and elderly man, there are some
points of interest in it for us. Mention has already been made of the
biographical material, the recollections of his youth in the memory
of an old man, and the points that stand out in his life his teachers,
the banning of Aristotle, the doctrines of Richard of Cornwall. But
something else has happened to Roger, which can be explained as the
result of the mellowing process of old age though the outburst
against Richard of Cornwall might seem to cast doubt on this or of
the acquisition of a store of prudence, a virtue which he extols for
the first time since the days of his philosophical lectures. 3 I believe
there is also to be detected a note of delicate irony. All these new
virtues might have stemmed from his increasing years; but they may
also be credited to a hardly learned discipline of his emotions, the
result of his imprisonment.
He begins the book by saying quietly that he has been prevented
from writing 'some useful things' on the subject of theology, 'as is
known to many'. But, as a favour to his friends, he has made as much
haste as he could (two years if our hypothesis of his liberation in 1290
is correct). He is aware of the 'great difficulty which cannot be
overcome by reading and listening', and of the multitude of experi-
ments that he ought to make; but, nevertheless, he will do his best. 4
1 Raymond, unlike Jerome, was in Angelo's eyes 'omnium bonorum amator'. Archiv ... II,
305-6.
* A note on an alchemical MS. of Bacon's states that Raymond released Roger from prison
because he taught him the work, having himself put him in prison because of it. The MS.,
however, dates from the fifteenth century, and while it supports the fact of Bacon's imprison-
ment, it cannot otherwise be trusted. Whoever committed him to prison, it certainly was not
Raymond de Gaufredi. Little, Essays ... pp. 27, 397, item 21.
* 'It is the first part of prudence to make an estimate of the person to whom you are talking.'
I wonder if Roger ever thought of that before 1 CST, p. 71.
CST, p. 26.
The Last Years 203
Then comes what I think is a delicate irony. 'Since the principal
occupation of theologians is concerned with questions . . . and theo-
logical disputes are settled by means of authorities and arguments, I
will conform, and make abundant use of other authorities and
reasons, since "variety is the spice of life" as Seneca says (nihil est
jocundum nisi quod reficit varietas, ut ait Seneca)/ 1 And Roger
proceeds to quote numerous commonplaces from pagan authorities !
'Since this is the way it is', he seems to say; 'since none of the
powers that be is interested in anything but authorities in theological
discussions, and no one is interested in my ideas, why, then I'll give
you some pagan authorities. I'm quite willing to conform to your
standards.' But the pagan authorities are quoted on behalf of an
entirely innocuous proposition.
At once, as his custom was when in his prime, he plunges into the
causes of error. But here, most significantly, there are only three.
The fourth and worst, the error which in the Opus Tertium he had
called 'the defence of one's own ignorance through speaking ill of
those things which we do not know combined with showing off
what we do', 2 is missing. And against the three errors which he still
cites he only quotes harmless and reputable authorities, including
Boethius, Jeremiah, Solomon, and St. John Chrysostom; following
this up with some calm remarks on the way our childhood training
predisposes us to accept authority and the sayings of our parents,
although these may be false and vain and useless. 3 He deplores
soberly the lack of interest in, and understanding of, Aristotle, and
says, in the tone of an elderly and disillusioned scholar: 'Few there-
fore there were who were considered skilled in the aforesaid philo-
sophy of Aristotle, yes, very few indeed, and almost none up to this
year of 1292 . . . there were only three who could make true judg-
ments on those few books which have been translated, as will be
carefully proved from many points of view*. 4
This ends the introduction, weary, disillusioned, and without
Bacon's old fire, though there is nothing surprising in this, since he
must have passed the age of seventy-five. But I was unable to see
how Charles, who pointed out the missing fourth error, could say
that Bacon had 'lost none of his hatred for authority and routine'
until I noticed that several pertinent sentences were missing from his
transcription, without any indication that anything had been omitted.
He has simply chosen the passages where Bacon speaks of authority
i CST, p. 25. Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 71.
* GST, p. 32.
204 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
and run them together. 1 The full passage, though it would still
contain the sentences quoted by Charles, reads as a far milder indict-
ment, and has a quite different tone, as a whole, from similar attacks
in his earlier works.
Bacon begins the main body of the work by speaking of the study
of theology, and reiterates his old objection to the study of Quaestiones
instead of the sacred text. He warms up for a few pages when he
remembers Richard of Cornwall's lectures on the Sentences \ but for
the rest the holders of theories are not condemned by name. The
arguments, for Bacon, are reasonable, and there is nothing specially
new. 'Averroism' is suitably condemned, though the Commentator
himself is not considered altogether wrong on many of his points.
There follows a long scholastic disquisition in the prevailing manner,
but nothing seriously controversial, and nothing that the most fervid
friar or church censor could have objected to.
It says a lot for Bacon's will power that he was able to attempt such
a work as a compendium of theology in his extreme old age. And
his intellectual powers have by no means withered altogether, as he is
still able to sustain an argument. His powers of memory, however,
have nearly deserted him, as his wildness of quotation shows. But
when we consider what Bacon thought of theology, and how from
his earliest years he must have planned this culminating work of his
life, the work possibly that would replace the Summae of his rivals,
a Summa salvationis per scientiam, it must have seemed a pitiful enough
effort. But he was old, and did not live to complete it.
As it has come down to us, the Compendium of Theology is not very
long. Charles thought that it may have been longer originally than
it appears in our MSS., and he mentioned a few other fragments that
in his view could have belonged to it. But these, as far as we can tell
from Charles's description, probably belonged to the Communia
naturalium* So, although the year is given in the book itself as 1292,
it still is possible that the traditional date for his death is correct,
June nth, I292. 3 There is certainly no reason to insist that he must
have outlived the year 1292 in order to write the remainder of the
fragment. So, in the absence of any serious evidence for any other
1 Charles, pp. 412 ff. Crowley also adopts Charles' point of view. 'Imprisonment did not
teach him moderation and his last work lacks none of his customary vigour.' Roger Bacon . . .
p. 198.
1 Charles, pp. 415-16; CST, 1-2.
' This information comes from the Warwickshire antiquarian Rous, who states also that he
was buried at Oxford. Little, Essays ... p. 28.
The Last Years 205
date, his death may be placed in I292. 1 He died, therefore, while he
was still at work, as such an indefatigable student and writer would
have wished.
Since this study has been written as a biography, and opinions on
the value of Bacon's contributions to science and thought have been
offered during the course of the work, it does not seem necessary to
conclude with an elaborate summing up of the value of these contri-
butions, nor of the legends that have sprung up since his death. The
writer has made no special research on this subject, which seems to
have been adequately handled in the Commemoration Essays of 1914.
My intention throughout has been to place Bacon in relation to the
events and thought of his time rather than in the framework of all
history, and to consider him as a person rather than as a phenomenon.
If there is much in this study that is hypothetical and much that is
constructed out of rather slender evidence, it may at least serve to
stimulate further thought and research, and perhaps prevent the
constant repetition of facts that cannot be sustained by any evidence,
but which were still as recently as 193 8 the commonplaces of Baconian
biography.
1 Wadding gives his death as having occurred in 1284, but in view of the internal evidence
for exactly 1292 as the year of writing the Compendium studii theobgiae (CST, p. 34), and for
more than forty years since 1250 (CST 1 , p. 53), this date, unsupported, has little to recommend
it. Wadding, Annales Minorum, V, 134.
THE END
APPENDIX A
THE LECTURES OF ROBERT GROSSETESTE
TO THE FRANCISCANS, 1229-35
IN view of the enthusiasm with which some historians have accepted
Little's views on the studies by the Oxford friars from 1229 to 1235
under Grosseteste, 1 it should be pointed out that the evidential support
for the curriculum outlined by Little is very slight.
As pointed out in a note in the text, 2 this famous scientific school,
such an innovation at that early date, would have been a matter of
great interest to Thomas Eccleston. The study of mathematics,
physics, and languages would have been an innovation without
C 1 lel in faculties of theology anywhere, and could not fail to have
known to a brother as interested in the progress and fame of
his Order as Eccleston. Yet Eccleston only says that the brothers
under the instruction of Grosseteste 'tarn in quaestionibus quam
predication! congruis subtilibus moralitatibus profecerunt', that is,
they studied theology and moral subjects. 3 The Loner cost Chronicle,
which records the fact that Grosseteste taught the friars before
becoming Bishop of Lincoln, does not give any information on
the curriculum. 4
Little does not seem to have been struck by this omission. After
quoting Eccleston, he goes on to say: 'But we are able to recover the
chief features of Grosseteste's teaching both from his own works and
from the frequent allusion to it in Roger Bacon's writings'. 5
Though the work of S. H. Thomson on Grosseteste seems to show
that no scientific writings can be attributed to the years when he was
teaching the friars, it is certainly established that Grosseteste did have
a knowledge of science at the time, and could have lectured on it.
This no one would deny. But the question is whether he did in fact
lecture on it. And here all Little's evidence comes from Bacon. 'His
1 Little, 'The Franciscan School . . .' (1926), pp. 807-22. Father Huber, for instance, devotes
two full pages to recapitulating Little's findings, without saying they are conjectural (A
Documented History ... pp. 816-17) ; De Sessevalle accepts the statements, though 'he does not
go into details (Histoire gfaerale ... I, 497). Little's predecessor, Felder, suggested the scientific
learning, but did not go into detail; he had no more evidence at his disposal than Little
(Gcschichte der Wissenschaftlichen ... pp. 263-67).
* Supra, p. 90, n. 2.
8 Thomas de Eccleston, De adventu ... pp. 60-61. * Chronicon de Lanercost, p. 45.
1 Little, 'The Franciscan School . . .' pp. 807-8.
206
Appendix A 207
(Bacon's) allusions are particularly interesting for our purpose because
he frequently classes together Grosseteste and two of his successors,
namely Thomas of Wales and Adam Marsh, and establishes the fact
that a special tradition of learning was founded by Grosseteste, and
prevailed through several generations of masters in the Franciscan
School.' 1
Little sums up the Franciscan curriculum of study under three
heads: the study of the Bible, the study of languages, and the study
of mathematics and physics. There can, of course, be no doubt of the
first. But for the other two, Little's evidence is extremely thin. He
admits that even Bacon himself said that Grosseteste did not know
languages well enough to translate except towards the end of his life, 2
though he quotes also a letter of Grosseteste's 3 showing that 'he
translated Greek as a relaxation during a few days' respite from his
official labours' in the early years of his bishopric. 4
Little then says : It is a fair inference that his mind was occupied
by the subject while he was lecturing to the friars'; and he 'confirms'
this inference by a quotation from Bacon: 'We have seen some of
the earlier generation who laboured much at languages, such as the
Lord Robert, the above-mentioned translator, and Thomas, the
venerable Bishop of St. David's, now deceased, and Friar Adam
Marsh*, 5
Now this passage from Bacon only says that Thomas of Wales,
who became lector to the Franciscans about 1240, studied languages,
and his successor, Adam Marsh (lector 1247 to 1250), also studied
them. Of the intervening three lectors between Grosseteste (retired
1235) and Thomas, we know nothing. But both Thomas and Adam,
as we know, were in constant touch with Grosseteste during these
years, and it is at least possible that they only became interested in
languages when he brought his Greeks over to England during the
years of his bishopric. Grosseteste probably began to learn the
language during his time at Oxford, and felt the need for it. But
since he did not yet know, even according to Bacon, more than the
rudiments of it (Bacon's third degree of efficiency in translation), it
does not seem at all probable. that he should have introduced it into
the Franciscan curriculum. He could not teach it himself, and he had
not yet imported his Greeks. If he had teachers available in England,
why should he have imported Greeks later? It is a very different
1 Little, 'The Franciscan School . . / p. 808.
* Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 91. 3 Grosseteste, Epistolat ... p. 173*
* Little, 'The Franciscan School . . .' p. 809. 5 Opus Majus, in, 88.
208 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
matter to teach Greek and insert Greek studies into a new curriculum,
from learning to read it one's self in one's spare time.
Thomas of Wales may have introduced it in 1240 and been followed
by Adam Marsh; but since this only rests upon the unsupported
declaration by Bacon that they laboured much in the languages, the
evidence is hardly enough to establish even a prima facie case.
For mathematics and physics the evidence is even more feeble.
Little says: 'Here again the repeated conjunction of Adam Marsh's
name with that of Robert Grosseteste in Roger Bacon's writings may
be taken as evidence that Grosseteste expounded his views on these
subjects to the friars'. 1
There is no doubt that Bacon extolled the proficiency of both these
men in mathematics, and, as pointed out in the body of this study,
on at least one occasion Grosseteste used his knowledge of light to
illustrate a theological point. 2 I have seriously questioned Adam's
proficiency, and given a possible reason for Bacon's praises. However
this may be, it is certain that Adam was not teaching at Oxford in
Bacon's day until 1247; and though he may have studied mathematics
in his earlier life, any proficiency he acquired was previous to his
studies in theology. All that Bacon tells us, in a passage quoted by
Little, is that Robert and Adam 'have known how to unfold the
causes of all things, and to give a sufficient explanation of human and
divine phenomena; and the assurance of this fact is to be found in the
writings of these great men'. 3 (Italics mine.)
If they had indeed lectured, why didn't Bacon take the opportunity
to mention it, instead of only referring to the writings? I suggest that
the reason is that Bacon himself gained his knowledge of the work
of at least Robert Grosseteste from his writings.
As for the so-called tradition carried on by the four intermediate
masters, Bacon tells us nothing of any mathematical ability on the
part of any of them. The only Englishman to whom he gives credit
for mathematical knowledge besides Grosseteste and Adam is the
unknown John of Bandoun. 4 Though Bacon, of course, is fond of
exaggerating, would he have gone so far as to say that 'there are
few who know this science' if there had been a flourishing Oxford
tradition, stemming from the original work of Robert Grosseteste?
I think the most probable conclusion is not that Grosseteste set up
any such curriculum for the friars, but that Grosseteste himself, of
1 Little, The Franciscan School . . .' p. 810.
2 Grosseteste, Epistolae ... pp. 360-61.
8 Opus Majus, I, 108, quoted by Little, 'The Franciscan School . . .' p. 810.
4 Steele, Fasc. XVI, 118 (Communia mathematica).
Appendix A 209
whom Bacon had heard much and whose writings he had read, used
mathematical and optical illustrations for his classes in theology; and
Adam Marsh, having received an early training from Grosseteste, and
being a close friend of the great bishop, followed his example. Bacon,
though not attending Grosseteste's classes, was able, on his return to
Oxford, to hear Adam Marsh lecture on theology, and was stimu-
lated by him to use a similar method when dealing with theology in
his own writings. And as Adam was a superlative teacher, capable
of inspiring his pupils with enthusiasm, 1 Bacon acquired a love and
respect for him that led to an exaggerated opinion of his mathematical
and linguistic ability.
In the absence, therefore, of any further corroborative evidence for
Little's idea that a school for scientific studies was established at
Oxford during the years 1229 to 1235, it would seem that the
suggestion should be relegated from the established fact of Father
Huber to the status of an improbable but possible hypothesis.
1 For Adam's influence as a teacher on Thomas Docking and Thomas of York, see Little,
Thomas Docking and his Relations to Roger Bacon , . .' (1927), p. 301.
APPENDIX B
WHO WAS THE UNNAMED MASTER?
IN the Opus Minus and the Opus Tertium Bacon attacks two masters
of the Parisian schools, one of whom is dead, and the other living.
The errors of these men, he declares, are disastrous. But it is not, as
in the case of Richard of Cornwall, a specific error that he condemns
so much as their whole influence, and particularly the fact that they
are cited as authorities.
This is a heinous sin for Bacon, not only because he objects to
authorities as such, but because he refuses to recognize that the time
has come to allow any Latin contemporary to be taken as an authority,
however willing he may be to accept Aristotle, Avicerma, and
Averroes, Indeed, he even goes so far as to say that Christ Himself
was not accepted as an authority in His lifetime.
So then it is the whole influence that he is trying to undermine,
rather than any particular doctrine. And if we are to determine
convincingly who the second master is (the first, Alexander of Hales,
Bacon names), we must not only see whether the known details of
his life and work correspond to Bacon's statements, but also whether
Bacon's own teachings would conflict with those of this master in
such a way as to account for his remarkable spleen against him. In
other words, if we accept Bacon's estimate of the man's influence,
would this undermine his own work, and turn students from his own
point of view to that of the master?
Opinion is still divided on who the master can have been. The
majority has probably swung round to the point of view that it was
Albertus Magnus. Little was apparently unable to make up his mind
about it. In his edition of the Opus Tertium fragment in 1912 he
believed it was Thomas Aquinas, in 1914 he conceded that it was
probably Albert, while in 1928 he had again turned to Thomas
Aquinas. 1 P. Crowley, in a recent Louvain doctoral dissertation on
Bacon's psychology, which has not yet been published, was appar-
ently of the opinion that it was not Albert, though the published
Little, Op. Tert., p. xxv; Essays ... p. 8, note 9; 'Roger Bacon: Annual Lecture , . , p. 280
In this last paper Little seems to be founding his decision on the differences between Bacon and
Thomas on the nature of the soul. Albert's ideas on the soul, however, did not differ sub-
210
Appendix B 211
account of this dissertation does not give his reasons. 1 Miss Sharp, in
her book on Franciscan philosophy at Oxford has not made up her
mind, but allows him as either Albert or Thomas. 2 Brewer thought
it was neither, but Richard of Cornwall, though he had not in
his day sufficient material for an informed judgment. 3 Professor
Thorndike offers by far the most substantial reasons against Albert,
concluding that if he was indeed meant, then Bacon was both an
incompetent and an unfair critic. 4 Bacon's criticism, he says, does not
seem to apply to Albert at all closely. Not only was Albert only for
a short time in Paris, but he does not seem to have been, in sympathy
with the conditions Bacon describes. These are serious charges, and
the attempt will be made here to answer them in detail, and without
showing Bacon to have made any errors of fact; though his biased
criticism stems from his highly personal view of the nature of science
and theology, and the relationship between them.
If neither Albert nor Thomas is the man, then someone else must
be provided. Few can have attained the eminence on which Bacon
is so specific. Though he may have disliked and disapproved of
Richard of Cornwall, Richard was no such authority in the fields
which Bacon specifies. Moreover, he was dead before 1267, and
Bacon says that the master is still living. So Brewer's suggestion may
be dismissed at once. St. Bonaventura, the General of the Franciscan
Order at the time, was an authority in theology; but again his
influence was by no means as pervasive as that of Albert or Thomas,
and the details of the life of the master do not correspond in any way
to those given by Bacon. It is intended to show in this appendix that
only to Albert do these details apply. The relationship of Albert's
work to Bacon's and the extent of his influence will be treated in the
second section of the appendix. Though it is conceded that Albert
was not in Paris for much of his life, his influence nevertheless per-
vaded the whole Parisian school, partly through his published work,
and partly through the influence of his chief pupil, Thomas Aquinas,
The longest consecutive account of the master appears in the Opus
Minus. First Alexander of Hales is attacked, and then the unnamed
master. There is a relationship between these two, as will be shown.
They are not arbitrarily selected because both were authorities, as
1 Revue Neo-scholasttque de Philosophic (November, 1939), pp. 647-48. With the publication
of this dissertation it is now possible to state that Crowley makes no mention of tie passages
dealt with in this appendix, but only of the passage in the Compendium studii philosophiae (p. 426)
where Bacon refers to the 'boys of the two Orders'. He does not think these can be Albert and
Thomas (Crowley, Roger Bacon ... p, 63). For this passage see infra pp. 218-19.
* Sharp, Franciscan Philosophy ... p. 117.
' Brewer, Op. Tert., p, xxiv, n. 6. * Thorndike, History of Magic , , , H, 639-41.
212 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
might appear at first sight. On the contrary, both represented a
certain approach to theology which Bacon detested. This subject will
be resumed when the details have been examined and their corre-
spondence to what is known of Albert has been established.
The master entered the Order of brothers as a young boy, Bacon
tells us. 1 He never did read philosophy, nor hear it in the schools,
nor was he in studio solemni before he became a theologian; nor could
he be taught within the Order, as he himself was the first Master of
Philosophy. And he it was who taught the others; what he knows he
has from his own study.
Now recent researches into the early life of Albert show this to be
precisely and exactly true. Mandonnet, as we have seen in this study,
may not be reliable in many things, and he is inclined to gloss over
too much opposing evidence. But his judgment that Albert was born
in 1206 and entered the Dominican Order in 1223 2 is based on the
very best contemporary evidence, and by no means only on what is
cited in his early article in the Dictionnaire de theologie catholique
referred to by Thorndike. 3 In particular the letters of Jordan of
Saxony, Albert's own superior in the Order at the time, and one
letter from Pope Honorius III at the time of his entry into the Order,
cannot be gainsaid, any more than the chronicle of Etienne de
Bourbon, which as clearly refers to Albert at this period. 4 The date
is now almost universally accepted by authorities, and no one who
has written in this field since the publication of Mandonnet's re-
searches has any further doubt, unless it be to put the date of birth
back one year to 1205.
Born then in 1206, Albert was taken to Bologna by his uncle in
1222 to study. The following year he went to Padua, where he
joined the Dominican Order; late in the same year Jordan of Saxony
sent him to Cologne to the Dominican convent in that city. He was
still not yet eighteen, and his education, twice interrupted, cannot
have been very profound; and outside the few months at Bologna
it was not at a recognized university. Certainly he had not yet
obtained any bachelor's or master's degree. At Cologne there was
not yet a studium generate when Albert went there, because he himself
founded one in 1248. Moreover, the Dominican house was new, and
1 Opus Minus, p. 327.
* Mandonnet, 'La date de naissance . . .' (1931), pp. 233-56.
8 Thorndike, History of Magic . . . (1923), n, 523.
* A. Garreau, St. Albert le Grand (1932), pp. 29-50. M. Aron, Un Animateur de lajeunesse . . .
(1930); Lettres du bienheureux Jourdain de Saxe . . . (1924). M. Grabmann, Der hi Albert der.
Grosse (1932). It should be emphasized that none of these writers uses Bacon's remarks at
evidence, so theirs may be justifiably used to support the truth of his.
Appendix B 213
without eminent teachers, of which the Order indeed had very few
at that moment. One of Albert's great works for his Order in the
later years of his career was the training of such masters.
Albert, therefore, can be said to have been self-educated. The best
evidence for this, outside the negative evidence of lack of oppor-
tunity, is the extreme weakness in philosophy shown in his first
work, Tractatus de natura boni, which was written while he was still
in Germany. His earliest Parisian writings which can be dated with
certainty in the I24o's, show a much fuller grasp, especially of Aris-
totle, though they also are not to be compared with his later works. 1
Yet after a few years in Cologne he is appointed as lector in
theology to his own convent. This position he retains for a few years
until he is transferred in 1235 to Hildesheim, still a convent within
the Dominican Order. Finally, in 1240 he is allowed to go to Paris
to take his official grades and gain his real education in formal
theology. 2 Yet even here he does not go to the Faculty of Arts in
any case the Dominicans did not study in this faculty but is accepted
at once as a Bachelor Sententiarius, presumably because of his reputa-
tion as a teacher, and because of the influence of the Dominican
Order. Finally he is granted his doctorate in 1242, after only two
years of official study at Paris, but with many years of hard self-
education and reading and lecturing as his qualifications.
These facts are no longer in dispute, even though there is still much
difference of opinion on the dates of the writing of his various scientific
works. And it is certain that, after only these two years of formal
study at Paris, and as soon as lie attained his doctorate, he was
appointed to the Dominican chair in theology at the university,
taking over a position that had been held with no special glory by a
Master Gu6ric of St. Quentin for nine years a relatively long period
frowned upon by the Order on principle, but accepted at this time
because of the great shortage of qualified masters of theology. 3 In the
whole thirteenth century only two German masters of theology are
known by name, Thierry of Freiberg and Albert. 4
It is therefore clear that Albert never could have fulfilled the formal
residence requirements for a degree in theology, and that it was only
the influence of his Order that ensured his acceptance at an advanced
standing at Paris, enabling him to take his doctoral degree in two
1 These are the Summa de creaturis, and a commentary on the Sentences. R. de Vaux, 'La
premiere entre"e . . .' (1933), p. 237.
* Glorieux, Rtpertoire ... p. 54; Garreau, St. Albert ... p. 69.
3 Garreau, St. Albert ... p. 76.
* Ibid., p. 89.
214 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
years. So, if lie had not exactly 'taught before he had studied', as
Bacon says, he had at least taught before he had obtained his formal
grades in theology. 'What he knows', as Bacon says, 'he had from
his own study/ On the other hand, Thomas Aquinas did study
philosophy at Naples under Peter of Ireland, and though he may not
have received as good a formal education as he might if he had gone
to Paris at once, he could not be said to have 'taught before he
studied*. And his education was entirely correct and formal until he
followed Albert to Cologne rather than stay and finish at Paris.
St. Bonaventura also had a correct formal education, as did almost
all masters of this period. It was only Albert who went through this
original type of education, as far as we know.
To continue with the words of Bacon:
He is a most studious man, and has seen an infinite number of things, and been
put to considerable expense; he was able to gather many useful things in the un-
bounded sea of authors. 1
This is the only meed of praise allowed by Bacon to his enemy.
There can be no question that Albert consulted many authors, and
wrote much. So, of course, did many others of his contemporaries.
But because he never had a foundation, since he was not instructed, nor did he
exercise himself in listening, lecturing, or disputing ; so he couldn't help being
ignorant of the common sciences (philosophy). 2
This, of course, is* Bacon's prejudice, and his judgment based on
the facts above. Albert at Cologne was doubtless a student for a few
years, but without an accomplished master. Only from 1240 to 1242
was he a student at Paris, but already an advanced one, and with a
reputation as a teacher of many years' standing. Because he was self-
taught it doesn't follow that he knew no philosophy. But this is a
criticism to be expected from the ex-professor Bacon, brought up on
public disputations in the Faculty of Arts.
Since he did not know languages, he couldn't know anything really valuable.
When Albert uses a Greek word, he generally gives a definition or
an extraordinary etymology. 8 It is clear that he never did learn Greek
or Hebrew, and no one has ever claimed that he did. He relied on the
translations available.
He does not know perspective
Though later authorities have attributed some works in this field
to Albert, Thorndike does not accept them, and has found no MSS.
1 Opus Minus, p. 327. * Ibid., p. 327.
1 Garreau, St. Albert ... p. 32.
Appendix B " 215
attributed to him on this subject. 1 None of the printed material
would contradict this assertion.
And, knowing nothing of this, he couldn't know anything worth while about
philosophy, because this, together with scientla experimentalis, alchemy, and mathe-
matics, is the most important requirement for this study.
^ And on those sciences, especially botany, on which Albert really
did know something, Bacon is discreetly silent. If this passage implies
that Albert did not know alchemy, then Bacon could have been
ignorant of Albert's remarks about alchemy in his Mineralium, which
show his interest in alchemy and the efforts he made to obtain
information about it. But Thorndike does not admit any of the
strictly alchemical works of Albert to be certainly genuine, and
allows him only one 'probable'. 2 In his lifetime it is quite possible
that Albert was not known as an alchemist, even if in fact he had
nlade experiments in this field.
The remainder of the passage is concerned with the master's posi-
tion as an authority. Since this is a general, and not a specific, charge,
it will be taken up later.
Early in the Opus Tertium there is a reference to Albert, of the
Order of Preachers, by name. Bacon tells the Pope that if he had
asked Albert to produce such a work as he is himself writing, Albert
would have taken ten years about it. 3 Later the unnamed master is
once more attacked, This attack is made very carefully and systema-
tically, and his deficiencies in each of the useful sciences are stated
one by one but only when applicable. When the master is not
deficient, Bacon is silent.
He charges him in general with four sins: (a) vanitas puerilis
infinita, (b} falsitas ineffabilis, (c) superfluity voluminis, and (<) omis-
sion of those parts of philosophy 'which are of magnificent utility
and immense beauty'. 4
The first two are merely Bacon's customary value^judgments, and
signify nothing but his disapproval. As to the third, no one would
deny that both Albert and Thomas wrote many books. According
to Bacon 'the whole power of these sciences (i.e. those dealt with by
Albert) can be compressed into a useful tract, true, clear, and perfect,
which would occupy only a twentieth part of these volumes'. Both
Albert and Thomas wrote at least twenty volumes, and on subjects
that Bacon could regard as scientific. Since Bacon thought of
1 Thorndike, History of Magic . . . H, 529. 8 Ibid., H, 571.
3 Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 14. * Ibid., p. 30.
216 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
perspectiva and mathematics as the 'most beautiful and useful' of
sciences, his fourth accusation may be considered as justified from his
point of view.
He goes on to say:
He never heard the parts of philosophy, nor did he learn from anyone, nor was
lie nourished in the University of Paris, nor anywhere where the study of philosophy
flourishes. 1
This is an obvious reference to Cologne, and not so easily applicable
to Naples. Albert, of course, did not study philosophy at the Univer-
sity of Paris, but theology, and then only for a short time.
Nor did he have a revelation because he did not live in such a way as to be able
to receive one, but accumulating false, vain, and superfluous things, and leaving out
useful and necessary things, which would not indicate a revelation; but of his own
accord he presumed to treat of things he did not know. Not without cause have
I spoken olfthis supposed authority, because not only does he fit in with my state-
ment (ad propositum meum facit), but it is to be deplored that the study of philo-
sophy is corrupted by him more than through all who have ever been among the
Latins. For though others have been deficient, yet they have not set themselves up
as authorities. But he writes his books per modum authenticum, and so the whole
crazy crowd cites him at Paris, like Aristotle, Avicenna, Averroes, and other
authors. And he has done great harm, not only to the study of philosophy, but of
theology, as I show in the Opus Minus where I speak of the seven sins of the study
of theology. Above all the third sin concerns him, and I discuss this openly on his
account. 2 There I note two (authorities), but he is the chief. The other had a greater
name, but he is dead.
From this passage it is clear that Bacon is speaking here in the Opus
Tertium of the same master who was the target of his attacks in the
Opus Minus. He then proceeds to take up those studies he does
consider useful:
The aforesaid authority knows nothing of the power of languages. 3
Then he shows that geometry and perspectiva are necessary 'because
all sciences are connected and nourish each other*. And he continues :
But he who sets himself up as an authority, of whom I spoke earlier, knew
nothing of the power of this science, as appears in his books, because he did not
write a book on this science, and he would have done so if he had known it. Nor
did he say anything about this science in his other books, and yet the use of this
science is necessary for all the other sciences. And so he cannot know anything
of the wisdom of philosophy. 4
1 Brewer, Op. Tert., pp. 31.
1 i.e. ignorance of those four sciences 'quae sunt in usu theologorum*. Opus Minus, p. 325.
* Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 33.
*Ibid. t pp. 36-37.
Appendix B 217
Bacon then tells the Pope that he is sending him a special treatise
on the subject.
But he who has multiplied volumes does not know these radices, for he does not
touch on them at all; and so it is certain that he is ignorant of natural things and
everything which belongs to philosophy. And not only he, but the whole mob of
philosophizers which goes astray through him. If you were to write to him, you
would find him impossibilem ad eas. 1
The last remark looks like a reference to Bacon's earlier thought
that Albert could not have written such a work in ten years if the
Pope had asked him.
Dealing with speculative alchemy and the generation of animals,
his criticism is subtly different. Here Bacon says :
But he who has composed so many and such great volumes de naturalibus, about
whom I spoke earlier, does not know these fundamentals } and so his building cannot
stand. 2
This is perhaps the clearest and most convincing reference to
Albert. Was there any one of his contemporaries who could possibly
have been considered to have written 'so many and such great
volumes de naturalibus"? Thomas Aquinas wrote commentaries on
Aristotle, but these were minor parts of his work, and coming in
connection with Bacon's remarks on the generation of animals I do
not think he can have had Aquinas in mind. Vincent of Beauvais and
Bartholomew of England wrote de naturalibus, but none of the other
criticisms or specific statements can apply to them, nor could they in
any way be regarded as authorities on philosophy and theology in their
own lifetime.
Then, significantly, testifying to Bacon's accurate knowledge of
Albert's work, in speaking of sdentia experimentalis he omits all
mention of the master, and only sings the praises of Peter de Mari-
court as the perfect experimenter. 3 Would Bacon have failed to press
the attack if he had not known that Albert was as experienced a
practical scientist as himself? I cannot see Thomas Aquinas being let
off so easily.
Finally, when dealing with the fourth cause of error, Bacon makes
his parting shot:
The fourth error is the worst, since a man defending his own ignorance, making
a display of what he knows and reproving those things which are alien to it, makes
himself an authority, though a feeble one ... his madness spreads to his neighbours,
as Seneca says ... so this authority (iste auctor) spreads his opinions and taints the
whole crowd. 4
1 Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 37. * Md., p. 42.
* Ibid., pp. 43-47. * Ibid., p. 70.
2i8 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
And he continues:
To acquire wisdom all holy men have separated themselves from the world . . .
and in this he, as in so many other things, is wrong, and never becomes perfect. 1
Once more this seems to have a definite applicability to Albert,
who never did retire from the world though he belonged to a
mendicant Order. On the contrary, he lived the most active of lives,
organizing chapters, founding studia generally preaching a crusade,
publicly attacking a heretical opinion at Paris, and even for a while
filling the office of Bishop of Ratisbon. He never retired from the
world until old age compelled it.
In the Compendium studii philosophiae Bacon returns to the charge
that Albert and Thomas, whom he mentions now by name, are
ruining the study of theology. There is nothing new and specific in
these charges, but the terms of the attack are very similar to those on
the unnamed master in the Opus Minus:
For forty years some people have risen in the University who have made them-
selves into masters and teachers of the study of philosophy when they have never
learned anything worth while and either will not, or cannot, because of their
status. . . . These are boys of the two Orders such as Albert and Thomas and others
who in so many cases enter the Orders when they are twenty years or less . . . they
are not proficient because they are not instructed by others in philosophy after they
enter, because within their Order they have presumed to investigate philosophy
without a teacher. So they become masters in philosophy before they were disciples,
and so infinite error reigns. 2
Professor Thorndike has questioned the integrity of this passage as
it seems incongruous for Bacon to speak of a man who was almost
certainly his senior as a boy. 8 Now it is certain that neither Albert
nor Thomas was still a boy in 1272. But Bacon, in the writing of this
work, is more full of fury than usual. It is, indeed, by far his most
violent work. He speaks of the 'boys' on four occasions, and it is
clear that what he had in mind was the common practice of allowing
boys to enter the Orders. Albert and Thomas did enter their Order
as boys, though they were no longer boys at the period Bacon was
writing. He could quite easily have classed them all together as
'brothers who entered the Order as boys' rather than intending to
refer to them as presently boys. In view of the general exaggeration
and unrestrained nature of Bacon's attacks on everyone in this work,
I think this is possible. Yet I too should prefer it if the offending
words *ut Albertus et Thomas et alii' could be dismissed as a gloss,
1 Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 71. * CSP, pp. 425-26.
8 Thorndike, History of Magic ... II, 639.
Appendix B 219
since the identification of the unnamed master by no means depends
on this passage. 1 Indeed, I think a gloss of this kind would strengthen
the case I have been building, since the glosser will have added these
words precisely because he knew that Albert, Thomas, and others
had entered the Order as boys. Seeing these remarks it would be
natural for him to add these well-known examples from his own
knowledge.
The final attack comes from the Communia naturalium, and, as it
occurs in the early pages of this work, it is probably written before
any of the passages quoted above, and before the Opus Majus:
Even Aristotle wrote some things which are superfluous for us But some
moderns err, who exceed the quantity of a book of Aristotle, and give to one of
their books a greater quantity of matter than Aristotle thought worth while giving
in all his books. So, deservedly, they are convicted of great ignorance as they do
not know how to stick to essentials, and not only accumulate most useless things,
but multiply endless errors. And the root cause is that they have not studied the
sciences of which they write, nor lectured upon them in studio solemni, nor even
have they listened to them, because they were masters before they were disciples,
so that they go astray through relying upon themselves and multiply errors among
the public. The libri naturales and common works cannot be known without the
other seven sciences, nor even without mathematics. But two renowned moderns,
as they have not listened to the sciences on which they make statements, so they
have neither read on them, nor exercised themselves in them, as appears from their
writings. So it is clear that everywhere they are confounded by errors and vanities.
Their error is multiplied in the natural and other common sciences, whose transla-
tions, which they use, are perverse, and nothing worth while could be said by them
nor understood by others, through translations of this kind. 2
This is perhaps the most moderate statement made against these
masters, of whom there can be hardly any doubt in this passage. It is
the only time that they are criticized directly because they have no
access to the best text because of their ignorance of languages. But
this is connected with the way in which Albert and Thomas use
Aristotle, and the reason why it was not necessary for them to have
the knowledge of languages that Bacon demanded. It is this essential
difference between their view of science and theology and the more
conservative one, in many respects, held by Bacon, that will now have
to be considered. This will supply a motive for the personal attacks,
and, in showing how the method of the 'moderns' was the one that
prevailed, throw light upon their acceptance by the vulgus philoso-
phantium as 'authorities'. In this Albert, and not Thomas, who merely
followed him, was the pioneer, and so the fit target for Bacon's spleen.
1 The Compendium is found in only one MS., and it is akcady a much corrected one.
a Steele, Fasc. II, 11.
220 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
n
Bacon is not too scrupulous in his attacks, but, as a rule, he is well
informed. If we examine his criticism of the masters of his time, and
particularly the unnamed one, we shall find that it is two-pronged.
He objects to his baneful influence on theology, and he objects to his
lack of understanding of what constitutes a true science. The two are
connected, since for Bacon science must be useful for theology. But
they can best be dealt with separately.
It is clear that Bacon had no idea of what the theologians were
really trying to do. Being himself an anti-rationalist, he does not
comprehend their problem, and, if he had understood it, he would
not have sympathized with it. But his attack is not really informed
with knowledge as if he had studied within the Faculty of Theology.
He seems to have had a kind of intuitive knowledge of what was
going on, and he doesn't like it. His approach to the Scriptures is
aesthetic. He does not want to understand God, but rather to appre-
ciate and marvel at His works. He is primarily a man of faith. He
wants to believe, and he is fortunate enough to be able to do so. But
his belief is not reserved only for the Scriptures. He wants to believe
also in Aristotle, Avicenna, and the prophets ; and his belief is rational-
ized by his continuous statements that they were inspired by God
and the knowledge was revealed to them. The statements of the
Bible are not only literally true; they are allegorically and spiritually
true. The geography of the Bible is likewise not only geography, but
geography with spiritual meanings; the relationships between the
places, and even their names, have meaning. 1 He wants to add to the
content of his religion, not question it. Peter Lombard and his
followers merely argue painfully and laboriously over what is
patently obvious to him. And they leave the inspired words of the
Scriptures behind in the process. Bacon does not for a moment
question the source and validity of the knowledge contained in the
Scriptures; he merely wants to add to it, so that there may be a more
profound understanding of them. It is important from his point of
view to know of the different composition of the body of Adam
before and after the Fall because this increases our knowledge. 2 But
he does not think of questioning this knowledge itself, as tEe theo-
logians were doing. Meditation on the text of the Bible had been
carried on for hundreds of years, long before there was any pro-
nounced intellectual movement which favoured the use of natural
1 Opus Majus, 1, 185 ff,, esp. p. 186 on Jericho. * Opus Minus, pp. 370-71.
Appendix B 221
reason and granted it some rights. Bacon lived within this old tradi-
tion, and wanted to enlarge it. The activities of the Faculty of
Theology at Paris, and even at Oxford in the persons of Fishacre and
Kilwardby, must have appeared terribly dangerous, and likely to
destroy the very foundations of his primitive faith. He appears
ignorant of the philosophical questions involved; he himself begs
most of the questions not because he was necessarily incompetent in
philosophy, but because he did not recognize the competency of
philosophy in the sphere of religion.
It is a possible point of view, and in many ways it is Bacon's spirit
that has triumphed since. Luther also wanted to return to the strict
text of the Bible, and he regarded faith as primary, reason having few
rights. Protestants in general have not tried to make their beliefs
appear reasonable and in conformity with natural philosophy. One
believes the Scriptures and can draw useful moral lessons from them;
but one does not expect philosophy to confirm them. The modern
secularist would claim that the whole content of theology rests upon
an irrational faith, which may or may not be valid, but certainly
cannot be proved, though, surprisingly, it may apparently be dis-
proved, by natural reason.
The thirteenth century still believed that it could be proved; and
its tremendous effort still remains one of the monuments of con-
structive thought. The theologians were trying nothing less than to
complete what the Fathers of the Church had done in their day.
Following St. Paul, in the early centuries after Christ the Fathers had
built a systematic body of doctrine out of what was, after all,
externally, only the life and death of a great prophet, and his words
and deeds as recorded by his companions. It was an enormous
intellectual feat; but it had only reached part of the way to its goal
when the Roman civilization collapsed, the barbarians entered the
empire, and progressive thought on this doctrine, and its reinterpreta-
tion and development, came to an end. The thought crystallized into
dogma, tiny jewels of belief which were now preserved by the
Church and handed down as something to be accepted, and no longer
questioned or developed. And a new technique came into being,
suited for the -comparatively unsophisticated barbarian mind, the
technique of meditation upon this dogma. It came into the hands of
poets, makers of allegories, mystics, who elaborated the sacred words
of the Scriptures which was not too difficult, and revered and drew
inspiration from the dogmas and sacraments which they could not
understand, but accepted. They loved their faith, and their teachings,
222 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
and their Scriptures, but they no longer tried to understand them.
So theology as a 'science' died.
It did not revive until the Western mind had again reached the
point where it could cope with the problems left unsolved by St.
Augustine, and had both the desire and the technique to do so. The
great problem was, as it has remained since, the problem of know-
ledge what do we know and how? But it was coloured in the
Middle Ages by the certainty that some, if not all, knowledge had
been revealed, the content of this revelation had been enshrined in the
Scriptures, and the Fathers who had interpreted them had received
grace from God to enable them to do their work. If this was the
only knowledge available, if the unaided human mind could not
understand truth at all, then this problem was no problem at all.
Original sin had prevented man from knowing anything, and he
could only know through grace. This was St. Augustine's solution.
But it did not please everyone in the thirteenth century. What
about the knowledge of Aristotle? This, for Bacon, was simple. He
merely cut the knot by saying that Aristotle had been inspired or had
worked from the inspiration of others, notably the Hebrew prophets.
But it was no answer to a rationalist who was not interested in
Aristotle personally, but in the whole problem raised by the fact that
he obviously said things that were true to the rational mind. This
was the reason that no one was so desperately interested as Bacon in
having the exact words of Aristotle at his disposal; other people did
not trouble to learn Greek for the purpose, and they accepted poor
translations without murmur. It was good to have the best available
text, but not vital. They used their own minds on the problems
formulated by Aristotle.
In the Faculty of Arts, as the thirteenth century progressed, the
delight in natural knowledge, in philosophy, increased. There was
no such sense of responsibility to the revealed truth as there was in
the Faculty of Theology. Here the problem was peculiarly grave.
It could not be settled in the way that Gregory IX wanted by merely
meditating upon the word, and keeping clear of philosophy. 1 The
theologians had a heavy sense of responsibility. They were not
authoritarians, as Bacon seems to have believed; they were wrestling
with a problem so vast and so tremendous in its consequences that
they were willing to give credence to anyone who could suggest a
way in which the answer could be found. What was the relation
between revealed and natural knowledge? They could not presume
1 Chartularium . . . pp. 114 ff.
Appendix B 223
to doubt the fact of revealed knowledge. But what happened when
there appeared to be a contradiction between natural knowledge, as
Aristotle and they themselves worked it out, and the revealed know-
ledge of the Scriptures and the dogmas of faith?
^ The book of Sentences served for a time. It was a first step in the
direction that must be followed. Peter Lombard was a theologian,
a teacher who attempted to give answers to persistent questions that
arose from the study of revealed knowledge, to make it, in Bona-
ventura's words, 'intelligible to the human mind'. His solutions were
no more definitive and final than those of his successors, but the form
was accepted as a suitable one for all theological discussions. Bacon
is quite right when he says that the theologians give more attention
to the book of the Sentences^ than to the scriptural text. Their prob-
lems were not textual ones, but persistent problems as to which
knowledge is to be preferred, and whether the doctrines of the
Scriptures are in accord with natural reason. What is the function of
faith in the process of knowing?
In Peter's time, with only the logical work of Aristotle available,
the problems were not yet deeply serious; so his solutions could be
easily acceptable. But Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics and his De
anima, based as they were upon a naturalistic and common-sense view
of the world, and thus making a natural appeal to all ordinary human
minds, raised a number of specific questions that needed solution and
which seemed to conflict with the data of revealed knowledge. And,
persistently, as the questions were settled in detail, and a breathing
space was gained, the great central problem came out into the day-
light, striking at the whole system of revealed knowledge: UTRUM
THEOLOGIA SIT SCIENTIA the mind questioning itself, asking if its
findings are valid, or if some other knowledge that requires faith for
its acceptance is alone true. Sdentia is knowledge by natural reason;
it has, taught Aristotle, its own methods of inquiry and its own
subject matter. Can theology, the substance of revealed knowledge,
be subjected to these methods? May one ask anything of theology
except that it be believable? Must it be intelligible, too? Or caa we
even, as some philosophers would do, actually add to our knowledge
of God through the findings of reason ?
Early in the century, "William of Auxerre, one of the theologians
chosen by Pope Gregory IX to expurgate Aristotle, says that it is
impossible to transfer our knowledge of nature to the knowledge of
God, because they are different in kind. Natural reason may support
1 Opus Minus, pp. 328-29; CST, p. 34.
224 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
faith, confirm it among the faithful, defend it against heretics, and
even lead simple people towards the faith. Then William raises the
important question whether philosophy is 'like' theology; and to this
he has a remarkable answer. The principia of theology are the articles
of faith. Philosophy, then, is like theology. Both have principia (the
archai of Aristotle), from which further knowledge may be deduced.
In the one case they are self-evident principles, the principles of
natunl reason; and in the other they are the data of the Scriptures.
The whole riches of Scripture can be used for deduction. 1 St.
Thomas, as we shall see, follows this suggestion. But William does
not answer the main problem-
Alexander of Hales starts out forthrightly with the fourfold
question: 'Inquirentes de doctrina theologiae':
(a) Utrum sit scientia.
(b) Utrum distinguatur ab aliis stientiis.
(c) De quo sit ista scientia.
(d) De modo traditionis huius scientiae. 2
But, though he thus shows his awareness of the problem, and is
willing to discuss it, Alexander's solution is not satisfying, for he
avoids the main point by a distinction which does not solve it.
Scientia, he says, is the knowledge of all things which have been
caused; while the name of wisdom (sapientia) must be given to the
cause of causes. Theology, therefore, is wisdom and not a science;
it has a different purpose, leading to salvation, and a different method.
It is sui gratia, and it transcends all other sciences. The method of
dealing with theology is 'praeceptivus, exemplificativus, exhortativus,
revelativus, orativus, quia ii modi competunt affectui pietatis'. That
is to say, the study of theology is more or less what Bacon approved
of, the method of exegesis; and rational arguments drawn from
natural knowledge are not used to support the faith. So Bacon is
right when he says that Alexander's education had not been suffi-
ciently Aristotelian for him to feel the force of Aristotelian natural
knowledge; -but quite wrong in thinking that Alexander himself was
primarily responsible for the use of questions instead of the text. He
used both, as all theologians had done since Peter Lombard. But he
was undoubtedly one of those who gave an additional impetus to
questions that dealt with the problem of whether theology was a
1 William pf Auxerre, Summa aurea, Prologue and book IV (De baptismo), condensed and
quoted by M-D. Ch6nu, La Theologie comtne science an XIII siecle, pp. 34-36, 61.
* Alexander of Hales, Summa theologica, Introduction, Qu. 1 ff.; Che*nu, La Thtologie ... pp.
38-42.
Appendix B 225
science. His successors went further than he, though in his day he
was an authority. If his Summa was neglected, as it may well have
been, it was because his collection of solutions, his magistrates sen-
tentiae, dealt inadequately with the most pressing problem.
Eudes de Rigaud, one of Alexander's successors in the Franciscan
chair of theology at Paris, who later became Archbishop of Rouen,
takes up where he left off, posing at the beginning of his work the
same questions. If theology has no principia, then it is no science.
But it has principia, says Eudes. In its own way it has principles,
axioms, and conclusions; but these are only to be perceived after the
mind of a human being has been illuminated by faith. No extrinsic
aid is needed to perceive the principles and axioms of science; but
this does not mean that the science of theology is in any way depen-
dent on natural knowledge. In addition to die principles (which in
scholastic terminology Eudes calls suppositiones, and in theology are
the articles of faith) there are also dignitates, a kind of innate know-
ledge about God which is visible to all men in the light of faith
namely that God is good, powerful, just and to be loved. Such
knowledge, says Eudes, is 'scripta in corde nostro sicut et cognitio
principiorum'. It may therefore be confidently used for deduction
and conclusions. 1
There the problem rests until St. Thomas offers a fuller solution
along the same lines. But Bonaventura, in one of his early philoso-
phical works, before the practical problems of the world required his
full attention, gives a hint as to the lines along which progress in the
problem would be made. The book of the Sentences, he says, tries to
make matters of faith intelligible to the human mind. There are
things which are to be taken on faith only, and this constitutes what
he calls a 'subalternate' field of knowledge. Within this field one
may believe anything; but to see whether these data of faith can be
understood by the natural reason another method must be employed.
The purpose of quaestiones, from Peter Lombard onwards, is to make
things 'believable because they can be understood* (credibile ut
intefligibile), and not believable as a pure act of faith. The book of
the Lombard is connected with Scripture by subalternation, as optics
is connected with geometry. But they have different rules and
procedures. 2 No one has any 'authority' in this subalternate field,
since all are struggling towards the truth towards trying to make
1 B. Pergamo, 'De quaestionibus ineditis Fr. Odonis Rigaldi . . .' (1936), pp. 3-54, 308-64,
esp. pp. 20-24; Chenu, La ThMogie ... pp. 42-43, 62-66.
2 Bonavcntura, Comm. in Sent., esp. Qu. n, ed. 4; Chdnu, La Thtologit ... pp. 54-59.
226 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
the Scriptures and articles of faith intelligible. We have now gone a
long way indeed from Gregory IX and his instructions to the Faculty
of Theology not to try to make faith intelligible, because it is a
nobler thing and greater merit to believe something which cannot be
proved.
Now Albert the Great takes little part in the solution of this
problem. He is aware of it, and remarks that arguments on the basis
of natural reason are the suitable instrument for proving the truth
and for making error clear. This, he adds, was the method adopted
by Peter Lombard in the book of Sentences. But theology is certainly
not a science yet with Albert, but rather sapientia, as for Alexander. 1
No doubt this insufficiency on the problem that agitated all theo-
logians was due to Albert's absence of technical training in theology
before he began to lecture on it. But his work approached the
problem from the other end, and it was on this work that his reputa-
tion and authority rested.
Albert prepared the ground for St. Thomas because of his immense
work in the Aristotelian sciences. Instead of making scripture
intelligible, as the theologians wished to do, he made Aristotle and
aE natural knowledge conform to the data of revelation, and tried
to show that there was no discrepancy. His work, therefore, was not
only of interest to students of theology where it solved part of their
problem, but to students of arts also; and those who were un-
acquainted with the technical problems of theology but were aware
of the specific difficulties raised by Aristotle, such as the question of
the eternity of the world, the unicity of the soul, etc., could also have
their doubts laid to rest. St. Thomas, who studied with Albert, was
sufficiently interested in what he was doing to follow him to Cologne
instead of finishing at Paris with other theologians a really remark-
able decision when the most important centre of theological studies
was undoubtedly die University of Paris, as Glorieux' list of Parisian
masters conclusively shows, with its tremendous roster of names,
including almost every churchman of repute in theology throughout
the century. Thomas had both the theological training to be aware
of the epistemological problem, and the Aristotelian training to be
aware of the persistent and insatiate demands of natural reason. So
with his own extraordinary gifts as a philosopher and theologian, he
was able to produce his synthesis which was to satisfy both philoso-
phers and theologians for centuries.
1 Albertus Magnus, Opera . . . XXV, 19-20 (Comm. in Sent. lib. I, dist. i, art. 5) ; Ch6mi, La
TMohgic ... pp. 43, 72, 109.
Appendix B 227
Albert states succinctly in his introduction to the Physics of Aris-
totle just what he proposes to do. He intends to make Aristotle
intelligible to the Latins. This he will not do by merely commenting
on Aristotle and using him, as other masters had before his time, but
by re-thinking the entire subject-matter which Aristotle had handled.
In his introduction to his commentary on the Physics, which is
addressed to members of his Order, a practice Bacon never followed
no doubt because he was never persona grata with the Franciscans
Albert says :
It will be our method in this work to follow the order and opinion of Aristotle
and to say in explanation and proof whatever will he necessary; but also to deal
with what the text does not mention. For this reason we shall make digressions,
declaring those underlying matters of doubt and supplying whatever has been
inadequately stated by some people and obscure in the opinions of the philosopher.
... By proceeding in this manner we shall achieve the same number of books as
Aristotle, and they will have the same names. We shall also add in some places those
parts of his books, and whole books, which are missing or were left out, or Aristotle
did not make or if he did make them they have not come down to us. ...
Philosophy is not caused in us by our work, as moral science is caused; but it is
caused by the work of nature in us. ... It is agreed that the human intellect creates
a science by reflecting on the material of sense; and so it is easier for a teaching to
begin with what we can accept from sense and imagination and intellect than
with what we can accept from intellect and imagination (without sense), or, least
of all, with what we can accept from the intellect alone. And so by treating of the
parts of philosophy we shall first, with God's help, complete the natural sciences,
then we shall speak of all mathematics, and we shall finish our purpose with divine
science. 1
Now this passage alone would at once put Albert outside the class
of Bacon, but sufficiently close to constitute severe competition for
him. Albert believes in a universal science, as everyone did in his
time; but the connection between the sciences depends, as modern
logicians would have it, on the greater or lesser degree of abstraction
(mathematics not depending on sense, but on imagination and
intellect; and theology on intellect). Bacon is aware of this connec-
tion and recognizes that all the sciences depend on metaphysics. But
when he says that they *mutuis fovent se auxiliis' 2 he is thinking of
their interdependence, and the impossibility of learning about any
single part in isolation. Moreover, nis belief that all science had once
been known and revealed, and that it is to be used for the purpose of
filling in theological details, is quite alien to Albert's method. Albert
says that knowledge is to be reached through the sense world. It is
1 Albertus Magnus, Opera ... HI, 1-2, 4 (Comm. in. Phys. lib. I, tr. i, cap. 1).
* Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 18.
228 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
its own field of inquiry, autonomous and separate. It relies on no
divine books. 1 Aristotle is a starting-point for science, as the book
of Sentences was for theology. The books of Aristotle represented the
best knowledge available to the Greeks, as Avicenna and Averroes
represented the best knowledge of the Arabs. All the way through
his scientific works Albert adds pieces to Aristotle from his own
observations, explaining here and giving instances there. His book
on 'minerals' is really a new piece of work, supplementary to Aris-
totle. He calls himself physicus, a student of nature.
Albert's primary assumption is that there can be no conflict
between natural science and theology because both are true. But we
can make mistakes about nature. He will make mistakes, Aristotle
made mistakes, Plato made mistakes. One of the most remarkable
things about Albert is his sympathy for both the Platonists and
Aristotelians, as legitimate seekers after knowledge, though they chose
different paths. And in this he shows himself a far truer man of
science and a 'liberal* in the best sense of that much maligned word
than Roger Bacon, the authoritarian and fundamentalist, though
Bacon had a greater feeling for technology and was far more imagina-
tive. Though the analogy should not be carried too far, one feels
that Albert was more of a professional, while Bacon was the gifted
and imaginative amateur. We hear nothing from Albert on the
beauty and utility of his specialty. He is occupied in one task only:
It is our intention in natural science to satisfy to the best of our ability those
brothers of our Order who have been asking for many years that we should com-
pose a book on the Physics from which they can come to a full understanding of
natural science and be able to have a competent understanding of the books of
Aristotle . . . our intention is to make all the said parts intelligible to the Latins. 2
Elsewhere he has told us:
Some ignorant men want to attack the use of philosophy, especially among the
Preachers, like brute animals blaspheming things of which they know nothing. 3
There is no doubt that the huge corpus of scientific writings that
came from the pen of Albert brought him great renown, even in his
1 It is dear that Albert has, if not Bacon, then others of Bacon's persuasion in mind when he
writes: 'Dicet autem fortasse aliquis nos Aristotelem non intellexissc; et ideo non conscntirc
verbis eius: vel quod forte ex certa scientia contradicamus ei quantum ad homincm, ct non
quantum ad rei veritatemu Et ad ilium dicimus quod qui credit Aristotelem fuisse deum, illc
debet credere quod nunquam erravit. Si autem credit ipsum fuisse hominem tuncorocul dubip
errare potuit sic et nos/ Albertus Magnus, Opera ... Ill, 553 (Comm. in. Phys., lib. VIII, tr. i,
cap. 14).
Albertus Magnus, Opera . . . Ill, 1-2 (Comm. in. Phys., lib. I, tr. i, cap. 1).
1 Ibid., XIV, 910 (Comm. in. Epistolas B. Dionysii, Epist. VII, no. 2).
Appendix B 229
own lifetime. He may not have been a specially competent theo-
logian, and it is certain that he did not directly contribute as much
to this science as the specialists in theology. But he was at least a
Master of Theology (even if by the back door) and he had for a few
years held the important Dominican chair at the University of Paris.
And throughout his long life he lectured on theology, if not at Paris;
and he founded the Faculty of Theology at Cologne. In 1266 he even
suggested to the General of his Order that he should return to teach
at Paris at the time of the quarrels between the Faculties of Theology
and Arts, during the ascendancy of Siger of Brabant. St. Thomas
was bearing the brunt alone, and Albert believed he could help him.
But he was not permitted to go, and taught theology intermittently
at Strasbourg instead. 1 It is thus entirely proper for critics to point
out that Albert was rarely in Paris, and was not there in 1267 when
Bacon wrote; and there were others more competent than he to
whom Bacon could have referred.
But Bacon is well aware of the new trend in the study of theology,
and the use made by St. Thomas of work which has certainly
stemmed from Albert. Thomas was not yet as great an authority as
he became later, although much revered by his own Order; the
greatest authority was the man who had already done the preliminary
work for his pupil, who had established the trend, and was now of
an almost legendary reputation Vhile he still lived'. 'Sicut Aristo-
teles, Avicenna et Averroes allegantur in scholis, sic et ipse et adhuc
vivit et habuit in vita sua auctoritatem quod nunquam homo habuit
in doctrina.' 2
This reputation rested on Albert's Aristotelian and scientific work,
and the use Thomas made of it. But Albert was the one who held
the renown in the thirteenth century, and Thomas partly gained his
at this time from the glory reflected by his master. Already in 1256,
when Pope Alexander IV needed someone to defend Aristotelianism
against the doctrines of Averroes, which was gaining currency in the
schools, he called upon Albert, asking him for a scientific solution.
It seems probable that there was an actual conference in Rome to
discuss the method of attack, and the person most competent to
deliver it. And who should this be but the man who had conciliated
Aristotle and the Bible? 3
1 Garreau, St. Albert ... pp. 151-61.
1 Brewer, Op. Tert., p. 30.
8 'Contra hunc errorem jam pridem disputavi, cum essem in curia. * See Van Stecnbcrghen,
Siger de Brabant ... p. 471 and note 4.
23 o Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
In 1270 Gilles de Lessines wrote to Albert to ask for his comments
on the first group of propositions studied at the Faculty of Arts,
which were soon to be condemned by Stephen Tempier. 1 In his
public announcement of Albert's decisions on these questions (De
quindecimproblematibus}, Gilles says: 'Haec est positio multorum mag-
norum, et precise domini Alberti'. Another contemporary calls him
'ilium famosum'. One of his favourite disciples, Ulrich of Strasbourg,
himself a scholar of note and the author of a Summa, calls him 'nostri
temporis stupor et miraculum'. 2
What Albert had done was to realize, as no one else before him,
that the time had come to establish the legitimate realms of know-
ledge, the realm of natural science, and the realm of faith. He had
shown that the work of Aristotle, the Greeks, and the Arabs, was
valid in its own realm; but it was not infallible. Yet such of their
knowledge as was true did not and could not conflict with the data
of revelation. Albert showed the way by which Aristotle's work
could be carried on and advanced by the Latins through the use of
personal observation, with the addition of new findings in every
realm of natural knowledge. He recognized and stated explicitly
that the study of nature was legitimate and it had its own methods
valid for its study. While Aristotle had no tide whatever to speak in
the realm of faith and theology, and Augustine in this field was a far
better one, Aristotle, in spite of his mistakes, was still the greatest
master of natural science. 3
Bacon's objections to the science of Albert are more quickly dealt
with. As shown in the text of this study, Bacon believed in a universal
science which must be complete. This science had been fully revealed
to the patriarchs and prophets in early times, and in part to Aristotle.
The Arabs had rediscovered some more, especially in the field of
optics. The Latin world, in Bacon's view, had a special chance to
recover science, because to the Latins had been revealed the truths of
Christianity; and through God's grace a Latin Christian, if he lived a
suitable life, might be vouchsafed the opportunity of completing it
once more. Bacon probably hoped he was such a man. When he
found he could not do it by himself he proposed a corps of scientists,
each working on different branches of science; but none could be
1 Garreau, St. Albert... p. 159; De Wulf, Histoire . . . II, 130. Cf. Van Steenberghen,
Siger de Brabant ... p. 719, Tancien maltre parisien, qui e"tait demeur6 la principale autorit6
dans Tordre en matiere philosophique*.
2 These tributes are drawn from De Wulf, Histoire ... II, 144-45.
a For the influence and position occupied by Albert in the intellectual world of his time, the
pages of Van Steenberghen, Siger de Brabant ... pp. 475-79 may be the best short account.
Appendix B 231
left out if it were to be perfected. There could be no subdivision
and analysis of one part of science ; no science in itself was autonomous.
This grandiose conception was utterly alien to Albert, even though
he made contributions to many sciences. The relation between the
sciences for him was by subalternation, a dependence of one science
on another, as optics on geometry, the lower dependent upon the
one higher in the scale (degrees of abstraction). But Bacon wanted
more than this. He wanted a whole self-contained and beautiful
building (his own analogy). Moreover, Albert had omitted optics,
and was deficient in mathematics, and knew no languages but Latin
and the vernacular. Yet the world followed Albert; he was an
authority and Bacon was not. Bacon had a few poor students as his
special care and a limited public. Albert preached to his Order and
to the whole world of educated men.
If Albert had been a nobody, an ignorant man, Bacon would have
had nothing against him. But he claimed to be a scientist, and he
was an authority.
He who composed so many and such large volumes about natural things ... is
ignorant of these fundamentals, and so his building cannot stand. 1
For the want of a few parts he allowed his whole to collapse. Who
but Albert had tried to do this?
1 Brewer, Op. Tert. t p. 42.
APPENDIX C
TWO PRINTED WORKS ATTRIBUTED
TO BACON
\ MONGST the works of Bacon published by Steele and Delorme
/JL there is a tract called the De sensu et sensato, which appears in no
bibliography of which I am aware, and which is not definitely
ascribed to him in the MS. BM. Add. 8786, in which it appears.
Steele edited and printed it, 1 giving the following reasons for his
acceptance of the tract as genuine. A certain Thomas, probably
brother Thomas, capellanus of Robert, Duke of Calabria, who was
King of Sicily from 1306 to 1343, in his work De lapide philosophico
mentions a writing which he calls 'Rogerius de sensu'. There is no
other work by any Roger, as far as is known, to whom this could
refer. The other texts in the MS. are genuine works of Bacon, with
the exception of the Perspectiva communis of John Peckham. For the
rest Steele says: 'Internal evidence of style and matter amply confirm
the attribution', but he gives no concrete details. 2
After a careful study of the material in the printed text I am in
agreement that the work is by Bacon, and it suggests a number of
interesting paths of investigation for anyone who may be in a position
to examine the multitudes of unpublished MSS. in European libraries,
and may come upon works of this kind, dating from the first half of
the thirteenth century, and which cannot be ascribed to anyone else.
Although Bacon's style in his later period is extremely distinctive
and easily recognizable, this does not apply in the same degree to his
Parisian work, where he is following a regular form of discussion.
So I should hesitate to ascribe any work definitely to him on the basis
of style or even content, since this content was also to some degree
determined by the custom of the time. The style of this commentary
is certainly very similar to that of Bacon's Parisian work, but I should
not care to go the whole way with Steele, and say that 'internal
evidence of style and matter amply confirm the attribution' to him.
I think, however, that there are two passages in the commentary
which point directly to Bacon as the author. These refer to a book
De generatione which does not seem to be the De generatione et corrup-
tione of Aristotle (nor, of course, the De generatione animalium, which,
1 Steele, Fasc. XTV, 1-134. Ibid., Fasc. XTV, v.
232
Appendix C 23 3
for the medievals, was part of the eighteen books on animals). Steele
lists these two passages in the index under Aristotle's De generatione,
though without having been able to find the particular passage
referred to. This, in my view, was simply because they were not
there, but on the contrary were in Bacon's De generatione, to which
he refers in several places in his series of Quaestiones. 1
On page 27 of the De sensu Bacon is talking about light, and how
it is transmitted; and in the whole long paragraph there is no reference
to Aristotle. He is dealing with the subject from his own 'excogita-
tions'. The passage runs :
Sive exspiret spiritualiter a corpore lucido sive generetur in medio quod non
habet hie determinari, set in libro de generatione ubi habet determinari de multipli-
catione virtutis in universali ab omni agenti naturali, oportet ponere quod
The other passage is even more clear:
Illud quod multiplicatur in medio a corpore luminoso vel colorato vel odorabili
est expressa similitude totius corporis, tarn a parte materie quam a parte forme, ut
prius tactum est et in libro de generatione probatum. 2
There is no such exact proof in Aristotle's De generatione, though
Bacon, in a commentary on it, might well have found it necessary to
make one. This is very similar to another reference to this same De
generatione in his Quaestiones on the Physics*
The method of dealing with the subject is the same in this com-
mentary as in the Quaestiones, but the form is different. It is extremely
literal, following closely the text of Aristotle's De sensu, though it is
much expanded from Aristotle's short work. Bacon makes much
use not only of Aristotle's other works, but of Avicenna, Averroes,
and Al Hazen, with a few quotations also from Avicenna's first book
on medicine, and from Isaac. It is not a separate tract on the subject
of sense-perception, but a real commentary on Aristotle, as is seen by
his Use of the terms 'in hoc textu', and 'in littera, as in the Quaestiones.
On the other hand it is utterly different from Albert's structurally
loose but more generally informed work on the same subject.* As
usual at this period of his life, Bacon is trying to reconcile his authori-
ties with each other and extract the truth from them, rather than use
his own experience. There are no references to experience an the
whole work, although he is dealing with light and colour which later
become so important to him. But this is to be expected, if it belongs,
as I believe it does, to the Parisian period. And we have already seen
how Bacon deals with light in the Quaestiones in the same abstract
i For instances see Steele, Fasc. XIII, xxx. 2 Steele, Fasc. XIV 118.
Ibid,, Fasc. Xffl, 422. * Albertus Magnus, Opera ... IX, l-w.
234 Roger Bacon and his .Search for a Universal Science
manner, after the fashion of the scholastics. 1 It is interesting also to
note that, though the work is in the form of a commentary, when
Bacon comes across a very difficult point which is discussed at con-
siderable length, as in the question of the relationship between light
and colour, he falls again into the question technique: 'Queritur an
sufficienter dabit colori natura visibilis. . . . Quod sic videtur ... set
contra, etc.' 2
The range of reading, with the exception of the hitherto unquoted
parts of Avicenna, and Isaac, is exactly the same as in the later series
ofQuaestiones, though on this subject far more is taken from Al Hazen
than was necessary in the Physics. Until, therefore, it can be shown
that there was another master who dealt with these subjects, who
used the same books and the same techniques, and had the same
interests, as Bacon, I think that the work should be attributed to him,
even without taking into consideration the two references to a De
generatione which seem to belong to the writer and not to Aristotle.
If we are to decide whether it belongs to Bacon's Parisian period or
later, Steele has pointed out that it must come before the first draft
of the Communia naturalium and the Perspectiva, as evidenced by the
greater range of quotation in the two latter works. While this is, of
course, important, far more significant, in my view, is the handling
of the subject matter. None of the problems which became recog-
nized as such as soon as Bacon began to take a specialized interest in
optics is dealt with here. Bacon has evidently not penetrated yet
beyond the formal arguments used by the schoolmen. In later life
he makes the same distinctions, but uses geometry and makes dia-
grams. In the Perspectiva (part V of the Opus Majus] Bacon uses all
his medical knowledge to discuss how the eye is physiologically made
up, how we perceive, how we make judgments; but above all he
considers why the eye sees in the way it does, and how the rays reach
it, why we concentrate our vision on a certain point, what kind of
rays are given out from the object and the path they travel, etc.
There is no sign that Bacon has as yet become in the least interested
in such problems. The 'multiplication of species' is referred to
because his authorities refer to it, but that is all. It is inconceivable
that he should have felt the weight of all these problems and possessed
the information that he had later and still kept quiet about it, even if
his official subject was only the short book of Aristotle. Indeed, in
his later days he would not have confined himself to Aristotle, and
contented himself with a commentary on the work of the Master.
1 Steele, Fasc. XIII, 206. * Ibid., Fasc. XIV, 45.
Appendix C 235
It was not Bacon's practice, as it was Albert's, to use Aristotle as a
jumping-off point, and build his own views around it in the form of
a commentary. Even in the Communia naturalium, where he uses the
formal scholastic method, Bacon always deals with, or at least shows
himself aware of, the problems he was concerned with at the rime.
The only reason against an early date seems to be the fact that no
other commentaries are known for this time. This point has been
dealt with in the main body of this study, 1 and does not require to
be examined again here.
I have also considered the fragment published in Isis (1937) by
S. H. Thomson, under the title of An Unnoticed Treatise* on Time and
Motion, and attributed by the editor to Bacon. 2 On internal evidence
I think the Baconian authorship can be accepted. But the fragment
is definitely not a commentary, though it is difficult to say from such
a brief fragment exactly what it is. There can be no doubt that it
belongs to a later period of Bacon's work than his Parisian days. It is
concerned with the subjects dealt with in the same manner in the
Communia naturalium. Noticeable is the use made now of the 'mathe-
matical' method, never used in Bacon's Parisian period, and the use
of the letters a, b, and c to indicate different periods of time, and
divisions of motion. Also noticeable are the general firmness of the
argument and the effectiveness of the exposition.
The treatise could be either a piece in itself, or a fragment of a
larger work. As no such larger work is known into which it would
fit, and as it can be regarded as in some respects complete in itself,
I should tentatively place it as a few pages specially written for some-
one who had asked Bacon for a discussion ('ad instantiam amicorum')
on the problem of time and motion, and the relation between them.
The fragment was found in a MS. that contained also some of the
scientific work of Grosseteste, and Thomson places the script itself as
not later than 1275. The best theory that would account for these
few facts would be that it was written in the ten years prior to 1275,
during which Bacon was thinking about the problems dealt with in
the fragment, and that he wrote it for a friend who was interested in
these things and already possessed works of Grosseteste. The owner
of the MS. may have been the very friend for whom Bacon composed
the treatise; or he may have been a scientific inquirer who knew of
the works of both Grosseteste and Bacon, and included this pertinent
piece in his MS.
1 Supra, pp. 59-60.
2 S. H. Thomson, ed., 'An Unnoticed Treatise . . .' (1937), pp. 219-24.
BIBLIOGRAPHIES
A. Works of Roger Bacon used in this study.
B. Critical bibliography of biographies of Roger Bacon; these are given in
chronological order since Charles (1861).
C. Other works.
A
Brewer, J. S., ed., Opera Fr. Baconis hactenus inedita, London, 1859, 'Rolls Series'.
Compendium studii philosophiae, 393-519.
Epistolafratris Rogeri Baconis de secretis operibus artis et naturae, et de nullitate magiae
523-51.
Opus Minus, 313-89.
Opus Tertium, 1-310.
Bridges,}. H., ed., The 'Opus Majus' of Roger Bacon, Vols. I and II, Oxford, 1897.
Vol. Ill, containing revised text of first three parts and corrections, emendations,
and additional notes, London, 1900.
Burke, R. B., The 'Opus Majus' of Roger Bacon (translation), Philadelphia, 1928.
Gasquet, F. A., *An Unpublished Fragment of a Work by Roger Bacon', English
Historical Review, XII (1897), 494-517.
Little, A. G., ed., Part of the Opus Tertium of Roger Bacon, Aberdeen, 1912.
Nolan, E., and S. A. Hirsch, The Greek Grammar of Roger Bacon t and a Fragment of
his Hebrew Grammar, Cambridge, 1902.
Rashdall, H., Fratris Rogeri Baconis Compendium studii theologiae, Aberdeen, 1911,
Steele, R., Opera hactenus inedita Fr. Rogeri Baconis, Oxford, i9O5(?)-4i. All works
edited by Steele, unless otherwise indicated.
Fasc. I. Metaphysica Fratris Rogeri (De viciis contractis in studio theologiae,)
N.D. (1905?)-
Fasc. II. Liber primus communium naturalium, parts i and 2, N.D. (1905 ?).
Fasc. HI. Liber primus communium naturalium, parts 3 and 4, 1911.
Fasc. IV. Liber secundus communium naturalium (De celestibus), 1913.
Fasc. V. Secretum secretorum cum glossis et notulis Fratris Rogeri, 1920.
Fasc. VI. Compotus Fratris Rogeri, 1926.
Fasc. VII. Quaestiones supra undecimum prime philosophic Aristotelis, 1926.
Fasc. Vin. Quaestiones supra libros quatuor Physicorum Aristotelis, ed. F.
Delorme, 1928.
Fasc. IX. De retardatione accidentium senectutis cum aliis opusculis de rebus
medicinalibus, edd. A. G. Little and E. Withington, 1928.
Fasc. X. Quaestiones altere supra libros prime philosophic, 1930, pp. 1-336.
Fasc. XI. Quaestiones supra quatuor libros prime philosophic, 1932, pp. 1-170.
. Quaestiones supra librum de plantis, pp. 173-252.
Fasc. XII. Quaestiones supra librum de causis, 1935, pp. 1-158.
Fasc. XIII. Quaestiones altere supra libros octo Physicorum Aristotelis, ed. F.
Delorme, 1935.
236
Bibliographies 23 7
Fasc. XIV. Liber de sensu et sensato, 1937, pp. 1-134.
. Summa de sophismatibus et destruccionibus, pp. 135-208.
Fasc. XV. Summa grammatica, 1941, pp. 1-190.
. Sumulae dialectices, pp. 193-359.
Fasc. XVI. Communia mathematica Fratris Rogeri, parts i and 2, 1940.
Thomson, S. H., 'An Unnoticed Treatise by Roger Bacon, on Time and Motion',
Isis, XXVII (1937), 219-24.
B
Charles, E., Roger Bacon, sa vie, ses ouvrages, et ses doctrines, Paris, 1861 (cited as
Charles).
This invaluable pioneer work can only be used now with extreme caution,
since Charles did not have the benefit of an unrestricted use of the MS. which
contained the Parisian lectures, and was too much attached to his conception of
Bacon as a 'martyr of science', persecuted by his Order. Much of his book is
special pleading, and there are instances of quotations out of context which he
has used to bolster his arguments. His influence on Baconian studies has been
enormous; but reliance upon his research and his conclusions would now be
dangerous if one desires to have a proper understanding of Bacon and his time.
Few of his judgments have fully stood the test of a century's research.
Anonymous, 'The Life and Writings of Roger Bacon', Westminster Review, 1864,
pp. 1-30 (cited as Westminster Review (1864) ).
A remarkably good article for its time, especially interesting for its estimate of
the psychology of Roger Bacon, a subject rather neglected since his day. Based
primarily on the work of Charles and Brewer, it nevertheless tries to avoid the
excessive hero-worship of these predecessors, and makes a good attempt of
relating Bacon's work to the history of his age although the lack of specific
knowledge of this history in 1864 was a serious handicap.
Neil, S., Epoch Men, Edinburgh, 1865, pp. 89-122.
A technical facility for writing and a fertile imagination fortified by ignorance
were insufficient qualifications for writing a chapter on Roger Bacon and experi-
mental science. May be safely disregarded.
Jourdain, C., 'Discussions de quelques points de la biographic de Roger Bacon',
Excursions historiques et philosophises h travers le moyen Age, Paris, 1888, pp. 129-45.
A serious, well-argued discussion of several points of importance in Roger
Bacon's biography that had been neglected by Brewer, Charles, and earlier
writers. Most of his findings were accepted by all later students of Bacon, ana
are no longer in dispute.
Feret, P., 'Les Imprisonnements de Roger Bacon', Revue des questions historiques, L
(1891), 119-42.
Feret, pursuing more thoroughly some of Jourdain's suggestions, effectively
disposed of the evidence for a first imprisonment. He was not, in my view, so
successful in his criticisms of the second, and in any event overstated his case. But
it was a necessary work, and has been accepted in the main by later biographers.
Especially interesting for its systematic account of the gradual accretion of the
legend of Bacon as martyr.
23 8 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Witzel, T., Art. 'Roger Bacon* in Catholic Encyclopaedia (1910).
The kind of article to be expected from this publication. Based on good
secondary sources, but piously anxious to redeem the Church and the Franciscans
from any suspicion of having persecuted their illustrious member. Its danger is
the authority wielded by the official nature of the publication. Too many later
biographers have suffered from Witzel's hasty acceptance of a hypothesis of
Schlund of which even Schlund himself was doubtful.
Delorme, G., Art. 'Roger Bacon' in Dictionnaire de Thtologie Catholique (1910).
A sympathetic account, skirting most of the difficulties and problems, but
clearly based on a reading of the most important of Roger Bacon's works. A few
surprising statements, but for the most part clear and unexceptionable, and a very
fair introduction to the subject in a short space.
Bridges, J. H., The Life and Work of Roger Bacon, London, 1914.
As editor of the Opus Majus (1897), Bridges did a great deal of valuable work
on Bacon's science, which he wrote up in his introduction and notes. Bridges,
a noted positivist, had a considerable knowledge of nineteenth-century science
and was in sympathy with Bacon's outlook, as he perceived it; but his knowledge
of medieval history, culture, and science was very imperfect, and he was still too
much influenced by Charles in his estimate of Bacon as a rebel against authority.
But his analysis of Bacon's more important work is still very useful, though it is
probably best read in conjunction with the text and notes of the Opus Majus.
Little, A. G., 'Roger Bacon's Life and Works', Essays . . . on the Occasion of the
Commemoration of the Seventh Centenary of his Birth, Oxford, 1914, 1-32 (cited
as Little, Essays . . .).
A well-documented estimate of the facts that are really known about Bacon,
and a useful basis for all subsequent studies ; but not attempting in this short space
to do more than supply an outline. Suffers from partial ignorance of the cultural,
and serious ignorance of the scientific, environment of the thirteenth century,
which leads to an overestimate of the uniqueness of Bacon, and the acceptance
of several doubtful hypotheses from others such as Mandonnet, whose knowledge
in this field was equally limited.
Thorndike, L., 'The True Roger Bacon', American Historical Review, XXI (1916),
2 37-57 46*8-80. See ibid., History of Magic ... 1923, below.
Steele, R., 'Roger Bacon and the State of Science in the Thirteenth Century',
Studies in the History and Method of Science, ed. C. Singer, Oxford, 1921, II,
121-50.
Suffers from complete lack of documentation; but it is the best early attempt
to show the continuity of Bacon's thought, and to place the Parisian lectures of
which Steele was the chief editor in the framework of Bacon's life. Some of his
conclusions are over-hasty and built on very slender and doubtful foundations.
If Steele had ever revised this article in the light of the greater knowledge he
acquired kter, he might have done an outstanding job* Still well worth reading,
especially in conjunction with Thorndike.
Bibliographies 239
Thorndike, L., History of Magic and Experimental Science, New York, 1923, H, 616-
713.
An adaptation and extension of two earlier articles (see 1916, above). In-
valuable for the information on thirteenth-century science which was hitherto
not available, and for criticisms of other historians who had overestimated the
uniqueness ^of Bacon. Probably Thorndike goes too far in the direction of
'debunking' him, but the procedure was necessary in view of the prejudices of
his predecessors. The biographical material is brief, and the Parisian period
omitted as irrelevant to his subject; but his judgments are always based on careful
thinking and thorough documentation. No student of Bacon can neglect it.
Vanderwalle, C. B., Roger Bacon dans Vhistoire de la philologie, Paris, 1929. (Re-
printed from three articles published in France Franciscaine, 1928.) Two separate
paginations are given in this reprint. The pagination adopted in the footnote
references is the one given in parentheses in the top corner of each page.
In the Paris edition pp. 77-210 constitute a series of appendixes on the life of
Roger Bacon and certain disputed questions. This is an extremely valuable study,
perhaps the best in recent years, fully documented and carefully thought out.
It is not, however, an ordered consecutive biography, since it is clear the author's
research was too specialized to permit this. In several places where he could
have doubted with profit he accepts uncritically material which had been con-
vincingly discredited before his time; which is a great pity, since when he does
doubt and criticize he always throws much needed light in dark corners.
Sarton, G., Introduction to the History of Science, Baltimore, 1931, n, 952-67.
Not very much on Bacon's life, this account is nevertheless useful as a most
careful and systematic record of Bacon's work, with a bibliography on each
phase of this work. The incidental comments are most enlightening, and show
a thorough acquaintance with Bacon; and Sarton's knowledge of much "of
medieval science and his thorough understanding of modern science enable him
to gain an accurate perspective, missing in almost all works of his predecessors.
Lutz, E., 'Roger Bacon's Contribution to Knowledge', Franciscan Studies, St.
Bonaventura, N.Y., 1936, 1-76.
Inferior, derivative work, based almost exclusively on secondary materials,
written apparently with the intention of rehabilitating Bacon as a good friar and
Christian. Has little knowledge of even the best authorities on his subject; does
not seem to know who has, and who has not, done original research in it, in-
cluding members of his own Order, such as Vanderwalle, who is not mentioned.
Accepts even the supposed ciphers of Bacon, apparently unaware of the unanswer-
able criticism of these ciphers given by Manly, 'Roger Bacon and the Voynich
Manuscript', Speculum, VI (1931), pp. 345-91.
Woodruff, F. W., Roger Bacon, a Biography, London, 1938.
Intended to 'satisfy the curiosity of the general reader without confusing his
mind with too many digressions into contemporary history', based upon a very
few secondary sources and the 1928 translation of the Opus Majus (Burke), this
litde book is readable, and interesting as an introduction to the subject. Since
the author has not troubled cither himself or the reader with the real problems of
240 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Bacon's biography and his relation to his time, there are too many serious mis-
takes for it to be in any way satisfactory to a student. The best thing in the book
is the telling use of quotation from the Opus Majus; its chief danger is that it
states doubtful hypotheses and errors as definite facts. Even the popular biographer
should not lay claim to such omniscience, in spite of the laudable aim of 'not
confusing the reader'.
Sharp, D. E., Art. 'Roger Bacon* in Encyclopaedia Britannica (edit. 194?)-
Very short, but to the point, and embodying most of the best results of recent
English research, though a consultation of Vanderwalle's monograph might have
supplemented the information. (Replaces the out-of-date article of Adamson in
earlier editions.)
C
Abbreviations
AFH Archivum Franciscanum Historicum (Quaracchi).
AHDLMA Archives d'Histoire Doctrinale et Littlraire du Moyen Age (Paris).
RNS Revue Nfo-scholastique de Philosophie (Louvain).
RTAM Recherches de Theologie Ancienne et Me'die'vale (Louvain).
Adam Marsh, Epistolae. See Monumenta Franciscana, Vol. I.
Albertus Magnus, Opera omnia, ed. A. Borgnet, Paris, 1890-92.
Alexander of Hales, Franciscan Studies, XXVI (1945), special number devoted to.
Amid, M., Essai sur la psychologic d'Avicenne, Geneva, 1940.
Anonymous. See under titles of books.
Aron, M., Un Animateur de la jeunesse au XIII siecle, Paris and Bruges, 1930.
, Lettres du bienheureux Jourdain de Saxe & Diane d'Andolo, Paris, 1924.
Baeumker, C., 'Roger Bacons Naturphilosophie', Franziskanische Studien, Munster,
m (1916), 1-40, 109-39.
Bierbaum, H., 'Bettelorden und Weltgeistlichkeit an der Universitat Paris in der
Mitte des XIII Jahrhunderts', Franziskanische Studien, Munster, VII (1920).
Birkenmajer, A., 'Avicennas Vorrede zum "Liber SufEcientiae" und Roger Bacon',
RNS, XXXVI (1934), 308-20.
, 'Le Role joue* par les me'decins et les naturalistes dans la reception d'Aristotc
au XII et Xni siecles*, La Pologne au VIme congres international des sciences
historiaues, Oslo, 1928 (reprinted Warsaw, 1930).
Bonaventura, St., Opera omnia, Quaracchi, 1882-1902.
Bouyges, M., 'Roger Bacon, a-t-il lu les livres arabes?', AHDLMA, V (1930),
311-15-
Callus, D. A., 'Introduction of Aristotelian Learning into Oxford in the Thirteenth
Century', Proceedings of the British Academy, London, XXIX (1943), 229-81.
, 'Two Early Masters on the Problem of the Plurality of Forms*, RNS, XLII
(1939), 4II-45-
Carton, R., L'Exp&ience physique chez Roger Bacon, 'Etudes de philosophic
medtevale', Vol. II, Paris, 1924.
, L'Exp^rience mystique de rillumination intrieure chez Roger Bacon,
'Etudes de philosophic medivale', Vol. Ill, Paris, 1924.
Bibliographies 241
Carton R La Synthese doctrinale de Roger Bacon, 'Etudes de philosophic
medievale , Vol. V, Paris, 1924.
Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. H. Denifle and A. Chatelain, Paris, 1889
Vol. I. '
Chenu, M. D., La Theologie comme science au XIII siecle, 2nd edit., N.P., 1943.
Chronicle of the Twenty-four Generals, Analecta Franciscana, III (1897).
Chronicon de Lanercost, ed. J. Stevenson, Edinburgh, 1839.
Crowley, T., Roger Bacon: the Problem of the Soul in his Philosophical Commen-
taries, Louvain and Dublin, 1950.
Davy, M. M., Les Sermons universitaires parisiens de 1230-31, 'Etudes de philo-
sophic medieVale', Vol. XV, Paris, 1931.
Denifle, H., and A. Chatelain, See Chartularium.
Denifle, H., and F. Ehrle, Archiv fur Litteratur und Kirchengeschichte des Mittel-
alters, 6 vols., Berlin, 1885-92.
Dickson, C., 'La Vie du Cardinal Robert de Courson', AHDLMA, VIE (1934),
56-142.
Duhem, P., Le Systeme du monde de Platon a Copernic, Paris, 1916, III, 260-67,
411-42; V, 375-4H.
Eccleston. See Thomas de Eccleston.
Ehrle, F. See Denifle and Ehrle.
Felder, H., Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Studien im Franziskanerorden,
Freiburg, 1904.
Fleming, D., 'Ruggero Bacone e la scolastica', Rivista di Filosofia Neoscolastica
Florence, VI (1914), 529-71.
Franceschini, E., 'Aristotele nel medioevo latino', Atti del IX Congresso Nazionale di
Filosofia, Padua, 20-23, September, 1934.
Garreau, A., Saint Albert le Grand, Paris, 1932.
Gilson, E., 'Les Sources grecoarabes de raugustinisme avicennisant', AHDLMA,
IV (1929-30), 1-158.
Glorieux, P., 'Contra Geraldinos. L'enchainement des polemiques', RTAM, VII
(1935), 129-55.
, 'Les Polemiques "contra Geraldinos"/ R.TAM, VI (1934), 5-41.
, Repertoire des maltres de the*ologie de Paris au XIII siecle, 'Etudes de philo-
sophic medieVale', Vols. XVII and XVIII, Paris, 1933-34.
Grabmann, M., 'Les Commentaires de St. Thomas sur Aristote*, Annales de I'lnstitut
Suplrieur de Philosophic, Louvain, III (1914), 229-81.
, I Divieti ecclesiastici contro Aristotele sotto Innocenzo III e Gregorio DC,
'Miscellanea historiae pontificiae', Rome, 1941.
, Der HI. Albert der Grosse, Munich, 1932.
Grosseteste, R., Epistolae, ed. H. R. Luard, London, 1861, 'Rolls Series'.
, Die Philosophischen "Werke des Robert Grosseteste, Bischofs von Lincoln,
ed. L. Baur, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Munster, DC
(1912).
Haskins, C. H., Studies in the History of Medieval Science, Cambridge (Mass.),
1924-
Haure*au, B., Histoire de la philosophic scolastique, Paris, 1872-80, Vol. II.
Hoffmans, H., 'L'Expe'ricnce chez Roger Bacon, RNS, XXVH (1926), 170-90.
, 'La Genese des sensations d'apres Roger Bacon', RNS, XV (1908), 474-98.
, 'L'Intuition. mystique et la science', JRJV5, XVI (1909), 37O-97-
242 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Hoffmans, H., 'La Sensibilit6 et les modes de la connaissance d'apres Roger Bacon',
RNS, XVI (1909), 32-46.
- , *La Synthese doctxinale de Roger Bacon', Archivfur Geschichte der Philosophic,
XIV (1907), 196-224.
- , c Une The'orie intuitioniste de la connaissance du XIII siecle, RNS, XIII (1906),
Hover, H., Roger Bacons Hylomorphismus als Grundlage seiner philosophischen
Anschauungen, Limburg, 1912.
Huber, R. M., A Documented History of the Franciscan Order, Milwaukee and
Washington, 1944. Vol. I.
Hutton, E., The Franciscans in England, Boston, 1926.
Joachim of Flora, Tractatus super quatuor evangelia, ed. E. Buonaiuti, Rome, 1930.
John of Garland, De triumphis ecclesiae, ed. T. Wright, London, 1856.
Lacombe, G., Aristoteles latinus, Rome, 1939. (Vol. I only published.)
Lanercost Chronicle. See Chronicon de Lanercost.
Lea, H. C., A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, New York, 1887,
Vok I and HI.
Liber Exemplorum, ed. A, G. Little, Aberdeen, 1905.
Little, A. G., Franciscan Papers, Lists, and Documents, Manchester, 1943.
- , 'The Franciscan School at Oxford in the Thirteenth Century', AFH, XIX
(1926), 803-74.
- , The Grey Friars in Oxford, Oxford, 1892.
Little, A. G., 'Roger Bacon. Annual lecture on a Master Mind', Proceedings of the
British Academy, London, XIV (1928), 265-96.
- , ed., Roger Bacon, Essays ... on the Occasion of the Commemoration of the
Seventh Centenary of his Birth, Oxford, 1914.
- , 'Thomas Docking and his Relations to Roger Bacon', Essays in History
Presented to Reginald Lane Poole, Oxford, 1927, 301-31.
- , and A. Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians, Oxford, 1934.
Lottin, O., 'L'Identite' de Tame et ses faculte*s pendant le premier moine* du XIII
siecle,' RNS, XXXVI (1934), 191-210.
- , 'Note sur les premiers ouvrages thologiques d' Albert le Grand', RTAM, IV
(1932), 73-82.
- , 'La Plurality des formes substantielles avant St. Thomas', RNS, XXXIV
(1932), 449-67.
- , 'Psychologic et morale a la faculte* des arts de Paris aux approches de 1250',
RNS, XLH (1939), 182-212.
- , 'Quelques Quaestitines des maitres parisiens aux environs de 1225-35', RTAM,
V (1933), 79-95-
Mandonnet, P., 'La Date de naissance d' Albert le Grand', Rev ue Thomiste, XXXVI
(1931), 233-56.
- , 'Roger Bacon et la composition des trois opus', RNS, XX (1913), 52-68,
164-80.
- , 'Roger Bacon et le Speculum Astronomiae', RNS, XVII (1910), 313-35.
- , Siger de Brabant et 1'averroisme latin au XIII si&cle, 2nd edit., Louvain, 1911.
Martin, R. M., 'La Question de 1'unite* de la forme substantielle', RNS, XXII (1920),
107-12.
Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, ed. H. R. Luard, 7 vols., London, 1872-83.
'Rolls Series'.
Bibliographies 243
Monumenta Franciscana, ed. J. S. Brewer, London, 1858, Vol. I. 'Rolls Series'.
Paton, L. A., Les Prophecies de Merlin, 2 vok, New York, 1927.
Pelster, F., 'Ziir Datierung einiger Schriften Alberts des Grossen', Zeitschrift Jur
katholischen Theologie, XLVII (1923), 475-82.
, 'Urn die Datierung Alberts des Grossen Aristoteles-paraphrase', Philosophisches
Jahrbuch, XLVIH (1935), i43-<5i.
, 'Roger Bacons Compendium studii theologiae und der Sentenskommentar
des Richardus Rufus', Scholastik, IV (1929), 410-16.
See also Pelster and Little.
Peker, A., *Une Source inconnue de Roger Bacon, Alfred de Sarashel', AFH, XU,
(1919), 45-67.
Pergamo, B., 'De quaestionibus ineditis Fr. Odonis Rigaldi', AFH, XXIX (1936),
3-54, 308-64.
Picavet, F., Essais sur 1'histoire generale et compare'e des theologies et des philo-
sophies medieVales, Paris, 1913.
Rashdall, H., The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, edd. F. M. Powicke
and A. B. Emden, 3 vols., Oxford, 1936.
Russell, J. C., 'The Preferments and Adjutores of Robert Grosseteste', Harvard
Theological Review, XXVI, 1933, 161-72.
Salimbene, Fra, 'Cronica fratris SaHmbene de Adam ordinis Minorum', ed. O.
Holder-Egger, Monumenta Germaniae Historical Scriptores, Hanover, 1905-13,
Vol. XXXII.
Sarton, G., Introduction to the History of Science, Baltimore, 1931, Vol. II.
Schlund, E., *Peter Peregrinus von Maricourt, sein Leben und seine Schriften',
AFH, IV (1911), 43<5-55> 633-43^1912, 22-40.
Sessevalle, F. de, Histoire g&i&ale de 1'ordre franciscain, 2 vols., Paris, 1935.
Sharp, D. E., Franciscan Philosophy at Oxford in the Thirteenth Century, Oxford,
1930.
, 'The Philosophy of Richard Fishacre', New Scholasticism, VH (1935), 281-97.
Singer, D. W., 'The Alchemical Writings of Roger Bacon , Speculum, VII (1932),
80-86.
Statuta Antiqua Universitatis Oxoniensis, ed. S. Gibson, Oxford, 1931.
Steele, R., 'Roger Bacon and the State of Science in the Thirteenth Century',
Studies in the History and Method of Science, ed. C. Singer, Oxford, 1921, Vol. n,
121-50.
Steenberghen, F. van, Siger de Brabant d'apres ses oeuvres indites, 'Les Philosophes
beiges', Vols. XII-XIII, Louvain, 1931-42.
Taylor, H. O., The Medieval Mind, 4th edit., London, 1923.
The*ry, G., 'Autour du d^cret de 1210,' Eibliotheaue. Thomiste, Vols. V and VI
(1925-26).
Thomas de Eccleston, De adventu fratrum minorum in Angliam, ed. A. G. Little,
Paris, 1909.
Thomson, S. H., The Writings of Robert Grosseteste, Cambridge, 1940.
Thorndike, L., History of Magic and Experimental Science, 6 vols., New York,
1923-41, Vols. I and II.
, 'Roger Bacon and Experimental Method in the Middle Ages', Philosophical
Review, XXIH (1914), 271-98.
, The Sphere of Sacrobosco and its Commentators, Chicago, 1949.
244 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Thorndike, L, 'The True Roger Bacon*, American Historical Review, XXI (1916),
237-57, 468-80.
, Latin Treatises on Comets from 1238 to 1268 A.D., Chicago, 1950.
Ueberweg, R, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophic, Part II, ed, B. Geyer,
Berlin, 1928.
Vanderwalle, C. B., Roger Bacon dans 1'histoire de la philologie, Paris, 1929
(reprinted from France Franciscaine, 1928).
Vaux, R. de, 'Notes et textes sur Tavicennisme latin aux confins des XII-XIII
siecles,' BiUiotheque Thomiste, Vol. XX (1934)-
, *La Premiere Entree d'Averroes chez les latins 1 , Revue des sciences philosophiques
et theologiques, XXII (1933), 193-245.
Wadding, L., Annales minoruni, Rome, 1733.
Webb, C. C. J., 'Roger Bacon on Alphonse of Poitiers', Essays in History Presented
to Reginald Lane Poole, Oxford, 1927, 290-300.
William of Auvergne, Opera omnia, 2 vok, Orleans, 1674.
Wingate, S. D., The Medieval Latin Versions of the Aristotelian Scientific Corpus
with Special Reference to the Biological Works, London, 1931.
Wulf, M. de, Histoire de la philosophic medi^vale, 6th edit., Paris and Louvain,
1936, Vol. E.
INDEX
Adam, 78, 85, 172, 220
Adam of Buckfield, 15n, 48
Adam Marsh: on active intellect, 92, 168;
Bacon's admiration for, 11, 34n; Bacon's
friendship with, 91-93, 121; considers
going as missionary to East, 93; death of,
122; friendship with Grosseteste, 91-93;
knowledge of science, 88, 91, 93, 140;
knowledge of theology, 92; letters
characterized, 91; Matthew Paris' opinion
of, 92; no reference to Bacon by, 67n;
relations with Richard of Cornwall, 95-
96; sense of diplomacy of, 71; as teacher,
93
AdelardofBath, 22
Aegidius of Lessines, 89n
Age of Holy Spirit, 131-32
Ages of life, 84
Agriculture: Bacon's knowledge of, 23,
109n; position in hierarchy of knowledge,
184; as science, 23
Albertus Magnus: on astrology, 137, 192,
194; attack on Baldwin and David of
Dinant, 35, 46; attitude towards Aristotle,
119; authenticity of works of, 99-100; as
authority, 216, 229-30; Bacon's attitude
towards, 30, 33n, 72, 74, 119, 231;
chronology of works of, 98; Commentary
on Physics, 227-28; on creation, 55-56; on
dreams, 54, 59; early thought of, 21;
education of, 213-16, 219; at Faculty of
Theology at Paris, 43n; knowledge of
botany, 23; knowledge of theology, 28,
119, 226; Mineralium of, 215; opinion of
Bacon, 67, 228n; as prolific writer, 215,
217, 228-29; on question, is theology a
science? 226; as scientist, 31, 33, 119, 121;
on Secret of Secrets, 78; De sensu, 233; on
soul, 48; in struggle between religious and
seculars, 133; as teacher of Thomas
Aquinas, 226; as trainer of pupils, 213-14,
218; as Unnamed Master, 210-12,
Appendix B, passim
Albigensian Crusade, 14
Albumazar, 83
Alchemy: Albert's ignorance of, 215;
Bacon's knowledge of, 24, 106, 114, 163;
Bacon's works on, 107, 110-11; formulae
sent to Pope, 114; medieval, 104n; Peter
de Maricourt's knowledge of, 176; posi-
tion in hierarchy of knowledge of, 184;
in Secret of Secrets, 80-81, 82, 85; use of in
medicine, 91, 108; use of in theology, 31;
views of Franciscan Order on, 141
Alexander IV, Pope, 129, 133, 229
Alexander of Aphrodisias, 35
Alexander of Hales: as authority, 30, 122;
attitude of Franciscan Order towards, 68;
Bacon's attitude towards, 33n, 143, 210-
212; Bacon's knowledge of, 20; know-
ledge of Aristotle of, 43n; on question,
is theology a science? 224-25; seen by
Bacon, 26-27; as teacher of theology at
Paris, 29, 92
Alexander Neckam, 22
Alexander the Great, 30-31, 73, 76n, 78-81,
114
Alfarabi, 124
Alfredus Anglicus, 22, 40
Algazel, 125
Al-Hazen, 17, 70-71, 115, 233-34
Al-Kindi, 104n, 115
Allegory, Bacon's use of, 85
Almagest-, See Ptolemy
Alphabet, 10, 18
Alphaletum, meaning of, 10
Alphonse of Poitiers, llln
Amaury of Bines, 35-36
Amazons, 85
Amid, M., 47n
Amiens MS. 406, 4-5, Sin, 59-47
Anagni, Protocol of, 133, 136
Ancona, March of, 195-%, 201
Andrew the Jew, 38n
Angelo of Clareno, 195, 201-202
Angels, 83, 174; See also Intelligences
Anima. sensibilis', See Soul, sensitive
Anonymous; See Liber exemplorum t West-
minster Review
Anselm, St., 43n
Anthony of Padua, St., 92
Anthropomorphism of medieval science, 171
Antichrist, 71, 112, 132, 134, 136-37, 140,
188, 190, 197, 199
Anticlericalism, 127, 129-31
Antiqua translatio of Aristotle's Physics, 17
Apostolic poverty, 130, 141, 189-90, 195
Aquinas, St. Thomas: attack on David of
Dinant, 35; attack on Siger of Brabant,
190; as authority, 29, 229; Bacon's ignor-
ance of, 20; commentaries on Aristotle,
62, 98, 217, 219; defense of Parisian
Faculty of Theology, 229; early thought
of, 21; physics of, characterized, 2; posi-
tion in Dominican Order, 218-19; on
question, is theology a science? 6, 225;
reply to Nicolas of Lisicux, 189; as
scientist, 33; on soul, 47-48; as student at
Naples and Cologne, 214; teachings con-
demned at Paris, 129; as Unnamed
Master, 210-11, 215
245
246 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Arabic language: Bacon's ignorance of, 26,
86n, 105; translations from, 4, 17, 38
Arabic science: Albert's attitude towards,
228, 230; Bacon's attitude towards, 177,
230; Bacon's knowledge of, 70; writings
of, sought by English, 22
Aristippus, 38
Aristotle: as adviser of kings, 73, 76n, 79, 81 ;
Albert's attitude towards, 119, 226, 228-
230, 235; Aquinas' commentaries on, 217;
on astronomy, 64; as authority, 210, 216,
220, 229; Bacon's attitude towards, 27, 29,
34, 235 ; Bacon's identification of himself
with, 32, 85n, 109, 114, 124-25, 177;
belief in Trinity, 79; as Christian, 83;
chronology of works, 98; conciliation
with theology, 229; on creation, 5458;
emancipation from Plato, 99; extent of
knowledge, 73, 77; Final Cause in, 169;
knowledge of, by students, 63; lack of
general interest in, 203; logical work of,
16, 223; magnitude of work of, 177-80;
Michael Scotus' use of, 40; naturalism of,
38, 223; no need for intelligences, 51;
popularity of, 18n; public lecturing on,
13; rediscovery of, 16, 18; on relationship
between sciences, 179; revelation to, 173,
222; sanctity of, 124; as synthesist, 108-
109; translation into heaven, 79; transla-
tions of, criticized by Bacon, 86, 105, 175,
219; use of, by Albert and" Thomas, 219;
See also under separate titles
De anima, 17, 36, 47-50, 223; Cate-
gories, 15; De coelo et mundo, 17, 187;
Ethics, 42-43, 45n, 58, 179-80; De
generations animalium, 232-33; De genera-
Hone et corruption, 17, 62, 232-34; Historia
animalium, 49; De interpretation, 15
Libri naturales: Bacon's use of, at Paris,
45; expurgation of, 34n, 37-38, 44, 223;
at Oxford University, 14-15, 17; prohibi-
tion of, at Paris, 13-14, 27-28, 33n, 34n,
35-45, 202; relation to other sciences, 219;
restoration of, at Paris, 40-43, 45; use of,
by Grosseteste, 14n, 89; in vade-mecum of
Parisian professor, 15n, 42; See also
Aristotle, Physics, De coelo et mundo, De
generation et corruption, Meteorologica, De
anima
Metaphysics: Alexander of Hales* use
of, 43n; Bacon's knowledge of, 27, 45;
first mover as God in, 54-55; Grosseteste's
use of, 14n; naturalism in, 223; at Oxford
University, 17; prohibition of, at Paris,
13, 27-28, 34, 42, 202; quoted by students,
66; translation of, from Arabic, 45n; in
vade-mecum of Parisian professor, 15n,
41-42
Meteorologica, 17, 24n; Physics, 14n, 17,
27, 36, 56, 223, 227-28; Posterior Analytics,
11; Rhetoric, 15; De sensu et sensibili, 232-
234; De somno et vigilia, 34n, 53-54, 59;
Sophistici Elenchi, 11
Aristotle, Pseudo-: De causis, 49, 51;. De
plantis, 23, 52, 60; Secretum secretorum, 24,
30-31, 73-74, 77-86, 91, 94, 103-104,
108-109
Arithmetic, 7, 13, 16, 18
Armenia, -202
Arthurian legend, 135
Astrolabe, 113-14
Astrology: attitude of Albert towards, 137,
194, 196; attitude of Bonaventura to-
wards, 139; attitude of Franciscan Order
towards, 141, 197; attitude of Michael
Scotus towards, 55n; attitude of William
of Auvergne towards, 39, 52; Bacon's
explanation of, 80; Bacon's interest in, 64,
91, 135, 139-40; Bacon's works on, 110-
111; errors condemned, 196; freedom of
will in, 83-84; mechanism of, 172-73; in
Opera for Pope, 157, 163; as part of
mathematics, 7; Peter de Maricourt's
knowledge of, 176; position of, in
hierarchy of knowledge, 108, 184; as
revealed knowledge, 74, 173; suitability
for Christians, 82; universality of, in
Middle Ages, 138n; use of, for detecting
true nature of man, 84; use of, for medi-
cine, 81, 108, 174; use of, for theology
31, 104
Astronomy: Arabic knowledge of, 17;
Bacon's knowledge of, 64, 106; Bacon's
works on, 110-11; in curriculum of
universities, 13, 16; as part of mathematics,
7; Peter de Maricourt's knowledge of,
176; position of, in hierarchy of know-
ledge, 108, 184; use of, for theology, 85;
value of Bible for, 16
Augustine, St., 14n, 43n, 48, 74, 85, 222, 230
Authorities, Bacon's attitude towards, 12,
32, 33n, 203-204, 210, 216-17, 219, 229,
231
Authority, Bacon's desire to be, 28
Auvergne, William of; See William of
Auvergne
Auxerre, William of; See William of
Auxerre
Averroes: Albert's attitude towards, 228; as
authority, 210, 216, 229; Bacon's attitude
towards, 204; Bacon's use of, 233; charac-
ter of commentaries of, 38; commentaries
banned at Paris, 34n; commentaries used
at Paris, 17, 29, 41; on creation, 56; date
of introduction to West, 39; doctrine of
double truth in, 168; Michael Scotus' use
of, 40; on soul, 47-49; William of
Auvergne's attitude towards, 39, 44
4 Averroism* (unicity of soul), 54, 197, 204
Avicenna: acceptance of Scripture by, 83;
Albert's attitude towards, 228; as author-
ity, 210, 216, 220, 229; Bacon's use of,
Index
247
24, 233-34; book of, added to Aristotle,
Meteorologica t 24n; commentaries of, used
at Paris, 29; on the heavens, 52; on
tiylomorphism, 104n; influence on scho-
lastics, 15n, 35; medical work of, 64, 104;
preaching of resurrection by, 83; revela-
tion to, 173; sanctity of, 124; on soul, 47n,
48; William of Auvergne's attitude to-
wards, 37, 39
Bacon, commonness of name of, 10
Bacon, Robert, Dominican Friar, 9-10, 68n,
118
Bacon, Roger: biographies of, 4-6, 237-40;
birthdate of, 9-11 ; character of, 21, 71-72,
81, 100, 121-22, 125-26, 140, 144, 188,
202, and passim ; ciphers of, 239 ; expendi-
ture of, 9-10, 22, 25, 87, 115-16, 147n,
160, 164; imprisonment of, 192-202, 237;
manuscripts of, 4-5, 59-60, 157-58, 187,
191n; 'modernity* of, 2; not an inductive
scientist, 8; as philosopher of science,
167-86; as publicist for science, 113, 115;
Sarton's opinion of, 6; as 'Spiritual,' 134-
135, 139-40, 143, 189, 197, 200, 202;
statue of, 84n; Taylor's opinion of, 167;
as teacher, 22, 109, 118; as thinker, 2,
114-16; See also under separate subject
headings
De anima, 50, 61; De animalibus, 60-61;
Antidotarius, lOln; De balneis, 107; De
coelo, 60-61; Communia mathematics 16n,
88, 106, 111, 121, 186, 208n; Communia
naturalium, 3, 42, 50, 59, 111-12, 158, 186,
188, 204, 219, 234-35; Computes, 67, 99,
110-11, 142, 159, 165; Compendium studii
philosophiae, 69-70, 111, 113, 143, 166,
186, 188-91, 193, 197, 201, 218; Com-
pendium studii theologiae, 31, 111, 186, 193,
201-204; De conservation juventutis> 107;
De erroribus medicorum, 24, lOln, 111;
JSxcerpta de libro Avicennae de anima, 110-
111; De generation, 60-61, 232-34; The
Greek Grammar, 31, 106, 186, 191n, 201;
De laudibus mathematicae, 107, 110-11, 159,
162; Metaphysica, 101, 104, 107, 111, 162;
De multiplication specierum, 70, 101, 104,
107, 110-11; Opera for Pope Clement IV
(Opus Majus, Opus Minus, Opus Tertium,
and Gasquct Fragment), 3, 77, 105, 107,
141, and passim, especially chap, viii;
Perspectiva, 59, 107, 110-11, 159, 234
Quaestiones, 3, 14, 21-28, 46-57, 62^-66,
178-79, 233; supra librum de causis, 49, 51,
59-60, 63-64; physicorum, 26, 46, 49, 51,
56, 60, 64, 233; de ptantis, 52, 59-60;
prime philosophic, 60, 70n, 178-79
-On Rainbow, 110-11, 162; Reproba-
tiones on Weights, 110-11; De retardatione
atcidentium senectutis, 11, 24, 69n, 70n, 73n,
82, 85, lOOn, 104, 119, 193; De secretis
operibus naturae, 111-13; Secretum secre-
torum: glosses on, 24, 78-86, 88, 105,
110-11, 123, 187; introduction to, 82, 85,
89, 99, 111, 186-87; De sensu et sensato,
25n, 59-61, 64, 100, 232-35; De signis et
causis ignorantiae, 104, 111, 159; De somno t
59, 61; Summa grammatica, 61; Sumulae
dialectices, 61; De termino Paschali, 110-11;
Treatise on Time and Motion, 235
Bacon, Roger, Co-workers of, 88, 106, 108,
112-16, 139, 181
Bacon, Roger, Family of, 9, 11, 69, 71, 87-
88, 138, 147, 149, 158-59
Bacon, Roger, Pupils of, 57-58, 62-66, 116,
231 : See also John, pupil of Bacon
Baldwin, 35, 46
Bandoun, John; See John Bandoun
Bartholomew of England, 22, 121, 217
Bartholomew of Pisa, 19-20
Bible: conciliation of Aristotle with, 229;
geography of, 220; value of, for astron-
omy, 16
Bierbaum, H., 129n
Biology, 182
Blockbuster bomb, 184
Blund, John, 15
Boehner, P., 43n
Boethius, 15-16, 48, 203
Bologna, University of, 28, 61, 212
Bonaventura, St.: age on appointment as
Franciscan General, 29; on astrology, 139;
on creation, 56; death of, 194; early
thought of, 21; education of, 214; on
Franciscan ideal, 134, 14M2; on question,
is theology a science? 225; reply to
G6rard of Abb6ville, 189; on revelation,
223; as Unnamed Master, 211; See also
Franciscan Order, censorship in
Bonecor, Sir William, 147-49, 159
Boniface VIII, Pope, 28
Botany, 23, 215; See also Plants
Bouyges, M., 26
'Boys of the Two Orders,' 21, 30, 218-19
Brazen head, 187
Brewer, J. S., 2, 191n, 211; works edited by,
236
Bridges, J. H., 5, 67a, 102, 154-55, 156n,
168, 191n, 238; works edited by, 236
British Israel, 131
Bruges, Municipal Library of, 41n
Buckfield, Adam of, 15n, 48
Bungay, Thomas, 187-88
Burke, R. B., 84n
Burning glasses, 104, 183-84
Caesar, Julius, 184
Calabria, Robert, Duke of, 232
Calendar, reform of, 153n, 165
Callus, D. A., lln, 15, 46-48, 95
Calvin, John, 121
Campanus of Novara, 88
248 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Canon Law, 135
Carton, Raoul, 75n, 167
Castellionati, Johannes, 24n
Causes of Error, 31, 77, 104, 111, 161, 203,
216-17
Censorinus, 82
Censorship; See Franciscan Order, censor-
ship in
Certitude, how attained, 7, 114, 175-76, 181
Chaldaeans, scientific knowledge of, 73, 83
Change, how to account for, 104n
Charles, Emil, 2, 4-5, 10, 20, 23, 26, 118,
191-94, 203-204, 237
Charles of Anjou, 189
Chenu, M-D., 21n, 224n, 225n, 226n
Chicago, University of, 183
Chirogrillus, 71
Christianity, relation with science, 74, 82-83,
104, 180
Christian Science, 182
Christian virtue, 131n
Chronicle of the Twenty-Four Generals, 92,
138n, 192, 194, 196-200
Chronology of Bacon's works, 4, 98-111
(Table, page 111), chap, viii, passim', how
arrived at, 98-101
Chrysostom, St. John, 203
Churchill, Winston, 33n
Cicero, 72, 88, 124, 164
Ciphers, 239
City of God, 74
Civil Law, 28-29, 190
Clement IV, Pope (Guy Foulques or
Foulquois): advice of Bacon to use
alchemy, 81-82; appeal of Bacon to, for
support, 150, 199; appeal of Bacon to
patronize scientists, 181; becomes Pope,
147, 159; bull to ease struggle between
Orders, 198; death of, 136, 141, 166, 186,
188-89; mandates to Bacon from, 68-69,
106, 140, 146-49, 152, 158; works sent by
Bacon to, 3, 33n, 77, 97, 103, 112, 114-15,
135-36, 142, 145-46, 149, 151, 156-57,
165, 168, 186, 217
Clerk-Maxwell, J., 104n
Cologne, Dominican School at, 212-14, 216,
226, 229
Commentary on the Sphere-, See John of
Sacrobosco
Complexiones; See Temperaments
Computus; See 3acon, Computes
Constitutions of Narbonne, 117n, 138, 140,
142-43
Conventuals, 130
Cosmic Rays, 115, 172
Courson, Robert de; See Robert de Courson
Cousin, Victor, 2
Creation, 51-58
Crowlcy, Theodore, v, 24n, 50n, 138n, 204,
210-11
Curtin, M. M., 43n
Daniel of Morley, 22
Dante, 102
Dating of medieval works, 98-99
David of Dinant, 13n, 35-36, 45-46, 199
Delorme, F., 26, 59-60, 62, 232
Delorme, G., 238
Democritus, 83
Demons, 82, 92, 174
Descartes, Rene", 86
Deviationism, 200
Diagnosis, medical, 174
Dickson, Charles, 36
Dignitates of science, 181-84
Dinant, David of; See David of Dinant
Divination; See Dreams
Docking, Thomas, 93, 209n
Doctorate in Theology: did Bacon gain?
19-21, 192; requirements for, 18; value
of, 28, 30
Doctors of Theology: Bacon's opinion of,
30; Glorieux's list of, 226
Dominic, St., 127, 198
Dominican Order (Order of Preachers): age
of entry into, 21, 218-19; Bacon's attack
on, 197, 199; competition with Francis-
cans, 198; corruption in, 122; dispute with
Franciscans, 71 ; education in, 12, 212-13 ;
in England, 23, 120; members absolved
for reading Aristotle, 37, 39n; objections
to philosophy in, 228; as preachers, 127;
privileges curtailed, 129; Robert Bacon
in, 9, 118; struggle with seculars, 97, 128,
189-91, 194; work of Albert in, 30, 212,
215, 218-19, 131
Donatism, 129
Donatus, 15
Double truth; See Averroes
Dreams, interpretations of, 53-54
Duhem, P., 26
Early Christians, 131
Easter; See Bacon, De termino Paschali
Eccleston, Thomas of; See Thomas of
Eccleston
Ecology, 171
Eddy, Mary Baker, 182
Edmund Bach, St., Archbishop of Canter-
bury, 11, 23n
Education, Bacon's criticism of, 12, 190-91
Egyptians, scientific knowledge of, 73
Einstein, Albert, 2
Elect, number of, 57-58, 137
Elenchi; See Aristotle, Sophistici Elenchi
Elias, Brother, 96n, 130
Elias, Raven of; See Raven of Elias
Engineer, position of, in Bacon's science,
183, 185
Enoch, 79
Error, Causes of; See Causes of Error
Eternity of world, 53-58, 226
Etienne de Bourbon, 212
Index
249
Etsi animarum (Bull), 129, 133
Euclid, 2, 16, 170
Euclidean geometry, 1-2
Eudes de Rigaud, 225
Eve, 95
Everlasting Gospel, 130-31
Exegesis, scriptural: Bacon's approval of,
138, 224; Bacon's study of, 25; by
Franciscans, 130; in Grosseteste's classes,
89; at Paris, 27, 43
Experience, science of; See scientia experimen-
talis
Experiments: of Bacon, 32, 87, 115-16;
Bacon's approval of, 177; in Middle Ages,
112-13; position of, in Bacon's science, 7,
175, 181
Fall of Man, effect on human body of, 85
Fathers of Church: founders of Christian
theology, 221; as scientists, 16, 72; meta-
physics of, 178
Faust, 78, 102
Felder, H., 206n
Feret, P., 192-93, 237
Final Cause in medieval science, 169
Fishacre, Richard, 23u, 48, 221
Fleming, David, 192
Flying-machines, 112-13, 184
Force, theory of universal, 104n, 108; See
also Bacon, De multiplicatione spederum
Forgiveness of sins, 33n
Forms, plurality of; See Plurality of forms
Foulques or Foulquois; See Clement IV
Franceschini, E., 18n
Francis of Assisi, St., 127, 129-30, 132, 141,
173, 198
Franciscan Order, chap, vii, passim-, Adam
Marsh's entry into, 91-92; age of entry
into, 21; anticlericalism in, 130; arrival in
England, 14, 23; astrology in, 138; attitude
to Bacon and his work, 29, 69, 144, 158-
160, 164, 186, 188, 197, 200-201, 237-38;
attitude to science in, 194; Bacon's attitude
towards, 71; Bacon's entry into, 88, 94,
97, 120-22; Bacon's status in, 69, 144, 150;
censorship in, 2, 110, 126, 135, 140-43,
145-48, 15&-59, 201, 204; chair of theology
at Oxford, 29-30, 92; corruption in, 122;
disputes with Dominican Order, 71, 198;
education in, 12 (See also Grossetestc,
lectures to Franciscans); interest in light,
94; Jerome of Ascoli's relations with, 195;
notables in, 67n; payment of John's
expenses by, 117n; schism within, 96n,
126, 138-39, 141, 191-92, 195-97, 200,
202; struggle with seculars, 97, 189-91,
194; suspension of Parisian lectures of, 97;
treatment of Alexander of Hales by, 68;
views on soul of, 46-50
Franciscan Rule, 134
Fraticelli, 131n
Frederic H, Emperor, 22, 40, 44, 132
Freedom of speech; See Franciscan Order,
censorship in
Freedom of will, 83-84
*Fundamenta1ism* of Bacon; See Revelation
Garland, John of; See John of Garland
Gasquet, Cardinal F., 154 and note
Gaufredi; See Raymond de Gaufredi
Genesis, Book of, 54
Genetic approach to chronology, 98-99
Genghiz Khan, 132
Geometry: Albert's ignorance of, 216;
Bacon's study of, 106; Bacon's teaching
of, 69n; as part of mathematics, 7; place
in medieval curriculum, 13, 16; problems
set by Bacon in, 71, 94, 116; relation to
perspective 225, 231
George "Washington Bridge, 175
Gerard of Abbeville, 189
Gerard of Cremona, 17
Gerard of San Borgo, 132-34, 136, 139, 142
Gilles de Lessines, 230
Gilson, E., 43n
Glorieux, P., 19, 100, 189n, 226
Goats' blood, used for splitting diamond,
32n, 113, 175
God: as intellect agens, 75; name of, 83
Goethe, 78, 102
Grabmann, 14n, 15n, 41, 98
Grace: capable of changing evil disposition,
84; relation to knowledge, 74-75, 78-79,
81-82, 124, 222
Grafting of plants, 23, 64-66
Grammar, Greek: connection with Latin
grammar, 26; use ofj, for science, 31; See
also Bacon, The Greek Grammar
Grammar, Latin: Bacon's study of, 109;
increased study of, at Paris, 42; place o in
medieval curriculum, 13, 15
Greek Church, union with West, 131, 135-
136
Greek grammar; See Grammar, Greek
Greek language: Albert's ignorance of, 214;
Bacon's knowledge of, 25-26, 105-106
Greek translations of Aristotle, 38
Greek translators, brought to England, 25,
89, 93, 207-208
Gregory I, Pope, 84
Gregory DC, Pope: age of, 44n; appointment
of expurgators of Aristotle, 48, 223;
efforts to reopen University of Paris, 13;
maintains ban on Aristotle, 41; patron of
Michael Scotus, 22; pressure on Parisian
Faculty of Theology, 36-37, 43-44, 222,
226; skilled canonist, 28
Gregory X, Pope, 136n, 190, 194
Grosseteste, Robert, Bishop of Lincoln:
absence of reference to Bacon by, 67n;
appointment to bishopric, 68n; attitude
to Aristotle, 14, 89; Bacon's admiration
250 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
for, 11-12, 34n, 87, 90, 140; Bacon's
knowledge of, 89-91, 140; brings trans-
lators to England, 25, 89, 93, 207-208;
friendship for Adam Marsh, 91-93; in-
fluence on Bacon, 90-91; influence on
Oxford, 14, 16, 18, 87, 93-94, 119;
interest in translation, 25; knowledge of
languages, 89; lectures to Franciscans, 23,
89-90,206-209; letters of, 67n; library of,
90-91; sanctity of, 90, 124; scientific
knowledge of, 17, 64, 88, 91, 115, 235;
sense of diplomacy of, 71 ; on the soul, 48;
theological method of, 20, 190; transla-
tions by, 45n, 207
Gu6ric of St. Quentin, 213
is, 47n
Raskins, C. H., 38n
Haureau, B., 39n
Hebrew grammar; See Bacon, The Greek
Grammar
Hebrew language: Albert's ignorance of,
214; Bacon's knowledge of, 25-26, 105;
Grosseteste's knowledge of, 89 and note
Hebrew prophets, 173, 222
Heisenberg, W., 104n
Henry III, King of England, 9-10, 14, 119,
147
Heresy, 29, 45-46, 71, 94, 126, 128, 131-32,
137, 195, 197, 218
Herman the German, 45n
Hermogenes (Hermes), 79
Hildesheim, 213
Hindu asceticism, 182
Holy Spirit; See Age of the Holy Spirit
Homo sapientissimus, critic of biblical text,
115
Honorius in, Pope, 22, 212
Huber, R. M, 120, 129n, 131n, 206n, 209
Hugo, Master, 11
Hume, David, 169
Humors, bodily; 174
Hutchins, R. M. f 183
Hutton, Edward, 120
Hydrogen bomb, 184
Hylomorphism, 104n
flchester, 9
Incantations, 80
Inceptio, 19
Incunabula, 199
Innocent III, Pope, 28, 36, 127
Innocent IV, Pope, 24n, 28, 44, 129, 133,
194
Inquisition, 126, 128
Integritas sapientiae, 76-77, 107, 176, 190, 216,
219, 231; See also Universal Science
Intellects agens, 43n, 47n, 75, 92, 115, 168,
197
Intelledus possibilis, 43n, 47n, 168
Intelligences, 51-52, 80, 83
Interregnum in Papacy; See Papacy, inter-
regnum in
Introduction to the Eternal Gospel; See Gerard
of San Borgo
Inventions, value of, for Christianity, 180
Ireland, 22
Isaac (Jewish doctor), 233-34
Jaeger, Werner, 98
Jehovah's Witnesses, 131
Jeremiah, 203
Jerome, St., 84
Jerome of Ascoli (Pope Nicholas IV), 186,
192, 194-98, 200-201
Jesuits, 128
Joachim of Flora, 130, 132-37, 173, 189-90,
195-99
Joachite (Joachimite) movement, 131n,
132-33, 138, 140, 143; See also Spirituals
Johannes Castellionati, 24n
John, pupil of Bacon, 33n, 101, 116-17,
150-51, 154-55, 164-66
John XXI, Pope (Peter of Spain), 42, 121
John of Bandoun, 88, 208
John of Garland, 14n, 26, 41-42
John of London, 88
John of Parma, 130, 133, 139
John Peckham ; See Peckham, John
John of Sacrobosco, 38n, 39-40
John of Spain, 73n
JohnofVercelh, 198
Jordan of Saxony, 212
Joseph, the people called, 136
Josephus, 74n, 83
Jourdain, Charles, 9-10, 237
Joyce, James, 38n
Judas Iscariot, 71
Kilwardby, Robert, Archbishop of Canter-
bury, 2&-29, 49, 197, 221
Lacombe, G., 18n
Lanercost Chronicle^ 206
Langton, Stephen, Archbishop of Canter-
bury, 22
Languages: Adam Marsh's interest ii}, 91-92;
Albert's ignorance of, 217; Bacon's
knowledge of, 25, 87n, 109, 175; Grosse-
teste's knowledge of, 89; studied at
Oxford, 206-207; too little studied, 140;
Sec also Greek language, Hebrew language
Latin grammar; See Grammar, Latin
Law; See Canon Law, Civil Law
Lea, H. C., 129n, 131n
Liber exemplorum, 67n, 115n
Libri naturales; See Aristotle, Libri naturales
Light: Bacon's interest in, 113, 115, 233-34;
Franciscan interest in, 94; use of, by
Grosseteste, 20S-209
Index
251
Little, A. G.: on Bacon's character, 87; on
Bacon's competence in philosophy, 70n;
on Bacon's De causis, 51n; on Bacon as
Doctor of Theology, 19; on Bacon's
imprisonment, 193, 198; on Bacon's
return to England, 187; bibliography of
Bacon's works, 59, 100, 109-11, 205; on
date of Adam Marsh's letters, 95 ; on date
of Liber de retardatione, 24n; on date of
Quaestiones, 26; on debate on poverty
between the two Orders, 189n; Essays of,
criticized, 5, 238; on Grosseteste's lectures
to Franciscans, 206-209; lecture of, to
British Academy, 5; on MSS. of Opus
tertium, 157n; on Peter de Maricourt, 120;
on Raymond de Gaufredi, 202n; on
Richard of Cornwall, 96; on the Un-
named Master, 210
Logic: Bacon's study of, 109; at Oxford, 11,
13; at Paris, 13, 15-16, 42
Logica antiaua\ See Aristotle, Categories, De
interpretation
Logica nova, 15
Lollards, 129
Lombard, Peter; See Peter Lombard
Lottin, O., 42^3
Louis IX, King of France, 119
Luard, H. R., 67n, 68n
Luther, Martin, 117, 221
Lutz, E., 239
Lyons, Council of, 194-95
Magic, 115n, 135, 137, 175, 187-88, 194,
197
Magnet, 112, 175
Mahomet, 33n
Man, his place in universe, 80
Mandates, Bacon's from Pope; See Clement
IV
Mandonnet, P.: on Aristotle at Paris, 38,
39n; on Bacon's imprisonment, 192r-93;
on Bacon's moral philosophy, 162, 179-
180; on dating of Albert's work, 98; on
life of Albert, 238; method of, 193, 238;
on the order of Bacon's work to Pope,
148-49, 152-56, 165
Maricourt, Peter de; See Peter de Maricourt
Marsh, Adam; See Adam Marsh
Martyr-complex, 140
Martyr of science, Bacon as, 4-5, 143, 237
Materialism; See David of Dinant
Mathematical method, Bacon's use of, 45-
46, 175-76, 235
Mathematics: Albert's ignorance of, 215-16,
219, 231; Bacon's interest in, 91, 106;
Bacon's works on, 110-11; in England,
89; general interest in, 112; Grosseteste's
knowledge of, 89; Grosseteste's supposed
teaching of, 206-209; meaning of, in
Middle Ages, 7; views of Franciscan
Order on, 141
Matthew of Acquasparta, 29
Matthew Paris, 10, 14, 67n, 92, 135
Medicine: Arabic, 17; Bacon's interest in,
91; Bacon's knowledge of, 101, 106, 108;
medieval knowledge of, 78; Peter de
Maricourt's knowledge of, 176; use of
alchemy in, 81, 108; use of astrology in,
81, 108, 174; value of music for, 16
Medicines, how to determine choice of, 182
Mendicant Orders; See Dominican, Fran-
ciscan Order
Mephistopheles, 78
Merlin, 135, 136n, 190
Metaphysics: position of, in scientific
studies, 108; use of, for theology, 227;
See also Aristotle, Metaphysics; Bacon,
Metaphysica, Quaestiones supra libros prime
philosophic
Michael Scotus, 17, 22, 38-41, 55n
Minor mundus, 80, 174
Minorite Friars; See Franciscan Order
Mirrors, combination of, 184
Monastic Orders, 127, 141
Montfort; See Simon de Montfort
Montpellier, University of, 94
Moral Philosophy, 162, 180, 183-85
Morley, Daniel of, 22
Moses, 71, 83
Motion, Bacon's views on, 57-58, 235
Muir, Patison, 114n
Multiplication of species, 115, 234: See also
Bacon, De multiplication specierum
Music, 7, 13, 16, 18
Naples, University of, 214, 216
Narbonne, Constitutions of; See Constitu-
tions of Narbonne
Nature, ethics of the study of, 177-85
Nature, how it can be known, 169-77
Neckam, Alexander, 22
Neil, S., 237
Neo-Platonism, 35, 51, 178
Nero, 131
Newton, Sir Isaac, 2
Nicholas IH, Pope, lOOn, 192-93, 200
Nicholas IV, Pope; See Jerome of Ascoli
Nicholas, Master, 88
Nicolas of Lisieux, 189
Noah, 83
Nolan, E., 191n
Normandy, families of Bacon in, 9
Northrop, F. C. S., 2n, lOln f
Novitates suspectas', See 'Suspected novelties
Olivi, Peter John, 195, 199
Optics; See Perspectiva
Oxford, Franciscan School of, 206-209
Oxford Grammar; See Bacon, The Greek
Grammar
Oxford, statue of Bacon at, 84n
252 Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science
Oxford, University of: Bacon's 'exile* from,
139; Bacon's search for MSS. at, 88; con-
demnation of errors at, 197; did Bacon
teach at? 9, 34, 94, 116; founding of, 13;
Grosseteste's influence on, 93, 119; lec-
tures in perspectiva at, 90; reception of
Parisian students at, 37; statutes of, 12;
study of Aristotle at, 13, 28, 43; study of
science at, 23
, Faculty of Arts: Bacon as student in,
10-11, 18-19, 22, 25, 68; curriculum of;
12-18, 94; Thomas of York lacking degree
from, 119
, Faculty of Theology: Bacon's criticism
of, 221; curriculum of, 12, 20-21; did
Bacon gain doctorate in? 19-20; did
Bacon study in? 25, 27, 29; Richard of
Cornwall's lectures in, 88
Padua, 212
Palomar telescope, 184
Pantheism; See David of Dinant
Papacy: attitude towards Orders, 128-30;
interregnum in, 14, 136, 141, 166, 189
Paris, University of: Bacon's arrival at, 34;
Bacon's departure from, 26, 67, 70, 87;
banning of Aristotle at, 13, 27-28, 33n,
39-40, 202; centre of theological studies,
191, 226; closing of (1229-31), 13-14, 37,
128; condemnation of errors at (1277),
129, 190, 192, 196-97, 230; conditions at,
during Bacon's stay, 26; leading university
of Europe, 13; Oxford University founded
from, 13; study of civil law at, 28;
struggles at, 119
, Faculty of Arts: Albertus Magnus not
at, 213, 216; Bacon's study in, 9, 179-80;
Bacon's teaching in, 11, 14, 19, 34, 68, 97,
167, 170-71, 214, chap, iv, passim-, curri-
culum of, 3, 13, 15-16, 18, 21, 61, chap, iv,
passim] efforts to restore Aristotle in, 13;
interest in philosophy in, 222; quarrel
with Faculty of Theology, 189-90, 229
, Faculty of Theology: Adam Marsh's
refusal of position in, 29; age for lecturing
in, 37; Albert's teaching in, 229; Alex-
ander of Hales in, 29, 92; Aquinas in, 214;
Bacon's criticism of, 221; Bonaventura
leaves position in, 141; curriculum of,
20-21, 43, 81; did Bacon study in? 20,
30, 100, 200; instructions of Gregory IX
to, 36-37, 226; interest in philosophy in,
27, 36, 222; quarrel with Faculty of Arts,
189-90, 229; Richard of Cornwall in, 94
Pastoureaux rebels, 67
Paton, L. A., 135n
Paul, St., 221
Pcckham, John, 28-29, 47, 49, 59, 194, 200,
232
Pelagianism, 129
Pelster, F., 98
Pelzer, A., lOln, 107, llln, 166n
Perspectiva: Albert's ignorance of, 72, 214,
216; Al-Hazen's book on, 31; Arabic
knowledge of, 230; Bacon's experiments
in, 113; Bacon's interest in, 31, 70-71, 91,
105-106, 115; Bacon's works on, 110-11;
Grosseteste's interest in, 17, 89-90, 209;
relation to geometry, 225, 231 ; usefulness
for theology, 31; views of Franciscan
Order on, 141
Perspectiva communis; See Peckham, John
Persuasiones; See Bacon, Opus Majus, Opus
Minus
Peter of Ardene, 120
Peter of Ireland, 217
Peter Lombard: book against Joachim, 131n;
Book of Sentences, 20-21, 27, 29-30, 47-48,
81, 88-89, 95, 190, 204, 220, 223-26, 228
Peter de Maricourt (Peter of Maharn-Curia),
34n, 88, 112, 114, 118, 120-21, 140, 176
Peter of Spain; See John XXI, Pope
Philip the Chancellor, 24n, 37, 39, 41,48, 56
Philip of Tripoli, 73, 78
Philosophical relativism, 1
Philosophical studies, condemned in Parisian
sermons, 18n
Philosophy, Bacon's competence in, 101
Physics: Bacon's works on, 110-11; sup-
posed Franciscan studies of, 206-208; See
also Aristotle, Physics', Bacon, De multipli-
catione specierum, Quaestiones super Horos
physicorum
Physiological psychology, 110-11, 182
Pirating of Bacon's writings, 69n, 108
Pits, 187
Pius XII, Pope, 184
Plants: sense of touch in, 170-71; soul of,
62-66; See also Botany
Plato: Grosseteste's attitude towards, 14n;
influence on Aristotle, 99, 177; name for
God in, 83; not infallible, 228; pre-
existcnce in, 84; sanctity of, 124; use of, at
Paris, 41
Platonism in Middle Ages, 77
Plenitudo gentium, 136
Pliny the Elder, 24, 82-83, 112
Plurality of Forms, 46-50, 94-95
Poor Men of Lyons, 129
Porphyry, 15
Poverty; See Apostolic poverty
Preachers, Order of; See Dominican Order
Pre-existence, 84
Present-mindedness, 1
Prime matter, resolution into, 66, 104n
Priscian, 15, 61n
Propagation of force in rays, 104n
Prophesy, 127, 130-31, 134-36, 141, 143,
173, 190; See also Joachim of Flora, Mer-
lin, Sibyl, Sesto
Proverbs, Book of, 76
Pseudo-Aristotle; See Aristotle, Pseudo-
Index
253
Psychology; See Soul
Psychology, physiological; See Physio-
logical psychology
Ptolemy, 17, 83, 85, 115
Purposes, in nature, 170
Pythagoras, 16
Quadrivium, 12-13, 16-18
Quaestiones, use of, 225; See also Bacon,
Quaestiones
Quotations, method used for choice of, 75n
Radek, 201
Rainbow, 113, 115, 161; See also Bacon, On
Rainbow
Randall, J. H., Jr., 2n
RashdaU, H., 13, 236
Raven of Elias, 92, 168
Raymond de Gaufredi, 29, 201-202
Raymond of Laon, 106, 146, 147n, 158
Regnier, Cardinal, 132
Regulars: contrasted with seculars, 122-23;
quarrel with seculars, 96n, 97, 188-91
Relativism, philosophical, 1
Relativity, theory of, 2
Religious; See Regulars
Resurrection of body, 58, 83, 180-81
Revelation: not needed for philosophy, 79;
not needed for science (Albertus Magnus),
227-28; place of, in theology, 223;
required for science (Bacon), 73-74, 76-
77, 125, 167-68, 172^-73, 175, 182, 184,
222, 230; sinlessness required for, 75-76,
78, 81-82, 125, 216
Revelation, Book of, 57n
Rhetoric, 13, 15
Rich; See Edmund Rich, St., Archbishop of
Canterbury
Richard of Cornwall: Bacon's opinion of,
30-33, 94, 96, 202, 210; lectures at Oxford
of, 12, 30, 88, 119, 122, 139, 204; in Paris,
97; on the soul, 48, 94; Thomas Eccles-
ton's opinion of, 94-95; as Unnamed
Master, 211
Rimbaud, Arthur, 102-103
Robert de Courson, 36
Robert, Duke of Calabria, 232
Robert Kilwardby; See Kilwardby, Robert
Roger of Hereford, 22
Roland of Cremona, 41
Rous, John, 9, 204n
Rousseau, J. J., 85
Rubruck, Friar William, 114
Russell, J.C., 91
Sacrobosco, John of; See John of Sacrobosco
Salerno, University of, 36
Salimbene, 132, 136n, 190
Saltpetre, 184
Salvation, value of science for, 180
Sandys, J. E., 187n
Saracens, 136
Sarton, George, 6, 42, 104n, 167, 239
Schlund, E., 120
Scholasticism, Bacon's attitude towards, 12
Scholastics, Bacon's criticism o 7
Science: Bacon's aesthetic appreciation of,
32, 70, 76, 81, 179-80; Bacon's interest in,
23, 25, 32-33, 72; Bacon's philosophy of,
chap, ix, passim', definition of, 6-7, 223;
inductive, 8; medieval contrasted with
modern, 169-71; place of revelation in,
222-24; practical use of, 73; the question,
is theology a science?; See Theology, the
question, is it a science?; study of, in
England, 22-23; value of, for theology;
See Theology, value of science for; See
also Arabic science
Sdentia: definition of, by Alexander of
Hales, 224; meaning of, in Bacon, 6-7
Sdentia experitnentalis: Adam Marsh's know-
ledge of, 91; Bacon's work in, 110-11,
113, 162, 173, 175-76, 181; meaning of, 7;
Peter de Maricourt's knowledge of, 217;
place of, in science, 32; Ptolemy's use of
word, 85; value of, for philosophy, 215
Scotus, Michael; See Michael Scotus
Scriptum principal, 149, 152-53, 160, 188,
191 ; See also Bacon, Communia naturalium
Scriptural exegesis; See Exegesis, scriptural
Seculars, quarrel with regulars, 97, 188-91,
194
Seine, River, 27
Semi-Pelagianism, 129
Seneca, 88, 103, 112, 124, 162, 180, 203,
217
Sentences t Book of; See Peter Lombard
Sermons, at Paris, 18n, 28, 43n
Servetus, 121
Sessevalle, F. de, 206n
Sesto, 135
Seth, sons of, 73-74, 78, 172-73
Sharp, D. E., 25, 46n, 211, 240
Sibyl, 135
Sibylline books, 135
Sicily, 22
Siger of Brabant, 4, 189-90, 197, 229
Simon de Montfort, 147
Simplicius, 47n
Sin, relation to knowledge of, 74-75, 78,
81-82, 124-25, 173, 216, 222, 230
Singer, D. W., HOn
Socrates, 74, 124-25
Solomon, 73, 173, 177, 203
Soul: corporeal, 47n; creation of, 52;
innocency of, relation to knowledge, 74;
intellectual, 47, 49-50, 80; opinions on,
47; sensitive, 47, 49-50, 84; specific, 47n;
unicity of, 197, 226; vegetative, 47, 49-50,
62-66; See also Plurality of forms
Speculum astronomiae, 192, 196
Bacon an ^ his Search for a Universal Science
254
Speech, freedom of; See Franciscan Order,
censorship in
Spirituals, 126, 130-31, 133-34, 138, 195-97,
199-201
Stars, ensoulment of, 52
Steele, R., 5, 59, 61, 63, 73, 142n, 232-34,
238
Steenberghen, F. van, 4, 14n, 15n, 43-44,
56n,230n
Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canter-
bury, 22
Stoicism, 180
Strasbourg, 229
Subaltemation, 79, 225, 231
Substantial form, 49, 52-53, 66, 174; See
also Soul
Summa grammatica, See John of Garland
Summa minorum (Alexander of Hales), 43n
'Suspected novelties,' 138, 186, 191-92, 194,
197, 199-201
Synthesis of knowledge, Bacon's, 168, 184^
Synthetic science, Bacon's second 'dignity*,
181-82
Tartars, 136
Taylor, H. O., quoted, 167
Technology, Bacon's works on, 110-11
Temperaments: changing of, by science, 73,
81, 83, 104, 108; influence on soul of,
178-79; ruled by stars, 174
Tempier, Stephen, Bishop of Paris, 129, 190,
192, 196-97, 230
Theologians, Bacon's attitude towards, 12,
29,32
Theology: Albert's knowledge of, 28, 226;
Aristotle's natural, 51; Bacon's attitude
towards, 119, 138, 202-203; Bacon's
ignorance of, 21; Bacon's interest in, 21,
25; development of, by St. Paul and the
Fathers, 221-22; did Bacon study? 19-21,
26-27, 29-30, 34; Edmund Rich's lectures
on, 11; no conflict with science (Albert),
228; place of revelation in, 223; the
question, is theology a science? 6, 20-21,
222-25, 228; requirements for doctorate
in, 18; as sapientia, 224, 226; sins of, 216;
teaching of, at Oxford, 12; teaching of, at
Paris, 13, 28; teaching of, by Grosseteste
to Franciscans, 206-209; use of, for
science, 219-20; value of music for, 16;
value of science for, 31, 81, 85, 107, 109,
121-22, 140, 161-62, 177, 179-80, 204,
211
Th&y, G., 13n, 35-36
Thierry of Freiberg, 213
Things-in-themselves, 169
Thomas Aquinas, St.; See Aquinas, St.
Thomas
Thomas Bungay; See Bungay, Thomas
Thomas of Cantimprc', 121, 133
Thomas, capellanus of Duke of Calabria, 232
Thomas of Eccleston, 90n, 92, 94-97, 118,
206
Thomas of Wales, 207-208
Thomas of York, 48, 119, 209n
Thomson, S. H., 89n, 206, 235
Thorndike, Lynn: on Albertus Magnus, 23,
32; on Bacon's imprisonment, 137, 192,
194; on Bacon as scientist, 32; on banning
of Aristotle at Paris, 39-41 ; on chronology
of Bacon's works for Pope, 140, 146n,
147-53, 157; on dreams, 54; estimate of
his work on Bacon, 5, 239; on medieval
scientists, 22; on reasons for Bacon's entry
into Franciscan Order, 121, 123; on
pirating of Bacon's writings, 69n; on
Secret of Secrets, 78; on Speculum astro-
nomiae, 196; on the Unnamed Master,
212, 214-15, 218
Time, Bacon's views on, 57-58, 235
Toledo, School of translators at, 17
Touch, sense of, 170-71
Toulouse, University of, 14, 37, 4 41, 44
Translations, Bacon's requirements for, 207
Translations: from Arabic, 38; Bacon's atti-
tude towards, 17
Translators, brought to England by Grosse-
teste, 25, 89
Trinity: Aristotle's belief in, 79; science as
aid to belief in, 79
Trivittm, 12-16
Ulrich of Strasbourg, 230
Universals, 77
Universal Science: Albert's belief in, 227;
Bacon's efforts towards, 72, 76n, 105, 109,
162, chap, ix, passim; See also Integritas
sapientiae
Unnamed Master, 210-31 ; See also Albertus
Magnus, Aquinas, St. Thomas, Richard
of Cornwall
Vacuum, analysis of, 166
Vade-mecum of unknown Parisian professor,
15, 40_42, 45n
Vanderwalle, C. B., 19-20, lOOn, 154-55,
192-93, 198, 239-40
Vatican Library, 166
Vaux, Roland dc, 39
Venus, 174
VercelHJohnof, 198
Vincent of Beauvais, 119, 121, 217
Virgin Mary, 180, 195
Virtue, relation to knowledge, 74, 124; See
also Sin, relation to knowledge of
Voltaire, 1-2
Voynich Manuscript, 239
Wadding, L., 205n
Waldensians, 129
Weights, science of, 7, 110-11
Index 255
Weirmouth, 92 William of Auxerre, 37-38, 48, 223-24
Westminster Review, 23, 123-24, 237 William of St. Amour, 128-29, 133, 139,
William of Auvergne, Bishop of Paris: on 189
astrology, 52; attitude to Aristotle of, 43- Witzel, T., 120, 238
44, 50-53; attitude to Averroes of, 39, 44; Wood, Anthony, 134
attitude to Avicenna of, 39; on creation, Woodruff, F. W., 120-21, 239-40
55; familiarity with Aristotle, 37, 41 ; seen Wulf, M. de, 26, 47n, 230n
by Bacon, 26; on the soul, 47n, 52 Wydif, 129
1144
