from legitimate judicial astrology.[2223] In the first place, it
ascribes fatal necessity to the influence of the stars, whereas Bacon
shows by an examination of the writings of Haly, Ptolemy, Avicenna,
Messahala, and Isaac that learned and legitimate astrologers have
never held any such tenet as fatal necessity, although common report
may ignorantly ascribe such doctrine to them.[2224] In the second
place, the practitioners of the magical variety of mathematics “invoke
demons by conjurations and sacrifices to supplement the influence of
the constellations, an execrable practice.” Third, “they mar their
astrological observations by the idlest sort of circles, figures,
and characters, and by the stupidest incantations and unreasonable
prayers in which they put their trust.” Finally they often resort to
fraud, employing confederates, darkness, deceptive mechanisms, and
sleight-of-hand. By such methods “in which they know there is illusion”
and “in which there is no virtue of the sky operating,” “they perform
many feats which seem marvelous to the stupid.”[2225]
[Sidenote: The rule of the stars.]
While thus censuring the _mathematica_ which is a subdivision of magic,
Bacon declared that “it is manifest to everyone that the celestial
bodies are the causes of generation and corruption in all inferior
things.”[2226] Had not Aristotle in his treatise on Generation and
Corruption said that the four terrestrial elements are related to the
heavens as tools to an artificer?[2227] Bacon regarded the stars as
ungenerated, incorruptible, and voluntary in their movements, which
were regulated by angelic intelligences.[2228] He also accepted the
usual technique of the astrological art in explaining the operation of
this celestial influence.[2229]
[Sidenote: Astrological medicine.]
Bacon naturally subjected the human body to the constellations and was
a firm believer in astrological medicine. If a doctor is ignorant of
“astronomy,” his medical treatment will be dependent upon “chance and
fortune.”[2230] Bacon holds not only that at conception and at birth
one’s fundamental “complexion,” or physical constitution, is determined
by the sky,[2231] but that with each changing hour our bodies are
governed by a different planet whose characteristics the physician
should know. Where Neckam[2232] had assigned six hours to the planet
after which the day was named, that is, the first three and last three
hours of the twenty-four, Bacon assigns it only four hours, namely, the
first, eighth, fifteenth and twenty-second. Then, in order to bring the
proper planet into control of the first hour of the succeeding day, he
is obliged to have them follow each other in a different order in their
rule of hours from that in which the days of the week are named.[2233]
Bacon also distributes the parts of the body among the signs of the
zodiac,[2234] and states that the physician must observe the moon
carefully.[2235] He cites Hippocrates, Galen, the _Centiloquium_ and
Haly concerning the great influence of the stars both upon health and
the administering of medicines.[2236] That the patriarchs of the Old
Testament lived so much longer than men do to-day has been explained by
many, Bacon says, as due to the stars. His explanation of the strange
case of a woman of Norwich who ate nothing for twenty years and yet was
during all that time in the best of health is that some constellation
must have reduced the concourse of the four elements in her body to a
self-sufficient harmony such as they seldom attain.[2237] Indeed, he
goes so far as to hold that the resurrected body will have that harmony
of the elements and so endure through eternity, no matter whether
raised to the bliss of heaven or subjected to the consuming torments of
hell.
[Sidenote: Influence of the stars upon human conduct.]
Bacon even held that the stars by their influence upon the human body
incline men to bad acts and evil arts or to good conduct and useful
sciences. Such natural inclinations might, however, be resisted by
effort of will, modified by divine grace, or strengthened by diabolic
tempting.[2238] But while the individual by an effort of will may
resist the force of the stars, in masses of men the power of the
constellations usually prevails; and the differences in peoples
inhabiting different parts of the earth are due to their being under
different aspects of the sky. Recent bloody wars might have been
avoided, had men harkened to warnings written in the sky. “Oh, how
great profit to the church of God might have been procured, if the
disposition of the sky for those times had been foreseen by the wise,
and known to prelates and princes, and restricted by zeal for peace!
Then there would not have been such slaughter of Christians nor so many
souls sent below.”[2239] The personality of the king, too, has such
great influence upon his kingdom that it is worth while to examine his
horoscope carefully.[2240]
[Sidenote: Planetary conjunctions and religious movements.]
Bacon was especially attracted by the doctrine of Albumasar concerning
conjunctions of the planets, and derived comforting evidence of
the superiority of the Christian faith to other religions from the
astrological explanation of the origin of religious sects according to
the successive conjunctions of the other planets with Jupiter.[2241]
He was pleased by the association of Christianity with Mercury, which
he calls the lord of wisdom and eloquence, of oracles and prophecies;
it is dominant only in the sign Virgo, which at once suggests the
Virgin Mary; and its orbit, difficult to trace because of epicycle and
eccentric, typifies well the Christian creed with its mysteries that
defy reason. Similarly the malign force of the moon, productive of
necromancy and magic, fits Antichrist exactly; and Venus corresponds
to the sensuality of Mohammedanism. Further astrological evidences
of Christianity are the coincidence six years before the birth of
Christ of an important conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter with a tenth
revolution of Saturn, which last occurs only at intervals of 320
years, and always marks some great historical change like the advent
of Alexander or Manes or Mohammed. Astrology further assures us that
Islam can endure only 693 years, a prediction in close agreement with
the number of the beast in the Apocalypse, 663 (_sic_); the small
discrepancy of thirty years is readily accounted for by the dictum of
the venerable Bede that “Scripture in many places subtracts something
from the complete number, for that’s the way with Scripture.”[2242]
[Sidenote: Was Christ born under the stars?]
The astronomers, Bacon tells the pope, further assure us that even
the Virgin Birth of Christ and His Nativity were in accordance with
the constellations. They think that God willed so to order His works
that certain future events which He foresaw or predestined should be
revealed to the wise through the planets, in order that the human
mind, recognizing God’s marvelous works, might increase in love
towards Him. They grant that it is impossible that the Creator be
subject to a creature, or that the birth of Christ, in so far as it
was supernatural, should be subject in any way to the influence of
the stars, which in this respect could only be signs of the divine
work. But in so far as the birth of Jesus was a natural event and
His nature was human, they regard Him as under the influence of the
constellations, like the rest of humanity. Their statements in such
matters should, however, Bacon more cautiously adds, be brought into
conformity with the doctrines of the Catholic faith.[2243]
[Sidenote: Operative astrology.]
Bacon believed that by means of astrology not only could the future
be in large measure foretold, but also marvelous operations and
great alterations could be effected throughout the whole world,
especially by choosing favorable hours and by employing astronomical
amulets and characters--in other words, by the arts of elections and
of images.[2244] As the babe at birth receives from the stars that
fundamental physical constitution which lasts it through life, so any
new-made object is permanently affected by the disposition of the
constellations at the moment of its making.[2245] Especially by images,
“if they are engraved in accordance with the aspect of the sky in the
elect times, can all injuries be repelled and useful undertakings
promoted.”[2246] Bacon not only cites as authorities concerning them
Haly’s commentary on the _Centiloquium_ supposed to be by Ptolemy,
Thabit ben Corra, and the spurious _Secret of Secrets_ of Aristotle;
but believes that Moses and Solomon both made use of them.[2247] The
marvelous power of spoken words is also in part accounted for by Bacon
by the celestial influence prevalent at the moment of utterance.
“Although the efficacious employment of words is primarily the function
of the rational soul,” nevertheless “the astronomer can form words
in elect times which will possess unspeakable power” of transforming
natural objects and even inclining human minds to obey him.[2248] Thus
Bacon’s “astronomer” is really a magician and enchanter as well--one
more of the many indications we have met that there is no dividing line
between magic and astrology: divination is magic; astrology operates.
Bacon was very desirous that the church should avail itself of the
guidance and aid of astrology; and he feared the harm that Antichrist,
whose advent Bacon with many others of his century seems to have
believed was near at hand, or the Tartars with their astrologers, would
be able to do Christendom, if the church neglected this art.[2249]
[Sidenote: Unlikelihood that Bacon was condemned for magic or
astrology.]
Having considered Bacon’s position in regard to magic and astrology,
we are now prepared to inquire what likelihood there is that his
reported condemnation in 1278 for “some suspected novelties” was due
to either. Briefly it may be answered to begin with that his views
concerning these subjects were not novel; he shared them with Albert
and other contemporaries, and there seems to be no good reason why
they should have got him into trouble. His expressed attitude towards
“magic” is so hostile that it seems unlikely that he would have been
charged with it, when other clergymen like Albert and William of
Auvergne spoke of it with less hostility and yet escaped unscathed.
There is not a particle of evidence in his works that he ever invoked
spirits or attempted to do anyone an injury by occult methods, and
this was the only kind of magic that was likely to be punished at that
time.[2250] Towards astrology he was, it is true, more favorable than
some of his contemporaries. With his views on astrological images and
his attribution of religious sects to conjunctions of the planets
theologians like Aquinas and William of Auvergne would refuse to agree,
but Arabian astrology supported such doctrines, and the views of an
approved Christian thinker like Albertus Magnus concerning astrology
are almost identical with those of Bacon. We note elsewhere writings
on such subjects as astrological medicine by Franciscans; and such a
regulation as that of May 25, 1292, for Franciscans studying at Paris,
that they should not spend the alms given them to buy books with for
other purposes, nor cause curious books to be made, suggests that a
number of them were prone to consult superstitious works as well as
that the Order forbids this.[2251] And by “curious books” are doubtless
meant the sort that we have heard Bacon strongly censure.
[Sidenote: Error of Charles in thinking that any stigma rested on
Bacon’s memory]
Again therefore there is no reason why Bacon should have been
singled out for condemnation. Such a notion has arisen partly from
misapprehension as to the views of Bacon’s contemporaries and from
misstatements such as the passage in Charles’ life of Bacon,[2252]
where he declares that Cardinal Pierre d’Ailly in his treatise on
laws and sects condemns the doctrine of an English doctor concerning
religions and the conjunctions of planets, and approves the contrary
doctrine of William of Auvergne, but “does not dare” to name Bacon, to
whom he alludes with the bated breath of terror and repugnance. All
this, except the bare fact that d’Ailly criticizes this particular
doctrine of Bacon, is sheer fancy on Charles’ part. Had he consulted
a complete fifteenth-century edition of d’Ailly’s writings instead of
merely such of his treatises as were included in an eighteenth-century
edition of the works of Gerson, he would have known that elsewhere
the cardinal cites Bacon on astrology by name with respect and
admiration,[2253] and that the learned reformer even goes so far as
to agree boldly and explicitly with Bacon’s doctrine that Christ as
a son of man was under the stars.[2254] That Bacon’s astrology had
not been condemned in 1278 is also indicated soon after his death by
Pierre Dubois’ approving mention of his discussion of the utility of
“mathematics.”[2255]
[Sidenote: But his own statements may have caused the legend.]
It must be added, however, that there are passages in Bacon’s own
writings which are perhaps also partly responsible for the growth
of the idea that he was condemned for magic or astrology. Briefly,
these are the passages where he himself says that there is danger
of scientists being accused of magic. For instance, he tells us
that “scarcely anyone has dared” to speak of astronomical images in
public, “For those who are acquainted with them are immediately called
magicians, although really they are the wisest men.”[2256] It also
seems somewhat strange that Bacon should always be so condemnatory and
contemptuous in his allusions to magic and magicians, when both William
of Auvergne and Albertus Magnus allude to it as sometimes bordering
upon science, in which case they do not regard it unfavorably. The
suspicion occurs to one that Bacon perhaps protests a little too much,
that he is condemning magic from a fear that he may be accused of it.
But are not his apprehensions exaggerated? Does he not overstate the
hostility of canonists and theologians to his many splendid sciences,
and their tendency to confuse them with magic? Thomas of Cantimpré in
the _De natura rerum_ and Albert in the treatise on minerals and in
the _Speculum astronomiae_ dared to discuss astronomical images. And
finally, whether there is any real ground for Bacon’s apprehensions
or not, if he is afraid of being accused of magic, would not this
very fear keep him from going too far and from thereby incurring
condemnation in 1278 on this account?
V. _Conclusion_
[Sidenote: Characteristics of medieval books.]
Such were Roger Bacon’s views bearing upon magic and experimental
science and their relations to Christian thought, as set forth
principally in his _Opus Maius_ and the two other treatises to the pope
which supplemented it. Most medieval books impress one as literary
mosaics where the method of arrangement may be new but most of the
fragments are familiar. One soon recognizes, however, that striking
similarity in two passages is no sure sign that one is copied from the
other. The authors may have used the same Arabic sources or simply be
repeating some commonplace thought of the times. Men began with the
same assumptions and general notions, read the same limited library,
reasoned by common methods, and naturally often reached the same
conclusions, especially since the field of knowledge was not yet so
extensive but that one man might try to cover it all, and since all
used the same medium of thought, the Latin language. New discoveries
were being made occasionally but slowly, perhaps also sporadically
and empirically. A collection of industrial and chemical recipes
in the thirteenth century may in the main be derived from a set of
the seventh century or Hellenistic age, but a few new ones have
somehow got added to the list in the interim. Thomas of Cantimpré’s
encyclopedia professes to be no more than a compilation, but it seems
to contain the first allusion we have to modern plumbing.
[Sidenote: Features of Bacon’s _Opus Maius_.]
Bacon’s chief book was a mosaic like the rest, but bears a strong
impress of his personality. Sometimes there is too much personality,
but if we allow for this, we find it a valuable, though not a
complete nor perfect, picture of medieval learning. Its ideas were
not brand-new; it was not centuries in advance of its age; but while
its contents may be found scattered in many other places, they will
scarcely be found altogether anywhere else, for it combines the most
diverse features. In the first place it is a “pious” production, if I
may employ that adjective in a somewhat objectionable colloquial sense
to indicate roughly a combination of religious, theological, and moral
points of view. In other words, Bacon continues the Christian attitude
of patristic literature to a certain extent; and his book is written by
a clergyman for clergymen, and in order to promote the welfare of the
Church and Christianity. There is no denying that, hail him as one may
as a herald of modern science. Secondly, he is frequently scholastic
and metaphysical; yet thirdly, is critical in numerous respects; and
fourthly, insists on practical utility as a standard by which science
and philosophy must be judged. Finally, he is an exponent of the aims
and methods of what we have called “the natural magic and experimental
school,” and as such he sometimes comes near to being scientific. So
there is no other book quite like the _Opus Maius_ in the Middle Ages,
nor has there been one like it since; yet it is true to its age and is
still readable to-day. It will therefore always remain one of the most
remarkable books of the remarkable thirteenth century.
FOOTNOTES:
[2030] For bibliography of works on Roger Bacon see Theophilus Witzel’s
article in _The Catholic Encyclopedia_; G. Delorme, in Vacant and
Mangenot, _Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique_, Paris, 1910, II, 31;
Paetow, _Guide to the Study of Medieval History_, 1917, which gives the
more recent literature on the subject. The most recent bibliography of
Roger Bacon’s own writings, whether printed or in manuscript, is that
by A. G. Little in the Appendix, pp. 376-425 of _Roger Bacon Essays,
contributed by various writers on the occasion of the commemoration
of the seventh centenary of his birth_, collected and edited by A.
G. Little, Oxford, 1914--which will henceforth be cited as “Little,
_Essays_, (1914).” The following is simply a list of those editions
of Bacon’s writings which I shall have occasion to cite frequently in
the ensuing pages, giving the full titles and an abbreviated form for
purposes of future reference.
_Fr. Rogeri Bacon, Opera quaedam hactenus inedita_ (ed. J. S. Brewer,
London, 1859) in RS Vol. XV. The volume includes part of Bacon’s _Opus
Tertium_, part of the _Opus Minus_, 313-89, part of the _Compendium
Studii Philosophiae_, 393-519, and the _Epistola de Secretis Operibus
Artis et Naturae et de Nullitate Magiae_, 523-51. This will henceforth
be cited as “Brewer.”
_The Opus Maius of Roger Bacon._ Ed. J. H. Bridges, Vols. I and II,
Oxford, 1897; Vol. III (correcting numerous errors in I and II), 1900.
This work will be hereafter cited as “Bridges.”
F. A. Gasquet, “An Unpublished Fragment of a Work by Roger Bacon,” EHR
XII, 502. This fragment published by Gasquet is evidently the first
part of the _Opus Minus_ and will henceforth be cited as “Gasquet.”
_Part of the Opus Tertium of Roger Bacon_. Ed. A. G. Little, Aberdeen,
1912. This will be cited as “Little, _Opus Tertium_ (1912).” It
includes Duhem’s fragment published also by Quaracchi, 1909, _Un
fragment inédit de l’Opus tertium de Roger Bacon précédé d’une étude
sur ce fragment_.
_Fratris Rogeri Bacon Compendium Studii Theologiae._ Ed. H. Rashdall,
Aberdeen, 1911, in _British Society of Franciscan Studies_, Vol. III.
It will be cited as “Rashdall.”
Robert Steele, _Opera Hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi_, Fasc. I, London,
1905; Fasc. II and III and IV and V (Oxon. 1909, 1911, 1913, 1920).
This will be cited as “Steele.”
[2031] Charles Jourdain, “Discussion de Quelques Points de la
Biographie de Roger Bacon,” in his _Excursions Historiques et
Philosophiques à travers le Moyen Age_, Paris, 1888, 131-145.
[2032] Brewer, 65 and 59. _Opus Tertium_, caps. 20 and 17.
[2033] _Opus Tertium_, cap. 11, Brewer 38.
[2034] _Opus Tertium_, caps. 3 and 2, Brewer, 16 and 13. Gasquet, 502.
[2035] _Opus Minus_, Brewer, 318. If, however, we accept as a genuine
work of Bacon the letter on retarding the accidents of old age which he
is supposed to have sent to Pope Innocent IV (1243-1254), we shall have
to admit that he had been “in partibus Romanis.” See Little, _Essays_,
4 and 399.
[2036] Gasquet, 502.
[2037] We are, however, told that he made his profession on the day
he entered the Order, i.e., underwent no probationary period. Brewer,
_Monumenta Franciscana_ (1858) RS IV, 56 and 550.
[2038] Gasquet, 500 and _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 65.
[2039] Albertus Magnus speaks more literally of himself as an exile
(_Mineralium_, III, i, 1, “Exul enim aliquando factus fui, longe vadens
ad loca metallica ut experiri possem naturas metallorum”): but no one
has ever inferred from this that he was persecuted. Perhaps, however,
Father Mandonnet would infer from the passage and from the favorable
attitude of the treatise on minerals towards astrological images that
Bacon was really the author.
[2040] _Opus Tertium_, cap. 1, Brewer, 7.
[2041] _The Monthly Magazine or British Register_, XIII, 449.
[2042] Bridges, II, 218.
[2043] _Opus Minus_, Brewer, 383-384.
[2044] _Epistola de Secretis Operibus_, cap. 2. Brewer, 525.
[2045] Gasquet, 511: “Scripto principali, quod vestra postulat
reverentia.” _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 58: “Propter vestrae gloriae
mandatum, de quo confundor et doleo quod non adimplevi sub forma
verborum vestrorum, ut scriptum philosophiae mitterem principale.”
Also, p. 18.
[2046] Brewer, 1; Bridges I, 1-2, note: Wadding, _Annal. Minor_, IV,
265; Martene, _Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum_, II 358; E. Jordan, _Les
registres de Clément_ IV (1265-1268) ... _d’après les manuscripts
originaux des archives du vatican_, Quatrième Fascicule, Paris, 1904,
Appendice II, p. 384, No. 1081.
[2047] Brewer, 1: “Opus illud quod te dilecto filio Raymundo de Landuno
communicare rogavimus in minori officio constituti.” _Opus Tertium_,
Brewer, 14; Bacon says that Albert and William of Shyrwood could not
send the pope what he has written, “infra tantum tempus ... a vestro
mandato; et sicut nec ab ultimo, sic nec a primo.” Gasquet, 500:
“Sed licet pleno desiderio quod iniunctum est complere pro posse meo
sim teste Deo paratissimus, cum quoniam in minori officio constituti
postulatis non fuerunt composita que iussistis” and “utrumque mandatum”
and “antequam primum vestre dominationis recepi mandatum.” The
following sentence (_Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 13) also seems to refer
to the former mandate, despite the “ultimo,” “Non enim quando ultimo
scripsistis fuerunt composita quae iussistis, licet hoc credebatis.”
[2048] Little, _Essays_ (1914), 11: “His first project was an
elaborate one, including a systematic and scientific treatment of
the various branches of knowledge; he worked at this, writing parts
of the _Communia Naturalium_ and _Communia Mathematicae_, for some
months (‘till after Epiphany,’ i.e., January 6, 1267), but found it
impossible. He then started again on a more modest scale, and wrote
in the next twelve months the preliminary treatise known as the _Opus
Maius_, which was supplemented by the _Opus Minus_, and subsequently,
by the _Opus Tertium_.”
[2049] Brewer, xlv.
[2050] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 14; “Non igitur mirandum si ego
dilationem tantam fecerim in hac parte.” _Ibid._, 16-17: “Multotiens
dimisi opus, et multotiens desperavi et neglexi procedere.” _Ibid._,
17: “Tanta dilatio in hoc negotio ... vestrae clementiae taedium pro
spe dilata,” and other passages.
[2051] These excuses are listed in Gasquet, 500, to “antequam primum
vestre dominationis recepi mandatum”; and are repeated in part in _Opus
Tertium_, Brewer, 13.
[2052] To this period the difficulties listed in _Opus Tertium_,
Brewer, 15-17 (middle), would seem to apply. In Brewer, 16, and
Gasquet, 502, Bacon states that to get money to meet the expenses
incident to the composition of his work he had sent to his rich brother
in England, but received no response because “exiles and enemies of
the king occupied the land of my birth,” while his own family had been
exiled as supporters of the crown and ruined financially. All this must
have occurred before the arrival of the second papal letter in 1266,
for Simon de Montfort had been slain and the barons defeated in 1265.
[2053] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 5: “Et impedimentorum remedia priorum
nactus.”
[2054] As Bacon himself states in the _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 7: “Primo
igitur in opere Secundo.”
[2055] I cannot agree with Gasquet, 497, that it “is obvious from
numberless expressions in the work itself” that the _Opus Maius_ was
“addressed to the pope directly.” The last chapter of the first book in
Bridges’s text is evidently addressed to the pope, but it is identical
with a portion of the _Opus Minus_ and evidently does not belong in the
_Opus Maius_ and is not found in the two oldest manuscripts. Similarly
a passage of some 16 pages in Bridges on calendar reform, which gives
the present year as 1267, is practically identical with a chapter of
the _Opus Tertium_ and was evidently transferred from that work to the
_Opus Maius_ at some later date. When we have excluded these passages
the work is surprisingly free, compared to the other two works, from
passages suggesting that it is addressed to the pope. The one mention
of the “Apostolic See” (Bridges, I, 77; III, 94) is impersonal and does
not imply that Foulques was pope, and does not occur in one of the
manuscripts. Epithets such as “Your Wisdom” (Bridges, I, 17, 23, 305),
“Your Highness” (I, 210; II, 377), “Your Glory” (I, 305; III, 96),
“Your Reverence” (I, 376; II, 219), “Your Holiness” (I, 81; III, 101),
“Your Beatitude” (I, 2, 72; III, 88) do not occur frequently and are
equally applicable to a cardinal, or not found in all the manuscripts,
suggesting the possibility of their having been inserted later.
[2056] Such seems to me the most plausible theory of the writing of the
three works and the one which agrees best with Bacon’s own statements;
but it is only a hypothesis from the printed texts of his works which
should be verified by examination of the manuscripts. Probably some of
Bacon’s statements can be interpreted to conflict with this hypothesis,
but they sometimes conflict with each other, and he could not even keep
the _scriptum principale_ and _Opus Maius_ distinct in his own mind
according to Brewer’s text (p. 3, “duo transmisi genera scripturarum:
quorum unum est principale,” and p. 5, “principalis scripturae,”
whereas at p. 60 we read, “Patet igitur quod scriptum principale non
potui mittere”). See also Gasquet, p. 503, and _Opus Tertium_, Brewer,
p. 58. I have been stimulated by but cannot accept the conclusions of
Father Mandonnet’s “Roger Bacon et la Composition des Trois ‘Opus’,”
_Revue Néo-Scolastique_ (Louvain, 1913), pp. 52-68 and 164-180.
Mandonnet holds that the _Opus Maius_ was written _after_ the other two
works, which were never finished nor sent, but from which Roger took
some passages to insert in the _Opus Maius_, which Mandonnet believes
was sent only in 1268.
[2057] “Quae tibi videntur adhibenda remedia circa illa, quae nuper
esse (occasione?) tanti discriminis intimasti: et hoc quanto secretius
poteris facias indilate.” E. Jordan, _Les Registres de Clement IV_,
etc., gives “_esse_,” which would seem the correct reading rather than
the “_occasione_” of Martene and Brewer. If one follows their version,
as I did in “The True Roger Bacon,” 242-43, the passage would have to
be translated, “What remedies you think should be applied in those
matters indicated by you recently on so critical an occasion.” But
apparently there was no such crisis.
[2058] Part of the _Opus Tertium_ of Roger Bacon (ed. A. G. Little,
Aberdeen, 1912), 80-82. This passage is the fourth one and in it
Bacon lists the three earlier statements: “Scripsi in tribus locis
Vestre Glorie de huiusmodi secretis.” Roger ultimately decides that
he will not reveal the whole secret even in this fourth instalment,
because alchemists never put the full truth into writing; he therefore
“reserves some points for word of mouth.”
[2059] See the article on “Roger Bacon” by Theophilus Witzel in the
Catholic Encyclopedia.
[2060] In our chapter on Galen we noted his similar complaints, and
in the coming chapter on Peter of Abano we shall speak of his similar
experience in having his _Phisionomia_ stolen. Daunou wrote of Vincent
of Beauvais in the _Histoire Littéraire_, XVIII (1835), p. 453: “il dit
des occupations pénibles qui interrompaient son travail d’écrivain, et
le forçaient à employer des copistes.”
[2061] Gasquet, 500. “Et ideo componere penitus abhorrebam,” etc.
[2062] Gasquet, 500.
[2063] _Ibid._
[2064] _Ibid._, 502.
[2065] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 15.
[2066] _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_, Brewer, 399, 425, 431.
[2067] G. Delorme, “Roger Bacon,” in Vacant and Mangenot, _Dictionnaire
de Théologie Catholique_, II (1910); “Ce fait basé uniquement sur
l’autorité fort contestable de la chronique des xxiv généraux,”
_Analecta Franciscana_ (Quaracchi, 1897), III, 460.
[2068] Little, _Essays_ (1914), 6, note 1.
[2069] For the facts of his career see DNB.
[2070] _Essays_, 27; Mandonnet, _Siger de Brabant_ (second ed.) I, 248
questions this date.
[2071] Rashdall, 34 and 53.
[2072] Compare, for instance, the opening paragraph of the sixth
chapter with Duhem, 153-54, and Little, _Opus Tertium_ (1912), 50-51.
[2073] Gasquet, 509.
[2074] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 54-55.
[2075] This was a favorite formula with Bacon; see _Opus Tertium_,
Brewer, 3-4, 20; Gasquet, 502, 509.
[2076] _Opus Minus_, Brewer, 388.
[2077] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 52.
[2078] Gasquet, 509.
[2079] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 81.
[2080] Bridges, I, 43.
[2081] _Ibid._, 56.
[2082] Bridges, I, 41. Bacon is believed to have rather misrepresented
the position of William of Auvergne on this point, when he says that
William twice reproved at Paris those who held the active intellect to
be part of the soul. N. Valois, _Guillaume d’Auvergne_ (Paris, 1880),
289-290; E. Charles, _Roger Bacon: sa Vie, ses Ouvrages, ses Doctrines_
(Bordeaux, 1861), p. 327.
[2083] Bridges, I, 45; Gasquet, 508; _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 24.
[2084] Bridges, I, 45.
[2085] _Ibid._, II, 170; _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_, Brewer, 405,
408.
[2086] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 50: “Mirum enim est de nobis
Christianis, qui sine comparatione sumus imperfectiores in moribus quam
philosophi infideles. Legantur decem libri Ethicorum Aristotelis et
innumerabiles Senecae, et Tullii, et aliorum, et inveniemus quod sumus
in abysso vitiorum.”
[2087] V. Cousin, _Journal des Savants_ (1848), 467.
[2088] Little, _Essays_ (1914), 4: “They are in the prevalent dialectic
style, and perhaps might be put into the class of works which Bacon
afterwards ridiculed as ‘horse-loads.’”
[2089] Little, _Essays_ (1914), 241-284.
[2090] _Opus Minus_, Brewer, 360-367.
[2091] Bridges, I, 38, 143; _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 120.
[2092] Bridges, I, 42.
[2093] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 6.
[2094] _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_, Brewer, 469.
[2095] _Ibid._, 473. Rashdall, 34.
[2096] He wrote a commentary on it; see Tanner MSS, 116, Bodleian
Library; ed. Steele (1920).
[2097] Bridges, I, 389.
[2098] _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_, Brewer, 473.
[2099] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 50; _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_,
Brewer, 422.
[2100] Ludwig Baur, _Die Philosophischen Werke des Robert Grosseteste_
(Münster, 1912; Bd. IX in Baeumker’s _Beiträge z. Gesch. d. Philos, d.
Mittelalters_), P. 15.
[2101] Cousin, _Journal des Savants_ (1848), 300, concludes that
because Bacon asserts that the Politics of Aristotle is not yet in use
among the Latins, Albertus and Aquinas did not write their commentaries
on this work until after 1266.
[2102] K. Werner, “Die Kosmologie und Allgemeine Naturlehre des Roger
Bacon,” in _Sitzungsberichte_ of the Vienna Academy, ph.-hist. Cl.
(Vienna, 1879), XCIV, 495. For further errors by Bacon concerning the
text of Aristotle see Duhem, “Roger Bacon et l’Horreur du Vide,” in
Little, _Essays_ (1914), 254 and 259.
[2103] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 302-304; _Compendium Studii
Philosophiae_, Brewer, 412, 429, 399, 418 ff. and _Opus Tertium_, 84 ff.
[2104] Gasquet, 503; Brewer, 29-30.
[2105] E. Withington, “Roger Bacon and Medicine,” in Little, _Essays_
(1914), 347.
[2106] Rashdall says in the introduction to his edition of Bacon’s
_Compendium Studii Theologiae_ (Aberdeen, 1911), p. 3: “There is a
certain irony in the fact that the writer’s argument in favor of
independent thinking as against authority consists chiefly of a series
of citations.”
[2107] Bridges, I, 5-6 and also p. 7, where Bacon quotes another
sentence from Adelard without naming him, “Et ideo multi ... cur a
tergo non scribitis.”
[2108] See chapter 42 on Daniel Morley.
[2109] Bridges, I, 17; _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 70, 91, 187.
[2110] Bacon’s ignorance of Spanish would probably in any case have
prevented him from securing Alfonso as a patron.
[2111] Bridges, I, 192, 196, 271, 298, 299, note. Duhem, III (1915)
234, notes that in astronomical tables of 1232 for London tables for
other cities are also mentioned: Paris, Marseilles, Pisa, Palermo,
Constantinople, and Genoa, as well as Toledo.
[2112] Since it mentions the battle of Valbona in that year.
[2113] See Chapter 67.
[2114] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 37.
[2115] C. Baeumker, _Witelo, ein Philosoph und Naturforscher des XIII
Jahrhunderts_, Münster, 1906. See Chapter 55, Appendix I.
[2116] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 14.
[2117] _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_, Brewer, 426.
[2118] _Opera_, ed. Borgnet, VIII, 803-804, and Mandonnet, _Siger de
Brabant_, p. 332.
[2119] _Opus Minus_, Brewer, 324.
[2120] _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_, Brewer, 426. A century
before John of Salisbury (_Metalogicus_, I), had written similarly:
“Sed quia isti hesterni pueri, magistri hodierni, vapulantes in ferula,
hodie stoleti docentes in cathedra.”
[2121] _Opus Minus_, Brewer, 326-327. It seems unlikely that Albert or
Aquinas is meant.
[2122] Bridges, I, xxx.
[2123] Gasquet, 507.
[2124] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 65.
[2125] Gasquet, 507.
[2126] The quotations are from Professor D. E. Smith’s translation of
Bacon’s _Communia Mathematica_ as contained in Digby MS 76, fol. 57 (p.
130) and fol. 56 (p. 126).
[2127] From his _Tractatus optimus super totam astrologiam_ as
summarized in HL vol. 21, _Notices succinctes sur divers écrivains_,
No. 27. Besides BN 7333 and 7334 the work is found in Amplon. Folio
393, fols. 22-43, and perhaps is the same as Amplon. Folio 386, fols.
1-25, _speculum celeste_. According to the _Histoire Littéraire_ the
treatise contains no judicial astrology, the word _astrologiam_ being
used in the meaning “astronomy” here.
[2128] Gasquet, 504-505; and Bridges, I, 31; see also _Opus Tertium_,
Brewer, 59.
[2129] See page 632, note 1, and page 634, note 3.
[2130] In the _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_, written about 1272
(Brewer, 472). Mandonnet, _Siger de Brabant_, 40, rejects Bacon’s
aspersions upon William’s translations. On William’s career and
writings see HL XXI, 146.
[2131] Gasquet, 505: “Quamvis autem fatear quod plures sunt qui hec
eadem que tracto possunt meliori modo quam ego vestre sapientie
referre.”
[2132] Gasquet, 502.
[2133] _Ibid._, 504.
[2134] _Ibid._, 515; _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 274, 275, 295. The writer
of some astronomical tables for London in 1232 complains that the
calendar year and feasts of the saints are in error: Duhem, III (1915),
234.
[2135] L. Baur, “Der Einfluss des Robert Grosseteste auf die
Wissenschaftliche Richtung des Roger Bacon,” in Little, _Essays_
(1914), 45.
[2136] Petrus de Alliaco, _De Correctione Kalendarii_, in an edition of
the works of d’Ailly and Gerson printed about 1480.
[2137] S. A. Hirsch, “Roger Bacon and Philology,” in Little, _Essays_
(1914), 145.
[2138] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 34, and _Compendium Studii
Philosophiae_, Brewer, 434.
[2139] Bridges, I, 290, _note_, overstates the case, however, when
he says: “This paragraph including half of that which follows ... is
inserted without acknowledgment ...” etc., since much of it is omitted
or condensed by d’Ailly.
[2140] Rather than 1480, as stated by Bridges, _Ibid._, and, with a
query, in the British Museum Catalogue. See L. Salembier, _Pierre
d’Ailly et la découverte de l’Amérique_, 1912, and his earlier works on
the same subject.
[2141] Only in 1494, Salembier holds, did Columbus and his brother read
the _Imago mundi_ together, make their 898 notes in it, and form their
grand project of reaching oriental India by sailing west.
[2142] Vinaud, _Histoire critique de la grande entreprise de Colomb._
Almeida, _La découverte de l’Amérique, Extrait de la Revista de
Historia_, 1913.
[2143] Bridges, I, 292, “Sed Aristotelis dicit quod elephantes in illis
locis esse non possunt nisi essent similis complexionis.”
[2144] _Opus Maius_, Bridges, I, 20, 45-56 and 65; _Opus Tertium_,
Brewer, 24-25, 32.
[2145] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 50.
[2146] Pierre d’Ailly in 1410 in _De Legibus et Sectis_, cap. 4,
pointed out that Bacon was relying upon a spurious work.
[2147] Little, _Essays_ (1914), 16, quoting Adamson, _Roger Bacon: The
Philosophy of Science in the Middle Ages_ (1876), which is now out of
print.
[2148] Ptolemy’s _Optics_ is known only in Latin form, supposedly
translated from the Arabic, edited by Govi (Turin, 1885); see Bridges,
I, lxx. The _Optica_ ascribed to Euclid is contained in Heiberg’s
edition (Leipzig, 1895).
[2149] Baur, in Little, _Essays_ (1914), 46-47.
[2150] D. E. Smith in Little, _Essays_ (1914), 171, citing Heilbronner
and other historians of mathematics.
[2151] Bridges, II, 172-173; _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 43.
[2152] Little. _Part of Opus Tertium_ (1912), 44.
[2153] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 44-45.
[2154] Gasquet, 510.... scientie omnes preter hanc vel utuntur
argumentis tantum ad probationem conclusionum suarum, ut pure
speculative scientie, vel habent experientias universales et
imperfectas.
[2155] Bridges, II, 172. Haec ergo sola novit perfecte experiri
quid potest fieri per naturam, quid per artis industriam, quid per
fraudem, quid volunt et somniant carmina conjurationes invocationes
deprecationes sacrificia....
[2156] _Ibid._, II, 201.
[2157] Gasquet, 502. Unde multotiens ego misi ultra mare et ad diversas
alias regiones et ad nundinas sollemnes ut ipsas res naturales oculis
viderem et probarem veritatem creature per visum....
[2158] Bridges, II, 169. Et quae non sunt praesentia in locis in quibus
sumus, scimus per alios sapientes qui experti sunt. Sicut Aristoteles
auctoritate Alexandri misit duo millia hominum per diversa loca mundi
ut experirentur omnia quae sunt in superficie terrae, sicut Plinius
testatur in Naturalibus.
[2159] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 46-47. Immo verecundatur si aliquis
laicus, vel vetula, vel miles, vel rusticus de rure sciat quae ipse
ignorat.
[2160] See Appendix II, Roger Bacon and Gunpowder.
[2161] _Epistola de secretis operibus_, cap. 4, Brewer, 533. There is a
similar passage in the _Communia mathematicae_, Sloane MS 2156, fol. 83.
[2162] Gasquet, 510; and Bridges, _passim_.
[2163] Bridges, II, 205. Praeterea certis experimentis probatum est,
quod ista festinatio nimia est retardata pluries, et longaevitas
prolongata per multos annos per experientias secretas.
[2164] _Ibid._, 212; Steele (1920), 23-24. For some further account of
this Artephius or Artesius see the chapter on William of Auvergne, pp.
351-4.
[2165] Steele (1920), p. 10.
[2166] Bridges, II, 210. Et ideo dicit experimentator bonus in libro
de Regimine Senum, quod si illud quod est in quarto gradu temperatum
et quod natat in mari, et quod vegetatur in aere, et quod a mari
projicitur, et planta Indiae, et quod est in visceribus animalis longae
vitae, et duo serpentes quae sunt esca Tyrorum et Aethiopium....
[2167] _Ibid._, 208. Nam Parisius nuper fuit unus sapiens, qui
serpentes quaesivit et unum accepit et scidit eum in parva frusta,
nisi quod pellis ventris, super quam reperet, remansit integra, et
iste serpens repebat ut poterat ad herbam quandam, cuius tactu statim
sanabatur. Et experimentator collegit herbam admirandae virtutis.
A Greek precursor of this tale may be found in the plot of the lost
_Polyidus_ of Euripides, as reproduced in Hyginus, _Fabulae_, 136. “...
draco repente ad corpus pueri processit, quod Polyidus, aestimans eum
velle consumere, gladio repente percussit et occidit. Altera serpens
parem quaerens vidit eam interfectam et progressa herbam attulit atque
eius tactu serpenti spiritum restituit....” Polyidus then resuscitated
the dead boy by the same method.
Paris continued to be a center of experimental research after Bacon,
for in a Wolfenbüttel MS (2503, 15th century, fols. 271-82) we find
“Experiments collected by masters of Paris that are greatly praised,
and first concerning powders.” The Explicit dates the collection about
1331 A. D. See also Wolfenbüttel 2189, 15th century, fols. 174-5,
Quedam experimenta parisiis probata 25.
[2168] Bridges, II, 168-9.
[2169] _Ibid._, 202. Unde oportet primo credulitatem fieri, donec
secundo sequitur experientia, ut tertio ratio comitetur.... Et ideo
in principio debet credere his qui experti sunt, vel qui ab expertis
fideliter habuerunt, nec debet reprobare veritatem propter hoc, quod
eam ignorat, et quia ad eam non habet argumentum.
[2170] _Ibid._, 219. Postquam enim hoc intuitus sum, nihil fuit meo
intellectui difficile ad credendum, dummodo habuit auctorem certum.
[2171] Bridges, II, 211. Nam certum est quod Aethiopes sapientes
venerunt in Italiam et Hispaniam et Franciam et Angliam, et in istas
terras Christianorum in quibus sunt dracones boni volantes, et per
artem occultam quam habent excitant dracones de cavernis suis, et
habent sellas et froena in promptu, et equitant super eos et agitant
in aere volatu fortissimo, ut dometur rigiditas carnium et temperetur
durities, sicut apri et ursi et tauri agitantur canibus et variis
percussionibus flagellantur, antequam occidantur pro comestione. Cum
ergo sic domesticaverint eos, habent artem praeparandi carnes eorum ...
et utuntur eis contra accidentia senectutis, et vitam prolongant et
intellectum subtiliant ultra omnem aestimationem. Nam nulla doctrina
quae per hominem fieri potest tantam sapientiam inducere valet sicut
esus istarum carnium, secundum quod per homines probatae fidei
didicimus sine mendacio et dubitatione.
[2172] Steele (1920) p. 9.
[2173] Little, _Opus Tertium_ (1912), 46; Gasquet, 510.
[2174] Little, _Opus Tertium_ (1912), 52.
[2175] Little, _Opus Tertium_, 53.
[2176] Gasquet, 510. Opera vero istius scientie quedam naturalia
sunt in alterationem mundi, quedam in excitationem et inclinationem
voluntatum sine coactione.
[2177] Bridges, I, 240.
[2178] See Appendix II for some question as to its authenticity.
[2179] Bridges, I, 29, 241; _Opus Tertium_, cap. 9, Brewer 29.
[2180] Bridges, I, 396.
[2181] Bridges, I, 395.
[2182] Brewer, 526, 531; Steele (1920), p. 6.
[2183] _Opus Tertium_, cap. 26, Brewer 99; Bridges, I, 241, 396.
[2184] _Epistola de secretis operibus_, cap. 1, Brewer, 52.
[2185] Bridges, I, 395 and 399.
[2186] _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 47, 95.
[2187] _Epistola de secretis operibus_, Brewer, 532.
[2188] Bridges, I, 262.
[2189] _Ibid._, 395-6, 398, 399; _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 46-7, 95, 98.
[2190] _Epistola de secretis operibus_, Brewer, 523.
[2191] _Ibid._, cap. 2, Brewer, 525.
[2192] _Ibid._, cap. 3, Brewer, 531.
[2193] _Opus Tertium_, cap. 26, Brewer, 96.
[2194] _Ibid._, 98-99.
[2195] Bridges, I, 399.
[2196] _Opus Tertium_, cap. 26, Brewer, 98.
[2197] _Opus Tertium_, cap. 13, Brewer, 47, “... etiam experimenta
vetularum et sortilegia et carmina earum et omnium magicorum
consideravit et similiter omnium joculatorum illusiones et ingenia.”
[2198] Bridges, II, 172.
[2199] _Epístola de secretis operibus_, cap. 2, Brewer, 526.
[2200] _Epistola de secretis operibus_, cap. 3, Brewer, 532.
[2201] Bridges, I, 394.
[2202] Bridges, I, 392.
[2203] Brewer, 532.
[2204] _Epistola de secretis operibus_, Brewer, 352-357.
[2205] Bridges, I, 29, 241; _Opus Tertium_, cap. 9, Brewer, 29.
[2206] Bridges, II, 208, “Et ideo insidiati sunt animalibus brutis
ut scirent vires herbarum et lapidum et metallorum et aliarum rerum,
quibus sua corpora rectificabant multis modis tanquam miraculosis.”
[2207] Bridges, II, 218.
[2208] Bridges, I, 398.
[2209] _Idem_, and _Opus Tertium_, cap. 26, Brewer, 96.
[2210] Bridges, I, 395.
[2211] Brewer, 96.
[2212] _Ibid._
[2213] Bridges, I, 395. “Carmina sunt verba ex intentione animae
rationalis prolata, virtutem coeli in ipsa pronunciatione recipientia;
unde de mira potestate literarum ego facio mentionem in tertia parte.
Per hanc enim potestatem sanantur corpora, fugantur animalia venenosa,
advocantur ad manum bruta quaecunque....”
[2214] _Opus Tert._, cap. 26, Brewer, 99. “Si vero fiunt secundum
species et conditiones dictas, tunc sunt philosophica et sapientis
incantantis sapienter; ut recitat David propheta.”
[2215] _Epistola de secretis operibus_, cap. 3, Brewer, 531. “Et ideo
valde caute in his sentiendum est; nam de facili potest homo errare, et
multi errant in utramque partem; quia aliqui omnem operationem negant,
et alii superfluunt, et ad magica declinant.”
[2216] Steele (1920), p. 8.
[2217] Little, _Part of the Opus Tertium_ (1912), 17-18: “Et ideo si
ecclesia de studio ordinaret, possent homines boni et sancti laborare
in hujusmodi scientiis magicis auctoritate summi pontificis speciali.”
[2218] Bridges, I, 111: “Omne enim efficiens agit per suam virtutem
quam facit in materiam subjectam, ut lux solis facit suam virtutem in
aere, quae est lumen diffusum per totum mundum a luce solari. Et haec
virtus vocatur similitudo, et imago, et species, et multis nominibus,
et hanc facit tam substantia quam accidens, et tam spiritualis quam
corporalis. Et substantia plus quam accidens, et spiritualis plus quam
corporalis. Et haec species facit omnem operationem hujus mundi; nam
operatur in sensum, in intellectum, et in totam mundi materiam pro
rerum generatione.”
[2219] An interesting instance of its survival in the fifteenth century
and of the fact that Roger Bacon was not the only medieval clergyman
interested in astrological medicine, is provided by the treatise of
an archdeacon of Parma and doctor of medicine on “The domination and
projection of rays,” preserved in a Wolfenbüttel MS: 2816, fols.
186-200, “Explicit tractatus de denominatione et proiectione radiorum
magistri Mattaei de Guarimbertis de Parma, archydiaconi Parmensis,
artium et medicine doctoris, egregie, finitus in Burgo in Brecya
in domo magistri Petri Herlensis, in artibus et medicina eximii
professoris, anno Domini 1461 incompleto ante carnisprivium per me
Jacobum de Huerne.”
[2220] William’s writings exist in manuscript in the Bibliothèque
Nationale, and are described HL 25: 64 ff.
[2221] _Opus Tertium_, cap. 9 (Brewer, 27); Bridges, I, 239 and note,
giving passages from Bacon’s unpublished writings, also I, 240 and 247.
Steele (1920), pp. viii, 3.
[2222] _Opus Tertium_, caps. 9, 30 (Brewer, 27, 106); Bridges, I, 109,
242 note.
[2223] Bridges, I, 241.
[2224] _Ibid._, 242-45.
[2225] _Ibid._, I, 241. “... mathematici isti daemones advocant
in adiutorium coelestium dispositionum per coniurationes et
sacrificia, quod est omnino nefandum; atque nihilominus maculant suas
considerationes in coelestibus per circulos et figuras et characteres
vanissimos et carmina stultissima et orationes irrationabiles in quibus
confidunt. Praeterea fraudes operum adiungunt, scilicet per consensum,
per tenebras, per instrumenta sophistica, per subtilitatem motionis
manualis, in quibus sciunt illusionem esse, et multa stultis miranda
faciunt per haec in quibus virtus coeli nihil operatur....”
[2226] _Opus Tertium_, cap. 30, Brewer, 107. “Coelestia sunt causae
generationis et corruptionis omnium rerum inferiorum, ut manifestum est
cuilibet.” See also _Opus Tertium_, cap. 11, and Bridges, I, 110.
[2227] Bridges, I, 379.
[2228] Steele, I, 12; III, 228-39; Bridges, II, 450.
[2229] Astrology is discussed by Bacon in Bridges, I, 138-148,
238-269, and 376-404; Gasquet, 512-516; _Opus Tertium_, Brewer,
105-106, 271-272; _Opus Minus_, Brewer, 320-321; _Compendium Studii
Philosophiae_, Brewer, 421-422; Little, Part of the _Opus Tertium_,
1-19; Steele (1920), 1-24; and in many scattered passages.
[2230] Gasquet, 516.
[2231] Bridges, I, 396.
[2232] See p. 202.
[2233] Bridges, I, 382.
[2234] _Ibid._, I, 381.
[2235] _Ibid._, I, 384.
[2236] _Ibid._, I. 386-7.
[2237] _Opus Minus_, Brewer, 373-4. “Aliqui diu vixerunt sine
nutrimento, ut nostris temporibus fuit una mulier in Anglia in diocesi
Norwicensi quae non commedit per XX annos et fuit pinguis et in bono
statu nullam superfluitatem emittens de corpore, sicut probavit
episcopus per fidelem examinationem. Nec fuit miraculum sed opus
naturae, nam aliqua constellatio fuit illo tempore potens elementa
reducere ad gradum aequalitatis propinquiorem quam ante fuerunt....”
[2238] Bridges, I, 138-39.
[2239] Bridges, I, 386.
[2240] _Ibid._, 253.
[2241] Both this doctrine and Albumasar’s reference to the birth of
Jesus are given in Steele, _Opera hactenus inedita_, fasc. I, 42-50 and
8-9, as well as in the passages listed in note 4, p. 670.
[2242] Bridges, I, 266: “Et huic sententiae concordat apocalypsis xiii
capitulo. Nam dicit quo numerus bestiae est 663, qui numerus est minor
praedicto per xxx annos. Sed scriptura in multis locis subticet aliquid
de numero completo, nam hic est mos scripturae ut dicit Beda.”
[2243] Bridges, I, 267-68.
[2244] Brewer, 107, 526-27; Bridges, I, 300 ff.
[2245] Bridges, I, 396.
[2246] Bridges, I, 394.
[2247] Bridges, I, 392-94. He cites Josephus’s _Antiquities_ as his
authority for the employment of such images by Moses.
[2248] _Ibid._, 395; _Opus Tertium_, Brewer, 96-99.
[2249] Bridges, I, 399-403. See Marco Polo, I, 61 and II, 33,
concerning the “crafty enchanters and astrologers” in the train of the
Great Khan and the five thousand astrologers and soothsayers in Peking.
[2250] A good contemporary illustration is had in the charges brought
against Hubert de Burgh by Henry III: “... he had stolen from Henry and
given to the prince of Wales” (even Stubbs nods!) “a talisman which
rendered its wearer invulnerable; ... he had poisoned the earl of
Salisbury, the young earl Marshall, Falkes de Breauté, and Archbishop
Richard; he had kept the king under his influence by witchcraft”:
Stubbs, _Constitutional History of England_, 1906, II, 45-46, citing
Matthew Paris, III, 221-3. Thus Hubert was accused of theft, poisoning,
and sorcery. But there was nothing wrong in possessing such a magic
talisman.
[2251] _Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis_, II, 56-7, “... et
caveant ne elemosinas sibi missas pro libris in alios usus commutent,
nec libros fieri faciant curiosos.”
[2252] P. 49.
[2253] In his _Apologetica Defensio Astronomice Veritatis_ he cites
“Bacon magnus doctor anglicus in epistola ad Clementem papam”; in
his _Alia Secunda Apologetica Defensio eiusdem_, arguing that the
superstitution of certain astrologers does not invalidate the art,
he says, “Et hoc pulcre et diffuse probat Bacon in epistola ad papam
Clementem”; and in his _Elucidarius_ he definitely says that it was
Bacon whose theory of conjunctions and sects he discussed in the _De
Legibus et Sectis_.
[2254] In the _Apologetica Defensio_ and again in the _Vigintiloquium_.
[2255] _De Recuperatione Terre Sancte_ (ed. C. V. Langlois, Paris,
1891), 65.
[2256] Bridges, I, 394. “Statim enim vocantur magici, cum tamen sint
sapientissimi qui haec sciunt.”
APPENDIX I
THE STUDY OF ROGER BACON
[Sidenote: Lack of early printed editions of his works.]
In addition to criticizing and refuting the over-estimate of Roger
Bacon which has been prevalent in modern times, it may be well to
indicate when and how this exaggerated estimate of his importance
and uniqueness originated, and also to trace the gradual growth of a
more critical attitude towards him in still more recent years. The
investigations of Mr. A. G. Little and several other contributors to
the _Roger Bacon Essays_ of 1914 have demonstrated that his writings
were not almost forgotten for centuries, but that they exerted a
continuous influence. However, owing perhaps to the unfinished state
and rather fragmentary, confused, and scattered form in which they have
survived in the manuscripts, they did not appear, as did many of the
works of medieval science which we have considered, immediately after
the invention of printing in early editions. No incunabula of them are
known and only a few brief treatises were printed in the course of the
sixteenth century,[2257] namely, some alchemistic tracts of doubtful
authorship, a treatise on how to postpone the ills of old age, and
the “Epistle concerning the secret works of nature and the nullity of
magic,” which became quite a favorite and was reprinted several times
in Latin and appeared twice both in English and in French translations
in the course of the seventeenth century.[2258]
[Sidenote: His popular reputation as a magician.]
Meanwhile, despite what was said of “the nullity of magic” in this
treatise on the secret works of nature,[2259] Friar Bacon had become
in popular tradition a nigromancer, conjurer, and magician. As such
he was presented about 1592 in Robert Greene’s play, the “Honourable
History of Frier Bacon and Frier Bungay,” with magic wand, perspective
glass, and speaking brazen head, and in the prose “Famous Historie of
Fryer Bacon” which appeared about the same time.[2260] In 1625 Naudé
included Roger Bacon among the great men of the past whose memory he
endeavored to clear of the false charge of magic.[2261]
[Sidenote: Jebb’s edition of the _Opus Maius_.]
Other medical and alchemistic tracts by Bacon were issued together in
1603,[2262] and some portions of his chief work, the _Opus Maius_,
and other similar fragments dealing with mathematics and optics were
published in 1614.[2263] But the _Opus Maius_ itself remained unprinted
until 1733, when Jebb issued his edition of the work upon which Bacon’s
fame has since largely rested. This edition,[2264] although to-day
become quite rare, was perhaps just late enough not to share the
neglect which with the advance of modern science befell the numerous
earlier editions of medieval physicians, alchemists, astrologers,
and natural scientists. On the other hand it was perhaps just early
enough to introduce Roger and his criticisms of the learning of his
contemporaries to an age whose historical interests were largely
dominated by classicism. And when interest in and study of the middle
ages developed in the course of the nineteenth century, for a time it
had the effect of only increasing the exaggerated emphasis laid upon
Roger Bacon.
[Sidenote: General misestimate of Bacon and of medieval science.]
As a result it came to be the fashion in works tracing the history
of this or that department of learning from the times of the ancient
Greeks or Egyptians to our own, in gliding rapidly and at a lofty
height over the generally unexplored medieval region, and airily
dropping a few bombs concerning the blighting effect of the church
upon freedom of thought and scientific investigation or anent the
inanities of scholasticism, to exclaim at the marvelous apparition of a
mind like Roger Bacon’s in such an age and to hail him as a herald of
a later and better civilization. There was the more excuse for doing
this, since Jebb’s version of the _Opus Maius_ had terminated the text
with the sixth part on “Experimental Science.”[2265] This theme thus
appeared to be the climax of the work, and the impression was given
that Roger Bacon was primarily a natural scientist and that he regarded
experimental method as the supreme thing in the study of nature.
Consequently he came to be regarded by many as the first rebel against
scholasticism and the first prophet of modern science.
[Sidenote: Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon.]
The fact that his name was Bacon also contributed to Roger’s celebrity,
as Francis Bacon was already a favorite with historians of science and
thought, and it now appeared that he had borrowed some of his ideas
from, or had at least been anteceded in them by, the thirteenth century
friar. Both had criticized scholastic method and urged the great
practical utility possible from applied science. Akin to the idols of
Francis were Roger’s four causes of human error. The program of endowed
scientific research--based upon an essentially medieval classification
of science and list of anticipated inventions--in which Francis tried
to interest the society of his time in his _New Atlantis_[2266] has a
general resemblance to the attempt of Roger to enlist the support of
the pope in the cause of science in his _Opus Maius_; while the “Workes
of Nature, Works of Art” of the _New Atlantis_, which made that isle
almost seem “a Land of Magicians,”[2267] are rather suggestive of the
treatise, “Of the Secret Works of Art and Nature and the Nullity of
Magic,” by Roger Bacon to whom indeed Francis seems to allude in the
_New Atlantis_ as “Your Monke that was the Inuentour of Ordnance, and
of Gunpowder.”[2268] Roger was by some indeed not only regarded as
superior to Francis Bacon in priority, but in having emphasized the
importance in scientific investigation of mathematical method whose
value Francis had failed to appreciate.
[Sidenote: Legend of his martyrdom for science.]
The next step in the development of the Baconian legend was to
supply Roger with a biography suited to his supposed position as a
modern experimental and mathematical scientist in the midst of an
age of religious bigotry and superstition, of gloomy monks and arid
theologians. Surely, especially in view of his later literary and
popular renown as a magician, he must have been persecuted and a martyr
to science. Abbé Feret has shown how through the nineteenth century
successive historians kept adding to the legend of Friar Bacon’s
persecution by the Franciscan Order without giving any references
to the sources for the details which they elaborated from their own
imaginations.[2269]
[Sidenote: Works of Brewer and Charles.]
The sources, however, became more accessible with the editing in 1859
in the Rolls Series by Brewer of a number of Bacon’s minor treatises
hitherto unpublished. Brewer, however, was able from the manuscripts
at his disposal, to present only an incomplete text of the _Opus
Minus_, _Opus Tertium_, and _Compendium Studii Philosophiae_. These
served nevertheless to give a new stimulus to the interest in and the
study of Bacon, especially since two years later appeared Charles’
book on Roger Bacon where were included further extracts from his
unpublished writings. Unfortunately Charles wrote without knowledge
of Brewer’s labors,[2270] and it must be added that several writers
on Bacon since have failed to keep abreast with the latest research
in the field.[2271] Charles also was guilty, as Abbé Feret has shown,
of swelling the story of Bacon’s imprisonments, and in other matters
he jumped to conclusions unwarranted by the sources or indulged in
undiluted imagination.
[Sidenote: Minor studies of the later nineteenth century.]
The works of Brewer and Charles educed a number of minor essays and
studies in the following decades. Two unsigned articles on “The life
and writings of Roger Bacon” and “The philosophy of Roger Bacon” which
appeared in _The Westminster Review_ in 1864, are worth noting as
combining a tendency towards a sane and critical estimate of what Bacon
had actually said and accomplished, with the inclination to regard
him as a voice crying in the wilderness of medieval scholasticism
and theology. The writer admitted that the merit of the _Opus Maius_
“lies rather in the spirit in which it was written than in the facts
it records or in any merit which it may have as a scientific whole.”
He further asserted that “it can easily be shown that of the things
which Bacon is asserted to have invented, several were perfectly well
known before his time, and the rest are nowhere described in his
works.” The writer also cited some of Roger’s absurd experiments, and
said, “Notwithstanding his forcible language about the prerogatives of
experimental science and his bitter invective against frail authority,
we find him occasionally resting on authority with childlike faith, and
treating his favorite science as if its only prerogative was to provoke
a smile.” Yet he still maintained that “Bacon preached a philosophy
of which not half-a-dozen men in Europe saw the value, and of which
the majority of really good men feared the results,” and that “when
Roger Bacon was laid in his grave, the real philosophy was buried with
him.”[2272] Many of the articles which appeared in the years following
were of slight value, causing G. Delorme to say in 1910, “Monographs
or studies concerning Bacon are numerous, perhaps too numerous.”[2273]
As he proceeded to explain, in many of them Bacon was misunderstood and
misinterpreted, so that they must be read with the greatest caution. On
the other hand, in 1891 had appeared Abbé Feret’s valuable criticism of
the legends regarding Bacon’s imprisonments.
[Sidenote: Recent editions of Bacon’s works.]
Next came solid progress in additions to the catalogue of Roger’s
works and fragments by recent discoveries in the manuscripts, and in
new or first editions of a number of his previously known writings. In
1897 J. H. Bridges’ fuller, handier, and more correctly arranged two
volume edition of the _Opus Maius_ replaced Jebb’s now extremely rare
edition. Unfortunately, while supplied with a helpful introduction,
analytical table of contents, and footnotes, this new version was
so full of misreadings of the manuscripts and other mistakes in the
text due to an imperfect knowledge of Latin, that in 1900 a third and
supplementary volume of corrections was added to it. In 1897 Cardinal
(then Father) Gasquet discovered and published a new fragment, which
he regarded as an introduction to the _Opus Maius_, but which seems
to me evidently the first part of the _Opus Minus_, as Mr. Little has
already suggested.[2274] Passages in this fragment serve to render
even more untenable the story of Roger’s persecution before 1267.
In 1902 Nolan and Hirsch edited Bacon’s Greek Grammar. Then in 1909
Professor Duhem gave to the world a newly discovered fragment of
the _Opus Tertium_; while in 1911 the British Society of Franciscan
Studies printed the _Compendium Studii Theologiae_, edited by Canon
(now Dean) Hastings Rashdall, and in 1912 more of the _Opus Tertium_,
edited by Mr. A. G. Little. Meanwhile Robert Steele, who in 1905 had
edited a fragment of Bacon’s _Metaphysics_, began in 1912 to produce
the _Communia Naturalium_ in sections. Other scholars had announced
new or first editions of other treatises, mathematical, medical or
alchemistic, as in preparation, and the discovery of a complete copy of
the _Metaphysics_ in the Vatican Library had just been announced when
the world war broke out and temporarily stayed their publication.[2275]
Recently, however, Mr. Steele has published another volume containing
Bacon’s introduction to and version of _The Secret of Secrets_, in the
preface of which he says: “Medieval students will be glad to learn that
the publication of the whole of Bacon’s work now seems assured.”
[Sidenote: Continued over-estimate of Bacon.]
As Bacon’s works thus became more generally known and as standards of
historical criticism grew more strict, not only the facts of his life,
but his doctrines, point of view, and personal equation were more
carefully examined and analyzed, and previous exaggerated estimates
of him were questioned or toned down, although still repeated in some
quarters. Indeed, the very writer who rejects some one legend may hold
fast to the old view of Bacon in other respects. Especially hard to
down has been the notion that Roger Bacon stood almost alone in the
middle ages in his advocacy of natural science. Such was still the
impression given by otherwise excellent recent estimates of Bacon, such
as those in the Catholic Encyclopedia and in Henry Osborn Taylor’s
_The Medieval Mind_,[2276] and such was still the frame of mind in
which preparations were made at more than one great university to
celebrate in 1914 the seventh centennial of his birth--preparations
which resulted at Oxford in the publication of an important volume
of commemoration essays by fourteen scholars from various lands and
fields of learning, five of whom were editors of Bacon’s writings,
while others had previously published books or articles concerning him,
and still others were authors of general histories of the department of
learning to which they were now to estimate Bacon’s contributions or
relation.
[Sidenote: Beginnings of adverse criticism.]
Already, however, before the appearance of this volume Roger Bacon’s
pre-eminence and superiority to his times had been questioned from
more than one quarter. Father Mandonnet in his work on Siger de
Brabant and Latin Averroism affirmed that Bacon’s importance had been
over-estimated in many ways. While Charles had held that, if Bacon’s
scientific worth had been exaggerated, his value as a school-man had
been lost sight of, Mandonnet declared that as a philosopher and
theologian he was behind rather than in the forefront of his age.[2277]
Rashdall had asserted in 1911 that “Bacon was more the child of his age
than he imagined himself to be.”[2278] W. H. V. Reade in the _English
Historical Review_ for October, 1912,[2279] hoped “that it is not an
article of faith with the Society of Franciscan Studies to accept all
of Roger Bacon’s statements. As regards the state of knowledge among
his contemporaries, his assertions are often of no greater value than
the similar assertions of his distinguished namesake in a later age.”
The next year Mr. Reade spoke in the same periodical of “the usual
Baconian atmosphere, in which science and superstition are happily or
unhappily compounded.”[2280] In May, 1914, in my paper on “Roger Bacon
and Experimental Method in the Middle Ages,”[2281] I discussed what
his “experimental science” really amounted to, and showed that it was
representative of the science of his time rather than in revolt against
it.
[Sidenote: _The Commemoration Essays._]
When the Oxford _Roger Bacon Essays_ appeared, many of them were marked
by a sane and critical attitude, were restrained and scientific in
tone, and did not indulge in glowing but unsubstantiated eulogies of
the noted friar. Professor David Eugene Smith gave warning that “one
is liable to be led away by enthusiasm, when writing upon the occasion
of the seven hundredth anniversary of any great leader, to read into
his works what is not there, and to ascribe to him abilities which
he never possessed.”[2282] But this tendency both he and most of his
fellow essayists successfully resisted, and the main achievement of
the volume was to point out Roger’s indebtedness to others for some
of the ideas upon which his fame has rested and to note his mistakes
and superstitions, rather than to bring to light anything new to
his credit.[2283] It became evident that a careful examination of
those treatises by Bacon which had been recently edited or were in
preparation for publication, and of those which have recently been
brought to light in manuscript form or are still difficult of access in
old editions, was unlikely to add much to his stock of ideas as found
in the now well-known _Opus Maius_, _Opus Minus_ and _Opus Tertium_.
FOOTNOTES:
[2257] See Little’s lists of Bacon’s writings in the Appendix to the
_Roger Bacon Essays_.
[2258] _Ibid._, 396.
[2259] Or perhaps because of it, since “The famous historie of Fryer
Bacon” in prose takes two chapters word for word from the English
translation of “The Epistle concerning the secret works of nature and
the nullity of magic”--see Sandys, p. 365 in Little, _Essays_.
[2260] See J. E. Sandys, “Roger Bacon in English Literature,” in
Little, _Essays_.
[2261] Gabriel Naudé, _Apologie pour tous les grands personages qui ont
esté faussement soupçonnez de Magie_, Paris, 1625.
[2262] _Sanioris medicinae magistri D. Rogeri Baconis angli de arte
chymiae scripta_, etc., Frankfurt, 1603; reprinted 1620 as “_Thesaurus
Chemicus_,” etc.
[2263] By Combach, _Specula mathematica_, etc., Frankfurt, 1614.
[2264] Reprinted at Venice, 1750.
[2265] So in a MS of the 16-17th century at Cambridge, Trinity 1119,
fols. 56v-68v (ends incompletely) “Here followeth the first part of the
great work namely the experimental science of Roger Bacon written to
Clemens ye Pope.”
[2266] Ed. A. B. Gough, 1915, p. 14.
[2267] _Ibid._, p. 15.
[2268] Gough, 1915, p. 46.
[2269] P. Feret, “Les emprisonnements de Roger Bacon,” _Revue des
questions historiques_, vol. 50 (1891), pp. 119-42. See also the
article on “Roger Bacon” by Theophilus Witzel in the _Catholic
Encyclopedia_, whereas the eleventh edition of the _Britannica_ still
preserves the old legends.
[2270] So did Abbé Narbey twenty years later in his “Le moine Roger
Bacon et le mouvement scientifique au XIIIe siècle,” _Revue des
questions historiques_, vol. XXXV (1884), pp. 115-66.
[2271] An extreme instance was A. Parrot, _Roger Bacon et ses
contemporains_, Paris, 1894, in which the legend of the persecution
of Bacon was pushed to the last extreme of exaggeration and the
author regretted (p. 51) that the _Opus Tertium_ still remained
unprinted--thirty-five years after Brewer had edited it.
[2272] _Westminster Review_, vol. 81, pp. 12, 9, 241 and 252.
[2273] Vacant and Mangenot, _Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique_,
Paris, 1910, II, 31. It is hardly necessary to list these monographs
here; for bibliography of writings on Bacon see also CE, “Roger Bacon.”
[2274] _Essays_, 389. The phrase “_in hac epistola praeeunte_” which
Gasquet takes as a sign that the fragment is part of the _Opus Maius_,
occurs also in the _Opus Tertium_, cap. 1 (Brewer, 9).
[2275] Little, _Essays_ (1914), 376 and 407.
[2276] Taylor’s discussion of Bacon occurs in Vol. II, 483-508 of
the 1911 edition (2nd edition revised and enlarged, 1914). He goes
farther than the sources justify in some of his assertions concerning
Bacon’s life, though he is caution itself compared to some writers.
For instance, it cannot be shown that before 1266 Roger’s pursuit of
learning “had been obstructed by the Order of which he was an unhappy
and rebellious member”; nor that “he had evidently been forbidden to
write or spread his ideas; he had been disciplined at times with a diet
of bread and water.”
[2277] _Siger de Brabant et l’averroisme latin au XIIIe siècle_, 2nd
edition, 1908-10, I, 40, 244-48.
[2278] Rashdall, 3.
[2279] P. 810.
[2280] EHR, XXVIII, 805 (Oct., 1913).
[2281] _Philosophical Review_, XXIII, 271-98.
[2282] P. 182.
[2283] In articles published in 1915 (“Adelard of Bath and the
Continuity of Universal Nature” in _Nature_, XCIV, 616-17; “Roger Bacon
and Gunpowder,” in _Science_, XLII, 799-800) I disputed Professor
Duhem’s crediting Bacon with originating the theory of universal nature
and Colonel Hime’s ascribing to him the invention of gunpowder. In the
present work these articles will be found embodied in the chapter on
Adelard of Bath and in Appendix II to this chapter.
APPENDIX II
ROGER BACON AND GUNPOWDER
In his paper “Roger Bacon and Gunpowder” contributed to the _Roger
Bacon Commemoration Essays_, Colonel Hime tries to prove Roger Bacon
the inventor of gunpowder by the method employed to prove Francis Bacon
the author of Shakespeare’s plays--a cipher. Since other contributors
to the same volume refer favorably to this effort (Mr. A. G. Little,
p. 395, calls it an “ingenious explanation” and Mr. Patterson Muir, p.
301, says that “Colonel Hime establishes a large probability” in its
favor) it may be well to note some points against it quite apart from
the merits of the cipher itself.
In the first place, the cipher is based upon chapters of the _Epistola
de secretis operibus naturae et de nullitate magiae_ not found in the
early manuscript of that work and considered doubtful by Charles in
his work on Roger Bacon. Indeed, the opening phrases of two chapters
“Transactis annis Arabum sexcentis et duobus,” and “Annis Arabum 630
transactis” suggest their source.
Secondly, Roger Bacon openly alludes to gunpowder in 1267 in his
_Opus Tertium_ as already in common use in children’s toy explosives.
Therefore Colonel Hime has to date the _De secretis_ in 1248, and to
hold that Bacon was at that time “driven to employ cryptic methods by
fear of the Inquisition” (p. 334), but that by 1267 “Circumstances had
totally changed in the lapse of years; the composition of gunpowder ...
had been divulged, and the first use made of the deadly mixture was for
the amusement of children” (p. 321). This transition from fear of the
inquisition to child’s play might seem in itself a sufficient _reductio
ad absurdum_.
But is there any good reason for dating the _De secretis_ in 1248? Much
of it sounds like a brief popular compilation from Bacon’s three works
of 1266-7 concocted by some one else later; compare, for instance,
the first paragraph of the sixth chapter of the _De secretis_ with
Duhem, _Un fragment inédit de l’Opus Tertium_, 153-4, and Little,
_Part of the Opus Tertium_, 50-51. Charles considered the last five
chapters to be of dubious authenticity, and they are not found in the
oldest manuscript of the thirteenth century. The dedication of the _De
secretis_ to William, bishop of Paris, who died in 1249, occurs first
in the late edition of 1618 and has not been found by Little in any
manuscript.
Then the inquisition bug-a-boo is negligible. Has any one ever shown
that the inquisition punished a practical invention? It was not for
having invented the telescope that Galileo was persecuted. Moreover,
Galileo’s was an exceptional case, and it can not be shown that in the
thirteenth century the church persecuted men of science. Rather, popes
and prelates were their patrons. Finally the inquisition seems to have
been set up in England on only one occasion during the middle ages.
But even if we admit that Bacon wrote the _De secretis_ as we have it
in 1248 and was at that time afraid of the Inquisition, the question
remains: why in 1267-8, when mentioning the explosive in those works in
which he made such desperate efforts to secure the pope as his patron,
and boasted repeatedly of his own superiority to his contemporaries,
did he not claim the credit of the invention which he had set forth
in cipher twenty years before? The simple answer is: it was not his
invention.
One instance must be added to show how Colonel Hime misinterprets the
text of the _De secretis_ in his eagerness to smell powder everywhere.
He writes (p. 324): “Now, towards the end of Chap. X., Bacon speaks
without disguise of charcoal under the name of the wood from which it
is made, and mentions the two trees, hazel and willow, which give the
best. He significantly adds that when charcoal is added to proper
proportions of certain other substances, something noteworthy happens.
Since, then, charcoal is one of the subjects of these two chapters,
it becomes all the more probable that saltpeter forms another.” In
a note Hime adds the Latin of the passage in question: _Si vero
partes virgulti coryli aut salicis multarum justa rerum serie apte
ordinaveris, unionem naturalem servabunt: et hoc non tradas oblivioni,
quia valet ad multa_.
Let us note first that these last words do not mean, “something
noteworthy happens,” but “don’t forget this, because it’s valuable.”
Thus the true wording does not in the least suggest an explosion, as
Colonel Hime’s translation does. Rather it suggests if anything the
phraseology of mystical and magical works generally, like the closing
words of Thebit ben Corat’s treatise on Images, _Intellige quod exposui
tibi, et si queris ordinem invenies effectum ne dubites_. (Bodleian MS
463, fol. 77v, Explicit.) Secondly, the words _partes virgulti coryli
aut salicis_ probably do not denote charcoal but twigs or rods of hazel
or willow, as they do in Bacon’s account of the experiment performed by
magicians with a split hazel rod. It occurs both in the _Opus Maius_
(Bridges, II, 219) and _Opus Tertium_ (Little, 49-50; Duhem, 153); I
quote the latter. _Unde magici accipiunt virgas coruli et salicum, et
dividunt eas secundum longitudinem, et faciunt eas distare secundum
quantitatem palmae, et addunt carmina sua, et coniungunt partes divise;
sed non propter carmina, sed ex naturali proprietate._ (Wherefore
magicians take rods of hazel and willow, and divide them lengthwise,
and hold them the breadth of a palm apart, and add their charms, and
the divided parts come together; but not on account of the charms, but
from their very natures.) Moreover, we have already heard this matter
of the split hazel rod discussed by William of Auvergne, and noted that
it was repeated by Albertus Magnus and John of St. Amand, a medieval
writer about 1261, as well as by Bacon.
Thirdly, it is probably precisely this hazel-rod experiment to which
the writer of the passage quoted by Hime refers. _Multarum justa rerum
serie ordinaveris_ seems a hurried equivalent for the more specific
directions in the passages in the _Opus Maius_ and _Opus Tertium_, and
this bears out what I have already suggested, that the _De secretis_
may be in part at least a brief popular compilation from Bacon’s other
works. Finally, the phrase _unionem naturalem servabunt_ applies better
to the bending together in the middle of two halves of a split hazel
rod held apart at the ends than it does to a mixture of saltpeter,
charcoal and sulphur.
And now what becomes of Colonel Hime’s assertion, “Since therefore
charcoal is one of the subjects of these two chapters, it becomes all
the more probable that saltpeter forms another?” We may alter it to
read thus: since charcoal is not a subject of either of these chapters,
it becomes all the more improbable that a method of refining saltpeter
is disclosed in them in cipher.