which was immediately also confirmed by the former university, he took
the vows of a Franciscan in a convent possessed by that order at Oxford,
on the persuasion, it is said, of Robert Greathead or Grostete, bishop
of Lincoln, of whom we shall presently speak. It has been conjectured
that he had already done so before his return to Oxford, but this
appears to have arisen from his having been known to have resided in a
Franciscan convent while at Paris. From the time of his return, which is
stated to have been A.D. 1240, he applied himself closely to the study
of languages, as well as to experimental philosophy. In spite of the vow
of poverty, he does not appear to have wanted means, for he says himself
that in twenty years he spent 2000 livres (French) in books and
instruments; a very large sum in those days.
The vow of the Franciscans was poverty, manual labour, and study; but
the first two were soon abandoned. On this subject we notice a writing
of Bacon, of which (except in Dr. Jebb's list) we can find only one
casual notice (in Vossius, 'De Hist. Lat.' art. "Bacon.") It is said
that he answered a work of St. Bonaventure, general of his order, which
treated of the above-mentioned vow; but which side either party adopted
is not stated.
The enmity of his brethren soon began to show itself: the lectures
which he gave in the University were prohibited, as well as the
transmission of any of his writings beyond the walls of his convent. The
charge made against him was that of magic, which was then frequently
brought against those who studied the sciences, and particularly
chemistry. The ignorance of the clergy of that time as to mathematics or
physics was afterwards described by Anthony-a-Wood, who says that they
knew no property of the circle except that of keeping out the devil, and
thought the points of a triangle would wound religion. Brought up to
consider philosophy as nearly allied to, if not identical with, heresy
itself, many of them might perhaps be honest believers in its magical
power; but we can hardly doubt that there were a few more acute minds,
who saw that Roger Bacon was in reality endeavouring to evoke a spirit
whose influence would upset the power they had acquired over the
thoughts of men, and allow them to read and reflect, without fear of
excommunication, or the necessity of inquiring what Council had
authorized the book. Not that we mean to charge those minds in every
instance with desiring such power for their own private ends: there has
always been honest belief in the wickedness of knowledge, and it is not
extinct in our own day. The following detached passages of the 'Opus
Majus' no doubt contain opinions which its author was in the habit of
expressing:--
"Most students have no worthy exercise for their heads, and therefore
languish and stupefy upon bad translations, which lose them both time
and money. Appearances alone rule them, and they care not what they
know, but what they are thought to know by a senseless multitude.--There
are four principal stumbling-blocks in the way of arriving at
knowledge--authority, habit, appearances as they present themselves to
the vulgar eye, and concealment of ignorance combined with ostentation
of knowledge.--Even if the first three could be got over by some great
effort of reason, the fourth remains ready.--Men presume to teach before
they have learnt, and fall into so many errors, that the idle think
themselves happy in comparison; and hence both in science and in common
life we see a thousand falsehoods for one truth.--And this being the
case, we must not stick to what we hear and read, but must examine most
strictly the opinions of our ancestors, that we may add what is lacking,
and correct what is erroneous, but with all modesty and allowance.--We
must, with all our strength, prefer reason to custom, and the opinions
of the wise and good to the perceptions of the vulgar: and we must not
use the triple argument; that is to say, this has been laid down, this
has been usual, this has been common, therefore it is to be held by. For
the very opposite conclusion does much better follow from the premises.
And though the whole world be possessed by these causes of error, let us
freely hear opinions contrary to established usage."
As might be supposed, Roger Bacon cultivated the acquaintance of men who
held sentiments similar to the above, which could not please his
brethren. Among them we have mentioned Grostete, bishop of Lincoln, who
usually resided at Oxford. This prelate, who was a good mathematician,
and a resolute opponent of undue interference on the part of the see of
Rome (_terrificus papae redargutor_, says Camden), had opposed Innocent
IV., who attempted to appoint his nephew, a boy, to a prebend at
Lincoln. On being excommunicated, Grostete appealed from the tribunal of
Rome to that of Christ; and so prevalent was the opinion of his
antipathy to the pope, that a story is gravely told by Knyghton (cited
by Blount, 'Censura,' &c.), that the Bishop of Lincoln, after his death,
appeared to Innocent in a dream, and exclaiming "_Surge, miser, veni in
judicium!_" actually stabbed his Holiness, who was found dead next
morning. It is needless to say that Innocent IV. died a natural death,
and useless to speculate upon the means by which such a circumstance as
the preceding, if true, could come to be known. But perhaps the memory
of Grostete may have been one reason of the willingness with which
succeeding popes continued Bacon's imprisonment, to which we shall soon
come; for though they might hold his spirit guiltless of the death of
Innocent, they long remembered what he had done in the flesh; and when
Edward I. and the University of Oxford, long after, applied to Clement
V. for the canonization of Grostete, they received for answer that the
pope would rather his bones were thrown out of consecrated ground.
In the mean time a pope was elected, to whom we owe the production of
the 'Opus Majus.' This was Clement IV. (elected 1265), who had
previously, when cardinal-bishop of Sabina, been legate in England. Here
he had heard of Bacon's discoveries, and earnestly desired to see his
writings; but, as before stated, the prohibition of the Franciscans
prevented his wish being complied with. After his election as head of
the Church, Bacon, conceiving that there would be no danger nor
impropriety in disobeying his immediate superiors at the command of the
pope, wrote to him, stating that he was now ready to send him whatever
he wished for. The answer was a repetition of the former request; and
Bacon accordingly drew up the 'Opus Majus,' of which it may be presumed
he had the materials ready. It appears that he had mentioned the
circumstances in which he stood; for Clement's answer requires him to
send the work with haste, any command of his superiors or constitution
of his order notwithstanding, and also to point out, with all secrecy,
how the danger mentioned by him might be avoided. The book was sent in
the year 1267, by the hands of John of London, a pupil of whom he speaks
highly, and who has usually obtained some notice from the very great
praise which Bacon in one place appears to give him, when he says that
he only knows two good mathematicians, one of whom he calls John of
London. But from some other circumstances Dr. Jebb concludes, with great
probability, that this John was not the pupil above mentioned, but John
Peccam, a London Franciscan, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, who
was well known as a mathematician, and whose treatise on Optics,
'Perspectivae communis libri tres,' was printed at least six times
between 1542 and 1627, at Nuremberg, Venice, Paris, and Cologne.
Before the 'Opus Majus,' Bacon, according to his own account, had
written nothing except a few slight treatises, "capitula quaedam."
Before he took the vows he wrote nothing whatever; and afterwards, as he
says to Clement, he would have composed many books for his brother and
his friends, but when he despaired of ever being able to communicate
them, he neglected to write.
With the 'Opus Majus' he sent also two other works, the 'Opus Minus'
and the 'Opus Tertium,' the second a sort of abstract of the first, and
the third a supplement to it. These exist in manuscript in the Cottonian
Library, but have not been printed. It appears that, after the death of
Clement, which took place in November, 1268 (not 1271, as stated by
some; the latter date is that of the election of Clement's successor,
the see having been vacant two years and three-quarters), he revised and
augmented the second of these works. What reception Clement gave them is
not known: some say he was highly gratified, and provided for the
bearer; others, that he at least permitted an accusation of heresy
against the writer. Both stories are unlikely: for Clement could hardly
have received the work before he was seized with his last illness.
Till the year 1278 Bacon was allowed to remain free from open
persecution; but in that year Jerome of Ascoli, general of the
Franciscan order, afterwards pope, under the title of Nicholas IV.,
being appointed legate to the court of France, this was thought a proper
opportunity to commence proceedings. Bacon, then sixty-four years old,
was accordingly summoned to Paris (Dr. Jebb implies that he had already
removed his residence there, to another convent of his order), where a
council of Franciscans, with Jerome at their head, condemned his
writings, and committed him to close confinement. According to Bale, or
Balaeus (cited by Dr. Jebb), the charge of innovation was the pretext,
but of what kind was not specified: according to others, the writings of
Bacon upon astrology were the particular ground of accusation. We cannot
learn that any offer of pardon was made to the accused upon his
recantation of the obnoxious opinions, as usual in such cases; which, if
we may judge from the 'Opus Majus,' Bacon would have conceived himself
bound to accept, at least if he recognised the legality of the tribunal.
A confirmation of the proceeding was immediately obtained from the court
of Rome. During ten years, every effort made by him to procure his
enlargement was without success. The two succeeding pontiffs had short
and busy reigns; but on the accession of Jerome (Nicholas IV.), Bacon
once more tried to attract notice. He sent to that pope, it is said, a
treatise on the method of retarding the infirmities of old age, the only
consequence of which was increased rigour and closer confinement. But
that which was not to be obtained from the justice of the pope, was
conceded to private interest, and Bacon was at last restored to liberty
by the intercession of some powerful nobles, but who they were is not
mentioned. Some say he died in prison; but the best authorities unite in
stating that he returned to Oxford, where he wrote a compendium of
theology, and died some months, or perhaps a year and a half, after
Nicholas IV. (who died April, 1292). We have adopted 1292 from
Anthony-a-Wood, as the most probable year of his death, though foreign
works frequently state that he died in 1284. He was buried in the church
of the Franciscans at Oxford. The manuscripts which he left behind him
were immediately put under lock and key by the magic-fearing survivors
of his order, until, not so lucky as those of another wizard, Michael
Scott, they are said to have been eaten by insects.
Of the asserted works of Bacon there is a very large catalogue, cited
mostly from Bale and Pits, in the preface to Dr. Jebb's edition of the
'Opus Majus.' They amount to five on grammar, six on pure mathematics,
seventeen on mechanics and general physics, ten on optics, six on
geography, seven on astronomy, one on chronology, nine on chemistry and
alchemy, five on magic, eight on logic and metaphysics, nine on
medicine, six on theology, twelve miscellaneous; a hundred and one in
all. But it is most likely that the greater part of these were extracts
from the 'Opus Majus,' &c., with separate titles, that some are not
genuine, and that others are more properly attributable to the two other
Bacons already mentioned. The principal manuscripts of the 'Opus Majus'
are, one in Trinity College Library, Dublin, discovered by Dr. Jebb,
which forms the text of his edition, two in the Cottonian Library, one
in the Harleian, one in the library of Corpus Christi College,
Cambridge, one in that of Magdalen College, two in the King's Library,
all containing various parts of the work. These are independent of the
'Opus Minus' and 'Opus Tertium' in the Cottonian Library, already
mentioned, of some in Lambeth Palace, in the Bodleian Library at Oxford,
and a host of others at home and abroad which we cannot specify. The
Dublin manuscript is the only entire one with which Dr. Jebb was
acquainted. It is a folio of 249 leaves, beautifully written on thick
paper, with a good margin, and in double columns. It is not dated, but
from the character of the writing it is judged to be of the reign of
Henry VIII., or perhaps the early part of that of Elizabeth. The
geometrical figures are neatly drawn in the margin. Pope Clement's
letters are in the Vatican Library.
It only remains for us to take a general view of the character of Roger
Bacon's writings, and of the contents of the 'Opus Majus.' It is
surprising how little is known of this work, the only one in print to
which we can appeal, if we would show that philosophy was successfully
cultivated in an English university during the thirteenth century. It is
of course in Latin, but in Latin of so simple a character, that we know
of none in the middle ages more easy to read: and it forms a brilliant
exception to the stiff and barbarous style of that and succeeding times.
We think we see the thoughts of the author untranslated, though the
idiom is often that of an Anglo-Norman; by which we mean that we
frequently find Latin words used in their modern English sense, as, for
instance, _intendere_ for _in animo habere_, meaning the same as our
word to _intend_; _praesumere_ for _sibi arrogare_ in the sense of to
_presume_. We should perhaps rather say that the English words receive
their meaning from the corrupted Latin, and not _vice versa_, in which
case the work of Roger Bacon may become useful in tracing the change,
and the more so on account of the great simplicity of the style.
The charge of heresy appears to be by no means so well founded as a
Protestant would wish. Throughout the whole of his writings Bacon is a
strict Roman Catholic, that is, he expressly submits matters of opinion
to the authority of the Church, saying (Cott. MSS. cited by Jebb) that
if the respect due to the vicar of the Saviour, "vicarius Salvatoris,"
alone, and the benefit of the world, could be consulted in any other way
than by the progress of philosophy, he would not, under such impediments
as lay in his way, proceed with his undertaking for the whole church of
God, however much it might entreat or insist. His zeal for Christianity,
in its Latin or Western form, breaks out in every page; and all science
is considered with direct reference to theology, and not otherwise. But
at the same time, to the credit of his principles, considering the
book-burning, heretic-hunting age in which he lived, there is not a word
of any other force except that of persuasion. He takes care to have both
authority and reason for every proposition that he advances: perhaps,
indeed, he might have experienced forbearance at the hand of those who
were his persecutors, had he not so clearly made out prophets, apostles,
and fathers to have been partakers of his opinions. "But let not your
Serenity imagine," he says, "that I intend to excite the _clemency_ of
your Holiness, in order that the papal majesty should employ force
against weak authors and the multitude, or that my unworthy self should
raise any stumbling-block to study." Indeed the whole scope of the first
part of the work is to prove, from authority and from reason, that
philosophy and Christianity cannot disagree; a sentiment altogether of
his own revival, in an age in which all philosophers, and mathematicians
in particular, were considered as at best of dubious orthodoxy.
The reasoning of Bacon is generally directly dependent upon his
premises, which, though often wrong, seldom lead him to the prevailing
extreme of absurdity. Even his astrology and alchemy, those two great
blots upon his character, as they are usually called, are, when
considered by the side of a later age, harmless modifications,
irrational only because unproved, and neither impossible nor unworthy of
the investigation of a philosopher, in the absence of preceding
experiments. His astrology is _physical_. "With regard to human affairs,
true mathematicians do not presume to make certain, but consider how the
body is altered by the heavens, and the body being altered, the mind is
excited to public and private acts, free will existing all the same." An
age which is divided upon the question of the effect of the moon upon
lunatics, and of which the philosophers have collected no facts decisive
against many alleged effects of the same planet upon plants, can ask no
more of a philosopher of the thirteenth century than that he should not
be too positive. The fame of Leibnitz has not suffered from the
_pre-established harmony_ one half as much as that of Bacon from his
astrology and alchemy, which were believed in to a much greater extent
by many of the learned of his time, and the united effect of which would
seem to us sense and logic, compared with the metaphysical folly, all
his own, of the eminent philosopher just cited.
This planetary influence appears to have been firmly believed in by
Bacon, and in particular the effect of the constellations on the several
parts of the human body. Perhaps he was rather prejudiced in favour of a
doctrine which was condemned by the same men who thought mathematics and
philosophy savoured of heresy. And it must be remembered that the
pretended science was almost universally allowed existence, even by
those who considered its use unlawful; nor can we infer that the church
disbelieved it, because that body discouraged it, any more than that it
rejected infernal spirits, because it anathematized magic.
We must draw a wide distinction between the things which Bacon relates
as upon credible authority, and the opinions which he professes himself
to entertain from his own investigations. In almost every page we meet
with something now considered extremely absurd, and with reason. But
before the day of _printing_ there was very little _publishing_: a book
which was written in one country, found its way but slowly into others,
one copy at a time; and a man of learning seldom met those with whom he
could discuss the probability of any narrative. The adoption of the
principle that a story must be rejected because it is strange, would
then have amounted to a disbelief of all that had been written on
physics; a state of mind to which we cannot conceive any one of that age
bringing himself. Nor can we rightly decide what opinion to form of
Bacon as a philosopher, until we know how much he rejected, as well as
how much he believed. These remarks apply particularly to his alchemy:
he does not say he had made gold himself, but that others had asserted
themselves to have made it; and his account of the drink by which men
had lived hundreds of years is a relation taken from another. Voltaire,
in his Philosophical Dictionary, has overlooked this distinction, and
has much to say in consequence. It was, however, no very strange matter
that Bacon, who (if the 'Speculum Alchemiae' be really his, of which,
from the style, we doubt) believed with many others that sulphur and
mercury were the first principles of all bodies, should endeavour to
compound gold, or should give credit to the assertions of those who
professed to have done so. But there is not in Bacon's alchemy any
direction for the use of prayers, fasting, or planetary hours.
The great points by which Bacon is known are his reputed knowledge of
gunpowder and of the telescope. With regard to the former, it is not at
all clear that what we call gunpowder is intended, though some
detonating mixture, of which saltpetre is an ingredient, is spoken of as
commonly known. The passage is as follows:--
"Some things disturb the ear so much, that if they were made to happen
suddenly by night, and with sufficient skill, no city or army could bear
them. No noise of thunder could compare with them. Some things strike
terror on the sight, so that the flashes of the clouds are beyond
comparison less disturbing; works similar to which Gideon is thought to
have performed in the camp of the Midianites. And an instance we take
from a childish amusement, which exists in many parts of the world, to
wit, that with an instrument as large as the human thumb, by the
violence of the salt called saltpetre, so horrible a noise is made by
the rupture of so slight a thing as a bit of parchment, that it is
thought to exceed loud thunder, and the flash is stronger than the
brightest lightning."--_Opus Majus_, p. 474.
There are passages in the work 'De Secretis Operibus,' &c. (cited by
Hutton, 'Dictionary,' article "Gunpowder"), which expressly mention
sulphur, charcoal, and saltpetre as ingredients. But, independently of
the claim of the Chinese and Indians, there is an author, Marcus
Graecus, whose work, 'Liber Ignium' (now existing only in Latin
translations from the Greek), is cited by Dr. Jebb from a manuscript in
the possession of Dr. Mead, and who appears to have been considered by
both as older than Bacon. Dr. Hutton, into whose hands Dr. Mead's
manuscripts passed, found this writer mentioned by an Arabic physician
of the ninth century. Graecus gives the receipt for gunpowder, namely,
one part of sulphur, two of willow-charcoal, and six of saltpetre. Two
manuscript copies of Graecus were also found in the Royal Library of
Paris. But it does not appear that Graecus was known for a long time
after Bacon: even Tartaglia knew nothing of him; for he says, in his
work on Artillery, that the oldest writers known to him use equal parts
of the three ingredients.
With regard to the telescope, it must be admitted that Bacon had
_conceived_ the instrument, though there is no proof that he carried his
conception into practice, or _invented_ it. His words are these:--"We
can so shape transparent substances, and so arrange them with respect to
our sight and objects, that rays can be broken and bent as we please, so
that objects may be seen far off or near, under whatever angle we
please; and thus from an incredible distance we may read the smallest
letters, and number the grains of dust and sand, on account of the
greatness of the angle under which we see them; and we may manage so as
hardly to see bodies, when near to us, on account of the smallness of
the angle under which we cause them to be seen: for vision of this sort
is not a consequence of distance, except as that affects the magnitude
of the angle. And thus a boy may seem a giant, and a man a mountain,
&c." The above contains a true description of a telescope; but if Bacon
had constructed one, he would have found that there are impediments to
the indefinite increase of the magnifying power; and still more that a
boy does not appear a giant, but a boy at a smaller distance.
That the remarks of Bacon are derived from reflection and imagination
only, is further apparent from his asserting that a small army could be
made to appear very large, and that the sun and moon could be made to
descend, to all appearance, down below, and stand over the head of the
enemy. At the same time it is worth notice, that these ideas of Bacon
did, in after times, produce either the telescope, or some modification
of it, consisting in the magnifying of images produced by reflection,
and that before the date either of Jansen or Galileo. Thomas Digges, son
of Leonard Digges, in his 'Stratiotikos,' London, 1590, page 359 (second
edition, the first being 1579), thus speaks of what his father had done,
in the presence, as he asserts, of numerous living eye-witnesses:--