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]
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
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.
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.
[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.”