[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.