ROGER
115
ROGER
would be very interesting to review all the other rea-
sons adduced by Bacon proving the advantage or
even necessity of foreign languages for ecclesiastical,
social, and political purposes, or to follow his in-
vestigations into the physiological conditions of
language or into what might have been the original
one spoken by man. He distinguishes three degrees
of linguistic knowledge; theologians are not obliged to
reach the second degree, which would enable them to
translate a foreign text into their own language, or
the third one which is still more difficult of attain-
ment and which would enable them to speak this
language as their own. Nevertheless the difficulties
of reaching even the highest degree are not as in-
surmountable as is commonly supposed; it depends
only on the method followed by the master, and
as there are very few scholars who follow a sound
method, it is not to be wondered at that perfect knowl-
edge of foreign languages is so rarely found among
theologians (see "Opus Tertium", XX, Brewer, 64
eq.; "Compendium Studii phil.", VI, Brewer, 433
sq.). On this point, and in general of Roger's atti-
tude towards Biblical studies, see the present author's
article "De Fr. Roger Bacon ejusque sententia de
rebus biblicis" in "Archivum Franciscanum His-
toricum". III, Quaracchi, 1910, 3-22; 185-213.
Besides the languages there are other means, e. g. mathematics, optics, the experimental sciences, and moral philosophy, the study of which is absolutely necessary for every priest, as Bacon shows at length. He takes spe(;ial pains in applying these sciences to Holy Scripture and the dogmas of faith. These are pages so wonderful and evincing by their train of thought and the drawings inserted here and there such a knowledge of the subject matter, that we can easily understand modern scholars saj'ing that Bacon was born out of due time, or, with regard to the asserted imprisonment, that he belonged to that class of men who were crushed by the wheel of their time as they endeavoured to set it going more quickly. It is in these treatises (and other works of the same kind) that Bacon speaks of the reflection of hght, mirages, and burning-mirrors, of the diameters of the celestial bodies and their distances from one another, of their conjunction and eclipses; that he explains the laws of ebb and flow, proves the Julian Calendar to be wrong; he explains the composition and effects of gunpowder, discusses and affirms the po.ssibility of steam-vessels and aerostats, of microscopes and telescopes, and some other inventions made many centuries later. Subse- quent ages have done him more justice in recognizing his merits in the field of natural science. John Dee, for instance, who addressed (1.582) a memorial on the reformation of the calendar to Queen Elizabeth, speak- ing of those who had advocated this change, says: "None hath done it more earnestly, neither with bet- ter reason and skill, than hath a subject of this British Sceptre Royal done, named as some think David Dee of Radik, but otherwise and most commonly (upon his name altered at the alteration of state into friarly profession) called Roger Bacon: who at large wrote thereof divers treatises and discourses to Pope Clem- ent the Fifth [sic] about the year of our Lord, 1267. To whom he wrote and sent also great volumes ex- quisitely compiled of all sciences and singularities, philosophical and mathematical, as they might be available to the state of Christ his Catholic Church". Dee then remarks that Paul of Middleburg, in " Pauhna de recta Paschae celebratione", had made great use of Bacon's work: "His great volume is more than half thereof written (though not acknowledged) by such order and method generally and particularly as our Roger Bacon laid out for the handUng of the matter" (cited by Bridges, "Opus Majus", I, p. xxxiv).
Longer time was needed before Bacon's merits in the field of theological and philosophical sciences were acknowledged. Nowadays it is impossible to speak
or write about the methods and course of lectures in
ecclesiastical schools of the Middle Ages, or on the
efforts of revision and correction of the Latin Bible
made before the Council of Trent, or on the study of
Oriental languages urged by some scholars before the
Council of Vienne, without referring to the efforts
made by Bacon. In our own day, more thoroughly
than at the Council of Trent, measures are taken in
accordance with Bacon's demand that the further cor-
ruption of the Latin text of Holy Scripture .should be
prevented by the pope's authority, and that the most
scientific method should be applied to the restoration
of St. Jerome's version of the Vulgate. Much may
be accomplished even now by applying Bacon's prin-
ciples, viz.: (1) unity of action under authority; (2) a
thorough consultation of the most ancient manu-
scripts; (3) the study of Hebrew and Greek to help
where the best Latin manuscripts left room for doubt;
(4) a thorough knowledge of Latin grammar and con-
struction; (5) great care in distinguishing between St.
Jerome's readings and those of the more ancient ver-
sion (see "Opus Tertium", XXV, Brewer, 93 sq.;
Gasquet, "English Biblical Criticism in the Thirteenth
Century" in "The Dublin Review", CXX, 1898, 15).
But there are still some prejudices among learned men,
especially with regard to Bacon's orthodoxy and his
attitude towards Scholastic philosophy. It is true
that he speaks in terms not very flattering of the
Scholastics, and even of their leaders. His style is
not the ordinary Scholastic style proceeding by in-
ductions and syllogisms in the strictest form; he
speaks and writes fluently, clearly expressing his
thoughts as a modern scholar treating the same sub-
jects might write. But no one who studies his works
can deny that Bacon was thoroughly trained in Scho-
lastic philosophy. Like the other Scholastics, he
esteems Aristotle highlj^ while blaming the defective
Latin versions of his works and some of his views on
natural philosophy. Bacon is famihar with the sub-
jects under discussion, and it may be of interest to
note that in many cases he agrees with Duns Scotus
against other Scholastics, particularly regarding matter
and form and the intcllectus agens which he proves not
to be distinct substantially from the inleUectus possibilis
("Opus Majus", II, V; "Opus Tertium", XXIII).
It would be difficult to find any other scholar who shows such a profound knowledge of the Arabic phi- losophers as Bacon does. Here appears the aim of his philosophical works, to make Christian philosophy acquainted with the Arabic philosophers. He is an enemy only of the extravagances of Scholasticism, the subtleties and fruitless quarrels, to the neglect of matters much more useful or necessary and the exalta- tion of philosophy over theology. Far from being hostile to true philosophy, he bestows a lavish praise on it. None could delineate more clearly and con- vincingly than he, what ought to be the relation be- tween theology and philosophy, what profit they yield and what services they render to each other, how true philosophy is the best apology of Christian faith (see especially "Opus Majus", II and VII; "Compend. studii philos."). Bacon is sometimes not very correct in his expressions; there may even be some ideas that are dangerous or open to suspicion (e. g. his conviction that a real influence upon the human mind and liberty and on human fate is exerted by the celestial bodies etc.). But there is no real error in matters of faith, and Bacon repeatedly asks the reader not to confound his physics with divina- tion, his chemistry with alchemy, his astronomy with astrology; and certainly he submitted with all wilUng- ness his writings to the judgment of the Church. It is mo\'ing to note the reverence he displayed for the pope. Likewise he shows always the highest venera- tion towards the Fathers of the Church; and whilst his criticism often becomes violent when he blames the most eminent of his contemporaries, he never
