Chapter XXXV

., 1.

[605] A burning controversy between the Averroists and the orthodox schoolmen.

[606] This is the substance of Qu. lxxxix. Art. 1.

[607] _Pars prima_, Qu. xix. Art. 1.

[608] _Pars prima_, Qu. lxxxii. and lxxxiii.

[609] _Pars prima_, Qu. xx. 1.

[610] _Summa theol._, _Pars secunda secundae_, Qu. xvii. Art 8.

[611] _Pars secunda secundae_, Qu. xxiv. Art. 8.

[612] _Pars secunda secundae_, Qu. xxvi. Art. 4 and 5.

[613] _Pars prima secundae_, Qu. cix. _sqq._

[614] Another reading is _delectatio_, _i.e._ enjoyment.

[615] Bacon’s _Opus majus_ was edited in incomplete form by Jebb in 1733, and reprinted in 1750 at Venice. This edition is superseded by that of Bridges, in two volumes, published with the _Moralis philosophia_ and _Multiplicatio specierum_ by the Clarendon Press in 1897. The text of this edition had many errors, which have been corrected by a third volume published in 1900 by Williams and Norgate, who are now the publishers of the three volumes. In 1859 Brewer edited the _Opus tertium_, the _Opus minus_, and _Compendium philosophiae_ for the Master of the Rolls Series.

“An unpublished Fragment of a work by Roger Bacon” was discovered by F. A. Gasquet in the Vatican Library, and published in the _English Historical Review_ for July 1897. It appears to be a letter to Clement IV., written in 1267.

In 1861 appeared the excellent monograph by Émile Charles, entitled _Roger Bacon, sa vie, ses ouvrages, ses doctrines_. To this one still must turn for extracts from the _Compendium theologiae_, and the _Communia naturalium_. The last-named work, with the _Compendium philosophiae_ and the _Multiplicatio specierum_ (which appears not to be an intrinsic part of the _Opus majus_), may have been composed as parts of what was to be the writer’s _Opus principale_. Bacon’s _Greek Grammar_ has been edited by Nolan and Hirsch (Cambridge, 1902).

[616] _Opus tertium_, chap. xxv. p. 91 (Brewer’s text).

[617] _Opus tertium_, chap. xvii. (pp. 58-59, Brewer’s ed.).

[618] Brewer, _R. Bacon, Opera inedita_, p. 1.

[619] _Opus tertium_, pp. 7 and 8.

[620] In _Opus tertium_, chap. iii. (Brewer, p. 15), Bacon plainly tells the pope the difficulties in which he had been placed by this injunction of secrecy: “The first cause of delay came through those who are over me. Since you have written nothing to them in my excuse, and I could not reveal to them your secret, they insisted with unspeakable violence that I should obey their will; but I refused, because of the bond of your mandate, which bound me to your work, notwithstanding any order from my prelates. And, of a surety, as I was not excused by you, I met with obstacles too great and many to enumerate.... And another obstacle, enough to defeat the whole business, was the lack of funds.”

[621] These are, of course, the _Opus majus_, the _Opus minus_, and the _Opus tertium_; also the _Vatican Fragment_, the position of which is not quite clear; but it is part of the writings of this year, and constitutes apparently the introductory letter to Clement.

[622] The authority for this is the _Chronica XXIV., Generalium Ordinis Minorum_; see Bridges, vol. iii. p. 158.

[623] See _Op. tertium_, p. 26 _sqq._ (Brewer).

[624] _Opus majus_, pars ii. end of chap. v. and beginning of chap. vi. (Bridges, iii. p. 49); see _Op. tertium_ (Brewer), p. 81.

[625] _Op. maj._ pars ii. chap. xv. (Bridges, iii. p. 71).

[626] _Op. tertium_, p. 39.

[627] _Op. maj._ pars ii. (Bridges, iii. pp. 69-70). Cf. _ante_, p. 180.

[628] The reference seems to be to the _Ethics_ and _Politics_.

[629] _Compendium studii_, p. 424 (Brewer).

[630] _Op. tertium_, p. 14.

[631] _Op. tertium_, p. 30.

[632] _Compendium studii phil._, p. 429 (Brewer).

[633] _Ibid._ p. 398--written in 1271.

[634] I follow the paging of Bridges, vol. iii. These four causes of error are also given in _Opus tertium_, p. 69, _Compendium studii_, p. 414 (Brewer), and the Gasquet _Fragment_, p. 504.

[635] _Op. maj._ pp. 2 and 3.

[636] P. 322 _sqq._ (Brewer).

[637] _Opus tertium_, p. 102.

[638] _Ante_, p. 128.

[639] As, _e.g._ where he says that it would have been better for the Latins “that the wisdom of Aristotle should not have been translated, than to have been translated with such perverseness and obscurity.” _Compend. studii_, p. 469, (Brewer).

[640] See _Opus majus_, pars iii.

[641] _Opus majus_, Bridges, vol. i. p. 106.

[642] Commonly called “mathematica.”

[643] _Opus majus_ (Bridges, i. p. 253). Bacon goes into this matter elaborately.

[644] Cf. S. Vogl, _Die Physik Roger Bacos_ (Erlangen, 1906). Gives Bacon’s sources.

[645] _Opus minus_, pp. 367-371.

[646] _Opus majus_, pars v. dist. iii. (Bridges, ii. p. 159 _sqq._).

[647] A contemporary of Bacon named Witelo composed a _Perspectiva_ about 1270, following an Arab source; and a few years later a Dominican, Theodoric of Freiburg, was devoted to optics, and wrote on light, colour, and the rainbow. Baeumker, “Witelo, ein Philosoph und Naturforscher des XIII. Jahrh.” (_Beiträge, etc._, Münster, 1908); Krebs, “Meister Dietrich, sein Leben, etc.” (Baeumker’s _Beiträge_, 1906).

[648] With Bacon, _experientia_ does not always mean observation; and may mean either experience or experiment.

[649] See Charles, _Roger Bacon_, pp. 17-18.

[650] _Ante_, pp. 313-315. Duns Scotus puts clearly the double aspect of logic, which Albertus Magnus approached: “It should be understood that logic is to be considered in two ways. First, in so far as it is _docens_ (instructs, holds its own school): and from its own necessary and proper principles proceeds to necessary conclusions, and is therefore a science. Secondly, in so far as we use it, by applying it to those matters in which it is used: and then it is not a science” (_Super universalia Porphyrii_, Quaestrio i., Duns Scotus, _Opera_, t. i. p. 51).

[651] The two aspects of the experimental science appear in the following statement from the Gasquet _Fragment_: “The _antepenultima_ science is called experimental; and is the mistress of those which precede it; for it excels the others in three chief prerogatives. One is that all the sciences except this either use arguments alone to prove their conclusions, like the purely speculative sciences, or possess general and imperfect experiences. But only the perfect experience (_experientia perfecta_, _i.e._ the scientific experiment or observation), sets the mind at rest in the light of truth; which is certain and is proved in that part [of my work]. Wherefore it was necessary that there should be one science which should certify for us, all the magnificent truths of the other sciences, through the truth of experience, and this is that whereof I say that it is called _scientia experimentalis_ of its own right from the truth of experience (_per autonomasiam ab experienciae veritate_); and I show by the illustration of the rainbow and other things, how this prerogative is reserved to that science.

“The second prerogative is the dignity which relates to those chief truths which, although they are to be formulated (_nominandae_) in the terms (_vocabulis_) of the other sciences, yet the other sciences cannot furnish (_procurare_) them; and of this character are the prolongation of life through remedies to counteract the lack of a hygienic regimen from infancy, or constitutional debility inherited from parents who have not followed such a regimen. I shall show how it is possible thus to prolong life to the term set by God. But men, through neglecting the rules of health, pass quickly to old age, and die before reaching that term. The art of medicine is not able to furnish (_dare_) these remedies, nor does it; but it says they are possible (_sed fatetur ea possibilia_), and so experimental science has devised remedies known to the wisest men alone, by which the ills of old age are delayed, or are mitigated when they arrive.

“The third prerogative of this science belongs to it _secundum se et absolute_; for here it leaves the two ways already touched on, and addresses itself to all things which do not concern the other sciences, save that often it requires the service of the others. As a mistress it commands the others as servants ... and orders them to do its work, and furnish the wise instruments which it uses; as navigation directs the art of carpentry, to make a ship for it; and the military art directs the forger’s art to make it a breastplate and other arms. In like manner, this science [the experimental], as a mistress, directs geometry to make it a burning-glass, which shall set on fire things near or far, one of the most sublime wonders that can come to pass through geometry. So it commands the other sciences in all the wonderful and hidden things of nature and art” (pp. 510-511).

[652] _Opus tertium_, chap. xxviii.

[653] _Opus majus_, pars vi. 1 (Bridges, ii. p. 169).

[654] _Ibid._ p. 171. Doubtless the meaning of the above is connected with Bacon’s view of the Aristotelian _intellectus agens_, which he takes to signify the direct illumination of the mind of man by God. “All the wisdom of philosophy is revealed by God and given to the philosophers, and it is Himself that illuminates the minds of men in all wisdom. That which illuminates our minds is now called by the theologians _intellectus agens_. But my position is that this _intellectus agens_ is God _principaliter_, and secondarily, the angels, who illuminate us” (_Opus tertium_, p. 74; cf. _Op. majus_, pars i. chap. v.).

[655] _Compendium studii_ (Brewer), p. 397.

[656] _De secretis operibus artis et naturae, et de nullitate magiae_, p. 533 (Brewer). Cf. Charles, _Roger Bacon_, p. 296 _sqq._

[657] The most convenient edition of the works of Joannes Duns Scotus is that published by Vives, at Paris (1891 _sqq._) in twenty-six volumes. It is little more than a reprint of Wadding’s Edition.

[658] See Seeberg, _Die Theologie des Johannes Duns Scotus_ (Leipzig, 1900), p. 8 _sqq._, a work to which the following pages owe much.

[659] Grosseteste’s philosophical or theological works are still unpublished or very difficult of access; and there is no sufficient exposition of his doctrines.

[660] Seeberg, _o.c._ p. 16 _sqq._

[661] See De Wulf, _History of Medieval Philosophy_, p. 363 _sqq._

[662] See Seeberg, _o.c._ p. 34 _sqq._

[663] The kernel of Duns’s proof is contained in the following passage, which is rather simple in its Scotian Latin: “Dicendum, quod Universale est ens, quia sub ratione non entis, nihil intelligitur: quia intelligibile movet intellectum. Cum enim intellectus sit virtus passiva (per Aristotelem 3, de Anima, cont. 5 et inde saepe), non operatur, nisi moveatur ab objecto; non ens non potest movere aliquid ut objectum; quia movere est entis in actu; ergo nihil intelligitur sub ratione non entis. Quidquid autem intelligitur, intelligitur sub ratione Universalis: ergo illa ratio non est omnino non ens” (_Super universalia Porphyrii_, Quaestio iv.).

[664] Cf. the far from clear exposition in Seeberg, _o.c._ p. 86 _sqq._ and 660 _sqq._

[665] _Miscell. quaest._ 6, 18, cited by Seeberg, _o.c._ p. 114.

[666] The last two or three pages have been drawn mainly from Seeberg, _o.c._ p. 113 _sqq._ In discussing Duns Scotus, I have given less from his writings than has been my wont with other philosophers. And for two reasons. The first, as I frankly avow, is that I have read less of him than I have of his predecessors. With the exception of such a curious treatise as the (doubtful) Grammatica _speculativa_ (tome i. of the Paris edition); and the elementary, and comparatively lucid, _De rerum principio_ (tome iv. of the Paris edition)--with these exceptions Duns is to me unreadable. My second reason for omitting excerpts from his writings, is that I wished neither to misrepresent their quality, nor to cause my reader to lay down my book, which is heavy enough anyhow! If I selected lucid and simple extracts, they would give no idea of the intricacy and prolixity of Duns. His commentary on the _Sentences_ fills thirteen tomes of the Paris edition! No short and simple extract will illustrate _that_! On the other hand, I could not bring myself by lengthy or impossible quotations to vilify Duns. It is unjust to expose a man’s worst features, nakedly and alone, to those who do not know his better side and the conditions which partly explain the rest of him.

[667] _Quodlibetalia_, i. Qu. 14, cited by De Wulf, _o.c._ p. 422.

[668] _Expos. aurea_, cited by De Wulf, _o.c._ p. 423, whose exposition of Occam’s theory I have followed here.

[669] On Occam, see Seeberg’s article in Hauck’s _Encyclopaedia_; Siebeck, “Occams Erkenntnislehre, etc.,” in _Archiv für Ges. der Philosophie_, Bd. x., Neue Folge (1897).

[670] Quoted by Seeberg.

[671] De Wulf, _o.c._ p. 425.

[672] In view of the enormous literature upon Dante, popular as well as learned, it would be absurd to give any bibliographical, biographical or historical information as to his works, himself, or his Italian circumstances.

[673] _De mon._ ii. 3.

[674] _De mon._ ii. chaps. 4, 10, 12.

[675] _De mon._ iii. 4 _sqq._

[676] All this seems supported by _Conv._ i. 1, and ii. 13, the main explanatory chapters of the work.

[677] _Conv._ iii. 12.

[678] e.g. “_benigna volontade_,” _Par._ xv. 1.

[679] Cf. A. d’Ancona, _I Precursori di Dante_ (Florence, 1874); M. Dods, _Forerunners of Dante_ (Edinburgh, 1903); A. J. Butler, _Forerunners of Dante_ (Oxford, 1910); Hettinger, _Göttliche Komödie_, p. 79 (2nd ed., Freiburg im Breisgau, 1889). Mussafia, “Monumenti antichi di dialetti italiani,” _Sitzungsber. philos. hist. Classe_ (Vienna Academy), vol. 45, 1864, p. 136 _sqq._, gives two old Italian _descriptions_, one of the heavenly Jerusalem, the other of the infernal Babylon.

[680] 2 Cor. xii. 2; _Paradiso_, i. 73-75.

[681] _Ante_,