43 



on closer examination. Certain words, also, such as the adjective 

 prcerogativus, are common to both writers. And there was much 

 in common in the aims of the two men. Both had great faith 

 in progress. Both recognised the close bond of alliance which 

 unites the several sciences. Both teachers insisted on the 

 importance of a closer study of Nature by observation and 

 experiment. But the resemblances are much greater in the 

 general spirit of the two than they are when their writings are 

 closely compared. Francis Bacon recognised and taught 

 emphatically the evils of mixing theology with science. Roger 

 Bacon continually insists on the theological form of the argument 

 from final causes, and makes constant appeal to Scriptural and 

 patristic literature in proof of physical facts. Had Francis 

 Bacon been acquainted with the Opus Majus, the frequent 

 examples of this form of unscientific method which occur therein 

 would almost certainly have elicited some note of censure. 

 Roger Bacon strove by teaching and by practice to set men 

 on to the investigation of Nature by Induction, but he never 

 attempted to formulate the rules of its employment, or to 

 distinguish the processes by which general laws of Nature are 

 arrived at through successive generalisations from the data of 

 observation. Francis Bacon, on the other hand, did aim at doing 

 for the philosophy of discovery what had been already done by 

 Aristotle for the philosophy of argument. In this respect no 

 amount of credit which Roger Bacon may deservedly receive for 

 his work can impair the reputation of the author of the Novum 

 Organon. The distinctive doctrines of the Novum Organon 

 were not borrowed from the work of Roger Bacon, because they 

 were not there to borrow. 



There is, however, no doubt that if we compare the two 

 Bacons as men of Science, we must rank the old friar above the 

 Lord Chancellor. While Francis Bacon does not shew a close 

 personal acquaintance with the sciences of his day, Roger Bacon 

 on the other hand was evidently himself a thoroughly trained 

 scientific worker, familiar with the use of astronomical apparatus 

 and of astronomical and other numerical data. 



We may keep a niche in the Temple of Science for the figure 

 of the old friar who was the first in the line of modern physicists, 

 and although his own generation rejected him we may recognise 

 his voice across the intervening centuries as that of a true herald 

 of the present age of Science. 



