Note 2056 — II. His Criticism of and Part in Medieval Learning

Such seems to me the most plausible theory of the writing of the three works and the one which agrees best with Bacon’s own statements; but it is only a hypothesis from the printed texts of his works which should be verified by examination of the manuscripts. Probably some of Bacon’s statements can be interpreted to conflict with this hypothesis, but they sometimes conflict with each other, and he could not even keep the scriptum principale and Opus Maius distinct in his own mind according to Brewer’s text (p. 3, “duo transmisi genera scripturarum: quorum unum est principale,” and p. 5, “principalis scripturae,” whereas at p. 60 we read, “Patet igitur quod scriptum principale non potui mittere”). See also Gasquet, p. 503, and Opus Tertium, Brewer, p. 58. I have been stimulated by but cannot accept the conclusions of Father Mandonnet’s “Roger Bacon et la Composition des Trois ‘Opus’,” Revue Néo-Scolastique (Louvain, 1913), pp. 52-68 and 164-180. Mandonnet holds that the Opus Maius was written after the other two works, which were never finished nor sent, but from which Roger took some passages to insert in the Opus Maius, which Mandonnet believes was sent only in 1268.