Cornell Aniversity Libvaey

BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE

SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND

THE GIFT OF Henry W. Saqe

1891

1924 021 600 7

Sou Oaaotiay

Library

The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text.

https://archive.org/details/cu31924021600790

THE GREEK GRAMMAR

OF

ROGER BACON

London: C. J. CLAY anp SONS, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, AVE MARIA LANE.

Glasgow: 50, WELLINGTON STREET.

DLeipsig: F. A. BROCKHAUS. few Work: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, Bombay anv Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., Lp.

[All Rights reserved]

THE GREEK GRAMMAR

ROGER BACON

AND A

FRAGMENT OF HIS HEBREW GRAMMAR

EDITED FROM THE MSS WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES

BY THE REV. EDMOND NOLAN, B.A TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE AND

S. A. HIRSCH, Ps.D.

ow THEOLOGICAL TUTOR AT THE JEws’ COLLEGE, LONDON

CAMBRIDGE: AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

1902 N

Cambridge :

PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

HENRICO JACKSON Luirtt.D. GRATO ANIMO

EDMUNDUS NOLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE PREFACE - ‘3 P 3 a . : i ix ERRATA e . P : « J F xii INTRODUCTION . F i a é : . . : xiii I. AUTHORSHIP OF THE OXFORD GRAMMAR . : i : xiii External evidence 3 a : is - < é xiii a. Tradition . 5 5 é 5 3 : e 3 xiii 6. Bacon’s expressed intention of writing a Greek grammar . x , 5 5 ¥ s x xiii Internal evidence. Parallel passages . z : xiv a. Large passages . ‘: - - 3 3 d xiv 6. Illustrative examples . : : : xv References to Hebrew . . é - 4 . xvi Inferiority of Latins . % xvii Bishops ignorant of Greek . : ; xvili References to French . : , ‘i é 2 xvili Greek teachers. Itacism ; : A : xix Boethius, Bede, Grosseteste . F 7 : xxi Hugutio, Papias, Brito, Neckham . : xxii Independence of judgment. Priscian . . xxili Philology. Language and Idiom . . XXV Grammar in its relation to Physical Science aad Astrology . , * 3 s : . xxviii Difference in tone. Boasting z : : xxix II. AUTHORSHIP OF THE CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENT : i XXxi III. RELATIONS OF THE CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENT TO THE OXFORD GRAMMAR . ; é a . -XXxiv IV. GREEK SCHOLARSHIP IN ENGLAND AT THE TIME OF ROGER BACON . $ 5 . * ; * » Xxxvili The early Middle Ages > os : i eee XXKIX Subsequent centuries. Causes of neglect . , : : xl

First attempts in the Twelfth Century : . : xlii

viii

VIL

CONTENTS.

The Thirteenth Century

Insufficiency of Teachers. Want of Bedks

Bacon’s estimate of amount of linguistic knowledge attain- able 5

Daniel de Morlai .

John de Basingstoke :

Adam Marsh. Thomas Wallensis

Michael Scot

Robert Grosseteste

Homo Sapientissimus ; William de Mara

Roger Bacon’s Greek grammar .

HEBREW IN ENGLAND AT THE TIME OF ROGER BACON

DESCRIPTION OF THE MANUSCRIPTS

The Oxford MS. (A)

Contents of the MS.

University College and Douai MSS. The Cambridge MS. (B and C) Latinity, spelling, style

Letters, numerals .

Consecration of Churches

The proper name Omnes

The Canons of Theodosius . Sicilian origin of Greek MSS.

An inexplicable passage. : .

(A.) OXFORD GREEK GRAMMAR

(B.) CAMBRIDGE GREEK GRAMMAR.

(C.) CAMBRIDGE HEBREW GRAMMAR

PREFACE.

I N his article on Roger Bacon in the Dictionary of National

Bugraphy, Professor Adamson says “It is much to be desired that a more thorough and detailed study of the known manuscripts and a more extensive search for others which doubtless exist should be undertaken. Some portions are in a condition suitable for publication and it is well-nigh an obligation resting on English scholars to continue the good work begun by the late Professor Brewer. Bacon’s works possess much historical value, for his vigorous thinking and pronounced scientific inclinations are not to be regarded as abnormal and isolated phenomena. He represents one current of thought and work in the middle ages which must have run strongly though obscurely, and without a thorough comprehension of his position our conceptions of an important century are incomplete and erroneous.”

But this interest in the serious work of Friar Roger Bacon is of comparatively modern date. His Opus Majus was not printed until 1733, and of the fifty works enumerated by Little in Zhe Grey Friars in Oxford not more than eight seem to have been printed. The works of Emile Charles, Brewer and Bridges are all of the latter half of the nineteenth century.

As is well known a certain portion of the Opus Majus, of the Opus Minus, of the Opus Tertium and of the Compendium Studit, is devoted to the subject of “Grammar” and contains

@5

x PREFACE.

occasional critical remarks on the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture. But heretofore none of the works which Bacon expressly wrote on Grammar have been printed.

Reason is shown in the Introduction for accepting the statement—(by a Jater hand)—in the MS. Greek Grammar at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, that Roger Bacon was its author. Of this MS. only a few lines have been published by Brewer, Charles, and Bridges, and quite lately three or four pages were communicated by Heiberg in the Byzantenische Zettschrift. This MS., under the title of the Oxford Greek Grammar (A), forms the body of the present volume.

While working at it I was fortunate enough to light upon a MS. fragment of a Greek Grammar in the University Library at Cambridge which is here printed as the Cambridge Greek Grammar (B), and in the same codex a fragment of a Hebrew Grammar here printed as the Cambridge Hebrew Grammar (C). On examination I came to the conclusion that (B) also must be assigned to Bacon. And Dr S. A. Hirsch, who is a Hebraist and a far better Baconian scholar than I am, pronounced the Hebrew fragment to be of the same authorship.

Dr Hirsch was at that very time occupied on a paper on “Early English Hebraists,” since published in the /ezwish Quarterly Review, October 1899, and finding this work so germane to that in which he was himself engaged, he agreed to collaborate with me. In the result, while I am responsible for the text and notes of the Greek Grammars and Section VI. of the Introduction, Dr Hirsch edited the Hebrew Grammar and contributed Sections I—V. of the Introduction, in which sections my only share was to place at his disposal some notes and some knowledge of the literature of the subject acquired in editing the text,

PREFACE, xi

It may be worth while to draw the attention of students of Bacon’s works to the questions raised in the Introduction as to whether the Toulouse MS. and the Parcionarium” in the College of Arms are also to be attributed to him.

My thanks are due in the first place to the President and Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, who twice, for a lengthened period, lent their MS. to the Cambridge University Library for my use and gave me permission to print it. In particular I am grateful to their Librarian, the Rev. C. Plummer, for his personal kindness. I am especially indebted to Dr M. R. James for his advice throughout, and for calling my attention to the Arundel MS. Ix. at the College of Arms; and to him and to the University Librarian, Mr F.J. H. Jenkinson, for assistance in deciphering the MS. in many passages. I wish also to express my gratitude to Dr Rendel Harris for reading the proofs of the Introduction and for making many valuable suggestions.

I acknowledge with much pleasure the help given us by Mr Alfred Rogers of the University Library and the generosity of the Syndics of the University Press in under- taking to publish the work.

E. N.

TRINITY COLLEGE, June 1, 1902.

oo Sot AS NS! a

EP RATA.

. 14, for stannum vead scamnum, cf. p. 207

. 30, n. I, for exutatur read exsiccatur

. 40, n. 5, for cf. p. 95 n. 3 vead cf. p. 95, n. 4

- 71, for fucimilus read furcimilus

. 131, for Adeo...adiungitur vead Adeo...adiungitur”

INTRODUCTION.

I.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE OXFORD GRAMMAR.

External evidence.

(a) Tradition.

Although the manuscript did not originally display Roger Bacon’s name as the author of the Greek grammar, we are in a position to ascribe it unhesitatingly to that scholar. As to external evidence, it must be remembered that Bacon’s authorship has never been doubted. A Greek grammar appears in all the lists of Bacon’s works ; it is, therefore, clear that the compilers of such lists must have known it to be his, either traditionally, or from some other copies of the work which may have been extant, and which may have borne his name. There is a consensus of opinion on this point, which, although not conclusive, is yet of sufficient weight, if cor- roborated by internal evidence.

(6) Bacon’s expressed intention of writing a Greek gram- mar.

Bacon repeatedly expressed his intention of writing a Greek grammar. In the Opus Tertium, xx. p. 65, he declares himself to be able to teach languages to any willing and apt student, provided that he first composed some grammatical treatise (dummodo composuissem primo quiddam scriptum

Missing Page

Missing Page

xvi INTRODUCTION.

Oxford Grammar: p. 81 the names of the Beast = Compendium

vi. p. 437.

p. 92 Orichalcum, with the quotations from Horace and Virgil= Opus Minus p.385, Compendium vii. p. 453.

p. 107 Conopeum, mausoleum, theloneum, quoting Juvenal and Lucan = Opus Tertium \xiii. p. 258.

p. 131 nichil, michi= Opus Tertium \xi. Pp. 245.

The above instances, if not exhaustive, suffice to show the similarity, both in method and subject-matter, subsisting between our grammar and corresponding passages in Bacon’s other works. There is, in fact, hardly a passage in the former that has not its parallel, and frequently almost in the same words, in the latter. There are, however, some other points that arrest our attention, and tend to point to Roger Bacon as the author of the Oxford Grammar.

References to Hebrew.

We know how severe was Bacon’s condemnation of the scholars and clergy of his time because of their ignorance of Greek and Hebrew. He is never tired of pointing out the amount of injury done to the spread of knowledge, and to the Church, in consequence of the utter neglect of these languages. He frequently reminds his readers that all science was originally revealed to the ancient Hebrews, from whom it descended to the Egyptians and the Greeks. The Latins had not themselves originated a single branch of learning... prima tradita (philosophia) est principaliter et complete in lingua Hebraea” (Opus Tertium, x. p. 32). “Et non fuit (philosophia) ab aliis tradita, nec unquam apud Latinos facta”

1 Ct. 5. A. Hirsch, “Early English Hebraists: Roger Bacon and his pre- decessors”; in the Jewish Quarterly Review, 1899, vol. xii. pp. 51 sqq-

INTRODUCTION, xvii

(267d. viii. p. 24)...“ Latini nullum textum composuerunt, scilicet, neque theologiae neque philosophiae...manifestum est neces- sarium fore Latinis, ut si volunt puro, et sano, et efficaci sapientiae liquore potari, quod in fonte Hebraici sermonis, et Graeci, et Arabici, tanquam in primitivis vasis, discant sapientiam exhaurire” (Compendium Studit Philosophiae, vii. p. 465 sq.). He urges, therefore, the study of Hebrew and Greek, as being indispensable to the spread of true knowledge, to the preparation of accurate translations of the works of the ancients, to the purification of the text of the Bible, and for the better understanding and observance of the rites of the Church. He himself always combines the study of these two languages, and it is doubtful: whether any one among his contemporaries had the capacity of drawing illustrations from both of them, in the way Bacon is in the habit of doing.

The Oxford grammar being the fragment of a special treatise on the rudiments of the Greek language, there is less occasion for Bacon to allude to Hebrew than in his other works, which were composed with quite a different object. Nevertheless, we find here also stray allusions to Hebrew. Thus, on page 4, we read: “ut a in Latino, alpha in Graeco, aleph in Hebraeo”; on p. 91: “una glossa...non est vera, sicut multae aliae super bibliam, quae non sunt sanctorum, sed eorum qui nescierunt Graecum nec Hebraeum.”

I[nferiority of Latins.

The low esteem in which he holds Latin wisdom, as compared with that of the ancients, finds also occasional expression in these pages. Thus, in reference to the names of the letters of the Alphabet, he says: “Et quia Latini brevius dicunt, ideo melius, nec mirum si in hoc mutaverunt modum Graecum, quia posteriores fuerunt et potuerunt in hoc corrigere Graecos. Utinam correxissent quaedam alia, vel saltem a Graecorum sapientia non errassent” (p. 4). “Sed in hoc et aliis Latini, ignorantes Graecum, corrumpunt

Xviil INTRODUCTION.

sonum Graecum” (p. 8). “Volo igitur potestatem Graecae grammaticae plenius exponere, et praecipue illud scribam, quo magis Latinos estimo indigere” (p. 26). “Sed Latini, ignorantes Graecum, scribunt ipsum (ypsilum) in Latinis...” (p. 60). Any one, who is even superficially acquainted with Bacon’s views on these matters, will recognize in such expres- sions the true Baconian ring.

Bishops ignorant of Greek.

In three passages of our grammar (pp. 25, 81, 83) a complaint is made in almost the same terms (“hoc non fit sine iniuria sacramenti,” “quod fit iniuria sacramentorum divinorum,” et ideo istae figurae non possunt scribi in con- secrationibus sine iniuria sacramenti”), as to the injury arising from the faulty performance of a certain rite of the Church. The bishop, when consecrating a church, is required to write with his staff the Greek alphabet in sand; but the bishops, not knowing Greek, mistake the signs denoting figures, for letters, and write these as well. The same mistake, and other errors of a similar nature in reference to sacraments and consecrations, are complained of by Bacon in the Opus Mazus (iii. vol. 1, p. 94 Bridges), and the same ex- pression found in our grammar, “quod esse non potest sine injuria sacramenti,” is used there.

References to French,

For the purpose of illustration Bacon refers occasionally to the Norman French of his time, and in his description of the Hebrew Alphabet he explains the shape of some letters by the terms uverte, dreite, close, and torte (vide infra p. 203). We have already noted his remark about D’Orliens, which occurs in our grammar and in the Compendium Stud. Phil. In the Opus Mazus (iii. vol. 1, p. 77 Bridges) we read: “Nam satis innotescit in Gallico, Unde cum dicitur Parisius Lz reds

INTRODUCTION. xix

vent, iste articulus 4 designat proprium et verum talis loci, quasi regis Franciae. Et non sufficeret hoc ut denotaret adventum regis Angliae. Nullus enim diceret de rege Angliae veniente Parisius Li reis vent, sed adjungeret aliud dicens, Li reis de Engleterre vent.” We have in our grammar two parallel passages ; one on p. 13: “et lingua Gallica habet eos ut /% /e /a,” and another on p. 157: “sicut diceretur in Gallico 4 rots in nominativo, et de di rots in genitivo.”

Greek teachers. Ttacism.

It would not be surprising if the grammatical rules of the Greek language, as laid down in this grammar, accorded with those given in Bacon’s other works, even if the former were from a different hand, for the rules of accidence, however differently worded and arranged, are substantially the same. But it so happens that Bacon’s individuality is stamped even on such stereotyped precepts. Bacon’s knowledge of Greek was for the most part derived from Greeks, in the same way as he owed his knowledge of Hebrew to Jews. This mode of studying Greek presented no difficulty to him, for there were then numbers of Greeks in England, France, and Italy. He advised students to visit the last-named country on account of this, for there were many places there where the clergy and the population were purely Greek, and it would be worth while to go there for information. “Et sunt multi (Graeci) in Anglia et Francia qui hic satis instructi sunt. Nec multum esset pro tanta utilitate ire in Italiam in qua clerus et populus sunt pure Graeci in multis locis ; et episco- patus et archiepiscopatus, et divites ac seniores possent ibi mittere pro libris, et pro uno vel pluribus qui scirent Grae- cum; sicut dominus Robertus, sanctus episcopus Lincolni- ensis, solebat facere” (Comp. Stud. Phil. vi. p. 434; cf. Opus Tertium, p. 33). We meet with the same remark in our grammar (p. 31): “nam in regno Siciliae multae ecclesiae

xX INTRODUCTION.

Graecorum et populi multi sunt qui veri Graeci sunt et Graecas antiquitates observant.”

The employment of Greeks as teachers had the same con- sequence in Bacon’s case, as it had, two centuries after, in that of Reuchlin ; they adopted the pronunciation of Greek which was used by their teachers, a style which has since received the name of /tacism, in distinction from the H¢actsm intro- duced by Erasmus. The transliteration of the Greek Alphabet in the third part of the Opus Majus, and several remarks in that work and in the Compendium Studii Philosophiae, sufficiently prove this. The scheme of transliteration as given in our grammar tends altogether in the same direction, and the author, although acquainted with the other system of pronunciation, consciously prefers the one imparted to him by the modern Greeks, “Habent autem duo é¢ secundum Priscianum... Quapropter secundum Priscianum cum ad differenciam e brevis inventa est zfa, videtur quod Graeci debeant uti hac litera z#a pro e longo et ideo Latini hanc vocant e¢a. Sed Graeci moderni vocant z¢a et sonant z non é...” (pp. 31, 32)!. It is unnecessary to pile up examples from the Greek grammar in illustration of this fact. The chapters on the Alphabet and the transliteration of certain Greek passages prove it in every case.

Further indications of the identity of authorship are found in the fact that everywhere the same sources are drawn from, the same authors are either blamed or praised, the same system of grammatical exposition is adhered to,and the same broadness of philological comprehensiveness is noticed.

1 Cf. Toulouse MS. quoted by Samuel Berger, Quam notitiam linguae Hebraicae habuerint Christiani medii aevi temporibus in Gallia, Paris, 1893, p.37. ‘* Secunda littera graeca dcfa, set grece vita vocatum, et habet sonum z, et quod Greci vocant zta Priscianus nominat efa.”

INTRODUCTION. xxi

Boethius, Bede, Grosseteste.

The veneration Bacon felt for Boethius, Bede, and Grosse- teste was unbounded, and testimony is borne to this not less by our Grammar than by Bacon’s other works. He eulogizes Boethius, because “Solus Boethius scivit linguas omnes” (Op. Tertium x. p. 33): “Solus Boethius primus interpres novit plenarie potestatem linguarum (Op. Majus, iii. vol. 1, p. 67 Bridges): and we read in our grammar (p. 29): “Sed Boethius maioris auctoritatis est et in linguis et in scienciis.”

Bacon alludes to Bede as being “literatissimus in gram- matica et linguis in originali” (Opus Minus, p. 332), and, in our grammar, we read (p. 41): Nemini inter Latinos poetas nec doctores grammaticae possumus venerabilem Bedam postponere, cum sit sanctus Dei et antiquior (sce) Prisciano et longe literatior tam in divinis quam in humanis.” In this, as in the other cases, instances might be multiplied.

Thus it would be superfluous to quote every instance in which Bacon bestows praise on his revered Robert Grosse- teste, Bishop of Lincoln. He is never tired of singing the latter's praises as scholar, zealous churchman, propagator of learning, in the cause of which he had made great sacrifices. “Et solus dominus Robertus, dictus Grossum Caput, novit scientias” (Opus Majus, iii. vol. 1, p. 67 Bridges, cf. Opus Tertium, x. p. 33, Xxv. p. 91). “Dominus vero Robertus episcopus Lincolniensis et frater Adam de Marisco, majores clerici de mundo, et perfecti in sapientia divina et humana” (Opus Tertium, xxiii. p. 75).

Entirely in accordance with this we read in our grammar (p. 118) “...sicut dominus Robertus sanctae memoriae, quondam episcopus Lincolniensis, doctor famosissimus, ex- posuit in suis commentariis super libros Dionysii et corrigit ceteros translatores.”

N.

xxii INTRODUCTION.

Hugutio, Papias, Brito, Neckham.

On the other hand, Bacon gives free vent to the contempt he felt for a certain class of scholars, who, indeed, enjoyed great reputation, but who were, in his estimation, incapable in every respect. Hugutio, Papias, Brito, et hoc genus omne, are everywhere treated in a very cavalier manner. Hugutio et Brito errant horribiliter” (Comp. Stud. Phil. vii. p. 460). “Brito mendax” (zb¢d. 487). “Papias et Hugutio et Brito mendaces, quorum mendaciis vulgus opprimitur Latinorum,” etc. (207d. 447). “Cum igitur Brito tenet unum sensum tantum et Papias alium, et alii similiter, non distinguentes de scriptura istorum diversa, nec exponentes quid veri vel quid falsi sit hic, manifestum est eos penitus vitiosos” (Comp. Stud. Phil. vii. p. 459). And in our grammar we read: “Hugutionem vero et Papiam non recipio nisi ubi alii con- firmant eos, quia in pluribus erronei sunt, quia nescierunt Graecum. Et Britonem in tractatu suo de vocalibus gram- maticis nolo sequi in aliquo, quia ubique errat, vel dubia dicit, vel vana, vel probationes legitimas non affert sui capitis stultitia obstinatus” (p. 37). “Unde fere omnia quae dicunt hic Hugutio et Brito et alii multi falsa sunt...sed Beda veri- tatem docet...” (p. 92). “Et ideo Hugutio mendax et Brito mendacior mentiuntur quando volunt excusare omnes autores per licentiam poetriae” (p. 98). Such examples could be multiplied, but those given here suffice to corroborate Bacon’s authorship of our grammar.

Bacon refers in the Compendium Studit Philosophiae (vii. p. 454) to Alexander Neckham in the following terms: “Sed non probat (Brito) hoc nisi quod inducit Alexandrum Nec- quam pro testimonio, qui fuit similis ei in falsitatibus”; and (p. 457): “Errat igitur Brito cum suo Alexandro Necquam. Hic Alexander in multis vera et utilia scripsit, sed tamen inter auctores non potest, non debet, justo titulo numerari”;

INTRODUCTION. xxiii

and in our grammar he applies to that writer a somewhat cheap pun, hackneyed enough in those days, which Neckham had even applied to himself: “et erravit cum eo Alexander Nequam qui in hac parte nequitia usus est” (p. 106).

Independence of judgment. Priscian.

It has already been observed, that a mere similitude in the way in which grammatical rules are expressed in two different works cannot serve as a criterion for an identity of authorship. But in our case there is so much of what must be termed typically Baconian in the manner Grammar is treated both here and in his recognised works, that any other as- sumption than that the remarks emanated from Bacon himself is excluded.

Priscian is the author from whom Bacon derived the greater part of his grammatical rules. His name ever occurs as the main source from which most of the rules are drawn. As in the linguistic portions of the Opus Majus, the Opus Lertium, and the Compendium, Priscian is constantly quoted, so also his name appears in the present work on almost every page. But, at the same time, Bacon always thinks for him- self. Whilst fully recognizing Priscian’s authority, he does not hesitate to point out his errors, observing that the classical authors themselves must be consulted, and that the verdict arrived at from the instances found in their works must be decisive even against Priscian. A striking example is offered by a passage in the Opus Tertium (\xi. p. 245 sq.). The question is whether mz occurs only as the vocative of meus, as Priscian avers, or whether it is also a dative of ego, and we read: Quod autem Priscianus dicit quod ei non placet quod sit dativi casus, non est vis de hoc. Non enim semper imitandus est, licet ut in pluribus. Unde hic dicit quod antiqui dixerunt quod mz fuit dativi casus. Sed antiquis magis credendum est quam ei qui compilator est magis quam auctor. Solum enim recitat aliena, et aliquando placuit ei

b2

XXiV INTRODUCTION.

opinio una, aliquando alia...Et ne stupefiamus propter verbum Prisciani in hoc loco, considerandum est, quod Priscianus non solum secutus est opiniones, quae ei placuerunt, sed ali- quando, licet raro, manifeste erravit, et falsum imposuit auctoribus...qui Servius est major Prisciano, quoniam saepe adducit eum Priscianus pro auctore.”

Compare with this the passage in the Oxford grammar (p. 131) dealing with the same subject: “Sed Priscianus vult quod mz sit solum vocativi casus et hoc in masculino genere, unde dicit in libro de pronomine haec verba de m7: ‘Adeo autem masculinus est hic vocativus possessivi et non genitivus vel dativus primitivi per syncopam, quod quibusdam videtur, quod nunquam vocative positum feminino vel neutro adjun- gitur.” Sensus igitur Prisciani in hoc verbo principalis esse videtur, quod licet aliquibus videatur quod mz quando est dativus vel genitivus possit addi feminino vel neutro, ut si diceretur fila mi, tamen in vocativo non posset hoc dici, scilicet ita, quod mz sit vocativus. Quod si aliquis contendat quod Priscianus, praeter hoc quod negat vocativum md adjungi feminino vel neutro, velit quod non habeat pro dativo casu vel genitivo, adhuc non obstat quoniam hoc non diceret nisi secundum opinionem suam quia confitetur ibi alios dixisse contrarium. Quod si major auctoritas et fortior ad propositum inducatur quod Servius dicit...dicimus quod secundum opinionem suam loquitur, cum et ibi velit alios aliter sensisse.” The collation of these two passages offers a positive proof that both proceeded from the same pen. They also tend to show that even in the exposition of the most elementary grammatical rules, Bacon’s individuality and independence of judgment are amply vindicated. This is further confirmed by a comparison of the methods applied by him, both here and in his other works, in regard to such subjects as accentuation, prosody, metre and rhythm.

INTRODUCTION. XXV

Philology—Language and Idiom.

“Bacon possessed the true philological instinct ; he had a keen perception of the connection subsisting between the various dialects belonging to. groups of languages. At a time when that study was as yet entirely unknown in Europe, Bacon speculated upon the kinship of languages, and we need not be surprised that he extended the idea beyond its proper limits. He meditated on the origin of all languages, on the primitive language, on the language spoken by Adam and the way in which he found names for things. He ponders on what would happen if children were to grow up in a desert ; whether they would have intercourse by speech, and how they would give expression to their mutual feelings when meeting in such circumstances. He considered such inquiries to form a part of grammar, and of no other discipline, and thinks them indispensable alike to theology, philosophy, and all other branches of wisdom?”...“ et multa intermiscui difficilia, ut lingua prima Adae et qualiter dedit nomina rebus ; et an pueri in deserto nutriti aliqua lingua per se uterentur, et si obviarent sibi invicem quomodo mutuos indicarent affectus ; et multa alia quae non possum modo ex- plicare. Unde reputo hanc partem grammaticae summe necessariam theologiae, et philosophiae, et toti sapientiae. Et probo quod sit pars grammaticae et non alterius scientiae” (Opus Tertium xxvii. p. 101).

The result he arrives at is laid down in our grammar (p. 27), namely, that there is a universal grammar, that the grammar of all languages is the same in substance, and that the differences are merely accidental...... “srammatica una et eadem est secundum substantiam in omnibus linguis, licet accidentaliter varietur.’ When reading a sentence like this we must not lose sight of the fact that it proceeded from the philosopher Bacon, who uses the terms “substantia” and

1§. A. Hirsch, Zarly English Hebraists, etc. lc. p. 65.

Xxvi INTRODUCTION.

“accidens” in the precise philosophical sense he attaches to them.

Bacon states his object in writing a grammatical com- pendium to be his desire to be useful to the Latins” in their manifold requirements of theology, philosophy, and science ; and he is at particular pains to point out that Latin and Greek, as languages, form the centre of a group of dialects which all of them have either the one or the other for their common mother, and that Latin itself was derived from Greek.

He consequently draws a distinct line between a “language” and a “dialect.” He says in the Opus Tertium (xxv. p. 88 ):...necesse est Latinos habere tractatum brevem et utilem de linguis alienis quo utantur, et quae debet esse prima pars grammaticae, quia totum studium Latinorum dependet a linguis alienis et etiam ipsa lingua Latina”; and. (p. 90): “idioma est proprietas alicujus linguae distincta ab alia, ut Picardicum, et Gallicum, et Provinciale, et omnia idiomata a finibus Apuliae usque ad fines Hispaniae. Nam _ lingua Latina est in his omnibus una et eadem, secundum substantiam, sed variata est secundum idiomata diversa.” In the Compendium Studii Philosophiae (vi. p. 438) he says: Chaldaeus enim sermo et Hebraeus differunt sicut idiomata unius linguae, ut Picardicum, et Normandicum, Burgundicum, Parisiense, et Gallicum, una enim lingua est omnium, scilicet Gallicana, sed tamen in diversis partibus diversificantur acci- dentaliter ; quae diversitas facit idiomata, non linguas diversas, Nam id:ov Graece est proprium Latine, a quo idioma, id est, proprietas loquendi in aliqua lingua; sicut in lingua Galli- cana, quae est una, sunt multae diversitates seu idiomata; ut Picardicum, Normanicum, Burgundicum, et Parisiense, et hujusmodi, secundum quod est varietas regionum.” Similarly in the Opus Majus (iii. vol. 1, p. 66 Bridges): “Et primum est Grammatica in linguis alienis exposita, ex quibus emanavit sapientia Latinorum. Impossibile enim est quod Latini perveniant ad ea quae necessaria sunt in divinis et

INTRODUCTION. XXvii

humanis, nisi notitiam habeant aliarum linguarum, nec per- ficietur eis sapientia absolute, nec relate ad ecclesiam Dei neque reliqua tria praenominata...Nam et idiomata ejusdem linguae variantur apud diversos, sicut patet de lingua Gallicana, quae apud Gallicos et Picardos et Normanos et Burgundos multiplici variatur idiomate.”

In our grammar, Bacon harps on the same string. His principal object in writing his grammar is, to be useful to the “Latins,” and, in this connection, he points out the difference between “language and “idiom” (pp. 26, 27). Volo igitur potestatem Graecae grammaticae plenius exponere et prae- cipue illud scribam, quo magis Latinos estimo indigere...Ideo in primis notandum quod quinque et sex fuerunt idiomata Graecae linguae. Idioma enim est proprietas linguae deter- minata, qua una gens utitur juxta suam consuetudinem. Et alia gens eiusdem linguae utitur alio idiomate. J/dzon enim Graece est proprium Latine, a quo idioma, hoc est proprietas. ...In lingua enim Latina quae una est sunt multa idiomata. Substantia enim ipsius linguae consistit in his in quibus com- municant clerici et literati omnes. Idiomata vero sunt multa secundum multitudinem nationum utentium hac lingua. Quia aliter in multis pronuntiant et scribunt Italici, et aliter Hispani, et aliter Gallici, et aliter Teutonici, et aliter Anglici et ceteri. Sic igitur fuit apud Graecos una lingua secundum substantiam sed multae proprietates. Natura igituripsius linguae Graecae consistit quantum ad ea in quibus omnes nationes Graecae communicabant et haec vocatur communia. Alia fuerunt specialia quatuor famosa scilicet Atticum, Aeolicum, Doricum, lIonicum. Athenienses usi sunt Attico et alii aliis et diver- santur, ut exemplariter loquar, sicut Burgundicum, Picar- dicum, et Normanicum, et multa alia quae sunt idiomata ejusdem linguae, scilicet Gallicae.” After further considera- tion of the subject, Bacon concludes: Et in hac comparatione Grammaticae Graecae ad Latinam non solum est necessitas propter intelligendam Grammaticam Graecam, sed omnino

XXViil INTRODUCTION.

necessarium est ad intelligentiam Latinae Grammaticae, propter quam principaliter componitur hic tractatus.”

Grammar in its relation to Physical Science and Astrology.

Although Bacon thus considers the question of the primitive language as a part of grammar as a discipline, he does not include in the latter the investigation of either the physical or metaphysical causes, which produce sound and voice. He draws a distinct line of demarcation between grammar, in its wider sense, and science, and maintains that the study of the former must precede that of the latter. “Notitia linguarum est prima porta sapientiae” (Opus Tertium, xxviii. p. 102). “Quia cum grammatica sit prima scientiarum in via doctrinae, non potest discipulus in gram- matica intelligere proprietates scientiarum posteriorum quae adhuc sunt ei ignotiores quam grammatica” (Oxford Gram- mar, p. 57). The latter passage occurs in our grammar in a controversy against a pseudo-Aristotelian treatise on gram- mar, and Bacon inveighs against the author’s error, in going beyond his subject, and introducing matter which properly belongs to natural philosophy, metaphysics, or music. This is quite in accordance with one of Bacon’s general maxims, enunciated elsewhere :— ...“ tractatus sufficiens debet habere septem conditiones...Iterum, tertio, quod propria ad quamlibet materiam de qua est sermo, non quod confundantur naturalia cum metaphysicis, et sic de allis” (Opus Tertium, xvi. p. 57).

There is, however, one expression in this polemical passage, which seems, at first sight, to contradict what Bacon says in another place. He blames the author of the treatise for discussing the influence of the celestial bodies upon the generation of voice and sound. “Demitto igitur multa gran- disona quae in generatione soni et vocis ascribit luci celesti et ceteris virtutibus celestium corporum, quia alibi reprobata sunt, nec posset ista grammaticus estimare” (p. 58). This seems to be at variance with Bacon’s opinion as expressed

INTRODUCTION. XxXix

in the Opus Tertium (xxvi. 97): “Tertia alteratio venit a coelesti operatione. Nam coelestes dispositiones ad omnem horam alterant haec inferiora ; et opera quae fiunt hic inferius variantur secundum diversitatem coelestium constellationum... Et ideo in hora prolationis vocis aér figuratus per vocem recipit coelestem virtutem, et alteratur secundum eam, et alterat res.” But the contradiction is only apparent. For, in our grammar, Bacon blames the unknown author, in the first place, for drawing such speculations within the scope of grammar ; and, secondly, Bacon does not declare that the celestial bodies could not possibly exercise any such in- fluences as the pseudo-Aristotle ascribes to them; he only avers that the latter’s particular views on the subject are erroneous, and refuted elsewhere. Besides, in the Opus Tertium, Bacon does not refer to the generation, or modi- fication, of sound and voice by the influence of the con- stellations, in regard to the formation of words, but to their effects upon the things designated by the words after these are spoken. Difference in tone. Boasting.

There is indeed a difference between the tone prevalent in our grammar and that assumed all along in the Opus Tertium, and the Compendium Studii Philosophiae. The acerbity of expression in his allusions to the ignorance and errors of his predecessors, and of contemporary scholars, is considerably softened down. His criticisms are, indeed, strongly worded, but they do not rise to the impassioned invective we meet with in the two works named. But this may also be said of the Opus Majus. We miss in our grammar those bursts of indignation which are particularly virulent in the Opus Tertium. The latter is also full of boasts of superior linguistic, philosophical, and_ scientific knowledge, which we look for in vain in the present treatise. Bacon has been upbraided with never having let an oppor- tunity pass by of exhibiting his acquaintance with some

XXX INTRODUCTION.

Greek or Hebrew word, and the circumstance is represented as if it emanated from sheer vanity. The reproach is not deserved. Whenever Bacon boasts of himself, he is never an idle boaster. Of the three Ofera, only one was to be considered in the light of a Scriptum Principale, (“ Vestrae Sapientiae magnitudini duo transmisi genera scripturarum quorum unum est principale,” Og. Zert. i. p. 2.) The Opus Tertium. was only meant to be izxtroductorium. It is one sustained apology in more than one sense. He defends the necessity of writing on such subjects as those with which he deals, he advocates the study of philosophy, science, and languages; he vindicates his own hardihood in undertaking a task which is arduous, and was sure to be considered as an audacious innovation. He had to give his reasons for the necessity of again discussing subjects to which, it was believed, justice had already sufficiently been done by pre- vious authors, and he was compelled to prove his competency of improving upon his predecessors.

The same may be said of the Compendium Studii Philosophiae, in which there prevails the selfsame harshness of judgment, though less of the boasting. It was also meant to be merely introductory, which, in Bacon’s particular case, is, to a great extent, equivalent to apologetic,” in the sense indicated. “Quatuor sunt consideranda circa sapientiam quae volo ad praesens in summa et sub compendio quasi introductionis modo tangere, donec opportunitas major accidat ut explicentur singula in particulari, et in propria disciplina” (Comp. Stud. Phil. i. p. 393).

The Opus Majus contains hardly any boasting, and even the condemnation of predecessors and contemporary scholars is milder in tone. But even that work is composed in the form of a sustained apologetical address to Pope Clement IV. In our grammar, however, which answers to the description given in the passage alluded to, which belongs to the class in which “explicantur singula in particulari, et in propria dis-

INTRODUCTION. XxXXi

ciplina,” it is natural that there is a total absence of boasting, and just the amount of virulence that was considered justified in disproving obvious errors. It is the tone which will be found to obtain in those purely scientific works of Bacon, which are as yet extant only in manuscript.

Bacon himself was fully aware that the acerbity of his invective was extreme, and that his boasting might be mis- construed ; he was himself averse to such methods, but in view of the important interests at stake, he sacrificed his better nature, and only thought of the objects he wished to attain. “Quoniam si verba excessive laudis vel vituperii aliquotiens vestra reperiet magnificentia, sciatis quod res ipsae de quibus est intentio haec requirit et hoc ex serie tractatus lucide declaratur...Si etiam verba aliquando grandia inseram non est mirum, quia rerum gravitas de quibus agitur haec deposcit, unde non ex presumptione nec ex insolentia sic loquor, sed me cogit conscientia propter veritatem et ne videar de rebus nimis eximiis presumere, dico quod, quia intendo placere Deo et eius vicario ideo ex certa conscientia et scienter hic invigilo.”

II.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE CAMBRIDGE FRAGMENT,

Bacon’s authorship of the Oxford Greek grammar having thus been established, it now remains to be considered what relationship the Cambridge Greek Grammar (pp. 183—196) bears to the same. The fragment has never been assigned to any author, but Bacon’s claims appear to be indisputable.

This is shown, in the first instance, by its connection with a fragment on Hebrew grammar, which precedes it, and

1 Dom F. A. Gasquet. ‘‘An unpublished fragment of a work by Roger Bacon,” in the English Historical Review, vol. xii, 1897, p. 503-

XXXil INTRODUCTION.

about which there can be no doubt that it is a work of Bacon’s (cf. pp. 199-—208). The line “Incipit Alphabetum Graecum follows the Hebrew Alphabet on the same sheet, and remarks on Greek grammar are interwoven in the rules on Hebrew orthography, in such a manner as, at that time, only Bacon was capable of. There are also, after the same style, allusions to Hebrew in the Greek part: “Sed Latini corrumpunt hoc et sonant v vocalem, sed nec Graecus, nec Hebraeus, sonat sic hanc literam” (p. 187, cf. p. 88). “Sciendum quod Graeci et Hebraei computant per literas” (p. 194). We have here, as elsewhere, an allusion to French: “Et distinguit casus, genera, et numeros, sicut in Gallico / lela” (p. 187). The phraseology and the illustrative examples are similar to those in the Oxford grammar, and in other works of Bacon. The complaint about the ignorance of the Greek Alphabet displayed by bishops when consecrating churches, occurs in the Cambridge fragment, almost in the same terms as in the Oxford grammar and the Opus Majus. “Nam episcopus debet scribere alphabeti Graeci literas cum cuspide baculi pastoralis in sabulo etc...Sed omnes episcopi qui nesciunt Graecum estimant quod illae tres notae numerorum sunt literae. Et hoc vile est tantae auctoritati eorum et indignum sacramento” (p. 195). The figure 666, in reference to the name of the Beast, is discussed here (p. 194), in the Oxford Grammar (p. 81), and in the Compendium Studti Philosophiae (vi. 437).

The transliteration of Greek words, as given in this frag- ment, shows again that the author’s pronunciation was according to J¢tacism. A comparison of the remarks on vowels and diphthongs, as given in the Oxford grammar, with those of the Cambridge fragment, will show that they pro- ceeded from the same hand. The reading lessons both here and in the larger fragment are the Pater and the Ave; these were probably followed in the former by those pieces that are given in the latter.

INTRODUCTION. Xx xiii

The pronunciation of the word eicevéyxns is explained in the Oxford grammar thus: “et cum scribitur evceveryens sonatur isenengis et non isenenkis, et non sonatur gamma in sono proprio sed in loco zy. Et similiter in hoc eodem ex- emplo kappa amittit sonum suum in gamma” (p. 48). Bacon says in reference to the same word in the Comp. Stud. Phil. (ix. 505): “Similiter cum antecedit kappa, ut ecevéyens, nam Graecus dicit zsexengis, et mutat gamma in wz, quia kappa sequitur...Et similiter in hoc eodem exemplo kappa amittit suum sonum et convertitur in gamma.” Our Cambridge fragment says, almost in the same words: “Sed sonant isenengis, propter euphoniam, quando enim kappa sequitur gamma, retinet sonum de gamma, et gamma habet sonum de ni” (p. 196).

Another striking proof of Bacon’s authorship of the Cam- bridge fragment is the observation occurring on pp. I9!, 192. Jeronimus saepe ponit in prologis, Zerap/a, et dativum casum hexaplois, ab aplun quod est simplex, sive ab apla quae sunt simplicia, et ab hex quod est sex, quia sex simplicia contine- bantur in illo codice; scilicet ipse textus Hebraeus in una columna, et tunc quinque translationes factae in Graeco de Hebraeo in singulis columnis, ut translationes Aquilae, Sym- machi, Theodotionis, LXX interpretum, et sexta translatio ignoti auctoris, quam invenit Origenes absconditam.” This description of the Hexapla would be quite superfluous here, were it not that Bacon, when in need of an illustration, re- membered what he had written on the subject when discussing the various versions of the Scriptures, taking at the same time the opportunity of