1 Roger Bacon, The Opus Majus of Roger Bacon (trans. Robert Bell Burke; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1928) 407. Henceforth cited as “Burke, Opus maius.” When necessary I will use the Latin edition, which is Roger Bacon, The “Opus Majus” of Roger Bacon (ed. John Henry Bridges; Oxford: Clarendon, 1897), cited as “Bridges, Opus maius.”

2 The epistle is in Roger Bacon, Opera Quaedam Hactenus Inedita (ed. J. S. Brewer; London: Longman, Green, Longman, 1859) 1.

3 The letter is in F. A. Gasquet, “An Unpublished Fragment of a Work by Roger Bacon,” English Historical Review 12:47 (1897) 494–517. A reference to Antichrist comes early in the letter, on page 498. Some additional discussion of the fragment is found in Stewart Easton, Roger Bacon and His Search for a Universal Science (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952; repr., Bridgeport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1970) 145–47. An identical passage is in the Opus tertium, though slightly later in the preamble. Roger Bacon, Opus tertium in Opera Quaedam Hactenus Inedita, 8. Henceforth cited as Brewer, Opus tertium.

4 See especially David Burr, The Spiritual Franciscans (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001) and idem, Olivi's Peaceable Kingdom (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993), as well as Malcolm Lambert, Franciscan Poverty (St. Bonaventure, N.Y.: Franciscan Institute, St. Bonaventure University, 1998).

5 Brett Whalen, Dominion of God: Christendom and the Apocalypse in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2009) 192. Scholars have noted the apocalyptic tenor of Bacon's work for three-quarters of a century. The claim made by A. G. Little in 1943, that Bacon shared the belief of Antichrist's imminent arrival in the world but “was not content to accept it as merely inevitable,” aptly describes Bacon's attitude. A. G. Little, Franciscan Papers, Lists, and Documents (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1943) 91. More recent scholars, including Bernard McGinn, Richard Emmerson, Brett Whalen, and Davide Bigalli, also have shed light on various aspects of Bacon's apocalyptic program, especially his contribution to the Pastor angelicus legend and his designation of the Tatars as an apocalyptic enemy. Bernard McGinn, “‘Pastor Angelicus’: Apocalyptic Myth and Political Hope in the Fourteenth Century,” in Santi e santità nel secolo XIV: Atti del XV Convegno Internazionale, Assisi, 15–16–17 ottobre 1987. Società internazionale di studi francescani. Convegno internazionale (15th:1987:Assisi, Italy) (Perugia: Università degli studi di Perugia, Centro di Studi Francescani, 1989) 219–54; Richard Emmerson, Antichrist in the Middle Ages (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1981); Bernard McGinn, Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000); Davide Bigalli, I Tartari e l'apocalisse: Ricerche sull'escatologia in Adamo Marsh e Ruggero Bacone (Firenze: La nuova Italia Editrice, 1971).

6 Amanda Power, “A Mirror for Every Age: The Reputation of Roger Bacon,” English Historical Review 121, no. 492 (June 2006) 657–92, at 692. There are two exceptions to this trend. Leah DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy, and the End of Time (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009); Mark T. Abate, “Roger Bacon and the Rage of Antichrist: The Apocalypse of a Thirteenth Century Natural Philosopher” (Ph.D. diss., Boston University, 2000).

7 Though scholars often translate scientia experimentalis as “experimental science,” this is a particularly troublesome translation as I discuss below.

8 DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy, esp. 79–89.

9 Robert Bartlett, The Natural and Supernatural in the Middle Ages (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 121–22.

10 Jeremiah Hackett, “Roger Bacon on Scientia experimentalis,” in Roger Bacon and the Sciences (ed. idem; New York: Brill, 1997) 277–316, esp. 290, 295, 312–14; Burke, Opus maius, 586–87.

11 McGinn, Antichrist: Two Thousand Years, 144.

12 The following description is adapted from Emmerson, Antichrist in the Middle Ages, 79–107, to which I am indebted, though in the course of summarizing I omit much of the discussion. The close parallels between Emmerson's description and that presented by Adso of Montier-en-Der (ca. 910–92) in his Libellus de Antichristo, one of the principle sources for the Antichrist legend, can be found in Adso of Montier-en-Der, Essay on Antichrist (Libellus de Antichristo) in The Play of Antichrist (ed. and trans. John Wright; Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1967) 102–10. Adso synthesized biblical exegesis with a number of eastern legends, such as Pseudo-Methodius and the Tiburtine Sybills, to form a single coherent picture of Antichrist. He says of the work, “The source of my information is not my own imagination or invention; rather, I found all this in written works after much research.” Adso of Montier-en-Der, Essay on Antichrist, 102.

13 Elijah was carried to heaven by a fiery chariot (2 Kgs 2:11). Enoch's fate was similar, but put in more vague terms, namely, that he did not die, but “God took him away [tulit eum Deus],” (Vulg. Gen 5:24), a statement echoed in the New Testament (Heb 11:5).

14 Bacon mentions Joachim in his own work, notably in his Opus maius and the Compendium Studii Philosophiae. I discuss both examples below. Bigalli outlines Joachim's influence among English friars including Adam Marsh and Robert Grosseteste in I Tartari e l'apocalisse, 105–15.

15 There are a number of exceptional studies on Joachim of Fiore and Joachism. See Marjorie Reeves, Joachim of Fiore and the Prophetic Future: A Medieval Study in Historical Thinking (rev. ed.; Stroud, U.K.: Sutton, 1999); idem, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages: A Study in Joachism (2d ed.; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993); Bernard McGinn, The Calabrian Abbot: Joachim of Fiore in the History of Western Thought (New York: Macmillan, 1985).

16 McGinn, Antichrist: Two Thousand Years, 153.

17 Reeves, Influence of Prophecy, 145–49.

18 Ibid., 242–50.

19 Bale, a former Carmelite converted to the beliefs of Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon, used Joachite exegesis of Revelation to reinterpret the history of English heretics, such as John Wyclif, and the Lollard John Oldcastle, as forerunners of Protestantism. Bale's Joachite works include The first two partes of the Actes or vnchaste examples of the Englyshe votaryes … (London: John Tysdale, 1560), “The Image of Both Churches,” in Select Works of John Bale (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1849; repr., New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1968) 249–640, and “The Examination and Death of Lord Cobham,” in Select Works of John Bale, 1–60. For discussion of Bale, see Katherine R. Firth, The Apocalyptic Tradition in Reformation Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979); Leslie P. Fairfield, John Bale, Mythmaker for the English Reformation (West Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University Press, 1976); Reeves, Joachim of Fiore, 82–85, 255–56..

20 Rupert of Deutz (1075–1129), writing a generation before Joachim, also posited a three- and sevenfold view of salvation history based on his reading of the Apocalypse, though he made no prophecy of a third status, and the tenor of Rupert's work was “much more ecclesiological than eschatological.” See John Van Engen, Rupert of Deutz (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983) 275–82. Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179), a contemporary of Joachim's, also conceived of history as trinitarian in structure, and, like Rupert, used her apocalyptic visions to comment on current ecclesiological and political issues. Nor did Hildegard hold a notion of a third status. See Beverly Mayne Kienzle, Hildegard of Bingen and Her Gospel Homilies (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009) 157, 163–97. For a discussion of the uniqueness of Joachim's conception of a new status, see below.

21 For instance, Joachim characterizes the first status as the era when “the order of the married shone forth” (claruit ordo coniugatorum); “the order of clerics” (ordo clericorum) represents the second, and “the order of monks” (ordo monachorum) the third. E. Randolph Daniel and Joachim of Fiore, Liber de Concordia Noui ac Veteris Testamenti, in Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. 73 (1983) 1–455, at 405–6. Cited henceforth as Joachim of Fiore, Liber de Concordia.

22 Ibid. 405–6.

23 Some discussion of the scheme presented above can be found in Reeves, Joachim of Fiore,.29–55.

24 Ibid., 7.

25 For a discussion of Joachim's patterns, see ibid., 8–9.

26 “It is known that there are many Antichrists [Constet … multos esse antichristos].” Joachim of Fiore, Expositio in Apocalypsim (Venice, 1527; repr., Frankfurt: Minerva, 1964) f. 10r, col. i; McGinn, Antichrist: Two Thousand Years, 136; idem, Calabrian Abbot, 110–11; Robert E. Lerner, “Antichrists and Antichrist in Joachim of Fiore,” Speculum 60 (1985) 553–70, at 559–63.

27 “[S]eptimus rex qui proprie dicitur Antichristus.” See the representation of the figura in McGinn, Calabrian Abbot, 111.

28 Joachim of Fiore, Expositio in Apocalypsim, f. 10r, cols. i–ii.

29 “Gog ultimus Antichristus,” quoted in McGinn, Calabrian Abbot, 111. This term from the figurae is echoed in Joachim of Fiore, Expositio in Apocalypsim, f. 10r, col. i.

30 McGinn, Antichrist: Two Thousand Years, 140–41.

31 Ibid., 139; Joachim of Fiore, Expositio in Apocalypsim, f. 11v, col. i.

32 McGinn, Antichrist: Two Thousand Years, 141.

33 Joachim does use Enoch and Elijah to describe the spiritual men. Expositio in Apocalypsim, ff. 137r–139v, 146v–150v, esp. f. 149r, col. ii. (The passages glossed by Joachim are Rev 10:1–3, and Rev 11:3–6.)

34 McGinn, Calabrian Abbot, 113.

35 McGinn, “Pastor Angelicus,” 224–25.

36 “[A]scendet … uniuersalis scilicet pontifex noue Ierusalem, hoc est sancte matris ecclesie… dabitur ei plena libertas ad innouandam christianam religionem et ad predicandum uerbum dei.” Joachim of Fiore, Liber de Concordia, 402.

37 Ibid.

38 McGinn, “Pastor Angelicus,” 225–26; Joachim of Fiore, Liber de Concordia, 402.

39 McGinn, Calabrian Abbot, 112–13.

40 Whalen, Dominion of God, 190. Whalen does not mention Bacon's debt to Joachim, perhaps because Bacon does not adopt Joachim's trinitarian structure. At the same time, neither does Bonaventure, whom Whalen does regard as influenced by the Calabrian abbot. In spite of mentioning another important feature of Bacon's apocalyptic program, namely, the conversion of the nations prior to advent of Antichrist, Whalen reads this feature of Bacon's work as independent of apocalyptic influence. For the papal role in converting the world in the Joachite structure, see McGinn, Calabrian Abbot, 112. See below for a discussion of conversion.

41 Whalen, Dominion of God, 190–91.

42 One of the oddities of this assumption is that the principal secondary literature on which it is based is not definitive. Stewart Easton's biography of Bacon agrees that “Bacon is steeped in the Joachitic and apocalyptic literature of his time, and is greatly influenced by it …” Yet, Easton does not call Bacon a Joachite, and characterizes him as a sympathizer rather than an adherent. Easton, Roger Bacon and His Search for a Universal Science, 135–38, 143. Easton's general sense of Bacon's Joachite leanings may has generated opposition, because Easton elsewhere erroneously categorized Bacon as a possible Spiritual Franciscan. One source cited against Bacon's indebtedness to Joachim is E. Randolph Daniel, “Roger Bacon and the De Seminibus Scripturarum,” Mediaeval Studies 34 (1972) 462–67. In this brief note Daniel, whose credentials as a scholar of Joachim are not in doubt, simply makes the point that Bacon's program, like that of the De Seminibus Scriptuarum, which Bacon had read, varies in many respects with Joachim's (a point still at issue at the time). Therefore, Daniel highlights the differences between Bacon's and Joachim's apocalyptic program rather than the differences between Bacon and De Seminibus. For example, Daniel does not deal with Bacon's and Joachim's notion of an active ecclesia (see below), an idea which De Seminibus does not share. Daniel also states that Joachim “read the future apocalyptically,” while “for Roger Bacon, the present and immediate future are seen as times of corruption and reform and, while the reform is connected with apocalyptic elements, these are not central to its nature.” Daniel, “Roger Bacon and the De Seminibus Scripturarum,” 467. Finally, Daniel regards Bacon's missiology as a reform program rather than as related to Joachim's prediction of the dominion of the church over all nations. Daniel's argument that Bacon did not rely exclusively on Joachim is well taken, but it is important to note this article was not Daniel's final word and he is somewhat more receptive to Bacon's apocalypticism in a later study. E. Randolph Daniel, The Franciscan Concept of Mission in the High Middle Ages [Lexington, Ky.: University Press of Kentucky, 1975] 59–66. The reading of Bacon's apocalyptic warnings as “principally as a threat to urge reform” relates to a historiographical problem raised by Power, namely that Bacon's scientific and reforming work has been privileged above his apocalyptic and religious concerns rather than intimately connected to them. Easton, “Roger Bacon and De Seminibus Scripturarum,” 466; Power, “A Mirror for Every Age,” 691–92.

43 Burke, Opus maius, 290.

44 Ibid.

45 Whalen, Dominion of God 190, 192. Also see Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy, 59–70 and Burr, Olivi's Peaceable Kingdom, 1–21.

46 There are a number of excellent sources on the scandal of the Eternal Gospel. See Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages 59–70; Burr, Olivi's Peaceable Kingdom, 14–21; and Whalen, Dominion of God, 177–86.

47 “Maximi Joachiti.” The description comes from the Chronicle of Salimbene de Adam, a former adherent of Joachism. Salimbene uses the Latin plural since he is discussing not only John, but also his friend Hugh of Digne. Salimbene de Adam, Cronica (ed. G. Scalia; Bari: Laterza, 1966) 334.

48 Whalen, Dominion of God, 192.

49 On Bacon's caution when dealing with topics likely to arouse ecclesial ire, see below.

50 Roger Bacon, Part of the Opus tertium of Roger Bacon (ed. A. G. Little; Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1912) 9–12. Henceforth cited as Little, Opus tertium. (Little's publication of the Part of Opus tertium complements what is found in Brewer, Opera quaedam hactenus inedita.)

51 Here I feel the need to emphasize Bacon's use of the Latin comparative magis (more), which implies that everyone outside of Latin Christendom should be assumed to be at least a little hostile. Little, Opus tertium, 11.

52 “[P]ropter violentiam gentium que invaderunt mundum, ut sunt Judei inclusi in montibus Hircanorum et Gog et Magog, et naciones incluse ab Alexandro ad portas Caspias, et propter Antichristum et suos,” ibid.

53 Joachim of Fiore, Liber de Concordia, 402; McGinn, “Pastor Angelicus,” 225; idem, Calabrian Abbot, 112.

54 Easton, The Franciscan Concept of Mission, 64.

55 Bartlett, The Natural and Supernatural in the Middle Ages, 102–3.

56 Roger Bacon, Compendium Studii Philosophiae in Opera quaedam hactenus inedita (ed. J. S. Brewer; London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1859) 402–3, cited from McGinn, “Pastor Angelicus,” 227. Bacon's conversion program is rather untraditional, in that he purports to “make a plea for faith … through science, not by arguments, but by works, which is a far more effective way.” There are two aspects to this. One is to awe an unbeliever with the powers of science, so that a “subdued” mind “may believe [religious truths] although it does not understand them …” Second, Bacon advocates the use of science “to separate the illusions of magic and to detect all their errors,” by which they can strip away the trappings of false faith just as much as demonstrate the authenticity of Christian miracles. Burke, Opus maius, 632–33.

57 The Jews of the Hyrcanian mountains refer to the lost tribes of Israel, who by at least the era of Peter Comestor (d. 1178/9), were conflated with armies of Antichrist. Andrew Colin Gow, The Red Jews: Antisemitism in an Apocalyptic Age (New York: Brill, 1995) 38.

58 “[A]ccidit utilitas maxima et finalis propter violentiam gentium que invadent mundum, ut sunt Judei inclusi in montibus Hircanorum et Gog et Magog, et naciones incluse ab Alexandro ad portas Caspias, et propter Antichristum et suos. Nam isti exibunt contra dies Antichristi et fines mundi, ut visitent hominum naciones; quoniam Ieronimus scribit quod naciones incluse ab Alexandro exibunt portas et claustra ejus, et obviabunt Antichristo, et eum vocabunt deum deorum. Si ergo sciverimus ex qua parte isti venient, possumus considerare quod parte contraria veniet Antichristus.” Little, Opus tertium, 11–12.

59 Gow, The Red Jews, 24–25.

60 Bridges, Opus maius, 1:365.

61 Bigalli, I Tartari e l'apocalisse, 7–33. Little, Opus tertium, 13. At the same time, Bacon has a rather unrealistic view of the Tatars’ military prowess; “the Tartars are small, weak men, and hardly eat or drink anything to strengthen their nature, [they are] not swift of foot, and properly speaking unarmed except for arrows with which to frighten those whom they pursue.…Hence their success must be due to the wonderful works of science by means of which they tread the world under foot.” Burke, Opus maius, 416. This generally reflects Bacon's opinions elsewhere regarding Alexander's conquests, for which Aristotle's science receives the lion's share of the credit rather than the military strength of Alexander's army. Burke, Opus maius, 408. Little, Opus tertium, 53.

62 Burke, Opus maius, 381–84.

63 Ibid., 417. It is not clear who these “wise men” are, or whether the expression is merely rhetorical.

64 Joachim of Fiore, Expositio in Apocalypsim, f. 10, col. i.

65 Take for example the famous anecdote from Roger of Hoveden of Joachim's meeting with Richard Coeur de Leon at Messina. After hearing Joachim's view, Richard expresses shock that Joachim differs from the established Antichrist legend: “I thought Antichrist was to be born in Babylon, or Antioch, from the line of Dan [Putabam quod Antichristus nasceretur in Babylonia, vel in Antiocha, de stirpe Dan].” “Benedict of Peterborough” (Roger of Hoveden), Gesta regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti abbatis. The Chronicle of the Reigns of Henry II and Richard I (ed. William Stubbs; 2 vols.; London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1867) 2:154. The same passage (substituting only progenie for stirpe) can be found in the later, expanded version of the chronicle: Roger Hoveden, Chronica (ed. William Stubbs; 4 vols.; London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1868–1871) 3:78. On issues of authenticity and authorship of this account, see Reeves, Influence of Prophecy, 6–9, esp. 8, and Lerner, “Antichrists and Antichrist in Joachim of Fiore,” Speculum 60 (1985) 553 n. 1, 567n.

66 He identifies the “sect of Antichrist” as the seventh and last sect, in addition to those of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Idolaters, Pagans, and Tatars. Little, Opus tertium, 65; Burke, Opus maius, 788.

67 “[P]ossumus per hec loca scire totum decursum textus sacri, et necessarium est non solum ad sensum literalem sed ut eliciantur sensus spirituales.” Little, Opus tertium, 10–11.

68 See below. The popularity of Origen's intellectus spiritualis as a mode of exegesis is reflected by the fact that it was adopted not only by Joachim (and subsequent Franciscans such as Bonaventure and Peter Olivi), but independently by Joachim's contemporary Hildegard of Bingen. Kienzle, Hildegard of Bingen and Her Gospel Homilies, 86–87, 87 n. 309.

69 “[P]lenitudo historiae.” McGinn, Calabrian Abbot, 124.

70 See E. R. Daniel's introduction in Joachim of Fiore, Liber de Concordia, xxxvi–xxxvii.

71 McGinn, Calabrian Abbot, 125.

72 Burke, Opus maius, 206.

73 The homily is on Joshua 17–19 and begins by considering the practice of casting lots and moves on to consider the spiritual meaning of the various inheritance given to the tribes of Israel by Joshua. Bacon emphasizes only this latter point, picking up on Origen's openly typological interpretation of the names not just of places, but of people. Origen's Joshua homilies were available to Latins (and to modern readers) thanks to the Latin translations of Rufinus. See Origen, Homilies on Joshua (ed. Cynthia White; trans. Barbara J. Bruce; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 2002) intro., 3–22, homily 23, 195–203. Rufinus's Latin text is in Origène, Homélies sur Josué (ed. Annie Jaubert; Paris: Cerf, 2000) 452–69. An important point that must have struck Bacon himself and no doubt impressed any number of Latins who read Rufinus's translation is that the names of Jesus and Joshua are orthographically identical, making the typological interpretations popular among Christians that much more powerful. See the discussion in Origen, Homilies on Joshua, 20–21.

74 “[A]dumbrari futurae in coelis hereditatis exemplar.” Origène, Homélies sur Josué, 462; Origen, Homilies on Joshua, 200.

75 For Origen and Joachim, see McGinn, Calabrian Abbot, 125, 127.

76 Burke, Opus maius, 203–4; Bridges, Opus maius, 1:183.

77 McGinn, Calabrian Abbot, 124.

78 Joachim of Fiore, Liber Concordie Novi ac Veteris Testamenti (Venice, 1519) 5:106 (f. 125 rb), cited from McGinn, Calabrian Abbot, 124.

79 Burke, Opus maius, 207–8.

80 David Woodward with Herbert M. Howe, “Roger Bacon on Geography and Cartography,” in Roger Bacon and the Sciences, 199–222, at 204.

81 Woodward and Howe (ibid.) make no reference to Antichrist, nor to Joachim, reading Bacon as original in his uniting of geography and history. To the latter point, I believe they are correct in the sense of Bacon's mathematical and astronomical commitment, but not to the union itself.

82 Ibid., 202–4.

83 Burke, Opus maius, 208.

84 Little, Opus tertium, 17–18.

85 McGinn, “Pastor Angelicus,” 228.

86 Emmerson, Antichrist in the Middle Ages, 86; Whalen, Dominion of God, 191–92; McGinn, Antichrist: Two Thousand Years, 152.

87 Whalen, Dominion of God, 193.

88 “Quod considerantes multi sapientes et revolventes divinam sapientiam, et scientias sanctorum, et veritates historiarum, et prophetias non solum sacras sed salubres, ut Sybillarum, Merlini, Aquilae, Festonis, et multorum aliorum sapientum, aestimabant quod his temporibus instarent dies Antichristi. Quare necesse est ut exstirpetur malitia, at appareant electi Dei; aut praeveniet unus beatissimus papa, qui omnes corruptiones tollet de studio, et ecclesia, et caeteris, et renovetur mundus, et intret plenitudo gentium, et reliquiae Israel ad fidem convertabantur.” Roger Bacon, Compendium Studii Philosophiae, in Roger Bacon, Opera Quaedam Hactenus Inedita (ed. J. S. Brewer; London: Longman, Green, Longman, 1859) 402. Little notes that Brewer's transcription in the Compendium Studii appears to read Festo (here, Festonis) for Sesto. Franciscan Papers, 91. Little makes no definitive determination, but given Bacon's use of Pliny it seems clear that “Seston” from Natural History is likely the reference here. Certainly, it was read that way by Bridges and Burke in a parallel passage in the Opus maius. Burke, Opus maius, 290. Seston was accompanied by an eagle, which may mean that a more literal translation of Aquila is required here rather than its use as a proper name.

89 “Et tamen verum est quod iste scientie magnifice, per quas magna bona fieri possunt sicut et magna mala, non debent sciri nisi a certis personis, et hoc auctoritate summi pontificis, qui subjecti et subditi pedibus Romane ecclesie debent pro utilitate magna ad papale imperium operari, ita quod ecclesia possit in omnibus suis tribulationis recurrere ad ista, ut tandem finaliter obviaeretur Antichristo et suis ut, cum similia opera fierent per fideles, ostenderetur quod non esset deus, et impediretur ejus persecutio in multis et mitigaretur per hujusmodi opera perpetranda. Et ideo si ecclesia de studio ordinaret, possent homines boni et sancti laborare in hujusmodi scientiis magicis auctoritate summi pontificis speciali.” Little, Opus tertium, 17–18.

90 Steven J. Williams, “Roger Bacon and the Secret of Secrets,” in Roger Bacon and the Sciences, 365–94, at 375. Evidence for Bacon's imprisonment, however, is suggestive rather than conclusive. It is quite likely that Roger Bacon was condemned between 1277 and 1279, though documentary witness to that event comes nearly a century after the events in question. The cause for his condemnation is unknown except that it was due to various “novelties.” Bacon's work offers a number of possible candidates for such a distinction. See the discussion in Power, “A Mirror for Every Age,” 659–60.

91 Richard Kieckhefer, Magic in the Middle Ages (New York: Cambridge University Press, Canto Edition, 2000) 12.

92 Bacon echoes the linguistic argument of Hugh of St. Victor in the Didascalion, book 2, ch. 3.

93 The introduction, called the Tractatus brevis, along with Bacon's edition of Secretum Secretorum, are found in Roger Bacon, Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi (ed. Robert Steele; Oxford: Clarendon, 1905) fasc. 5. For the sake of clarity, I will refer to Bacon's introductory material as Bacon, Tractatus brevis, to distinguish it from the text of the Secretum Secretorum itself.

94 “De istis scienciis naturalibus que vocari possunt inproprie geomancia, ydromancia, aerimancia, piromancia, que sunt vere partes philosophie, intendit Aristotiles in hoc libro, set translator non habuit in Latino nomina propria istis scienciis, ideo accepit nomina scienciarum magicarum que sunt similes aliquibus veris scienciis.” Bacon, Tractatus brevis, 12.

95 Burke, Opus maius, 587. See also the discussion in Hackett, “Roger Bacon on Scientia experimentalis,” 295–96.

96 Ibid., 587.

97 Ibid., 615.

98 Ibid., 616.

99 Ibid., 627.

100 Hackett, “Roger Bacon on Scientia experimentalis,” 296.

101 Burke, Opus maius, 587. Burke translates the Latin deprecationes as “deprecations,” where I have substituted the more appropriate “supplications.” Bridges, Opus maius, 3:172.

102 Little, Opus tertium, 48–49.

103 “[H]ec sunt purissime magica.” Bacon, Tractatus brevis, 6–7.

104 Little, Opus tertium, 49.

105 A rich discussion of Bacon's understanding of words of power and its relation to other medieval views about incantations can be found in Béatrice Delaurenti, La puissance des mots, “Virtus verborum”. Débats doctrinaux sur le pouvoir des incantations au Moyen Âge (Paris: Cerf, 2007) 157–200.

106 Burke, Opus maius, 410–11.

107 Bacon held to an orthodox view that rejected the absolute sovereignty of heavenly bodies as well as the notion of fate. Because free will was a gift of God to humankind, to argue for fate or fixed destiny was to sin against God by denying this gift, or, even worse, to suggest God's gift of free will was limited, and thus God was limited. Bacon, Tractatus brevis, 3. Also see Michael Bailey, Magic and Superstition in Europe (Plymouth, U.K.: Rowan and Littlefield, 2007) 89.

108 Burke, Opus maius, 415

109 For some context on Bacon's use of “old women” (vetula), see Jole Agrimi and Chiara Crisciani, “Savoir médical et anthropologie religieuse: Les représentations et les fonctions de la vetula (XIII^e–XV^e siècle)” Annales 48:5 (1993) 1281–1308.

110 Burke, Opus maius, 411.

111 “Continue enim alterantur corpora humana secundum diversas constellaciones omni hora, et excitantur anime ad acciones diversas et mores et sciencialia et alia officia. Set anime non coguntur set feruntur gratis in ea ad que complexio homo colericus excitatur ad iram, sanguines ad pacem, fluematicus ad quietem et ocium, melancolicus ad tristiciam et solitudinem. Set tamen in hiis non cogitur liberum arbitrium set inclinatur vehementur, ut tamen gratis velit ea ad que per complexionem corporis inclinatur.” Bacon, Tractatus brevis, 4–5.

112 “Unde una vetula paupercula suis precibus et meritis, bonitate Dei favente, potest mutare ordinem naturam.” Bacon, Tractatus brevis, 4.

113 Bacon, Tractatus brevis, 5.

114 “[S]emper in judiciis suis adducunt in fine ‘si Deus voluerit’.” Bacon, Tractatus brevis, 4.

115 A parallel of Bacon's argument in the Tractatus brevis is found in Roger Bacon, Epistolae Rogerii Baconis de secretis operibus artis et naturae in Theatrum Chemicum (ed. Lazarus Zetzner; Strasbourg, 1622) V:944–45.

116 “[P]ars philosophie.” Bacon, Tractatus brevis, 12.

117 Burke, Opus maius, 415.

118 Little, Opus tertium, 18–19.

119 Burke, Opus maius, 630.

120 Little, Opus tertium, 51–52.

121 Ibid., 51. Lest one think that Bacon was merely advocating the use of gunpowder as diversionary tactic, he was quite clear that the best application of gunpowder would be the creation of a bomb, in which a solid casing was exploded among troops, not only dazing them, but maiming them as well. Little, Opus tertium, 51. Lacking in his discussion of weapons of mass destruction was any philosophical consideration of what it would mean to kill on a massive scale or wipe out armies. The closest one might find to such a consideration was a biblical endorsement. In his discussion of gunpowder, Bacon reminded the Pope of Gideon's trickery in overrunning the Midianites (Judges 7), killing tens of thousands with just a few hundred soldiers of his own.

122 Bacon often referred to alchemical substances as “bodies” (corpora), which is one of the various codes (enigmata) he uses to preserve secrecy from the uninitiated. He explained a number of these in the Opus tertium. Little, Opus tertium, 83. “Bodies” are nothing more than substances that do not evaporate. Hence Bacon discusses perfecting alchemical bodies in order to perfect human bodies. This could very well be a double entendre, but in any case, Bacon's goal is a perfect human body, even if he is only referring to an alchemical body in this passage.

123 “Experimentator tamen extendit considerationem ad maiora, et iubet alkimiste, ut corpus equalis complexionis preparet sibi, in quo omnia elementa sint equalia quantum ad virtutes, et non dominetur in eo ignis, sicut in colera et colericis, nec aer, sicut in sanguine et sanguineis, nec aqua, sicut in fleumate et fleumaticis, nec terra, sicut in melancolia et melancolicis, sed sit compositum ex humore equali: quod possibile est nature et arti perficienti naturam, dei gratia mediante. Hoc autem corpus non potest corrumpi aliquo modo …” Roger Bacon, Frater Rogerus Bacon in libro sex scientiarum, in Fratris Rogeri Bacon, De retardatione accidentium senectutis cum aliis opusculis de rebus medicinalibus (ed. A. G. Little and E. Withington; Oxford: Clarendon, 1928) 183. De retardatione has proven to be a false attribution to Bacon though it does rely on Bacon's alchemical and medicinal writings. The Liber sex scientiarum, is an authentic, if incomplete work of Bacon's, to which William R. Newman has drawn much-needed attention. See William R. Newman, “The Philosopher's Egg: Theory and Practice in the Alchemy of Roger Bacon,” Micrologus 3 (1995) 76–77.

124 William R. Newman, “An Overview of Roger Bacon's Alchemy,” in Roger Bacon and the Sciences, 317–36, esp. 317, 335.

125 Newman, “An Overview of Roger Bacon's Alchemy,” 334–35. Chiara Crisciani and Michela Pereira, L'Arte del Sole e della Luna, Alchimia e filosofia nel medioevo (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di studi sull’ alto medioevo, 1996) 19–20. Michela Periera, “Teorie dell'elixir nell'alchimia latina medievale,” Micrologus 3 (1995) 38.

126 Little, Opus tertium, 82.

127 Ibid., 77, 81–82.

128 “[P]ropter difficilia in hoc libro.” Bacon, Tractatus brevis, 12.

129 Roger Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum in Roger Bacon's Philosophy of Nature: A Critical Edition, with English Translation, Introduction, and Notes of De multiplicatione specierum and De speculis comburentibus (ed. David C. Lindberg; Oxford: Clarendon, 1983).

130 I concur with Steven J. Williams that Bacon surely wrote this letter later than 1248 and probably in closer proximity to the Opera, given both its close relationship to the material contained in the Tractatus brevis and Secret of Secrets and the mention of that text therein. Williams, “Roger Bacon and the Secret of Secrets,” 366.

131 Lindberg, Roger Bacon's Philosophy of Nature, xxxii–xxxiii.

132 “Et ideo volens scire generationem universalem rerum naturalium non potest proficere nisi per mathematicas practicas et speculativas, et scientias aspectuum et ponderum, sicut desiderans scire in particulari generationum harum rerum non potest scire aliquid dignum sine alkimia et agricultura philosophica et scientia experimentali.” Lindberg, Roger Bacon's Philosophy of Nature, 349.

133 Ibid.

134 See Steven J. Williams, “Roger Bacon and His Edition of the Pseudo-Aristotelian Secretum secretorum.” Speculum 69 (1994) 61–63.

135 “[D]e rerum generatione ex elementis.” Brewer, Opus tertium, 39.

136 Burke, Opus maius, 626–27.

137 “[O]mnibus peritis in hac scientia … sed nesciunt finem ex his elicere principalem.” Little, Opus tertium, 86.

138 “[D]ocet facere metalla nobilia, et colores, et alia multa melius et copiosius per artificium, quam per naturam fiant.” Brewer, Opus tertium, 40.

139 Ibid.

140 Ibid., 80.

141 Brewer, Opus tertium, 41.

142 “Generatio enim hominum, et brutorum, et vegetabilium, est ex elementis et humoribus, et communicat cum generatione inanimatarum rerum.” Ibid., 39.

143 Newman, “An Overview of Roger Bacon's Alchemy,” 319, 321. Here I follow Newman's synthesis, “An Overview of Roger Bacon's Alchemy,” 319–23.

144 Roger Bacon, Opus minus in Opera quaedam, 364.

145 Newman, “The Philosopher's Egg,” 88–89.

146 “[A]d infinita in theologia et philosophia valent haec.” Bacon, Opus minus, 367.

147 “[C]ompositionem corporis Adae et Evae … fructus paradysi.” Ibid.

148 The explanation relied on Bacon's understanding of the equal complexion of the body, a concept which I discuss in more detail below. As to the issue of the fires of eternal damnation, Bacon explained that “the fire which acts on a damned body shall not be a fire of a natural type as is the sort among us, but shall exceed it without equal… . Nevertheless it will not take away equality, but injure something from the equal substance, by which injury shall there come to be that affliction [ignis qui aget in corpus damnatum non erit ignis naturalis qualis est apud nos, sed sine comparatione excedet… . Et tamen non tollet aequalitatem sed aliquid de substantia aequali laedet, qua laesione fiet illa afflictio].” Bacon, Opus minus, 371–72. Therefore the hellfire wounds, but does not consume the body nor diminish its immortality.

149 Roger Bacon, De erroribus medicorum in Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi (ed. Robert Steele; Oxford: Clarendon, 1928) fasc. 9, 155.

150 Newman, “An Overview of Roger Bacon's Alchemy,” 323. Bacon said this explicitly in the Opus tertium, when he said that “the secret of secrets” which an alchemist employs to de-corrupt base metals into gold also is used to take away corruptions of the human body. Little, Opus tertium, 46.

151 Serpents generally, and their “cousins” dragons more rarely, were topics of interest in medical writings of this era due to the belief that illness was a type of poisoning, against which a physician could employ a universal antivenom, the theriac (tyriac). Faye Getz, “Roger Bacon and Medicine: The Paradox of the Forbidden Fruit and the Secrets of Long Life,” in Roger Bacon and the Sciences, 337–64, at 359. Bacon's goal of purifying the body of corrupted elements operates from a similar paradigm, which he described in his On the Errors of Physicians. See Newman, “An Overview of Roger Bacon's Alchemy,” 324. Bacon also wrote a book on the subject of the theriac, the Antidotarius.

152 Burke, Opus maius, 625.

153 Ibid.

154 Ibid.

155 As much as Bacon heralds experimental science, he often relies on the people or events that are “fidedignus” (worthy of belief) when dealing with hearsay. Bacon, Liber sex scientiarum, 182.

156 Getz, “Roger Bacon and Medicine,” 346 n.

157 “[A] principio corrumperentur patres in suis complexionibus et inciperet abbreuiatio vite continua vsque modo, et ideo patres corrupti genuerunt filios corruptos, et filii per eundem defectum regiminis corrumpebant se ipsos, et ideo genuerunt filios duplici corruptione corruptos, et sic multiplicata est corruptio et abbreuiatio vite, sicut videmus istis temporibus et sentimus.” Bacon, Liber sex scientiarum, 181.

158 Ibid., 181.

159 Ibid., 184–85.

160 Newman makes an important observation that Bacon did not believe a balanced or harmonious complexion was due to an equal amount of the four humors or elements, but rather a proper proportion thereof. Newman, “An Overview of Roger Bacon's Alchemy,” 326. Leah DeVun echoes this argument. DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy, 86.

161 Burke, Opus maius, 624.

162 “Necesse est etiam quod sit possibilitas huius corporis equalis, quoniam corpora in resur-rectione non possunt habere incorruptionem et immortalitatem nisi per hoc corpus.” Bacon, Liber sex scientiarum, 184. Bacon went on to say that God will raise such bodies from the ashes for both the righteous and the wicked, but intriguingly offered no gloss on the post-resurrection body of Christ. It is hard to know why he did not, though perhaps alchemical speculation on the nature of the Godhead was too far beyond the pale for even Bacon to consider.

163 Bacon's adoption of a scriptural foundation for his medical beliefs jibes with the fact that in spite of an otherwise far-reaching education, he remained largely ignorant of the major medical writings of his day. Getz, “Roger Bacon and Medicine,” 361.

164 For the context from which Bacon's view of the resurrected body emerged, see Caroline Walker Bynum, The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200–1336 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995) esp. 229–78, 318–29. My argument differs somewhat from that offered by DeVun, who argues there is no substantive difference between Bacon's alchemically healed body and the postresurrection body. DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy, 86.

165 “[A]d terminos quod deus constituit et natura.” Bacon, Liber sex scientiarum, 181–82. Bacon repeats this so often it is a stock phrase.

166 Newman, “An Overview of Roger Bacon's Alchemy,” 331. Bacon's use of blood was the vehicle for extracting the primary humors. Little, Opus tertium, 86–87.

167 Newman, “An Overview of Roger Bacon's Alchemy,” 332.

168 Bacon, Tractatus brevis, 8.

169 “[M]eliorare complexiones eorum ut inclinentur ad bona et utilia sibi et aliis, tam in sapiencia quam in moralibus.” Ibid., 9.

170 “Et si hoc maximum potest fieri, constat tunc omnia alia possibilia, scilicet ut homo deueniat ad magnam prudentiam et sapientum perfectam ut sciat se et alios regere, dei gratia adiutrice.” Bacon, Liber sex scientarium, 185.

171 Bartlett, The Natural and Supernatural in the Middle Ages, 116–17.

172 Bacon, Liber sex scientarium, 185. Later he linked this sort of foresight to pseudo-Ptolemy's (Abu Jafar Ahmed ibn Yusuf, d. 912) term cognitionem ex se from the Centiloquiium, which Hackett has characterized as “instant intuition or inspiration.” Hackett, “Roger Bacon on Scientia experimentalis,” 295–96. Bacon's parallel discussion in the Opus maius offers a Christian interpretation of this idea. See Burke, Opus maius, 585–86, and below.

173 Bacon repeated this assertion often, and concluded that due to the small size of the army of Alexander, there was no way that he could have conquered such vast armies and territories without the powers of philosophy, and, thus Aristotle. This mirrors the argument he made about the Tatars’ conquests, though obviously he shed a far more positive light on Aristotle.

174 “Et docuit eum opera quibus alteraret regiones, et civitates infortunaret, et infatuaret eas, ut se juvare non possent. Et tunc regiones male complexionis alteravit in bonam, ut homines malarum complexionum reduceret ad bonas; quatenus per consequens reduceret eos ad bonos mores et ad honestas consuetudines, et sic permisit homines vivere, et tamen subjectos. Unde Aristoteles sic dixit ei: Altera aerem hominum malarum complexionum et permitte eos vivere. Nam aere alterato, alteratur complexio, et ad alterationem complexionum sequitur alteratio morum. Et hec fuit sapientia ineffabilis.” Little, Opus tertium, 53–54. Steven J. Williams has pointed out that Bacon likely misread the section of the Secretum secretorum where the secret of complexions is discussed, accounting for the idiosyncrasy of Bacon's notion. Williams, “Roger Bacon and the Secret of Secrets,” 388

175 “[A]lteranture homines in corpore et anima, ut in eis compleatur naturalis bonitas longeuitas, morum, prudentie et sapientie… . Et hoc est secretum secretorum et vlimum secretum.” Bacon, Liber sex scientiarum, 185.

176 Ibid., 185.

177 Ibid., 186.

178 Little, Opus tertium, 54.

179 “[V]ltimos vite terminos comprehendat.” Bacon, Liber sex scientiarum, 183.

180 “[E]x nobilitate complexionis excitaretur et vigoraretur anima rationalis in tantum ut possit de facili scire omnes scientias, et sine difficultate et labore, non solum per alium docentem sed per sui diligentiam et studium oportunam.” Ibid., 185.

181 Ibid., 186.

182 Bridges, Opus maius, 2:170.

183 Burke, Opus maius, 585.

184 Ibid., 586.

185 Hackett, “Roger Bacon on Scientia experimentalis,” 293. The “Franciscan” interpretation of this theory, to which Bacon subscribed, was to assign the “the function of the agent intellect to God.” See Ronald H. Nash, “Divine Illumination,” Augustine through the Ages (ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald, OSA; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999) 438–39.

186 Bacon, Liber sex scientarium, 185.

187 Antoine Calvet, “À la recherche de la médicine universelle. Questions sur l’élixir et la thériaque au 14e siècle,” in Alchimia e medicina nel Medioevo (ed. Chiara Crisciani e Agostino Paravicini Bagliani; Florence: SISMEL editzioni del Galluzzo, 2003) 183.

188 William R. Newman, Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004) 82.

189 Little, Opus tertium, 81.