Opus Maius Research Articles

Roger Bacon's Terrestrial Coordinate System

Abstract The paper introduces Roger Bacon's description of a system of plotting places with latitude and longitude in his thirteenth-century Opus Maius and raises questions about the nature and importance of the procedure he describes. It discounts previous claims that the procedure represented a fully developed map projection, but supports the case that Bacon had some understanding of the problems of representing a spherical earth on a flat plane. Bacon's system was innovative because he understood that the idea of coordinate systems could be transferred from a celestial to a terrestrial context, and that this idea had practical political—as well as spiritual—significance. But his ideas were not accepted until long after Ptolemy's Geography, which espoused a similar paradigm, reached Europe. Finally, Bacon's system seems innovative in the context of terrestrial cartography since it appears to assign equal geometric significance to each point in his “mapping-space.'’This departed from the route-enhancing ...

Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics

Previous articleNext article No AccessGetting the Big Picture in Perspectivist OpticsA. Mark SmithA. Mark Smith Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Isis Volume 72, Number 4Dec., 1981 Publication of the History of Science Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/352843 Views: 20Total views on this site Citations: 21Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1981 History of Science Society, Inc.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Angela Axworthy Jacques Peletier, (Jun 2022): 75–97.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95817-6_3Yael Kedar Optics, Latin, (Jul 2020): 1357–1366.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1665-7_557A. Mark Smith Seeing the Light: A Response to “Chasing the Light”, Isis 110, no.22 (May 2019): 283–289.https://doi.org/10.1086/703514Danilo Capecchi New Forms of Natural Philosophy and Mixed Mathematics, (Jul 2017): 147–259.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58310-5_3Assim Boukhayma Introduction, (Nov 2017): 1–11.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68774-2_1Yael Kedar Optics, Latin, (Jan 2018): 1–9.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1151-5_557-1Caroline O. Fowler From a Geometry of Vision to a Geometry of Light in Early-Modern Perspective, Architecture_MPS (Jan 2017).https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.amps.2017v11i1.001Tawrin Baker Kepler's optics: Ocular anatomy, the visual faculty, and the continuity-discontinuity debate, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 59 (Oct 2016): 115–120.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.03.002Delphine Bellis The Perception of Spatial Depth in Kepler’s and Descartes’ Optics: A Study of an Epistemological Reversal, (Sep 2016): 125–152.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41075-3_5Michael Jacovides Locke on Perception, (Sep 2015): 176–192.https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118328705.ch9 Bibliography, (Aug 2015): 265–292.https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666550904.265Gary Hatfield Natural Geometry in Descartes and Kepler, Res Philosophica 92, no.11 (Jan 2015): 117–148.https://doi.org/10.11612/resphil.2015.92.1.6Sven Dupré Kepler’s optics without hypotheses, Synthese 185, no.33 (Sep 2011): 501–525.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9977-6Edward Mackinnon From Categories to Quantitative Concepts, (Oct 2011): 25–68.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2369-6_2Ofer Gal, Raz Chen-Morris Empiricism Without the Senses: How the Instrument Replaced the Eye, (Jan 2010): 121–147.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3686-5_7Dallas G. Denery II Seeing and Being Seen in the Later Medieval World, 43 (Jul 2009).https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511496462P. J. Boner Soul-Searching with Kepler: An Analysis of Anima in His Astrology, Journal for the History of Astronomy 36, no.11 (Feb 2005): 7–20.https://doi.org/10.1177/002182860503600102 Stephen Perkinson Engin and Artifice: Describing Creative Agency at the Court of France, ca. 1400, Gesta 41, no.11 (Oct 2015): 51–67.https://doi.org/10.2307/767205A. Mark Smith Ptolemy, Alhazen, and Kepler and the Problem of Optical Images, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 8, no.11 (Oct 2008): 9–44.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0957423900002423Antoni Malet Keplerian illusions: Geòmetrical pictures vs optical images in Kepler's visual theory, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 21, no.11 (Mar 1990): 1–40.https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(90)90013-XPeter Galison Descartes's Comparisons: From the Invisible to the Visible, Isis 75, no.22 (Oct 2015): 311–326.https://doi.org/10.1086/353484

An Unedited Part of Roger Bacon's ‘Opus Maius’: ‘de Signis’

The tradition of Roger Bacon's Opus maius has many confusing aspects. No single MS contains all parts of the work, and several parts are transmitted separately, out of their original context and in different versions. Several reasons can be given for this confusion. One reason is that Bacon himself incorporated the same material into different projects and on each occasion adjusted the material to its new environment. Similarly, as he informs us, the text of the Opus maius itself was the outcome of several drafts. Another reason is the sheer bulk of the Opus maius. When Bacon sent it off to the pope he had to divide it into four separate volumes.

A reconsideration of Roger Bacon's theory of pinhole images.

Some time ago in this periodical, I published an analysis of the theory of pinhole images from antiquity through the thirteenth century.1 One of the theories discussed was that of Roger Bacon, drawn from the Opus maius and De multiplicatione specierum the only two works, so far as I then knew, where Bacon considered the problem. In the meantime I have had occasion to examine another work often attributed to Bacon, entitled De speculis comburentibus ; to my surprise, I discovered that this work, despite its title, devotes considerable space (one fourth of its total) to the theory of pinhole images. Moreover, it became apparent that the theories there discussed add considerable clarification to the development of the theory of pinhole images in the thirteenth century. If Bacon is indeed their author, it is clear that his contribution to the theory of pinhole images must be reconsidered. The question of authorship need not detain us for long. Both Glorieux and Little list De speculis comburentibus among Bacon's genuine works, and a consideration of the evidence corroborates their judgment.2 In the first place, since it was used by Pecham, De speculis comburentibus cannot have been written later than the mid-1 270' s thus considerably narrowing the field of possible authors. Since Bacon and Pecham were both Franciscans and residents together in the Parisian convent during the 126O's, attribution of the treatise to Bacon would explain its availability to Pecham. 3 Moreover, it is attributed to Bacon in the explicit of the Vienna manuscript, and in the Bodley and Riccardian manuscripts (where it is anonymous) it follows Bacon's Perspectiva.41 Finally, stylistically De speculis comburentibus bears the stamp of Bacon's authorship. 5

The Opus Majus of Roger Bacon . A Translation by Robert Belle Burke, Professor of Latin and Dean of the College, University of Pennsylvania. 2 volumes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1928.

<i>The Opus Majus of Roger Bacon</i> . A Translation by Robert Belle Burke, Professor of Latin and Dean of the College, University of Pennsylvania. 2 volumes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1928.

&lt;italic&gt;The Opus Majus of Roger Bacon&lt;/italic&gt;. A Translation by &lt;sc&gt;Robert Belle Burke&lt;/sc&gt;, Professor of Latin and Dean of the College, University of Pennsylvania. in two volumes. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; London: Oxford University Press. 1928. Pp. xiii, 418; v, 419–840. $10.00.)

&lt;italic&gt;The Opus Majus of Roger Bacon&lt;/italic&gt;. A Translation by &lt;sc&gt;Robert Belle Burke&lt;/sc&gt;, Professor of Latin and Dean of the College, University of Pennsylvania. in two volumes. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; London: Oxford University Press. 1928. Pp. xiii, 418; v, 419–840. $10.00.)

The Opus Maius of Roger Bacon, a Translation. Robert Belle Burke

<i>The Opus Maius of Roger Bacon, a Translation</i>. Robert Belle Burke

The "Opus Majus" of Roger Bacon

The "Opus Majus" of Roger Bacon

&lt;italic&gt;The “Opus Majus” of Roger Bacon&lt;/italic&gt;. Edited, with Introduction and Analytical Table, by J&lt;sc&gt;ohn&lt;/sc&gt; H&lt;sc&gt;enry&lt;/sc&gt; B&lt;sc&gt;ridges&lt;/sc&gt;, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, sometime Fellow of Oriel College. (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1897. Two vols., pp. clxxxvii, 404, 568.)

&lt;italic&gt;The “Opus Majus” of Roger Bacon&lt;/italic&gt;. Edited, with Introduction and Analytical Table, by J&lt;sc&gt;ohn&lt;/sc&gt; H&lt;sc&gt;enry&lt;/sc&gt; B&lt;sc&gt;ridges&lt;/sc&gt;, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, sometime Fellow of Oriel College. (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1897. Two vols., pp. clxxxvii, 404, 568.)