Previously Unpublished Works, Fascicle 15

These two treatises seem to be the earliest on their subjects, which were only studied at Oxford in the thirteenth century.

Kilwardby Robert Kilwardby, a prominent logician and later Archbishop of Canterbury follows closely the order of Petrus Hispanus Peter of Spain, author of the most popular logic textbook of the Middle Ages, as does Lambert of Auxerre, with variations in chapter headings and order. Walter of Burleigh follows Hispanus closely with slight variations in order and some amplification of statement. Vincent of Beauvais is apparently ignorant of Hispanus and follows some compendium a concise summary of a larger subject of Albertus's commentary on Aristotle's Organon the traditional title for Aristotle's six works on logic.

It cannot be said that Bacon owed much to his predecessors, though it is probable that he knew the work of Hispanus. Indeed, he seems to quote an example from him, though the quotation cannot be verified in any edition of the printed text or in the manuscript. There are many verbal similarities, but they often turn out to be phrases from the text of Aristotle in one or the other version. The first difference to be noted is in Bacon's order of treatment. After the introduction from the On Interpretation original: "Peryermenias", the Introduction of Porphyry original: "Isagoge," a standard introductory text to logic, and the Categories original: "de Predicamentis", which he treats with a fullness which the scheme of Aristotle renders premature, he returns to the On Interpretation. From there he turns to the Topics, then to the Prior Analytics, and then to the On Sophistical Refutations original: "de Sophisticis Elenchis". The notes give references to the corresponding passages of Hispanus. There does not seem to be any trace of acquaintanceship with the work of Shirewood William of Shirewood, an English logician Bacon elsewhere praised highly, though Bacon must have known of his work by more than repute.

The way in which Bacon treats the various branches of his subject shows that his treatise is not an elementary treatise. It may have been the basis of a recapitulary course a course meant to review and summarize previous study. It is, in fact, the last work of his University career.

Its distinguishing feature is not its didactic instructional sections, but the scholastic treatment of a number of propositions which were probably the subjects of discussion at the time in the University. Our ignorance of the history of the teaching of the secular masters teachers who were not members of religious orders like the Franciscans or Dominicans does not allow us to make definite statements as to what these were.

This would no doubt be possible if we compared the list of Kilwardby's condemned propositions in 1277 with the opinions