83Franciscan Studies 68 (2010)

PreaChing PreCedes Theology:roger baCon on The failure

of MendiCanT eduCaTion

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on a topic that is of interest to all of us, inasmuch as it pertains to our summer endeavor, Franciscan education.1 I will do so, how-ever, from the perspective of Roger Bacon – the Doctor Mira-bilis – a friar who held his Order’s education system in con-tempt. His scathing attacks included equally strong words for the Augustinians, Carmelites and Dominicans, whom he lumped together with the Franciscans and dismissed as the ordines puerorum. Although he was a Franciscan, let me as-sure you that Bacon did not intend the “order of young boys” to be an endearing description of his confreres – but more about this later.

Bacon’s sharpest attacks are found in his Compendium studii philosophiae, written around 1271-1272.2 For those of you who are not familiar with this English friar, let me sketch out his biography. In all seriousness, what we know of his provenance, education, and career is indeed sketchy. De-pending on how we read selected autobiographical remarks, he was born around 1214 or 1220 and died around 1292. Af-ter studying in Oxford, he became one of the first masters to comment on Aristotle in the Faculty of Arts in Paris during the 1240s and subsequently returned to England. Whether it was there, or perhaps later in France that he entered the Minorite Order is uncertain, nevertheless we find him in the

1 This paper was presented on July 20, 2010, during the Summer Graduate Program of the Franciscan Institute at Saint Bonaventure Uni-versity. The format of the evening lecture has been retained with minor editing.

2 Roger Bacon, Compendium studii philosophiae, in Opera Quaedam Hacentus Inedita, vol. 1 containing 1) Opus tertium, 2) Opus minus, 3) Compendium philosophiae, ed. J. S. Brewer (London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1859), 393-519.

tiMothy Johnson84

Franciscan habit in 1256 and living in Paris. It will be from the vantage point of Paris that Brother Bacon will argue for radical curricular reform and critique the prevailing mendi-cant educational system. Later, perhaps back in England af-ter 1268, he continues his criticism until his death in 1292.

As I begin, allow me a few moments to explain why I think Bacon’s critique should not be ignored by Franciscans nor relegated to an obscure footnote by educators. To offer a critique of a position, belief, or view is something that is to be expected from those in colleges and universities who have been educated in what we call “critical thinking.” However, as Michael Roth noted in The Chronicle of Higher Education, to critique is the beginning, not the end or goal of the process.3 His article, entitled “Beyond Critical Thinking,” warns edu-cators that many of our best students are considered intelli-gent because of their sharply-honed, acquired ability to take apart, unmask, or deconstruct the beliefs of others. Experts at exorcizing and banishing meaning from firmly held texts, they are likewise unable to find or construct meaning in their own lives from these sources which have inspired, formed, and challenged countless individuals through the centuries.

Let me offer you an example from my own experience at Flagler College. I have taught everything from Introduction to the Old Testament to upper-level Contemporary Theologi-cal Thought. Over the years I have seen that taking a critical approach to the material is crucial, yet there is a correspond-ing need to assist students along the path toward wisdom through the integration of our academic critique within a co-herent worldview. For any number of reasons it is an exhila-rating, empowering, and I would say, even a liberating expe-rience for some to learn that the Scriptures are problematic, and thereby open to various interpretations. This opens the door for some to challenge the authority their parents and pastors have wielded over them, while emboldening other students to challenge and even embarrass peers. For exam-ple, one of my students discovered that the King James Bible

3 Michael S. Roth, “Beyond Critical Thinking,” in The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 3, 2010, 5 pages. Accessed on 08.21.10. http://chronicle.com/article/Beyond-Critical-Thinking/63288/.

Preaching Precedes Theology 85

contained John 5:4 (the angel at the pool of Bethzatha) which many modern translations eliminated since scholars hold that it was something similar to a gloss. He subsequently challenged others by questioning how they could believe that God had an eternal claim on anyone when scholars were not even sure what parts of the Bible were legitimate, or even true. His proof text in these discussions was the case of the disappearing verse, John 5:4.

While this is really a great question, which I think Bacon the exegete and linguist would appreciate, the creation of sav-vy, articulate students who use their knowledge to tear apart the beliefs, and consequently the hopes of others, without of-fering an alternative that leads to wisdom is not our intent. In a similar fashion, I do not believe that Bacon’s assault on the mendicant educational system sought to overturn it out of spite regardless of the barbed assertions of pride and ig-norance he directed toward his confreres in his Compendium studii philosophiae. He was writing in response to what he perceived as crisis in Christendom. Sometime within the pe-riod of 1266-1268, Bacon responded to a request from Pope Clement IV, and sent him a wide-reaching, well-intended proposal for educational reform in the Opus majus,4 Opus minus,5 and Opus tertium.6 Bacon’s dreams of a radical cur-riculum renewal that would guide the way the Church and Commonwealth govern, secure the conversion of unbelievers, and defeat those opposing the faith without shedding blood, died with Clement IV in 1268. Even though the practical pos-sibility of reform was beyond his grasp, Bacon reiterated his vision in the Compendium, albeit with an acerbic, polemical edge with regard to his confreres.

Bacon structured the Compendium in 1271-1272 as a dis-course on wisdom. Already I find this intriguing since 1273 is the year when his minister general, Bonaventure, offered a much different interpretation of wisdom in the Collationes in Hexaëmeron. I think it is feasible that Bonaventure’s sermon

4 Roger Bacon, Opus majus, 3 vols., ed. John Henry Bridges (London: Williams and Norgate, 1897-1990).

5 Opus minus in Quaedam Hacentus Inedita, 313-89.6 Opus tertium in Quaedam Hacentus Inedita, 3-310.

tiMothy Johnson86

series in Paris is, at least in part, an attempt to marginal-ize Bacon’s educational agenda.7 There are numerous ref-erences in the Collationes in Hexaëmeron that suggest this may be the case. To elaborate on them at this point would be thought-provoking, but a time-consuming tangent that I hope to return to in later research.8

The issue at hand is Bacon’s critique of mendicant edu-cation, so let’s go right to the heart of the matter and state that Bacon argues that the poor preaching of his day demon-strates a failed educational system.9 This is a disastrous situ-ation given the singular importance of preaching. Already in the Opus tertium from around 1268 he stated: the principle intention and ultimate goal of the Church is found in the work of preaching.10 Preaching leads unbelievers to the faith and preserves believers in their faith and moral life.

At first blush Bacon’s assertion appears to be a ringing endorsement of Franciscan ministry, but he goes on to say that the sermons of his day were nothing other than exam-ples of verbose vanity, expressions of childish extravagance that lacked wisdom and an eloquent, convincing power. As his confreres formulated sermons marked by intricate divisions with silly verbal constructions and suspended sentences, they resembled spiders spinning their webs. Bacon is clearly taking aim at the sermo modernis style of preaching, which was popular with Bonaventure and other mendicant theolo-gians of the day.11 In their intricate efforts Bacon’s brothers

7 Camille Bérubé, “Le ‘Dialogue’ de S. Bonaventure et de Roger Bacon,” Collectanea Franciscana 39 (1969): 66-67.

8 An initial step in this direction is the essay, “Franciscan Bodies, Souls, and Scripture: Bonaventure and Bacon on the Cura corporis / Cura animae in 13th Century Paris” for the Colloquium Cura Vitae in Medieval Thought in Buenos Aires, November 3-5, 2010. Proceedings of this colloquium will be published by Unsam Edita of the Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

9 On Bacon and preaching, see Timothy J. Johnson, “Roger Bacon’s Cri-tique of Franciscan Preaching,” in Institution und Charisma. Festschrift für Gert Melville zum 65. Geburtstag, hrsg. Franz J. Felten, Annette Keh-nel, Stefan Weinfurter (Köln: Böhlau Verlag, 2009), 541-48.

10 Opus tertium, c. 75, 303-04.11 On Bonaventure and the sermo modernis, see The Sunday Sermons

of St. Bonaventure, intro., trans., and notes Timothy J. Johnson (St. Bo-naventure: Franciscan Institute Publications, 2008), 15-18.

Preaching Precedes Theology 87

overlooked the insights of the ancient philosophers into the requisite form and delivery of persuasive speech, and conse-quently the needs of ordinary people were ignored. Indeed, these childish inventions called sermons demonstrated that preachers had forgotten the art of preaching among the gen-eral public.

Bacon asserts that proper preaching focuses on virtues and vices, punishment and glory; it persuades believers and unbelievers alike with regard to faith and morals. Unfortu-nately, mendicant theologians had forgotten this and were consequently alienated, according to Bacon, from the com-mon people of the day. This excruciating pastoral problem was compounded by the fact that prelates, who were never re-ally educated in theology or preaching, borrowed and begged their sermons from the four boys, that is, from the Augustin-ians, Carmelites, Dominicans and Franciscans.12 The efforts of these young theologians were filled with infinite stupidi-ties and were nothing less than a vilification of God’s word. Due to these mendicants, Bacon says, God had to put up with quite a bit of foolishness in the Church.

Okay, so just how bad was this preaching? What was the cause for such a failure in that work which is the principle intention and ultimate goal of the Church? Bacon writes in the Compendium:

We know for certain and we see everywhere that one simple brother, who never heard a hundred theology lectures, or even if he heard them he did not pay any attention to them, preaches without preparation bet-ter than the greatest masters of theology. And so it is clear that preaching does not depend on theology, but from the doctrine of the church as is clear to anyone, and from the knowledge of vices and virtues, of pun-ishment and glory, and of the other matters pertaining to salvation, whose knowledge is written in hearts by the use of ecclesiastical rites. And on account of this preaching precedes the study of theology; although certainly it should not be denied that a good theolo-

12 Opus tertium, c. 75, 309.

tiMothy Johnson88

gian ought to preach much better, yet nevertheless, as I said, we see the contrary everywhere. And this is the powerful argument that the theological studies are corrupt that those, who have the most authority preaching do not preach very well, as we discern fre-quently in many with the eye of faith.13

Evidently, Bacon thought the preaching was really bad. He contends that experience teaches that anyone who has a common knowledge of virtues and vices, punishment and glory, and the tenets of faith can be a better preacher than a trained theologian. The source of the problem is obvious, and Bacon turns to logicians to drive home his critique: if the end of the process produces something of the poorest quality, then the entire process is wrong.14 If preaching is the intend-ed result of theological study – and the preaching is so hor-rible – then there has to be a problem with the educational system. Indeed, the effects of preaching that he has seen for the past twenty years confirm this judgment and the system of education, which was initiated some forty years ago, has resulted in the worst of outcomes. Bacon laments that there has never been more students and doctors then now. Unfor-tunately these poorly trained people are in every city and decent sized village, and are found preaching everywhere.

I think it is important to stop for a moment to get a sense of what is in play here. The need for pastoral preaching was the on-going justification of the massive institution commit-

13 Scimus etiam pro certo et videmus ubique, quod unus simplex frat-er, qui nunquam audivit centum lectiones theologiae, quas si audivit non tamen curavit, qui melius sine comparatione praedicat quam maximi mag-istri theologiae. Et ideo manifestum est quod praedicatio non dependet a studio theologiae, sed doctrina ecclesiae quae cuilibet nota est, et a noti-tia vitiorum et virtutum, poenae et gloriae, et hujusmodi salutiferorum, quorum notitia scripta est in cordibus ex usu ecclesiastici ritus. Et propter hoc praedicatio praecedit studium theologiae; licet certe non sit negandum quin bonus theologus multo melius debeat praedicare, cum tamen, ut dixi, videmus contrarium ubique. Et hoc est magnum argumentum quod stu-dium theologorum corruptum est, cum illi, qui plus auctoritatis habent, minus bene praedicant, ut in pluribus et frequentius, sicut fide conspicimus oculata. Compendium studii philosophiae, 427-28.

14 Compendium studii philosophiae, 432.

Preaching Precedes Theology 89

ment of the Franciscans to systematic, theological studies. While contemporaries of Francis of Assisi noted the success of his charismatic style of preaching,15 the swift growth and clericalization of the Minorite Order community, however, fostered a form of preaching in harmony with papal direc-tives such as Gregory IX’s Quoniam abundavit iniquitatis of 1237 and the methodology of the universities. This shift already appears in the divergent texts on preaching in the Rule of 1221 and the Rule of 1223 where the widening dis-tinction between lay and clerical brothers is manifest.16 Giv-en the dogmatic requirements of the evolving ecclesial com-mitment, lay brothers were marginalized in favor of clerics who had undergone the proper theological formation. These educated clerics were considered the proper and competent preachers of the Gospel in the struggle against heresy and vice.17 Indeed Innocent IV, in Noverit universitas vestra, for-bade the laity from taking part in the office of preaching in 1243.18

Given the ecclesial perception of an intrinsic link between theological studies and pastoral preaching, Minorite clerics, together with their fellow mendicants, instituted a series of studia throughout Europe where their intellectual and finan-cial resources could be directed toward sermon preparation. Franciscan theologians underscored the utility and necessity of academic study in their own sermons to confreres.19 Con-stitutional legislation, seeking to integrate study with the papal directives and ministerial requirements, appeared, and

15 Testimonia minora saeculi xiii, ed. Leonardus Lemmens (Florence: Ad claras aquas, 1926), 10.

16 Servus Gieben, “Preaching in the Franciscan Order (Thirteenth Cen-tury),” in Monks, Nuns, and Friars in Medieval Society (Swanee: Swanee Medieval Colloquium, 1989), 9-12.

17 Jörg Oberste, “Predigt und Gesellschaft um 1200: Praktische Mor-altheologie und pastorale Neuorientierung im Umfeld der Pariser Uni-versität am Vorabend der Mendikanten,” in Die Bettelorden im Aufbau: Beiträge zu Institutionalisierungsprozessen im mittelalterlichen Reli-giosentum, hrsg. Gert Melville and Jörg Oberste (Münster: LIT Verlag, 1999), 292-94.

18 Lawrence Landini, The Causes of the Clericalization of the Order of Friars Minor (Chicago: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1968), 68-69.

19 Jacques Bougerol, “Le origini e la finalità dello studio nell’ordine francescano,” Antonianum 53 (1978): 405-22.

tiMothy Johnson90

guardians, provincials, and general ministers were expected to confirm and apply these legal prescriptions. One notable example of such an affirmation is evident in Bonaventure’s predecessor, John of Parma, who considered theological study an indispensable aspect of Minorite identity20 and the rigor-ous examination before the reception of the preaching office as obligatory.21

All of this means that Bacon is claiming that the entire effort of his institution to mobilize and commit enormous re-sources to pastoral service has been – let’s face the facts here – a failure. Okay, let’s also be fair. Bacon admits that ordinary people might get something useful from those trained in the current system, but the results pale in comparison to what they gain from the preaching of Berthold of Regensburg, who, according to Bacon in the Opus tertium, remains a glaring exception to the rule.22 In reality, we might conclude that the Minorite Order would have done better if it had remained outside the educational system as his example of the simple, uneducated brother demonstrated. Now, he does admit that theoretically a theologian should be the better preacher,23 but experience has proved otherwise. Obviously, Bacon’s life and literary opus shows that he is not against education per se, but rather, the current pedagogical reality evident all around him. In what I find to be a simply remarkable statement, he contends that preaching must precede theology. Simply put, no one should head off to study theology with ministry in mind unless they have demonstrated competency in persuad-ing people to move from vice to virtue, recognize the dangers of damnation and the blessings of heaven, and embrace and live the basic teachings of the faith. We might refer to such individuals today as the viri probati, those whose lives ex-hibit a transparent, on-going witness to the Gospel.

How would such people best be educated? Bacon’s aca-demic proposal includes an analysis of the problems beset-

20 Fratrus Thomae vulgo dictu de Eccleston Tractatus de adventu Fratrum Minorum in Angliam, ed. G. Little (Manchester, 1951), 74.

21 Salimbene de Adam, Cronica I, ed. G. Scalia, CCCM CXXV (Turn-G. Scalia, CCCM CXXV (Turn-hout: Brepols, 1998), 455.

22 Opus tertium, c. 75, 310.23 Compendium studii philosophiae, 428.

Preaching Precedes Theology 91

ting education and a series of reform measures. In the Opus minus, he delineated the seven sins that stand in the way of study.24 The first sin concerns the relationship between philosophy and theology best exemplified in theological com-mentaries where technical philosophical concerns and lan-guage obscures theological issues. The texts are meant to be read and preached, but instead they are divided up into sec-tions, violently forced to agree with each other, and harmo-nized. This is an artificial way of explaining Scripture that mimics the methodologies employed by the masters of the arts, cannon lawyers, and grammarians. The second sin is the ignorance of the sciences that are best suited to theology. Theologians utilize the worthless sciences of Latin grammar, logic, natural philosophy, and certain aspects of metaphys-ics instead of mathematics, optics, moral and experiential knowledge, and alchemy. These sciences are good for the soul, the body, and life in society and thereby meaningful, whereas even Latin grammar is a waste of time since the sacred texts are not even in that language.

The third sin follows on the second since philosophy and theology are grounded in foreign languages and theologians are unable to understand the sacred texts and consequently pervert them. Ignorance follows, and theologians promote what is false and useless, accept what is doubtful as certain and what is obscure as clear. An example of this massive fail-ure is the so-called Summa Alexandri, which, Bacon notes, was heavier than a horse and dismissed by everyone despite their veneration of Alexander. Unfortunately, those who pro-duce these burdensome horses, that is to say, the masters of the Sentences, have pride of place above those who are mas-ters of the biblical text.

That theologians favor the Sentences over the Scriptures is the fourth sin. The utilization and promotion of a corrupt biblical text is singled out by Bacon as the fifth sin. Since this is an extremely serious sin, Bacon devotes a great deal of effort in delineating the multifaceted shortcomings of the Pa-risian Vulgate – the biblical text used by scholar and student alike. The sixth sin is linked to the fifth and is the gravest

24 Opus minus, 322-57.

tiMothy Johnson92

of all because a corrupted literal text induces corrupt spiri-tual interpretations, which are false or at least dubious. Once again the root of the error is the lack of linguistic preparation among theologians compounded by their limited understand-ing of history and culture. This ignorance is the seventh sin because it obscures the literal sense and confuses the spiri-tual sense of a particular biblical text. Relying on Augustine here, Bacon asks how Christians can understand what Jesus wants from them when he asks them to be as clever as snakes if they are blind to the workings of the natural world.

The state of the mendicant orders as described in the later Compendium studii philosophiae magnifies these sins.25 En-tangled in an on-going struggle with the secular professors in Paris, religious – here Bacon is referring specifically to the Preachers and Minors – have been punished by God like the people of Israel. The relationship between mendicants and the seculars has been reduced to a shouting match where each side accuses the other of being a heretic and a min-ion of the Antichrist. In the end the mendicants trust that their holiness and the youthful innocence of those entering their communities will safeguard them from heresy and the Antichrist. While Bacon is quick to defend his confreres and argue that the entire Church knows that religious possess a holier state of life than the seculars, he points out that re-ligious are responsible for the corruption of the educational curriculum of the Church.

It is these young, modern theologians, who Bacon explic-itly calls the boys of the two orders, who have continually created obstacles to wisdom by neglecting crucial academic disciplines like language acquisition, mathematics, optics, alchemy, and experiential knowledge. By their teaching, preaching, or offering counsel, these young confreres rail against these sciences necessary for theology. In the end all they have is the solace of their inexperience, as they deprive others of the steps needed to arrive at wisdom. Acquisition of these disciplines is not difficult, Bacon maintains time and time again, and like the feathers of a bird, if the sciences are not employed, students cannot take flight. Bacon truly be-

25 Compendium studii philosophiae, 425-33.

Preaching Precedes Theology 93

lieves that education is possible for everyone, and given the right tools and encouragement, wisdom is within the reach of every man, woman, and yes, child.

As history has shown, Bacon’s critique, as well as his pro-posed wisdom curriculum, did not lead to a radical reapprais-al of education within the Church of his day. Indeed, it may have gotten him condemned and placed under house arrest as the less than reliable Chronicle of the Twenty-Four Gener-als maintains.26 He is something of an uncomfortable – when remembered – memory in the Franciscan tradition, and one wonders at times what to do with him.

At least one scholar has pointed out how every age has interpreted Bacon in light of the prevailing concerns of the day, and has called for a renewed examination of Bacon as a Franciscan within a specific historical context without the biases of past ages.27 While certainly in agreement with the insistence on the need to take Bacon’s Franciscan back-ground seriously, I wonder if such an approach can really avoid making judgments devoid of prejudice, albeit benign or unintended. There is clearly no universally agreed upon conception of “Franciscan” as many of us here tonight know quite well; thus, our own understanding and experience of the Franciscan life and particular interpretation of Francis-can sources cannot but help to influence how we work with Bacon’s life and legacy. I, for one, am drawn to his views on preaching, and what they also have to say this evening about education.

I would claim that Bacon’s critique of Franciscan preach-ing proposes a return to the earlier model exemplified by Francis and Chapter 9 of the Rule of 1223 where the brothers

26 For example, on this question, see Paul L. Sidelko, “The condemna-tion of Roger Bacon,” Journal of Medieval History 22, no. 1 (1996): 69-81. The reliability of the Chronica XXIV generalium ordinis Minorum with regard to Bacon’s supposed imprisonment should not be taken for granted given both the source and Bacon’s subsequent Compendium studii theolo-giae, which makes no mention of such an event. See David Fleming, “Rug-gero Bacone e la Scolastica” (Milan: Tip. Pontificia ed Archiv. S. Giuseppe, 1915), 16-17. (Extracted from Rivista di Filosofia Neoscolastica VI (1914): 520-71.)

27 Amanda Power, “A mirror for every age: the reputation of Roger Ba-“A mirror for every age: the reputation of Roger Ba-con,” English Historical Review 121, no. 492 (2006): 657-92.

tiMothy Johnson94

are instructed as to how they should preach when they are among the people. Choosing their brief words well, they are to edify their listeners wherever they may be by reminding them of virtues and vices, punishment and glory.28 According to Bacon, something must have gone terribly wrong when a highly praised program of theology produces men who stand at odds with the greatest preachers of the Christian tradi-tion – including their own founder, as in the case of Francis. While a few confreres like Berthold of Regensburg cultivated a mode of preaching Bacon praised, he nevertheless advo-cated an innovative educational approach that incorporated a wide range of intellectual activities at the service of Sacred Scripture together with a serious commitment to experien-tial learning. What Bacon proposed to Clement IV was a sys-tem of education – a preambula lectionis of Sacred Scripture – that took the preaching experience seriously. It built on a proven ability to proclaim the Christian message in an ef-ficacious fashion, and sought to further form preachers in a wondrous, multidisciplinary knowledge that would inform their understanding and interpretation of Sacred Scripture and God’s creation. This wide-ranging, practical education would empower them to announce salvation in a manner that would engage each person within the world, be one simple or learned, believer or infidel, thereby promoting the redemp-tion of all of humanity.

This broad, yet simple approach to preaching reflects the wider parameters of Bacon’s reform which offered a dynamic, alternative model of Franciscan education. Educated in all the crucial sciences and receptive to the realities of poor and rich alike, the brothers would have been able to meet people of every walk of life in their daily lives. Ministry would not be confined to cloistered convents and churches, but let loose to wander everywhere within the cloister of the world. No area of human experience would be foreign to those who were well-versed in medicine, languages, pharmacology, chemistry, astronomy, mathematics, optics, and yes, of course philoso-phy and theology. Imagine if every city, town and village was

28 Regula bullata, c. 9, in Francesco d’Assisi, Scritti, ed. Carlo Paolazzi (Grottaferrata-Roma: Frati Editori di Quaracchi, 2009), 334.

Preaching Precedes Theology 95

filled with proven pastoral leaders, well-educated in the sci-ences – people who could speak of the Gospel to blacksmiths, farmers, artisans, weavers, and others with easy familiarity and deep respect for their trades and their lives.

In fact, this was the thesis of Franco Alessio in his Mito e Scienza in Ruggero Bacone.29 Alessio read Bacon’s reform proposal as the natural extension of the early Franciscan movement’s engagement with the world. His position was quickly dismissed as Marxist by Efrem Bettoni30 and ignored by scholars outside of Italy. I believe, however, that this the-sis deserves another hearing as we take a hard, long look at the nature and goal of Franciscan education in light of our experiences, sources and the needs of our day. As I men-tioned early on, as we criticize we should also look for ways to construct meaningful alternatives. Roger Bacon’s attacks on preaching and what he conceived to be a corrupt educational system were not made without deep consideration of what might replace them and why.

The brief pontificate of Clement IV, together with the in-stitutional commitment of the Franciscans and other men-dicants to the prevailing scholastic system, ensured that Bacon’s critique of preaching and proposed educational re-form fell on deaf ears within his community and the greater Christendom. The questions he raised in regard to the re-lationship between poor preaching and education, however, remains open – at least to those who still keep their ears open during a sermon, or still go to class with the hope that their education will change their lives and the lives of others for the better.

Timothy J. JohnsonFlagler College

29 Franco Alessio, Mito e Scienza in Ruggero Bacone (Milan: Casa Edi-trice Ceschina, 1957), 79-105. See also Id., Introduzione a Ruggero Bacone (Rome: Editori Laterza, 1985), 38-49.

30 Efrem Bettoni, “S. Bonaventura e Ruggero Bacone: Clerici e Simpli-ces in una recente interpretazione,” Studi Francescani 59 (1962): 24-46.