A still more remarkable parallelism is to be found in the following passages.  “Nam facile est dicere, fiant scripture completae de scientiis, sed nunquam fuerunt apud Latinos aliquae condignae, nec fient, nisi aliud consilium habeatur.  Et nullus sufficeret ad hoc, nisi dominus papa, vel imperator, aut aliquis rex magnificus, sicut est dominus rex Franciae.  Aristoteles quidem, auctoritate et auxiliis regum, et maxime Alexandri, fecit in Graeco quae voluit, et multis millibus hominum usus est in experientia scientiarum, et expensis copiosis, sicut historiae narrant.” (Opus Tertium, Cap. viii.) Compare with this the following passage from the part of the De Augmentis already cited:—­“Et exploratoribus ac speculatoribus Naturae satisfaciendum de expensis suis; alias de quamplurimis scitu dignissimis nunquam fiemus certiores.  Si enim Alexander magnam vim pecuniae suppeditavit Aristoteli, qua conduceret venatores, aucupes, piscatores et alios, quo instructior accederet ad conscribendam historiam animalium; certe majus quiddam debetur iis, qui non in saltibus naturae pererrant, sed in labyrinthis artium viam sibi aperiunt.”

Other similar parallelisms of expression on this topic are to be found in these two authors, but need not be here quoted.  Many resemblances in the words and in the spirit of the philosophy of the two Bacons have been pointed out, and it has even been supposed that the later of these two great philosophers borrowed his famous doctrine of “Idols” from the classification of the four chief hindrances to knowledge by his predecessor.  But the supposition wants foundation, and there is no reason to suppose that Lord Bacon was acquainted with the works of the Friar.  The Rev. Charles Forster, in his Mahometanism Unveiled, a work of some learning, but more extravagance, after speaking of Roger Bacon as “strictly and properly an experimentalist of the Saracenic school,” goes indeed so far as to assert that he “was the undoubted, though unowned, original when his great namesake drew the materials of his famous experimental system.” (Vol.  II. pp. 312-317.) But the resemblances in their systems, although striking in some particulars, are on the whole not too great to be regarded simply as the results of corresponding genius, and of a common sense of the insufficiency of the prevalent methods of scholastic philosophy for the discovery of truth and the advancement of knowledge.  “The same sanguine and sometimes rash confidence in the effect of physical discoveries, the same fondness for experiment, the same preference of inductive to abstract reasoning pervade both works,” the Opus Majus and the Novum Organum.—­Hallam, Europe during the Middle Ages, III. 431.  See also Hallam, Literature of Europe, I. 113; and Mr. Ellis’s Preface to the Novum Organum, p. 90, in the first volume of the admirable edition of the Works of Lord Bacon now in course of publication.]