In this chapter we have treated of two Englishmen of the latter half of the twelfth century who are not generally known.[544] They were not, however, without influence, as we have already shown in the case of Daniel of Morley and as the number of manuscripts of the works of Roger of Hereford sufficiently attests for him. Daniel and Roger show that the same interest in astrology and astronomy from Arabic sources prevails at the close of the century in England as at its beginning in the cases of Walcher, prior of Malvern, and Adelard of Bath. Daniel, like Adelard, illustrates the relation of science to Christian thought; Roger, like Walcher, is an astronomer who makes and carefully records observations of his own,[545] while he trusts in astrology as based upon experience. As Alfred of England dedicated his translation of the pseudo-Aristotelian _De vegetabilibus_ to Roger, so he dedicated his _De motu cordis_ (_On the Motion of the Heart_) to a third Englishman, Alexander Neckam, to whom we turn in the next chapter for a picture of the state of science and his work _On the Natures of Things_ (_De naturis rerum_) in his time. FOOTNOTES: [496] Fol. 88r. [497] Fols. 88v-89r. [498] Fol. 95v. [499] Fol. 96. [500] Fol. 94v. [501] Fol. 89v. [502] Fol. 95v. [503] Fol. 93v. [504] Fols. 95r-96. [505] Fol. 92r. [506] Fol. 101v. [507] Fol. 100v. [508] _Idem._ [509] Fol. 99v. [510] Fol. 102v. [511] Fol. 102r. [512] Fol. 100v. [513] _De sensu et sensato_ at fols. 97r and 98v; _De coelo et mundo_, _ibid._; _De auditu naturali_, fol. 97r. I do not know if Al-Farabi’s _De ortu scientiarum_ is meant by (fol. 96r) “Aristotiles in libro de assignanda ratione unde orte sunt scientie.” [514] Fols. 92v, 91v, and 89r. [515] Fol. 99r. [516] Edmund Nolan and S. A. Hirsch, _The Greek Grammar of Roger Bacon_, Cambridge, 1902, p. xlvii. Gasquet, “English Scholarship in the Thirteenth Century,” and “English Biblical Criticism in the Thirteenth Century,” in _The Dublin Review_ (1898), vol. 123, pp. 7 and 362. [517] Fol. 89v, “Calcidius, forte minus provide exponens Platonem, dixit....” We have so often been assured that the Middle Ages knew Plato only through Chalcidius’ translation of the _Timaeus_ that I think it advisable to note this bit of evidence that the medievals did not swallow their Chalcidius whole. [518] Rose (1874), p. 331. Sudhoff (1917), p. 4, although himself calling attention to a second manuscript of Daniel’s treatise, continues to hold that it “scheint wenig Verbreitung gefunden zu haben.” [519] Sudhoff (1917), p. 4, expresses a similar opinion. He still, however, repeats with respect Rose’s assertion that the treatise “wie ein Gift beseitigt worden,” but would explain this as less due to Daniel’s astrological doctrine than his employing Arabian authorities instead of the church fathers.