NOTES

BY JAMES SPEDDING

NOTE A.

I THOUGHT it better not to interrupt the reader with notes during the progress of the foregoing argument, but as some points are assumed in it upon which I shall have to express a different opinion hereafter, it may be well to notice them here; the rather because I fully concur in the conclusion notwithstanding.

1. It is assumed that the first book of Valerius Terminus was designed to comprehend a general survey of knowledge, such as forms the subject of the second book of the Advancement of Learning and of the last eight books of the De Augmentis Scientiarum, as well as the general reflexions and precepts, which form the subject of the first book of the Novum Organum; —to comprehend in short the whole first part of the Instauratio, together with the introductory portion of the second.

This is inferred from the description of the “Inventary ” which was to be contained in the tenth chapter of Valerius Terminus, as compared with the contents of the second book of the Advancement of Learning.

Now my impression is that this Inventary would have corresponded, not to the second book of the Advancement, but only to a certain Inventarium opum humanarum which is there, and also in the De Augmentis (iii. 5), set down as a desideratum; and which was to be, not a general survey of all the departments of knowledge, but merely an appendix to one particular department; that, namely, which is called in the Advancement Naturalis Magia, sive Physica operativa major¹; and in the Calalogus Desideratorum at the end of the De Augmentis, Magia Naturalis, sive Deductio formarum ad opera.

The grounds of this conclusion will be explained fully in their proper place.² It is enough at present to mark the point as disputable; and to observe that if this argument fails, there seems to be no reason for thinking that anything corresponding to the first part of the Instauratio entered into the design of Valerius Terminus; also that the principal ground here alleged for concluding that Valerius Terminus was written some time before the Advancement—a conclusion which involves one considerable difficulty —is taken away.

2. It is assumed also that Valerius Terminus was not to contain anything correspondingto the last four parts of the Instauratio, but was to be merely “a statement of Bacon's method, without professing to give either the collection of facts to which the method was to be applied, or the results thereby obtained ”.

This appears to be inferred chiefly from the title—viz. “Of the Interpretation of Nature ”.

Now it seems to me that this argument proves too much. For I find the same title given to another unfinished work—the Temporis Partus Masculus—of which we happen to know that it was meant to be in three books; the first to be entitled Perpolitio et applicatio mentis; the second, Lumen Naturæ, seu formula Interpretationis; the third, Natura illuminata, sive Veritas Rerum. The first would have corresponded therefore to the first book of the Novum Organum; the second, being a statement of the new method, to the second and remaining books; the third, being a statement of the application of the new method, to the sixth and last part of the Instauratio. It would seem from this that when Bacon designed the Temporis Partus Masculus, he had conceived the idea of a work embracing the entire field of the Instauratio (the first part only ex-cepted), though less fully developed and differently distributed. And I see no sufficient reason for supposing that the design of the Valerius Terminus was less extensive.

3. “The Temporis Partus Masculus published by Gruter ” is spoken of as probably or possibly “the same as the Temporis Parlus Maximus mentioned by Bacon in his letter to Fulgenzio ”, and if so, the earliest of all his writings.

Now the writing or rather collection of writings here alluded to is that published not by Gruter but by M. Bouillet; in whose edition of the “Œuvres Philosophiques ” the title Temporis Partus Masculus is prefixed to four distinct pieces, 1. A short prayer. 2. A fragment headed Aphorismi et Consilia de auxiliis mentis et accensione luminis naluralis. 3. A short piece entitled De Interpretatione Naturæ sententiæ duodecim. 4. A fragment in two chapters headed Tradendi modus legitimus. It is true that from the manner in which M. Bouillet has printed them, any one would suppose that he had Gruter's authority for collecting them all under the same general title. But it is not so. In Gruter's Scripta philosophica the title Temporis Partus Masculus appears in connexion with the first, and the first only. The last has indeed an undoubted claim to it upon other and better authority. But I can find no authority whatever for giving it to the other two. If therefore the resemblance of the names be thought a sufficient reason for identifying the Partus Masculus with the Partus Maximus, that identity must be understood as belonging to the first and fourth only. The grounds of that opinion and of my own dissent from it will be discussed in the proper place. With regard to the argument now in hand,—(viz. whether Bacon, when he wrote the Temporis Partus Masculus, had yet thought of producing a great work like the Instauratio)—it is enough perhaps to observe that at whatever period or periods of his life these four pieces were composed, they all belong to the second part of the Instauratio; not as prefaces or prospectuses, but as portions of the work itself; and that if none of them contains any allusion to the other parts, the. same may be said of the first book of the Novum Organum itself; and therefore that we cannot be warranted in concluding from that fact that the plan of the Instauratio had not yet been conceived.

4. It is assumed that the work which Bacon contemplated when he wrote the De Interpretatione Naturæ Procemium would not have contained the new method and its results (these being, according to his then intention, tobe communicated only to chosen followers), but merely the general views of science which form the subject of the first book of the Novum Organum.

This seems to be gathered from what he says in the Procemium concerning the manner in which the several parts of the work were to be published: “Publicandi autera ista ratio ea est, ut quæ ad ingeniorum correspondentias captandas et mentium areas pur gandas pertinent, edantur in vulgus et per ora volitent: reliqua per manus tradanlur cum electione et judicio ”: the “reliqua ” being, as appears a little farther on, “ipsa Interpretationis formula et inventa per eandem ”: from which it seems to be inferred that the exposition of the new method was not only not to be published along with the rest of the work, but to be excluded from it altogether ;—to be kept as a secret, and transmitted orally. The grounds of this opinion I shall examine more particularly in a subsequent note with reference to another question. The question with which we are now dealing is only whether at that time Bacon can be supposed to have “thought of producing a great work like the Instauratio ”: upon which I will only say that as an intention not to publish does not imply an intention not to write, so neither does an intention to write imply an intention to publish. And since there is nothing in the Partis secundæ Delineatio from which we can infer that even then he intended to publish the whole, I do not see how we can infer that the design of composing a great work like the Instau-ratio had been conceived in the interval between the writing of these two pieces. For as in the one case he may not have intended to publish what we know he did intend to write, so in the other he may have intended to write what we know he did not intend to publish. And indeed though the Procemium stands in Gruter's volume by itself and we cannot know to which of Bacon's projected works on the Interpretation of Nature it was meant to be prefixed, there is none which it seems to fit so well as the Temporis Parlus Masculus. Now the Temporis Partus Masculus, as we know from the titles of the three books above quoted, was to contain both the formula Interpretationis and the inventa per eandem.

All these points will be considered more at large when I come to state the grounds upon which I have assigned to each tract its place in this edition. In the meantime I am unwilling to let any conclusion of importance appear to rest upon them; and in the present case all inferences which are in any way dependent upon the assumptions which I have noticed as questionable may I think be freely dispensed with. That to bring in a new method of Induction was Bacon's central idea and original design, and that the idea of an Inslauratio Magna came after, may in the absence of all evidence to the contrary be safely enough inferred from his own words in the Advancement of Learning; where after reporting a deficiency of the first magnitude in that department of knowledge which concerns the invention of sciences,—a deficiency proved by the barrenness and accounted for by the viciousness and incompetency of the method of induction then in use,—he adds, “This part of Invention, concerning the Invention of Sciences, I purpose, if God give me leave, hereafter to propound: having digested into two parts; whereof the one I term Experientia Literata, and the other Interpretatio Naturæ³; the former being but a degree and rudiment of the latter. But I will not dwell too long nor speak too great upon a promise.” This “Interpretatio Naturæ ” can have been nothing else therefore than a new method of induction to supply the place of the vicious and incompetent method then in use; and since among all the reported “deficiencies ” this is the only one which he himself proposes to supply,—for of the others he merely gives specimens to make his meaning clear,—we may, I think, safely conclude that this and no other was the great work which he was meditating when he wrote the Advance-ment of Learning. His expressions moreover seem to imply that this work was already begun and in progress; and seeing that the Valerius Terminus answers the description both in title and (so far as the first book goes, which is all we know of) in contents also, why may we not suppose that it was a commencement or a sketch of the very work he speaks of, and that of the fragment which has been preserved part was written before and part after? a supposition probable enough in itself, and by which at least one difficulty, which I shall mention hereafter⁴, is effectually removed.

As an additional reason for thinking that the Idea of the Instauratio Magna was of later date than that of a work on the Interpretation of Nature, I may observe that the name Instauratio does not occur in any of Bacon's letters earlier than 1609. The earliest of his compositions in which it appears was probably the Partis Instaurationis secundæ Delineatio et Argumentum; but of this the date cannot be fixed with any certainty; and as Gruter is our only authority for it, and the word Instauratio appears in the title only, not in the body of the work, we cannot even be sure that it was originally there. If Gruter found a manuscript headed “Partis secundæ Delineatio, etc.”, and evidently referring to the parts of the Instauratio Magna, he was likely enough to insert the word silently by way of explanation.

NOTE B.

THE question is, how far, by what means, and with what motive, Bacon at one time wished to keep his system secret.

Let us first compare all the passages in which such an intention appears to be intimated, or such a practice alluded to; taking them in chronological order, as far as our knowledge of the dates of his various writings enables us to do so. These which follow are all that I have been able to find.

1. Valerius Terminus. Ch. 18.

“That the discretion anciently observed, though by the precedent of many vain persons and deceivers abused, of publishing part and reserving part to a private succession, and of publishing in such a manner whereby it may not be to the taste or capacity of all, but shall as it were single and adopt his reader, is not to be laid aside; both for the avoiding of abuse in the excluded, and the strengthening of affection in the admitted ”.

And again (Ch. 11.), ” To ascend further by scale I do forbear, partly because it would draw on the example to an over-great length, but chiefly because it would open that which in this work I determine to reserve.”

2. Advancement of Learning.

“And as Alexander Borgia was wont to say of the expedition of the French for Naples, that they came with chalk in their hands to mark up their lodgings, and not with weapons to fight; so I like better that entry of truth which cometh peaceably with chalk to mark up those minds which are capable to lodge and harbour it, than that which cometh with pugnacity and contention.”

3. Advancement of Learning.

“Another diversity of method there is,” [he is speaking of the different methods of “tradition ”, i.e. of communicating and transmitting knowledge] which hath some affinity with the former, used in some cases by the discretion of the ancients, but disgraced since by the impostures of many vain persons, who have made it as a false light for their counterfeit merchandises; and that is, enigmatical and disclosed. The pretence whereof [that is, of the enigmatical method] is to remove the vulgar capacities from being admitted to the secrets of knowledges, and to reserve them to selected auditors, or wits of such sharpness as can pierce the veil.”

4. Proæmium de Interpretatione Naturæ.

“Publicandi autem ista ratio ea est, ut quæ ad ingeniorum correspondentias cap-tandas et mentium areas purgandas pertinent, edantur in vulgus et per ora volitent; reliqua per manus tradantur cum electione et judicio. Nec me latet usitatum et tritum esse impostorum artificium, ut quædam a vulgo secernant nihilo iis ineptiis quas vulgo propinant meliora. Sed ego sine omni impostura, ex providentiâ sanâ prospicio, ipsam interpretationis formulam et inventa per eandem, intra legitima et optata ingenia clausa, vegetiora et munitiora futura.”

5. De Interpretatione Naturæ Sententiæ XII. De moribus Interpretis.

“Sit etiam in scientiâ quam adeptus est nec occultandâ nec proferendâ vanus, sed ingenuus et prudens: tradatque inventa non ambitiosè aut malignè, sed modo primum maxime vivaci et vegeto, id est ad injurias temporis munitissimo, et ad scientiam pro-pagandam fortissimo, deinde ad errores pariendos innocentissimo, et ante omnia qui sibi legitimum lectorem seponat.”

6. Temporis Partus Masculus. C. 1.

An tu censes cum omnes omnium mentium aditus ac meatus obscurissimis idolis, iisdemque alte hærentibus et inustis, obsessi et obstructi sint, veris Rerum et nativis radiis sinceras et politas areas adesse? Nova invenienda est ratio quâ mentibus obductissimis illabi possimus. Ut enim phreneticorum deliramenta arte et ingenio subvertuntur, vi et contentione efferantur, omnino ita in hâc universali insaniâ mos gerendus est. Quid? leviores illæ conditiones, quæ ad legitimum scientiæ tradendæ modum pertinent, an tibi tam expeditæ et faciles videntur? ut modus innocens sit; d est nulli prorsus errori ansam et occasionem præbeat? ut vim quandam insitam et innatam habeat tum ad fidem conciliandam, turn ad pellendas injurias temporis, adeo ut scientia ita tradita, veluti planta vivax et vegeta, quotidie serpat et adolescat? ut idoneum et legitimum sibi lectorem seponat et quasi adoptet?”

7. Cogitata et visa.

“Itaque de re non modo perficiendâ sed et communicandâ et tradendâ (quâ par est curâ) cogitationem suscipiendam esse. Reperit autem homines in rerum scientiâ quam sibi videntur adepti, interdum proferendâ interdum occultandâ, famæ et ostentationi servire: quin et eos potissimum qui minus solida proponunt solere ea quæ adferunt obscurâ et ambiguâ luce venditare, ut facilius vanitati suæ velificare possint. Putare autem se id tractare quod ambitione aliquâ aut affectatione polluere minime dignum sit; sed tamen necessario eo decurrendum esse (nisi forte rerum et animorum valde i mperitus esset, et prorsus inexplorato viam inire vellet) ut satis meminerit, inveteratos semper errores, tanquam phreneticorum deliramenta, arte et ingenio subverti, vi et contentione efferari. Itaque prudentiâ et morigeratione quâdam utendum (quanta cum simplicitate et candore conjungi potest) ut contradictiones ante extinguentur quam excitentur. …. Venit ei itaque in mentem posse aliquid simplicius proponi, quod in vulgus non editum, saltern tarnen ad rei tarn salutaris abortum arcendum satis fortasse esse possit. Ad hunc finem parare se de naturâ opus quod errores minimâ asperitate destruere, et ad hominum mentes non turbide accedere possit; quod et facilius fore, quod non se pro duce gesturus, sed ex naturâ lucem præbiturus et sparsurus sit, ut duce postea non sit opus.”

8. Redargutio Philosophiarum (the beginning of the Pars secunda, following the Delineatio).

“Omnem violentiam (ut jam ab initio professi sumus) abesse volumus: atque quod Borgia facetè de Caroli octavi expeditione in Italiam dixit; Gallos venisse in manibus cretam tencntes quâ diversoria notarent, non arma quibus perrumperent; similem quoque inventormn nostroram et rationem et successum animo præcipimus; nimirum ut potius animas hominum capaces et. idoneos seponere et subite possint, quam contra sentientibus molesta sint.”

9. Novum Organum. I. 35.

“Dixit Borgia de expeditione Gallorum in Italiam, eos venisse cum cretâ in manibus, ut diversoria notarent, non cum armis, ut perrumperent: Itidem et nostra ratio est; ut doctrina nostra animos idoneos et capaces subintret; confutationum enim nullus est usus, ubi de principiis et ipsis notionibus atque etiam de formis demonstrationum dis-sentimus.”

10. De Augmentis Scientiarum. VI. 2.

“Sequitur aliud methodi discrimen, priori [methodo ad filios, etc.], intentione affine, reipsâ fere contrarium. Hoc enim habet utraque methodus commune, ut vulgus audi-torum a selectis separet; illud oppositum, quod prior introducit modum tradendi solito apertiorem; altera, de quâ jam dicemus, occultiorem. Sit igitur discrimen tale, ut altera methodus sit exoterica, altera acroamatica. Etenim quam antiqui adhibuerunt præcipue in edendis libris differentiam, earn nos transferimus ad ipsum modum tradendi. Quin etiam acroamatica ipsa apud veteres in usu fuit, atque prudentur et cum judicio adhibita. At acroamaticum sive ænigmaticum istud dicendi genus posterioribus tem-poribus dehonestatum est a plurimis, qui eo tanquam lumine ambiguo et fallaci abusi sunt ad merces suas adulterinas extrudendas. Intentio autem ejus ea esse videtur, ut traditionis involucris vulgus (projanum scilicet) a secretis scientiarum summoveatur; atque illi tantum admittantur qui aut per manus magistrorum parabolarum interpretationem nacti sunt, aut proprio ingenii acumine et subtilitate intra velum penetrate possint.”

These are all the passages I have been able to find, in which the advantage of keeping certain parts of knowledge reserved to a select audience is alluded to. And the question is whether the reserve which Bacon contemplated can be justly compared with that practised by the alchemists and others, who concealed their discoveries as “treasures of which the value would be decreased if others were allowed to share in it ”.

Now I would observe in the first place that though the expression “single and adopt his reader ”, or its equivalent, occurs in all these passages, and that too in immediate reference to the method of delivery or transmission, yet in many of them the object of so singling and adopting the reader was certainly not to keep the knowledge secret; for many, indeed most, of them relate to that part of the subject which Bacon never proposed to reserve, but which was designed “edi in vulgus et per ora volitare ”. The part which he proposed to reserve is distinctly defined in the fourth extract as “ipsa interpretationis formula et inventa per eandem ”; the part to be published is “ea quæ ad ingeniorum correspondentias captandas et mentium areas purgandas pertinent ”. Now it is unquestionably to this latter part that the second, the eighth, and the ninth extracts refer. “Primo enim,” he says in the Partis secundæ Delineatio, “mentis area æquanda et liberanda ab eis quæ hactenus recepta sunt ”. This he calls Pars destruens; and he proposes to begin with the Redargutio Philosophiarum, from the introduction to which the eighth extract is taken. And the other two must of course be classed with it. Thus the “animi capaces et idonei ” which he wishes “seponere et subire ”, are clearly identified with the minds marked up with chalk as capable of lodging and harbouring the truth, which are spoken of in the Advancement.

Next to the Pars destruens came the Pars præparans, the object of which was to prepare men's expectations for what was coming, and by dislodging erroneous preconceptions to make their minds ready for the reception of the truth. To this part belongs the seventh extract; and if the seventh, then the sixth, which evidently corresponds to it; and if the sixth, then the fifth, which is but the sixth condensed. Or if there be any doubt about the correspondence between the seventh and sixth, it will I think be removed by comparing them both with the following passage which winds up the description of the Pars præparans in the Partis secundæ Delineatio.

“Quod si cui supervacua videatur accurata ista nostra quam adhibemus ad mentes præparandas diligentia, atque cogitet hoc quiddam esse ex pompâ et in ostentationem compositum; itaque cupiat rem ipsam missis ambagibus et præstructionibus simpli-citer exhiberi; certe optabilis nobis foret (si vera esset) hujusmodi insimulatio. Utinam enim tarn proclive nobis esset difficultates et impedimenta vincere quam fastum inanem et falsum apparatum deponere. Verum hoc velimus homines existiment, nos haud inexplorato viam in tantâ solitudine inire, præsertim cum argumentum hujusmodi præ manibus habeamus quod tractandi imperitiâ perdere et veluti exponere nefas sit. Itaque ex perpenso et perspecto tam rerum quam animorum statu, duriores fere aditus ad hominum mentes quam ad res ipsas invenimus, ac tradendi labores inveniendi laboribus haud multo leviores experimur, atque, quod in intellectualibus res nova fere est, morem gerimus, et tam nostras cogitationes quam aliorum simul bajulamus. Omne enim idolum vanum arte atque obsequio ac debito accessu subvertitur, vi et contentions atque incursione subitâ et abruptâ efferatur.…. Quâ in re accedit et alia quædam difficultas ex moribus nostris non parva, quod constantissimo decreto nobis ipsi sanci-vimus, ut candorem nostrum et simplicitatem perpetuo retineamus, nec per vana ad vera aditum quæramus; sed ita obsequio nostro modereniur ut tamen non per artifi-cium aliquod vafmm aut imposturam aut aliquid simile imposturæ, sed tantummodo per ordinis lumen et novorum super saniorem partem veterum sollertem insitionem, nos nostrorum votorum compotes fore speremus ”.

Now all this was to precede and prepare for the exposition of the method of induction itself—the “formula ipsa interpretationis ”—which alone it was proposed to reserve; and therefore we must understand the legitimus lector of the fifth and sixth extracts, as corresponding with the “animus capax et idoneus ” of the eighth and ninth; and with the mind “chalked and marked up ” by truth as “capable to lodge and harbour it ”, of the second; and we must not suppose that the process of singling and adopting the fit reader was to be effected by any restraint in communication, or any obscurity in style, which should exclude others; but by presenting the truth in such a shape as should be least likely to shock prejudice or awaken contradiction, and most likely to win its way into those minds which were best disposed to receive it. The object was to propagate knowledge so that it should grow and spread: the difficulty anticipated was not in excluding auditors, but in finding them⁵.

Thus I conceive that six out of the ten passages under consideration must be set aside as not bearing at all upon the question at issue. Of the four that remain, two must be set aside in like manner, because, though they directly allude to the practice of transmitting knowledge as a secret from hand to hand, they contain no evidence that Bacon approved of it. These are the third and the last, and come respectively from the Advancement of Learning, one of his earliest works, and from the De Augmentis Scientiarum, one of his latest. In both these works the object being to show in what departments the stock of knowledge then existing was defective, the various methods which have been or may be adopted for the transmission of knowledge are pointed out as a fit subject of inquiry, and the secret or enigmatical or acroamatic method is described among the rest: but it is described only, not recommended.

There remain therefore only the first and the fourth extracts to be considered; and it is true that in both of these Bacon intimates an intention to reserve the communication of one part of his philosophy—the “formula ipsa interpretationis et inventa per eandem ”;—to certain fit and chosen persons. May we infer from the expressions which he there uses, that his object was to prevent it from becoming generally known, as being a treasure which would lose its value by being divulged? Such a supposition seems to me inconsistent not only with all we know of his proceedings, purposes, and aspirations, but with the very explanation with which he himself accompanies the suggestion. The fruits which he anticipated from his philosophy were not only intended for the benefit of all mankind, but were to be gathered in another generation. Is it conceivable that at any time of his life he would have willingly foregone the aid of any single fellow-labourer, or that anything could have been more welcome than the prospect of a rapid and indefinite increase of those “legitima et optata ingenia ” in whose hands it might be expected to thrive and spread? But setting general probabilities aside, let us look at the reasons which he himself assigns for the precaution which he meditates. Ask why in Valerius Terminus he proposes to reserve part of his discovery to “a private succession? ” His answer is, first, “for the prevention of abuse in the excluded ”; that is, because if it should fall into incapable and unfit hands it will be misused and mismanaged: secondly, “for the strengthening of affection in the admitted ”; that is, be-cause the fit and capable will take more interest in the work when they feel that it is committed to their charge. Ask again why in the Proæmium he proposes to keep the Formula of interpretation private,—“intra legitima et optata ingenia clausa? ” The answer is to the same effect—it will be “vegetior et munitior ”; it will flourish better and be kept safer. And certainly if we refer to any of the many passages in which he has either enumerated the obstructions which had hitherto hindered the progress of knowledge, or described the qualifications, moral and intellectual, and the order of proceeding, which he considered necessary for the successful prosecution of the new philosophy, we may easily understand why he anticipated more hindrance than help from a popular audience.

Upon a review of the evidence therefore I see no reason to suspect that he had any other motive for his proposed reserve than that which he himself assigns; and I think we may conclude that he meant to withhold the publication of his Formula, not “as a secret of too much value to be lightly revealed ”, but as a subject too abstruse to be handled successfully except by the fit and few.

NOTE C.

On some changes in Bacon's treatment of his doctrine of Idols.

“WHEN the doctrine of Idols ” (says Mr. Ellis) “was thrown into its present form ” [i.e. the form in which it appears in the Novum Organum, as contrasted with that in which it appears in the Partis secundæ Delineatio], “it ceased to afford a convenient basis for the pars destruens, and accordingly the substance of the three Redargutiones is in the Novum Organum less systematically set forth than Bacon purposed that it should be when he wrote the Partis secundæ Delineatio ”.

That the argument is set forth in the Novum Organum less systematically than Bacon originally intended, is no doubt true; for when he wrote the “Partis secundæ Delineatio et Argumentum ”.hemeant to handle the subject regularly and completely, or (as he would himself have expressed it) “in Corpore tractatus justi ”; and this in the entrance of the Novum Organum, which is the “Pars secunda ” itself, we are expressly warned not to expect. “Sequitur secunda pars Instaurationis, quæ artem ipsam interpretandi Natu-ram et verioris adoperationis Intellectùs exhibet: neque eam ipsam tamen in Corpore tractatus justi; sed tantûm digestam per summas, in Aphorismos.” A succession of aphorisms, not formally connected with each other, was probably the most convenient form for setting forth all that was most important in those parts of his work which he had ready; for without binding him to exhibit them in regular and apparent connexion, it left him at liberty to make the connexion as perfect and apparent as he pleased. But it has one disadvantage: the divisions between aphorism and aphorism tend to conceal from the eye the larger divisions between subject and subject. And hence arises the appearance (for I think it is only an appearance) of a deviation from the plan originally marked out for the treatment of the pars destruens. Between the publication of the Advancement of Learning and the composition of the Novum Organum, the doctrine of Idols underwent one considerable modification; but not, I think, the one here supposed. That modification was introduced before the Partis secundæ Delineatio was drawn up; and after that I cannot find evidence of any substantial change.

I will first exhibit the successive aspects which the doctrine assumes, and then give what I suppose to be the true history of them.

In the Advancement of Learning, the Idols, native and adventitious, of the human mind are distributed into three kinds; not distinguished as yet by names, but corresponding respectively to those of the Tribe, the Cave, and the Market-place. In Valerius Terminus, they are distributed into four kinds: the Tribe, the Palace (corresponding with the Market-place), the Cave, and the Theatre. In the Partis secundce Delineatio they are distributed again into three, but classified quite differently. The two great divisions of Adventitious and Native are retained: “aut adscititia sunt… nimirum quæ immigrârunt in mentem, etc., aut ea qua menti ipsi et substantiæ ejus inhærentia sunt et innata ”; but the subdivisions are entirely changed ;—the Adventitious being here divided into two kinds, neither of which is recognized at all in the Advancement; the Native, which are divided into two kinds in the Advancement, not being divided at all here, but classed together as one. In the Advancement we find nothing corresponding to the Idols of the Theatre, to which belong both the kinds of adventitious Idols men-tioned in the Delineatio—those derived ex philosophorum placitis, and those derived ex perversis legibus demonstrationum; —in the Delineatio we find nothing corresponding to the Idols of the Market-place, which among those mentioned in the Advancement are alone entitled to be classed as adventitious. Thus the difference between the two appears at first to be total and radical, amounting to an entire rearrangement of all the classes. Instead of Idols of the Tribe, the Cave, and the Market-place, we find Idols of the Philosophies, the Demonstrations, and the Human Mind.

But the truth is that Bacon, being now engaged in laying out the large outlines of his subject, omits the minor distinctions which belong to the development of it in detail, and leaves the particular distribution and description of those “fallacies and false appearances ” which are “inseparable from our nature and condition in life ”—those namely which he had spoken of in the Advancement—to be handled in the work itself. Having, however, as he came into closer contact with his subject, foreseen the opposition which he must expect from prejudices and false appearances of another kind—prejudices which had no root in the mind itself, which were not “inseparable from our nature and condition of life ”,—mere immigrants and strangers that had come in and might be turned out,—namely, the belief in received systems and attachment to received methods of demonstration,—he had resolved to deal with these first; and therefore introduces them as a separate class, dividing them into two parts and assigning to each what we may call a separate chapter. These he afterwards called Idols of the Theatre, and treated them in the manner proposed; with this difference only—that he placed them last instead of first, and ran the two chapters into one.

This being allowed, it will be found that the one substantial change which the doctrine of Idols underwent was the admission of these Idola Theatri into the company, and that there is no real difference between the form of that doctrine as indicated in the Delineatio and as developed in the Novum Organum.

The only difficulty which this view of the subject presents is one which may be probably enough accounted for as an oversight of Bacon's own. I mean the classification of the Idola Fori, the source of which is no doubt extraneous, among the natives. Bacon was never very careful about subtle logical distinctions, and in this case his attention had not as yet been specially called to the point. For in the Advancement of Learning, though the great division between Native and Adventitious appears to be recognized in the margin, there is no hint of it in the text,—the particular Idols not being arranged with any reference to those two general heads; while in Valerius Terminus the larger division is not alluded to at all, and the order in which the four Idols are there enumerated,—the first and third being of one class, the second and fourth of the other,—seems to prove that no such classification was then in his mind. Besides, it is to be remembered that the Idola Fori, however distinct in their origin, are in their nature and qualities much nearer akin to the other two than to the Idola Theatri. For though they come from without, yet when they are once in they naturalise themselves and take up their abode along with the natives, produce as much confusion, and can as hardly be expelled. Philosophical systems may be exploded, false methods of demonstration may be discarded, but intercourse of words is “inseparable from our condition in life.”

At any rate, let the logical error implied be as large as it may, it is certain that Bacon did in fact always class these three together. Wherever he mentions the Idols of the Market-place with any reference to classification, they are grouped with those of the Tribe and the Cave, and distinguished from those of the Theatre. In the Temporis Partus Masculus, c. 2. (which is, I think, the earliest form of the Redargutio Philosophiarum, though probably of later date than the Delineatio) we find “Nam Idola quisque sua (non jam scenæ dico, sed præcipue fori et specus ”), etc. In the De Augmentis Scien tiarum where the four kinds of Idols are enumerated by name and in order, the line of separation is drawn not between the two first and the two last (as it would have been if Bacon had meant to balance the members of his classification on the “dichotomising principle ”, as suggested by Mr. Ellis, p. 225), but between the three first and the fourth; the Idola Fori being classed along with the Idola Tribûs and Specûs, as “quæ plane obsident mentem, neque evelli possunt ”, the Idola Theatri being broadly distinguished from them, as “quæ abnegari possunt et deponi ”, and which may therefore for the present be set aside. In the Novum Organum itself, though the divisions between aphorism and aphorism tend, as I have said, to obscure the divisions of subject, yet if we look carefully we shall see that the line of demarcation is drawn exactly in the same place, and almost as distinctly. For after speaking of the three first kinds of Idol, Bacon proceeds (Aph. 61.), “At Idola Theatri innata non sunt [like those of the Tribe and Cave] nec occulto insinuata in Intellectum [like those of the Market-place], sed ex fabulis theoriarum et perversis legibus demonstrationum plane indita et recepta ”. Lastly, in the Distributio Operis, where the particular Idols are not mentioned by name, but the more general classification of the Delineatio is retained, it is plain that under the class Adscititia he meant to include the Idols of the Theatre only—(“adscititia vero immi-grârunt in mentes hominum, vel ex philosophorum placitis et sectis, vel ex perversis legibus demonstrationum ”)—and therefore he must still have meant to include the Idols of the Market-place, along with the two first, under the class Innata.

It is worthy of remark however that, in the Novum Organum itself, the distinction between Adscititia and Innata disappears. And the fact probably is that when he came to describe the several Idols one by one, he became aware both of the logical inconsistency of classing the Idola Fori among the Innata, and of the practical inconvenience of classing them among the Adscititia, and therefore resolved to drop the dichotomy altogether and range them in four co-ordinate classes. And it is the removal of this boundary line which makes it seem at first sight as if the arrangement were quite changed, whereas it is in fact only inverted. According to the plan of the Partis secundæ Delineatio and also of the Distributio Operis, the confutation of the Immigrants,—that is, the Redargutio Philosophiarum and Redargutio Demonstraiionum,—was to have the precedence, and the confutation of the Natives,—that is, the Redargutio Rationis humante nativæ,—was to follow. As it is, he begins with the last and ends with the first. And the reason of this change of plan is not difficult to divine. The Redargutio Philosophiarum, as he handles it, traverses a wider and more various field, and rises gradually into a strain of prophetic anticipation, after which the Redargutio Rationis would have sounded flat.

¹ See margin. It is to be observed that in Montagu's edition of the Advancement the titles in the margin are by some strange negligence omitted; so that the correspondence between the two Inventaries was the more easily overlooked.

² See my note at the end of Mr. Ellis's preface to Valerius Terminus.

³ The corresponding passage in the De Augmentis calls it “Interpretatio Naturae stve Novum Organum ”.

⁴ See my note at the end of Mr. Ellis's Preface to the Valerius Terminus.

⁵ It may be worth while perhaps to compare with these passages an expression which Bacon uses in his letter to Dr. Playfere,—proposing to him to translate the Advancement of Learning into Latin; where a similar meaning is conveyed under another image. “Wherefore since I have only taken upon me to ring a bell to call other wits together, which is the meanest office, it cannot but be consonant to my desire to have that bell heard as far as can be. And since they are but sparks which can work but upon matter prepared, I have the more reason to wish that those sparks may fly abroad, that they may the better find and light upon those minds and spirits that are apt to be kindled.”