PREPARATIVE TOWARDS A NATURAL

AND EXPERIMENTAL HISTORY1

PREFACE.

BY JAMES SPEDDING.

AMONG the eight subjects which were to have been handled in the remaining books of the Novum Organum (see ii. 21), the last but one is entitled De parascevis ad inquisitionem, under which head Bacon intended (as appears by the introduction to the following treatise) to set forth the character of the Natural and Experimental History, which was to form the third part of the Instauratio.

What may have been the logical connexion between these eight subjects which determined him to reserve this for the penultimate place, it seems impossible, by the help of the titles alone, to divine. But whatever the order in which he thought advisable to approach it, there can be no doubt that this Natural and Experimental History was always regarded by him as a part of his system both fundamental and indispensable. So earnestly indeed and so frequently does he insist on the importance of it, that I once believed it to be the one real novelty which distinguished his philosophy from those of his contemporaries and immediate predecessors. And even now, though Mr. Ellis's analysis of the Baconian Induction has given me much new light and considerably modified my opinion in that matter, I am still inclined to think that Bacon himself regarded it not only as a novelty, but as the novelty from which the most important results were to be expected; and however experience may have proved that his expectations were in great part vain and his scheme impracticable, I cannot help suspecting that more of it is practicable than has yet been attempted, and that the greatest results of science are still to be looked for from a further proceeding in this direction.

The grounds of this opinion will be explained most conveniently in connexion with the following treatise; a treatise published by Bacon (on account of the exceeding importance of the subject) out of its proper place and incomplete; and to which I find nothing among Mr. Ellis's papers that can serve as preface.

In what the distinctive peculiarity of the Baconian philosophy really consisted, is a question to which every fresh inquirer gives a fresh answer. Before I was acquainted with Mr. Ellis's, which is the latest, and formed upon the largest survey and subtlest scrutiny of the evidence, I had endeavoured to find one for myself, and had come to a conclusion which, though quite different from his, is not I think irreconcilable with it, but contains (as I still venture to believe) a part, though a part only, of the truth. And the question which I wish now to raise is whether, as my solution was imperfect from not taking any account of the novelty contained in the method of Induction as Bacon understood it, Mr. Ellis's be not likewise imperfect from not taking sufficient account of the novelty contained in the Natural History as Bacon intended it to be employed; and whether there be not room for a third solution more complete than either, as including both.

That the philosophy which Bacon meant to announce was in some way essentially different not only from any that had been before but from any that has been

1 [Translation of Parasceve ad historiam naturalem et experimentalem. 1620 in the same volume with the Novum Organum.]

Published in

since, is a position from which in both cases the inquiry sets out; and since it is one which will not perhaps be readily granted by everybody, it may be worth while to explain the considerations which led me to it; the rather because Mr. Ellis and myself, though proceeding not only independently but by entirely different roads and in pursuit of different objects-he endeavouring to penetrate the secret of Bacon's philosophy, I endeavouring to understand the objects and purposes of his life-meet nevertheless at this point in the same conclusion.

The process by which I arrived at it myself, I cannot explain better than by transcribing a paper which I wrote on the subject in 1847; at which time I had not seen any part of Mr. Ellis's argument, or heard his opinion upon the question at issue. What my own opinion is now, I will state afterwards; but first I give the paper exactly as I then wrote it; the length of the extract being justified-at least if there be any truth in the conclusion-by the importance of the questions at issue; for it bears upon the business of the present and future quite as much as on the knowledge of the past. The form in which it is written,-that of a familiar conversation between two friends,-happened to be the most convenient for the business I was then about; and as I could not present the argument more clearly in any other, I leave it as it is.

A.

Before you go on I wish you would satisfy me on one point, upon which I have hitherto sought satisfaction in vain. What after all was it that Bacon did for philosophy? In what did the wonder and in what did the benefit consist? I know that people have all agreed to call him the Father of the Inductive Philosophy; and I know that the sciences made a great start about his time and have in some departments made great progress since. But I could never yet hear what one thing he discovered that would not have been discovered just as soon without his help. It is admitted that he was not fortunate in any of his attempts to apply his principles to practice. It is admitted that no actual scientific discovery of importance was made by him. Well, he might be the father of discovery for all that. But among all the important scientific discoveries which have been made by others since his time, is there any one that can be traced to his teaching? traced to any principles of scientific investigation originally laid down by him, and by no other man before him or contemporary with him? I know very well that he did lay down a great many just principles;-principles which must have been acted upon by every man that ever pursued the study of Nature with success. But what of that? It does not follow that we owe these principles to him. For I have no doubt that I myseli,—I that cannot tell how we know that the earth goes round, or why an apple falls or why the antipodes do not fall, I have no doubt (I say) that if I sat down to devise a course of investigation for the determination of these questions, I should discover a great many just principles which Herschel and Faraday must hereafter act upon, as they have done heretofore. Nay if I should succeed in setting them forth more exactly, concisely, impressively, and memorably, than any one has yet done, they might soon come to be called my principles. But if that were all, I should have done little or nothing for the advancement of science. I should only have been finding for some of its processes a better name. I want to know whether Bacon did anything more than this; and if so, what. In what did the principles laid down by him essentially differ from those on which (while he was thus labouring to expound them) Galileo was already acting? From all that I can hear, it seems evident that the Inductive Philosophy received its great impulse, not from the great prophet of new principles, but from the great discoverers of new facts; not from Bacon, but from Galileo and Kepler. And I suppose that, with regard to those very principles even, if you wanted illustrations of what is commonly called the Baconian method, you would find some of the very best among the works of Gilbert and Galileo. What was it then that Bacon did which entitles him to be called the Regenerator of Philosophy ? or what was it that he dreamt he was doing which made him think the work so entirely his own, so immeasurably important, and likely to be received with such incredulity by at least one generation of mankind?

B.

A pertinent question; for there is no doubt that he was under that impression. "Cum argumentum hujusmodi præ manibus habeam (says he) quod tractandi imperitia perdere et veluti exponere NEFAS sit." He was persuaded that the argument he had in charge was of such value that to risk the loss of it by unskilful handling would be not only a pity but an impiety. You wish to know, and the wish is reasonable, what it was. For answer I would refer you to the philosophers; only I cannot say that their answers are satisfactory to myself. The old answer was that Bacon was the first to break down the dominion of Aristotle. This is now, I think, generally given up. His opposition to Aristotle was indeed conceived in early youth, and (though he was not the first to give utterance to it) I dare say it was not the less his own, and in the proper sense of the word, original. But the real overthrower of Aristotle was the great stir throughout the intellectual world which followed the Reformation and the revival of learning. It is certain that his authority had been openly defied some years before the publication of Bacon's principal writings; and it could not in the nature of things have survived much longer. Sir John Herschel however, while he freely admits that the Aristotelian philosophy had been effectually overturned without Bacon's aid, still maintains Bacon's title to be looked upon in all future ages as the great Reformer of Philosophy; not indeed that he introduced inductive reasoning as a new and untried process, but on account of his "keen perception and his broad and spirit-stirring, almost enthusiastic announcement of its paramount importance, as the alpha and omega of science, as the grand and only chain for linking together of physical truths, and the eventual key to every discovery and every application".

A.

1 That is all very fine; but it seems to me rather to account for his having the title than to justify his claim to it ;-rather to explain how he comes by his reputation than to prove that he deserves it. Try the question upon a modern case. We are now standing upon the threshold of a new era in the science of History. It is easy to see that the universal study of History must be begun afresh upon a new method. Tales, traditions, and all that has hitherto been accounted most authentic in our knowledge of past times, must be set aside as doubtful; and the whole story must be spelt out anew from charters, names, inscriptions, monuments, and such like contemporary records. Now an eloquent man might easily make a broad and spirit-stirring announcement of the paramount importance of this process, as the only key by which the past can be laid open to us as it really was,-the grand and only chain for linking historical truths, and so forth. But would he thereby entitle himself to be called the great reformer of History? Surely not. Such a man might perhaps get the credit, but it is Niebuhr that has done the thing: for Niebuhr was the first both to see the truth and to set the example.

B.

So, I confess, it seems to me. And if I thought that Bacon had aimed at no more than that, I should not think that his time had been altogether well-employed, or his sense of the importance of his own mission to mankind altogether justified. For surely a single great discovery made by means of the inductive process would have done more to persuade mankind of the paramount importance of it, than the most eloquent and philosophical exposition. Therefore in forsaking his experiments about gravitation, light, heat, etc., in order to set forth his classification of the "Prerogatives of Instances", and to lay down general principles of philosophy, he would have been leaving the effectual promotion of his work to secure the exaltation of his name, than which nothing could be more opposite both to his principles and his practice. If his ambition had been only to have his picture stand as the frontispiece of the new philosophy, he could not have done better indeed than come forward as the most eloquent expounder of its principles. But if he wanted (as undoubtedly he did above all other things) to set it on work and bring it into fashion, his business was to pro

duce the most striking illustration of its powers,—the most striking practical proof of what it could do.

Therefore if I thought, as Herschel seems to think, that there was no essential or considerable difference between the doctrines which Bacon preached and those which Galileo practised;-that Galileo was as the Niebuhr of the new philosophy (according to your own illustration), and Bacon only as your supposed eloquent man;-I should agree with you that Bacon's right to be called the Reformer of Philosophy is not made out. But when I come to look at Bacon's own exposition of his views and compare them with the latest and most approved account I have met with of Galileo's works, I cannot but think that the difference between what Galileo was doing and what Bacon wanted to be done is not only essential but immense.

A.

Nay, if the difference be immense, how comes it to be overlooked? It is from no want of the wish to claim for Bacon all the credit he deserves in that line.

B.

No. Rather perhaps from the wish to claim too much. We are so anxious to give him his due that we must needs ascribe to him all that has been done since his time; from which it seems to follow that we are practising his precepts, and that the Baconian philosophy has in fact been flourishing among us for the last 200 years. You believe this, don't you?

A.

People tell me so; and I suppose the only doubt is whether it be exclusively and originally his ;-there is no doubt, I fancy, that it is his.

B.

Certainly that appears to be the general opinion; and it may seem an audacious thing in me to say that it is a mistake. But I cannot help it. It is true that a new philosophy is flourishing among us which was born about Bacon's time; and Bacon's name (as the brightest which presided at the time of its birth) has been inscribed upon it.

"Hesperus, that led

The starry host, rode brightest : "

not that Hesperus did actually lead the other stars; he and they were moving under a common force, and they would have moved just as fast if he had been away; but because he shone brightest, he looked as if he led them. But if I may trust Herschel, I must think that it is the Galilean philosophy that has been flourishing all these years; and if I may trust my own eyes and power of construing Latin, I must think that the Baconian philosophy has yet to come.

If Bacon were to reappear among us at the next meeting of the Great British Association, or say rather if he had appeared there two or three years ago (for there seems to be something great and new going on now), I think he would have shaken his head. I think he would have said, "Here has been a great deal of very good diligence used by several persons; but it has not been used upon a well-laid plan. These solar systems, and steam-engines, and Daguerreotypes, and electric telegraphs, are so many more pledges of what might be expected from an instauration of philosophy such as I recommended more than 200 years ago; why have you not tried that? You have been acting all the time like a king who should attempt to conquer a country by encouraging private adventurers to make incursions each on his own account, without any system of combined movements to subdue and take possession. I see that wherever you have the proper materials and plenty of them your work is excellent; so was Gilbert's in my time; so was Galileo's; ny even Kepler-though his method was as unskilful as that of the boy who in doing a long-division sum would first guess at the quotient and then multiply it into the divisor to see whether it were true, and if it came out wrong would make another guess and multiply again, and so on till

he guessed right at last,-yet because he had a copious collection of materials ready to his hand, and enormous perseverance however perversely applied, and a religious veracity, did at last hit upon one of the greatest discoveries ever made by one man. But what could Kepler have done without Tycho Brahe's tables of observation? And what might Galileo not have done if he had had a large enough collection of facts? This therefore it is that disappoints me. I do not see any sufficient collection made of materials,—that is, of facts in nature-or any effectual plan on foot for making one. You are scarcely better off in that respect than I was; you have each to gather the materials upon which you are to work. You cannot build houses, or weave shirts, or learn languages so. If the builder had to make his own bricks, the weaver to grow his own flax, the student of a dead language to make his own concordance, where would be your houses, your shirts, or your scholars? And by the same rule if the interpreter of Nature is to forage for his facts, what progress can you expect in the art of interpretation? Your scholar has his dictionary provided to his hand; but your natural philosopher has still to make his dictionary for himself.

"And I wonder the more at this, because this is the very thing of all others which I myself pointed out as absolutely necessary to be supplied, as the thing which was to be set about in the first place,-the thing without which no great things could possibly be done in philosophy. And since you have done me the honour to think so very highly of my precepts, I am a little surprised that you have not thought it worth while in so very essential a point to follow them. And to say the truth, I could wish for my own reputation (if that were of any consequence) that you had either honoured me a little more in that way, or not honoured me quite so much in other ways. You call me the Father of your Philosophy, meaning it for the greatest compliment you can pay. I thank you for the compliment, but I must decline the implied responsibility. I assure you this is none of mine.-May I ask whether any attempt has been made to collect that 'Historiam naturalem et experimentalem quæ sit in ordine ad condendam philosophiam', concerning which I did certainly give some very particular directions; which I placed as conspicuously as I could in the very front and entrance of my design;-of which I said that all the genius and meditation and argumentation in the world could not do instead of it; no, not if all men's wits could meet in one man's head; therefore that this we must have, or else the business must be given up? 2-If this has been fairly tried and found impracticable or ineffectual, blot me out of your books as a dreamer that thought he had found out a great thing but it turned out nothing. If not, I still think it would be worth your while to try it."

A.

I partly comprehend your meaning; but I should prefer it in a less dramatic form. You think that the difference between what Galileo did and what Bacon wanted to be done, lay in this-that Bacon's plan presupposed a history (or dictionary as you call it) of Universal Nature, as a storehouse of facts to work upon; whereas Galileo was content to work upon such facts and observations as he collected for himself. But surely this is only a difference in degree. Both used the facts in the same way; only Bacon wanted a larger collection of them.

B.

Say rather, Bacon wanted a collection large enough to give him the command of all the avenues to the secrets of Nature. You might as well say that there is only a difference of degree between the method of the man who runs his single head against a fortress, and the man who raises a force strong enough to storm it,-because each uses the force he has in the same way, only one wants more of it than the other :-or between stopping all the leaks in a vessel and stopping as

2 Neque huic labori et inquisitioni et mundanæ perambulationi, ulla ingenii aut meditationis aut argumentationis substitutio aut compensatio sufficere potest, non si omnia omnium ingenia coierint. Itaque aut hoc prorsus habendum aut negotium in perpetuum deserendum.