Bacon's DictionaryAppendices

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
57 58 59

The exhibits and miniatures of which are found in this section, are designed to assist the serious student and reader in following the path of the Authorship Controvesy that has been so laboriously persued by many authors and researchers during its commence.

These exhibits have been placed here as not to interrupt the flow of reading in the Baconian Dictionary sections, being a finding list of Bacon’s works, his history, his thoughts and his aims, which are a subject of study and discussion.

Bacon’s Royal Society

What Sprat, notwithstanding his eulogium of the philosophical works in general, says of the Sylva Sylvarum is very true: “He seems rather to take all that comes, than to choose; and to heap rather than to register.” But, he adds, though “he had not the strength of a thousand men, I do allow him to have had as much as twenty.” In another place (p. 144), after complimenting Lord Clarendon and the other Law Officers of the Crown on their share in drawing up the Charter of the Royal Society, Sprat goes on to say: “But it is enough to declare that my Lord Bacon was a Lawyer, and that these eminent officers of the Law have completed this foundation of the Royal Society: which was a work well becoming the largeness of his Wit to devise, and the greatness of their Prudence to establish.” The allusion here is to the New Atlantis. In Cowley’s Ode to the Royal Society, Bacon’s name is equally prominent:

Some few exalted Spirits this latter Age has shown,

That lahour’d to assert the Liberty

(From Guardians, who were now Usurpers grown)

Of this Old Minor still, captiv’d Philosophy;

But ‘twas Rebellion call’d to fight

For such a long oppressed Right.

Bacon at last, a mighty man, arose

Whom a wise King and Nature chose

Lord Chancellor of both their Laws,

And boldly undertook the injur’d Pupil’s cause.

Nor suffer’d Living men to be misled

By the vain shadows of the Dead

From these and all long Errors of the way,

In which our wandering Predecessors went,

And like th’ old Hebrews many years did stray

In Desarts but of small extent,

Bacon, like Moses, led us forth at last,

The barren Wilderness he past,

Did on the very Border stand

Of the blest promis’d Land,

And from the Mountain’s Top of his Exalted Wit,

Saw it himself, and shew’d us it.

It should be noticed that Sprat’s book received the sanction of the Royal Society, and that copies of it were sent by them to foreign Princes and other eminent persons on the continent. Hence Liebig’s sneer at Sprat 1 unless he is prepared to extend it generally to the members of the Royal Society at that time, is entirely out of place. But there is much more evidence to the same effect. The celebrated mathematician, Dr. Wallis, in the very interesting account of some passages of his own Life 2 says: “About the year 1645, while I lived in London, I had the opportunity of being acquainted with divers worthy Persons, inquisitive into Natural Philosophy, and other parts of Humane Learning; and particularly of what hath been called the New Philosophy or Experimental Philosophy.” He then proceeds to give the names of his associates and their places of meeting. “Our business was to Discourse and consider of Philosophical Enquiries, and such as related thereunto. Some of which were then but new discoveries, and others not so generally known and embraced, as now they are, with other things appertaining to what hath been called The New Philosophy; which from the times of Galileo at Florence, and Sir Francis Bacon (Lord Verulam) in England, hath been much cultivated in Italy, France, Germany, and other parts abroad, as well as with us in England.” In the Dedication to the Royal Society of his Scepsis Scientifica [Scientific Thoughts] in 1665, Glanvill says: “For you really are what former ages could contrive but in wish and Romances; and Solomon’s House in the New Atlantis was a Prophetic Scheme of the Royal Society.” Complimentary allusions to Bacon, whom he evidently regards as the great light of modern philosophy, are of constant occurrence in Glanvill’s works. Mr. Napier cites one more, taken from the Plus Ultra or the Progress and Advancement of Knowledge since the days of Aristotle (1668), having special reference to the Royal Society. After several remarks on the philosophy and aims of Bacon, he proceeds: “This was a mighty design, groundedly laid, wisely expressed, and happily recommended by the Glorious Author, who began nobly, and directed with an incomparable conduct of Wit and Judgment: but to the carrying it on, it was necessary there should be many Heads and many Hands, and those formed into an Assembly, that might intercommunicate their Trials and Observations, that might jointly work, and jointly consider; that so the improvable and luciferous Phaenomena, that lie scatter’d up and down in the vast Champaign of Nature, might be aggregated and brought into a common store. This the Great Man desired, and form’d a Society of Experimenters in a Romantic Model, but could do no more; his time was not ripe for such performances.” And from the Plus Ultra, pp. 87, 88: “These things therefore were consider’d also by the later Virtuosi, who several of them combined together, and set themselves on work upon this grand Design.” Oldenburg, the first Secretary of the Society, in Number 22, p. 391 (1666–67), giving an extract from a letter: “The ingenious Author of this Letter, as he expresses an extraordinary desire to see the Store-House of Natural Philosophy more richly fraughted (a Work begun by the single care and conduct of the excellent Lord Verulam, and prosecuted by the Joint-undertakings of the Royal Society).” He frequently alludes to Bacon, as having given the chief impulse to the study of Experimental Philosophy, as, for instance, in the Prefaces to the Transactions for 1670, 1672, 1677. Thus, in the Preface for 1670, he says that “his greatest Reputation rebounded first from the most intelligent Forrainers in many parts of Christendome;” in that for 1672, “when our renowned Lord Bacon had demonstrated the methods for a perfect Restauration of all parts of Real Knowledge, the success became on a sudden stupendous, and Effective Philosophy began to sparkle, and even to flow into beams of bright-shining Light, all over the World.” And, lastly, in that for 1677, “many of the chief Universities in Christendome have already formed themselves into Philosophical Societies, and have so largely contributed their aids to advance the Lord Bacon’s Design for the Instauration of Arts and Sciences, that it is now become above my abilities.”

Boyle, who was himself called a Second Bacon, and who lent his rooms for the meetings of the Royal Society during the latter part of its Oxford career, is constant in his allusions to “our illustrious Verulam,” “that profound naturalist the Lord Verulam,” “so judicious a friend to philosophy and mankind, as Sir Francis Bacon,” “our famous experimenter, the Lord Verulam himself.” Indeed Boyle seems to have been regarded, in a special sense, as a disciple of Bacon. In a letter to him, quoted by Mr. Napier, from Dr. Beal, who was himself elected to the Royal Society in 1662, the writer says: “You have particularized, explicated, and exemplified those fair encouragements and affectionate directions, which Lord Bacon in a wide generality proposed.” Dr. Beal’s Letters, published amongst the Letters from Several Persons to Mr. Boyle, in the volume of Boyle’s Collected Works, are somewhat lengthy, are full of allusions to Bacon. Thus, he speaks of Boyle as “relieving Lord Bacon’s Sylva, and his Novum Organum, which oft-times want your aid,” and, in another letter, there is a passage bearing on the connexion between Bacon’s designs and the establishment of the Royal Society: “And let me say to you, that if you give these things in charge amongst your acquaintance, that each man in his way may add to the search of others, then you do fully prosecute the Verulamian design; then our labour is joined and collegiate, and not always running in the narrowness of single endeavours.” Maclaurin, again, in his Account of Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries (p. 61) says: “It has been observed that Mr. Boyle was born the same year that Lord Bacon died, as if he had been destined to carry on his plan.” Dr. Robert Hooke (1635–1703), who succeeded Oldenburg as Secretary of the Royal Society, and was amongst the most distinguished of its early members, amongst his Posthumous Works is published one entitled The Present State of Natural Philosophy and the Method of Improving it, which is described by Dr. Whewell as an “attempt to adapt the Novum Organum to the age which succeeded its publication.” The whole of this treatise is in the lines of the Novum Organum, and much of it is a mere translation of its language. And yet Hooke seldom mentions Bacon, another proof out of many how little the writers of that time think it necessary to cite by name the authors from whom they borrow or to whom they are under obligations. However, unlike nowadays, there were no copyright infringement laws then, that held the author to cite their references. In one place, however, 3 he announces his design as follows: “Some other course therefore must be taken to promote the Search of Knowledge. Some other kind of Art for Enquiry than what hath hitherto been made use of, must be discovered; the Intellect is not to be suffered to act without its Helps, but is continually to be assisted by some Method or Engine, which shall be as a Guide to regulate its Actions, so as that it shall not be able to act amiss: Of this Engine, no Man except the incomparable Verulam hath had any thoughts, and he indeed hath promoted it to a very good pitch; but there is yet somewhat more to be added, which he seemed to want time to complete.” Hooke’s work, like its prototype, was unfinished.

Testimonies of this kind might easily be multiplied to almost any extent. Such are those of John Evelyn, an early member of the Royal Society, and celebrated as the author of Sylva Numismata the well-known Diary Dr. Joshua Childrey, who, in a letter to Oldenburg, preserved by Antony Wood, says “he first fell in love with the Lord Bacon’s philosophy in the year 1646,” and who, in 1661, published a work entitled Britannia Baconica, or the “Natural Rarities of England, Scotland, and Wales, historically related, according to the precepts of the Lord Bacon;” together with many other writers. The authorities cited are, however, amply sufficient to prove the two points which should be established:

1. That the foundation of the Royal Society in England, and possibly also that of some similar societies on the Continent, was due to the impulse given by Bacon to the study of experimental science and the plans which he devised for its prosecution.
2. That some of the more eminent men who were amongst the earliest members of that society, Wallis, Boyle, Hooke, &c., were deeply imbued with the spirit of Bacon’s teaching, and ready fully to recognise their obligations to him.

If these facts be established, there can be no question as to the reality of Bacon’s influence on the progress of science in the generation immediately succeeding his own, whatever we may regard the nature of that influence as having been. Nor was the New Philosophy without its influence on the Universities, much as those bodies were occupied at this time with other questions, and deeply rooted as were their prejudices in favour of the old learning. Even if we pass over the letter of the University of Oxford, written on receipt of Bacon’s De Augmentis in 1623, in which he is likened to a literary Hercules, who has further advanced the pillars of learning, deemed by others immovable, as savouring, perhaps, too much of official flattery; and even if we reject, as testimony to himself, and, therefore, perhaps, partial, what he says in his letter to the King about the reception of the Advancement of Learning “in the Universities here and the English Colleges abroad,” we have still sufficient evidence to show that Bacon’s works were producing a real and perceptible influence. The ready welcome accorded to the London savans in Oxford in 1648 and 1649, 4 the fact that they were joined by several Oxford men, and the uninterrupted meetings of the incipient Royal Society in Oxford till the dispersion of several of its members in 1658, would alone furnish satisfactory evidence of the spread of the New Philosophy in one, at least, of the Universities. And yet the Juniors do not seem, at any rate in some of the Colleges, to have profited much from this intellectual activity of their seniors. 5 But Dr. Sprat expressly tells us (p. 53) that, besides being “frequented by some Gentlemen of Philosophical Minds, whom the misfortunes of the Kingdom and the security and ease of a retirement amongst Gown-men had drawn thither, the University had, at that time, many members of its own, who had begun a free way of reasoning,” an expression which undoubtedly denotes the Baconian, as opposed to the Aristotelian or traditional method. In describing their meetings, he proceeds: “By this means there was a race of young men provided, against the next age, whose minds, receiving from them their first impressions of sober and generous knowledge, were invincibly armed against all the enchantments of Enthusiasm. But what is more, I may venture to affirm that it was in good measure by the influence which these Gentlemen had over the rest that the University itself, or, at least, any part of its Discipline and Order, was saved from ruin.” At a period a little later than the publication of Sprat’s book, Dr. Beal, writing to Boyle, November 27, 1671 has a passage which will be read with some interest by many Oxford men, and which, as it has not been noticed before, is transcribe at length:

At my request a young Oxonian prepared me a list of fit, capable, and hopeful persons, addicted to the design of the Royal Society, and willing to entertain correspondences, and to assist in them. They seemed to me by their qualifications, and number, very considerable; some in every College, and in every Hall. Only in one College, there was but one named; but it is excused, that his list was much too short, and that he wanted time to complete it, and for some reasons he would not be seen to advise with others for fuller information. There are excellent professors, some lecturers, and very many students of useful arts amongst them. And in time they may have their meetings in some of their public schools, after fit lectures; and the wings of the Stubbians are already broken, and their reputation withers, as Dr. Bathurst told me. 6