and the same vessel. Theology therefore in like manner consists either of Sacred History, or of Parables, which are a divine poesy, or of Doctrines and Precepts, which are a perennial philosophy. For as for that part which seems supernumerary, which is Prophecy, it is but a kind of history: for divine history has this prerogative over human, that the narration may be before the event, as well as after.

CHAP. II.

The Division of History into Natural and Civil; Ecclesiastical and Literary History being included in Civil. Division of Natural History into History of Generations, Pretergenerations, and Arts.

HISTORY is either Natural or Civil. Natural History treats of the deeds and works of nature; Civil History of those of men. Matter of Divinity shows itself no doubt in both, but principally in the latter; so much so as to form a species of history proper to itself, which I call Sacred or Ecclesiastical. And a similar distinction is in my opinion also due to Learning and the Arts their importance being such as to entitle them to a separate history of their own. And this (as well as the Ecclesiastical) I mean to be included in Civil History.

The division which I will make of Natural History is founded upon the state and condition of nature herself. For I find nature in three different states, and subject to three different conditions of existence. She is either free, and follows her ordinary course of devel

opment; as in the heavens, in the animal and vegetable creation, and in the general array of the universe; or she is driven out of her ordinary course by the perverseness, insolence, and frowardness of matter, and violence of impediments; as in the case of monsters; or lastly, she is put in constraint, moulded, and made as it were new by art and the hand of man; as in things artificial. Let Natural History therefore be divided into the History of Generations, of Pretergenerations, and of Arts; which last I also call Mechanical and Experimental History. Of these the first treats of the Freedom of Nature, the second of her Errors, the third of her Bonds. And I am the more induced to set down the History of the Arts as a species of Natural History, because an opinion has long been prevalent, that art is something different from nature, and things artificial different from things natural; whence this evil has arisen, that most writers of Natural History think they have done enough when they have given an account of animals or plants or minerals, omitting all mention of the experiments of mechanical arts. But there is likewise another and more subtle error which has crept into the human mind; namely, that of considering art as merely an assistant to nature, having the power indeed to finish what nature has begun, to correct her when lapsing into error, or to set her free when in bondage, but by no means to change, transmute, or fundamentally alter nature. And this has bred a premature despair in human enterprises. Whereas men ought on the contrary to be surely persuaded of this; that the artificial does not differ from the natural in form or essence, but only in the efficient; in that man has no power over nature except that of mo

tion; he can put natural bodies together, and he can separate them; and therefore that wherever the case. admits of the uniting or disuniting of natural bodies, by joining (as they say) actives with passives, man can do everything; where the case does not admit this, he can do nothing. Nor matters it, provided things are put in the way to produce an effect, whether it be done by human means or otherwise. Gold is sometimes refined in the fire and sometimes found pure in the sands, nature having done the work for herself. So also the rainbow is made in the sky out of a dripping cloud; it is also made here below with a jet of water. Still therefore it is nature which governs everything; but under nature are included these three; the course of nature, the wanderings of nature, and art, or nature with man to help; which three must therefore all be included in Natural History; as indeed they are in great measure by Pliny, the only person who ever undertook a Natural History according to the dignity of it; though he was far from carrying out his undertaking in a manner worthy of the conception.

The first of these, the history of nature in course, is extant, and that in moderate perfection; but the two latter are so weakly and unprofitably handled that they may be set down as deficient. For you will find no sufficient and competent collection of those works of nature which have a digression and deflexion from the ordinary course of generations, productions, and motions; whether they be singularities of place and region, or the strange events of time, or casuum ingenia (as they have been called) - devices of chance, or the effects of hidden properties, or productions of nature singular in their kind. It is true, I find books more

-ed with fabulous experimes. ule

ous impostures, for pleasure and armstantial and methodical collect a re or Irregulars of nature well examined und nd not; especially not with due rea republic proscription of fables and percar is things now are, if an untruth

ooting and be made common, by 1- reverence for antiquity, what by rasa someness of putting it to the test anew, reason of the use of the opinion in simi caments of speech, it is never overthrown

this work, honoured with a precedent in ...nothing less than to gratify the appetite of vain wits, as the manner of mirabilaries is for two reasons, both of great weight; the eet the partiality of axioms and opinions,

med for the most part upon common and examples; the other, because from the wonature is the most clear and open passage to

s of art. For you have but to follow and hound nature in her wanderings, and you Die, when you like, to lead and drive her so the same place again. Neither am I of a this history of marvels, that superstitious of sorceries, witchcrafts, charms, dreams, and the like, where there is an assurance - evidence of the fact, should be altogether For it is not yet known in what cases, and Nets attributed to superstition participate of ses; and therefore howsoever the use and such arts is to be condemned, yet from the

speculation and consideration of them (if they be diligently unravelled) a useful light may be gained, not only for the true judgment of the offences of persons charged with such practices, but likewise for the further disclosing of the secrets of nature. Neither ought a man to make scruple of entering and penetrating into these holes and corners, when the inquisition of truth is his sole object, as your Majesty has shown in your own example; who, with the two clear and acute eyes of religion and natural philosophy, have looked deeply and wisely into those shadows, and yet proved yourself to be truly of the nature of the sun, which passes through pollutions and is not defiled. I would recommend however that those narrations which are tinctured with superstition be sorted by themselves, and not mingled with those which are purely and sincerely natural. But as for narrations touching the prodigies and miracles of religions, they are either not true or not natural; and therefore impertinent for the story of nature.

For History of Nature Wrought, or Mechanical, as I also call it, I find some collections made of agriculture and likewise of many manual arts; but always (which is a great detriment in this kind of learning) with a neglect and rejection of experiments familiar and vulgar; which yet in the interpretation of nature are of equal, if not of more value than those which are less common. For it is esteemed a kind of dishonour upon learning for learned men to descend to inquiry or meditation upon matters mechanical; except they be such as may be thought secrets of art, or rarities and special subtleties. Which humour of vain and supercilious arrogancy is justly derided in Plato,