This division of the qualities of bodies into two classes is the point of transition from the metaphysical view from which we set out to that of ordinary physical science. And this transition Bacon had made, though not perhaps with a perfect consciousness of having done so. Thus he has repeatedly denied the truth of the scholastic doctrine that Forms are incognoscible because supra-sensible 22; and the reason of this is clearly that his conception of the nature of Forms relates merely to the primary qualities of bodies. For instance, the Form of heat is a kind of local motion of the particles of which bodies are composed 23, and that of whiteness, a mole of arrangement among those particles 24. This peculiar motion or arrangement corresponds to and engenders heat or whiteness, and this in every case in which those qualities exist. The statement of the distinguishing character of the motion or arrangement, or of whatever else may be the Form of a given phenomenon, takes the shape of a law; it is the law in fulfilling which any substance determines the existence of the quality in question. It is for this reason that Bacon sometimes calls the Form a law; he has done this particularly in a passage which will be mentioned a little farther on. With the view which has now been stated, we shall I think be able to understand every passage in which Bacon speaks of Forms;-remembering however that as he has not traced a boundary line between primary and secondary qualities, we can only say in general terms that his doctrine of Forms is founded upon the theory that certain qualities of bodies are merely subjective and phenomenal, and are to be regarded as necessarily resulting from others which belong to substance as its essential attributes. In the passage from which we set out 25, the Form is spoken of as vera differentia, the true or essential difference,--as natura naturans-and as the fons emanationis. The first of these expressions refers to the theory of definition by genus and difference. The difference is that which gives the thing defined its specific character. If it be founded on an accidental circumstance the definition, though not incorrect if the accident be an inseparable one, will nevertheless not express the true and essential character of its subject; contrariwise, if it involve a statement of the formal cause of the thing defined. The second of these phrases is now scarcely used, except in connexion with the philosophy of Spinoza. It had however been employed by some of the scholastic writers 26. It is always antithetical to natura naturata, and in the passage before us serves not inaptly to express the relation in which the Form stands to the phenomenal nature which results from it. The phrase fons emanationis does not seem to require any explanation. It belongs to the kind of philosophical language which attempts, more or less successfully, to give clearness of conception by means of metaphor. It is unnecessary to remark how much this is the case in the later development of scholasticism. A little farther on in the second book of the Novum Organum than the passage we have been considering-namely in the thirteenth aphorism-Bacon asserts that the " forma rei " is "ipsissima res", and that the thing and its Form differ only as "apparens et existens, aut exterius et interius, aut in ordine ad hominem et in ordine ad universum". Here the subjective and phenomenal character of the qualities whose form is to be determined is distinctly and strongly indicated. The principal passage in which the Form is spoken of as a law occurs in the second aphorism of the same book. It is there said that, although in nature nothing really exists (vere existat) except "corpora individua edentia actus puros individuos ex lege ", yet that in doctrine this law is of fundamental importance, and that it and its clauses (paragraphi) are what he means when he speaks of Forms. In denying the real existence of anything beside individual substances, Bacon opposes himself to the scholastic realism; in speaking of these substances as edentia actus," he asserts the doctrine of the essential activity of substance; 23 Nov. Org. ii. 20. 22 See Scaliger, Exercit. in Cardan. 24 [Valerius Terminus, II. 1.] 25 [Nov. Org ii. 1.] 26 See Vossius De Vitiis Serm. in voce Naturare; and Castanæus, Distinctiones in voc. Natura. by adding the epithet "puros" he separates what Aristotle termed évreλéxelai from mere motions or Kvhoes, thereby by implication denying the objective reality of the latter; and, lastly, by using the word "individuos", he implies that though in contemplation and doctrine the form law of the substance (that is, the substantial form) is resoluble into the forms of the simple natures which belong to it, as into clauses, yet that this analysis is conceptual only, and not real. It will be observed that the two modes in which Bacon speaks of the Form, namely as ipsissima res and as a law, differ only, though they cannot be reconciled, as two aspects of the same object. Thus much of the character of the Baconian Form. That it is after all only a physical conception appears sufficiently from the examples already mentioned, and from the fact of its being made the most important part of the subject-matter of the natural sciences. The investigation of the Forms of natures or abstract qualities is the principal object of the Baconian method of induction. It is true that Bacon, although he gives the first place to investigations of this nature, does not altogether omit to mention as a subordinate part of science, the study of concrete substances. The first aphorism of the second book of the Novum Organum sufficiently explains the relation in which, as he conceived, the abstract and the concrete, considered as objects of science, ought to stand to one another. This relation corresponds to that which in the De Augmentis [iii. 4.], he had sought to establish between Physique and Metaphysique, and which he has there expressed by saying that the latter was to be conversant with the formal and final causes, while the former was to be confined to the efficient cause and to the material. It may be asked, and the question is not easily answered, Of what use the study of concrete bodies was in Bacon's system to be, seeing that the knowledge of the Forms of simple natures would, in effect, include all that can be known of the outward world? I believe that, if Bacon's recognition of physique as a distinct branch of science which was to be studied apart from metaphysique or the doctrine of Forms, can be explained except on historical grounds-that is, except by saying that it was derived from the quadripartite division of causes given by Aristotle 27-the explanation is merely this, that he believed that the study of concrete bodies would at least at first be pursued more hopefully and more successfully than the abstract investigations to which he gave the first rank 28. However this may be, it seems certain that Bacon's method, as it is stated in the Novum Organum, is primarily applicable to the investigation of Forms, and that when other applications were made of it, it was to be modified in a manner which is nowhere distinctly explained. All in fact that we know of these modifications results from comparing two passages which have been already quoted29, namely the two lists in which Bacon enumerates the subjects to be treated of in the latter books of the Novum Organum. It will be observed that in one of these lists the subject of concrete bodies corresponds to the "variation of the investigation according to the nature of the subject" in the other, and from this it seems to follow that Bacon looked on his method of investigating Forms as the fundamental type of the inductive process, from which in its other applications it deviated more or less according to the necessity of the case. This being understood, we may proceed to speak of the inductive method itself. (9) The practical criterium of a Form by means of which it is to be investigated and recognised, reduces itself to this,-that the form nature and the phenomenal nature (so to modify, for the sake of distinctness, Bacon's phraseology) must constantly be either both present or both absent; and moreover that when either increases or decreases, the other must do so too 30. Setting aside the vagueness of the second condition, it is to be observed that there is nothing in this criterium to decide which of two concomitant natures is the Form of the 27 For an explanation of which, see note to De Augmentis, iii. 4.-J. S. 30 Nov. Org. ii. 4, 13, 16. other. It is true that in one place Bacon requires the form nature, beside being convertible with the given one, to be also a limitation of a more general nature. His words are "natura alia quæ sit cum naturâ datâ convertibilis et tamen sit limitatio naturæ notioris instar generis veri" 31. Of this the meaning will easily be apprehended if we refer to the case of heat, of which the form is said to be a kind of motion-motion being here the natura notior, the more general natura, of which heat is a specific limitation; for wherever heat is present there also is motion, but not vice versâ. Still the difficulty recurs, that there is nothing in the practical operation of Bacon's method which can serve to determine whether this subsidiary condition is fulfilled; nor is the condition itself altogether free from vagueness. To each of the three points of that which I have called the practical criterium of the Form corresponds one of the three tables with which the investigation commences. The first is the table "essentiæ et præsentiæ ", and contains all known instances in which the given nature is present. The second is the table of declination or absence in like case (declinationis sive absentiæ in proximo), and contains instances which respectively correspond to those of the first table, but in which, notwithstanding this correspondence, the given nature is absent. The third is the table of degrees or comparison (tabula graduum sive tabula comparativa), in which the instances of the given nature are arranged according to the degree in which it is manifested in each. It is easy to see the connexion between these tables, which are collectively called tables of appearance, "comparentiæ," and the criterium. For, let any instance in which the given nature is present (as the sun in the case of heat, or froth in the case of whiteness) be resolved into the natures by the aggregation of which our idea of it is constituted; one of these natures is necessarily the form nature, since this is always to be present when the given nature is. Similarly, the second table corresponds to the condition that the Form and the given nature are to be absent together, and the third to that of their increasing or decreasing together. After the formation of these tables, how is the process of induction to be carried into effect? By a method of exclusion. This method is the essential point of the whole matter, and it will be well to show how much importance Bacon attached to it. In the first place, wherever he speaks of ordinary induction and of his own method he always remarks that the former proceeds "per enumerationem simplicem ", that is, by a mere enumeration of particular cases, while the latter makes use of exclusions and rejections. This is the fundamental character of his method, and it is from this that the circumstances which distinguish it from ordinary induction necessarily follow. Moreover we are told that whatever may be the privileges of higher intelligences, man can only in one way advance to a knowledge of Forms: he is absolutely obliged to proceed at first by negatives, and then only can arrive at an affirmative when the process of exclusion has been completed (post omnimodam exclusionem) 32. The same doctrine is taught in the exposition of the fable of Cupid. For according to some of the mythographi Cupid comes forth from an egg whereon Night had brooded. Now Cupid is the type of the primal nature of things; and what is said of the egg hatched by Night refers, Bacon affirms, most aptly to the demonstrations whereby our knowledge of him is obtained; for knowledge obtained by exclusions and negatives results, so to speak, from darkness and from night. We see, I think, from this allegorical fancy, as clearly as from any single passage in his writings, how firmly fixed in his mind was the idea of the importance, or rather of the necessity, of using a method of exclusion. It is not difficult, on Bacon's fundamental hypothesis, to perceive why this method is of paramount importance. For assuming that each instance in which the given nature is presented to us can be resolved into (and mentally replaced by) a congeries of elementary natures, and that this analysis is not merely subjective or logical, but deals, so to speak, with the very essence of its subject 32 Nov. Org. ii. 15. 31 Nov. Org. ii. 4. matter, it follows that to determine the form nature among the aggregate of simple natures which we thus obtain, nothing more is requisite than the rejection of all foreign and unessential elements. We reject every nature which is not present in every affirmative instance, or which is present in any negative one, or which manifests itself in a greater degree when the given nature manifests itself in a less, or vice versâ. And this process when carried far enough will of necessity lead us to the truth; and meanwhile every step we take is known to be an approximation towards it. Ordinary induction is a tentative process, because we chase our quarry over an open country; here it is confined within definite limits, and these limits become as we advance continually narrower and narrower. From the point of view at which we have now arrived, we perceive why Bacon ascribed to his method the characters by which, as we have seen, he conceived that it was distinguished from any which had previously been proposed. When the process of exclusion has been completely performed, only the form nature will remain; it will be, so to speak, the sole survivor of all the natures combined with which the given nature was at first presented to us. There can therefore be no doubt as to our result, nor any possibility of confounding the Form with any other of these natures. This is what Bacon expresses, when he says that the first part of the true inductive process is the exclusion of every nature which is not found in each instance where the given one is present, or is found where it is not present, or is found to increase where the given nature decreases, or vice versâ. And then, he goes on to say, when this exclusion has been duly performed, there will in the second part of the process remain, as at the bottom, all mere opinions having been dissipated (abeuntibus in fumum opinionibus volatilibus), the affirmative Form, which will be solid and true and well defined 33. The exclusion of error will necessarily lead to truth. Again, this method of exclusion requires only an attentive consideration of each" instantia ", in order first to analyse it into its simple natures, and secondly to see which of the latter are to be excluded-processes which require no higher faculties than ordinary acuteness and patient diligence. There is clearly no room in this mechanical procedure for the display of subtlety or of inventive genius. Bacon's method therefore leads to certainty, and may be employed with nearly equal success by all men who are equally diligent. In considering the only example which we have of its practical operation, namely the investigation of the form of heat 34, it is well to remark a circumstance which tends to conceal its real nature. After the three tables of Comparentia, Bacon proceeds to the Exclusiva, and concludes by saying that the process of exclusion cannot at the outset (sub initiis) be perfectly performed. He therefore proposes to go on to provide additional assistance for the mind of man. These are manifestly to be subsidiary to the method of exclusions; they are to remove the obstacles which make the Exclusiva defective and inconclusive. But in the meanwhile, and as it were provisionally, the intellect may be permitted to attempt an affirmative determination on the subject before it: "Quod genus tentamenti Permissionem Intellectûs, sive Interpretationem inchoatam, sive Vindemiationem primam, appellare consuevimus ". The phrase Permissio Intellectûs sufficiently indicates that in this process the mind is suffered to follow the course most natural to it; it is relieved from the restraints hitherto imposed on it, and reverts to its usual state. In this Vindemiatio we accordingly find no reference to the method of exclusion: it rests immediately on the three tables of Comparentia; and though of course it does not contradict the results of the Exclusiva, yet on the other hand it is not derived from them. If we lose sight of the real nature of this part of the investigation, which is merely introduced by the way" because truth is more easily extricated from error than from confusion", we also lose sight of the scope and purport of the whole method. All that Bacon proposes henceforth to do is to perfect the Exclusiva; the Vindemiatio prima, though it is the closing member of the example which Bacon makes 34 Nov. Org. ii. 11-20. 33 Nov. Org. ii. 16. use of, is not to be taken as the type of the final conclusion of any investigation which he would recognise as just and legitimate. It is only a parenthesis in the general method, whereas the Exclusiva, given in the eighteenth aphorism of the second book, is a type or paradigm of the process on which every true induction (inductio vera) must in all cases depend. It may be well to remark that in this example of the process of exclusion, the table of degrees is not made use of. Bacon, as we have seen, admits that the Exclusiva must at first be in some measure imperfect; for the Exclusiva, being the rejection of simple natures, cannot be satisfactory unless our notions of these natures are just and accurate, whereas some of those which occur in his example of the process of rejection are ill-defined and vague 35. In order to the completion of his method, it is necessary to remove this defect. A subsidiary method is required, of which the object is the formation of scientific conceptions. To this method also Bacon gives the name of induction; and it is remarkable that induction is mentioned for the first time in the Novum Organum in a passage which relates not to axioms but to conceptions 36. Bacon's induction therefore is not a mere èraywyn, it is also a method of definition; but of the manner in which systematic induction is to be employed in the formation of conceptions we learn nothing from any part of his writings. And by this circumstance our knowledge of his method is rendered imperfect and unsatisfactory. We may perhaps be permitted to believe that so far as relates to the subject of which we are now speaking, Bacon never, even in idea, completed the method which he proposed. For of all parts of the process of scientific discovery the formation of conceptions is the one with respect to which it is the most difficult to lay down general rules. The process of establishing axioms Bacon had succeeded, at least apparently, in reducing to the semblance of a mechanical operation; that of the formation of conceptions does not admit of any similar reduction. Yet these two processes are in Bacon's system of co-ordinate importance. All commonly received general scientific conceptions Bacon condemns as utterly worthless 37. A complete change is therefore required; yet of the way in which induction is to be employed in order to produce this change he has said nothing. This omission is doubtless connected with the kind of realism which runs through Bacon's system, and which renders it practically useless. For that his method is impracticable cannot I think be denied, if we reflect not only that it never has produced any result, but also that the process by which scientific truths have been established cannot be so presented as even to appear to be in accordance with it. In all cases this process involves an element to which nothing corresponds in the tables of comparence and exclusion; namely the application to the facts of observation of a principle of arrangement, an idea, existing in the mind of the discoverer antecedently to the act of induction. It may be said that this idea is precisely one of the naturæ into which the facts of observation ought in Bacon's system to be analysed. And this is in one sense true; but it must be added that this analysis, if it be thought right so to call it, is of the essence of the discovery which results from it. To take for granted that it has already been effected is simply a petitio principii. In most cases the mere act of induction follows as a matter of course as soon as the appropriate idea has been introduced. If, for instance, we resolve Kepler's discovery that Mars moves in an ellipse into its constituent elements, we perceive that the whole difficulty is antecedent to the act of induction. It consists in bringing the idea of motion in an ellipse into connexion with the facts of observation; that is, in showing that an ellipse may be drawn through all the observed places of the planet. The mere act of induction, the raywyn, is perfectly obvious. If all the observed places lie on an ellipse of which the sun is the focus, then every position which the planet successively occupies does so too. This inference, which is so obvious that it must have passed through the mind of the discoverer almost unconsciously, is an instance 35 Nov. Org. ii. 19; and compare i. 15, which shows the necessity of a complete reform. 38 Nov. Org. i. 14, and comp. i. 18. 37 Nov. Org. i. 15, 16. |