86 Bacon 



should report as deficient or no, I stand doubtful. For I 

 find a certain rhapsody of natural theology, and of divers 

 parts of logic ; and of that part of natural philosophy which 

 concerneth the principles, and of that other part of natural 

 philosophy which concerneth the soul or spirit; all these 

 strangely commixed and confused; but being examined, 

 it seemeth to me rather a depredation of other sciences, 

 advanced and exalted unto some height of terms, than 

 anything solid or substantive of itself. Nevertheless I 

 cannot be ignorant of the distinction which is current, that 

 the same things are handled but in several respects. As 

 for example, that logic considereth of many things as they 

 are in notion, and this philosophy as they are in nature; 

 the one in appearance, the other in existence; but I find 

 this difference better made than pursued. For if they had 

 considered quantity, similitude, diversity, and the rest of 

 those extern characters of things, as philosophers, and in 

 nature, their inquiries must of force have been of a far other 

 kind than they are. For doth any of them, in handling 

 quantity, speak of the force of union, how and how far it 

 multiplieth virtue? Doth any give the reason, why some 

 things in nature are so common, and in so great mass, and 

 others so rare, and in so small quantity? Doth any, in 

 handling similitude and diversity, assign the cause why iron 

 should not move to iron, which is more like, but move to 

 the lode-stone, which is less like? Why in all diversities 

 of things there should be certain participles in nature, which 

 are almost ambiguous to which kind they should be referred? 

 But there is a mere and deep silence touching the nature 

 and operation of those common adjuncts of things, as in 

 nature : and only a resuming and repeating of the force and 

 use of them in speech or argument. Therefore, because in 

 a writing of this nature, I avoid all subtility, my meaning 

 touching this original or universal philosophy is thus, in a 

 plain and gross description by negative : That it be a recep 

 tacle for all such profitable observations and axioms as fall 

 not within the compass of any of the special parts of 

 philosophy or sciences, but are more common and of a higher 

 stage. 



Now that there are many of that kind need not to be 

 doubted. For example: is not the rule, Si incequalibus 

 cequalia addas, omnia erunt incequalia, an axiom as well of 



