APPENDIX E. 363 



approximate, according to modern ways of thought, to Bacon s 

 conception of Form. 



This may be tried in two ways ; either by looking at the 

 distinctions he draws between the different kinds of Form, (II. 

 17. 26.) or by regarding the relationship in which, in his Method, 

 Form stands to Latent Process and Latent Structure. 



(1.) We find two divisions of Forms. First, in II. 17. we 

 have true Forms distinguished from Copulate, and from Pla 

 tonic ; for, Bacon says, &quot; we must take heed lest, in speaking 

 of Forms, we should be thought to refer to those which have 

 hitherto occupied men s thoughts.&quot; 



Copulate Forms he defines as &quot; naturarum simplicium con- 

 jugia ex cursu communi universi.&quot; These seem to be results 

 produced by &quot; crossing breeds,&quot; by transgressing nature s 

 limits; grafting an apple on a pear stock would perhaps be what 

 is meant. These he promises to consider together with Latent 

 Process and Structure. The Platonic Forms he also rejects ; 

 and this distinction is important. Without entering at all 

 into discussion as to what Plato really intended by his i&amp;lt;5ecu, 

 which would be beside our purpose, it is enough to shew what 

 conception Bacon had of them. He calls them idece abstracts, 

 and not limited by matter : i. e. the f for) \u&amp;gt;pi(rT&amp;lt;i, as Aristotle 

 termed them. (cf. De Augm. Scient. IV. iv.) Bacon s Form, 

 then, always resides in the matter of each kind ; and when (as 

 in I. 23.) he speaks of &quot;divinse mentis idea3,&quot; he does not mean 

 to involve any notion of Archetypal Forms emanating from the 

 Divine Mind ; but only to affirm that God (&quot; Formatum inditor 

 ct opifex,&quot; II. 15.) is the cause of, and knows the real and 

 very nature of things, as they are. It remains, then, that 

 Form in Bacon s language means the very and inmost nature 

 of things: neither the &quot; Law of Nature&quot; to which things arc 

 obedient, nor the &quot; Archetypal Forms,&quot; being the same thing : 

 the former is below, the latter beyond Bacon s conception. 



There is still the other division left. This is found II. 26 ; 

 where he is describing &quot; Constitutive or collective Instances.&quot; 

 For these he apologizes ; they are low, &quot; postulat res ct infir- 

 mitas luunani intellcctus, ut formce particulars .... notentur.&quot; 

 And he afterwards calls them forma, minores : and from his 



