Jan. 22,. 1879] 



NATURE 



26 



one side call Bacon " the father of experimental philo- 

 ophy," Sir D. Brewster asserts that he had no influence 

 \hatsoever on the development of our modem experi- 

 mental method. As to the most recent attacks— those of 

 Liebig and Tchihatchef— they are based on such a very 

 shallow acquaintance with Bacon s works, and are couched 

 in such a pitiful and contemptible spirit, that they are 

 cjuite imworthy of notice. The true estimate of Bacon's 

 influence on modern science [is no doubt to be found 

 between the extremes of the Encyclopedists on the one 

 hand, and of Brewster on the other. Bacon certainly was 

 not the father of experimental philosophy, but most surely 

 he had much to do with our modem scientific method. 



Prof. Fowler discusses the nature of Bacon's influence 

 on the progress of science, under nine separate headings, 

 (i) "He called men, as with a voice of a herald, to lay 

 themselves alongside of nature, to study her ways, and 

 imitate her processes. ... In one word he popularised 

 science." (2) "He insisted, both by example and pre- 

 cept, on the importance of experiment as well as obser- 

 vation." (3) He thus recalled men to the study of facts ; 

 and (4) in order to do^this it was necessary' to free them 

 from the subjection to authority, to which they had so 

 long submitted. "Nor can I doubt," Says our author, 

 " that his utterances on this subject had far more influ- 

 ence in producing the intellectual revolution which fol- 

 lowed than the utterances of any one'of his predecessors, 

 or perhaps than those of all taken together." (5) "The 

 emancipation of reason from the bewitching enchant- 

 ments of imagination," which he effected (6) by asserting 

 the claims of " a logic of induction which shall do for the 

 premisses, what the old logic, the logic of deduction, does 

 for the conclusions." (7) "The manner in which he 

 insisted on the subordination of scientific inquiries to 

 practical aims, the furtherance of man's estate, and the 

 increase of his command over the comforts ;and con- 

 veniences of life." (8) The "hopefulness" of Bacon, as 

 regards the future of the human race ; and finally (9) 

 " the marvellous language in which Bacon often clothes 

 his thoughts." 



Taken in connection with all this, the charges which have 

 been brought against Bacon, as a man of science, appear 

 very trivial. It is urged against him that he did not accept 

 the Copernican theory, and that it was fully accepted 

 more than fifty years before the " No\'um Organum " 

 was written ; but we must remember that the system was 

 by no means firmly established before the discovery of 

 the satellites of Jupiter in 1609. Prof. Fowler remarks 

 that " it is possible to draw up a long list of eminent 

 men, astronomers and others, anterior to, or contemporary 

 with. Bacon, who adopted and taught the Copernican 

 theory ; but we believe there were only ten Copemicans 

 in the world, when the " Novum Organum" began to be 

 written. Moreover, we must remember that the anti- 

 Copemicans could boast the great name of Tycho Brah^, 

 while Riccioli, five-and-twenty years after Bacon's death, 

 pretended in his " Almagestum No\-um" to refute fifty- 

 seven arguments in favour of the theory. It has also 

 been urged that Bacon did not fully recognise the value 

 of the discoveries of Galileo. Liebig boldly tells us that 

 he was ignorant of the discoveries of Jupiter's satellites, 

 of the ring of Saturn, of mountains in the moon, of the 

 law of the mot'on of planets, and of the spots of the sun, 



while in the 39th Aphorism of Book 2 of the "Novum 

 Organum," we read " Secundi generis sunt ilia altera 

 perspicilla quae memorabili conatu adinvenit Galilasus ; 

 quorum ope, tanquam perscaphas aut naviculas aperiri et 

 exerceri possint propiora cum caelestibus comraercia. 

 Hinc enim constat, galaxiam esse nodum sine coacerra- 

 tionum stellarum par\-arum, plane numeratarum et dis- 

 tinctarum ; de qua re apud antiquos tantum suspicio fuit. 

 Hinc demonstrare videtur, quod spatia orbium (quos 

 vocant) planetarum non sint plane vacua aliis stellis, sed 

 quod coelum incipiat stellescere antequam ad coelum 

 ipsum stellarum ventum sit ; licet stellis minoribus quam 

 ut sine perspicillis istis conspici possint. Hinc choreas 

 illas stellarum parvarum circa planetam JoWs (unde 

 conjici possit esse in motibus stellarum plura centra) 

 intueri licet. Hinc inaequalitates luminosi et opaci in 

 luna distinctius cemuntur et locantur ; adeo ut fieri possit 

 quaedam seleno-graphia. Hinc maculae in sole, et id 

 genus : omnia certe inventa nobilia, quatenus fides hujus- 

 modi demonstrationibus tuto adhiberi possit." 



If we compare Bacon's ^\Titings solely as regards their 

 scientific aspect with those of the greater number of his 

 contemporaries, we find a decided balance in favour of 

 the former ; at the same time it must be admitted that 

 men like Gilbert and Galileo were far in ad\-ance of our 

 philosopher, both as experimentalists and as discoverers 

 Among Bacon's ex"perimental achievements we may men- 

 tion, however, the experiment which simultaneously 

 proved the slight compressibility of water, and the 

 porosity of the densest solids, usually alluded to as " the 

 celebrated experiment of the Florentine academicians." 

 Bacon made use of a sphere of lead filled with water, 

 while the Florentines employed a sphere of silver, but 

 this was the only difierence. Bacon's experiment was 

 tried more than thirty years before the establishment of 

 the Accademia del Cimento, and was published (" Nov. 

 Org.," lib. ii. aph. 45) nearly fifty years before Megalotti. 

 the secretary of the Academy, made it known in the 

 " Saggi di Esperienze." Mr. Ellis speaks of this as 

 " perhaps the most remarkable of Bacon's experiments.'' 



We may also mention that Bacon endeavoured (we 

 believe for the first time) to determine the relationship 

 between the volume of a vapour and that of the liquid 

 producing it (" Nov. Org.," lib. 2, aph, 40 ; also the 

 tractate, " Phenomena Universi "). Furthermore, he de- 

 termined the specific gravity of seventy-three substances, 

 taking gold as the standard. It is true that the method 

 was clumsy, but the table was, at least, far more extensive 

 than that of any previous writer. 



In the " Historia Soni et Auditus " Bacon suggests the 

 method for determining the velocity of sound which was 

 employed with so much success by the French nearly two 

 centuries later; and in the same treatise he compares 

 " visibles and audibles " with great acuteness. Again, 

 in the second book of the "Novum Organum," the 

 inquiry into the nature of heat often displays, not only 

 great observational powers, but an elegant application of 

 logical inference. 



All this, and much more, Prof. Fowler has pointed out 

 in his exhaustive notes. His work has been, to a great 

 extent, a labour of love ; he has bestowed upon it an 

 infinite amount of care and pains, and he has been 

 unwearied in his endeavours to sift everything to the 



