372 PREFACE TO 



but from Galileo and Kepler. And I suppose that, with regard to 

 those very principles even, if you wanted illustrations of what is 

 commonly called the Baconian method, you would find some of the 

 very best among the works of Gilbert and Galileo. What was it 

 then that Bacon did which entitles him to be called the Regenerator 

 of Philosophy ? or what was it that he dreamt he was doing which 

 made him think the work so entirely his own, so immeasurably im- 

 portant, and likely to be received with such incredulity by at least 

 one generation of mankind ? 



B. 



A pertinent question ; for there is no doubt that he was under 

 that impression. " Cum argumentum hujusmodi prce manibus habeam 

 (says he) quod tractandi imperitia perdere et veluti exponere NEFAS 

 sit." He was persuaded that the argument he had in charge was of 

 such value, that to risk the loss of it by unskilful handling would be 

 not only a pity but an impiety. You wish to know, and the wish is 

 reasonable, what it was. For answer I would refer you to the philo- 

 sophers ; only I cannot say that their answers are satisfactory to 

 myself. The old answer was that Bacon was the first to break down 

 the dominion of Aristotle. This is now, I think, generally given up. 

 His opposition to Aristotle was indeed conceived in early youth, and 

 (though he was not the first to give utterance to it) I dare say it was 

 not the less his own, and in the proper sense of the word, original. 

 But the real overthrower of Aristotle was the great stir through- 

 out the intellectual world which followed the Reformation and the 

 revival of learning. It is certain that his authority had been openly 

 defied some years before the publication of Bacon's principal wri- 

 tings ; and it could not in the nature of things have survived much 

 longer. Sir John Herschel however, while he freely admits that 

 the Aristotelian philosophy had been effectually overturned without 

 Bacon's aid, still maintains Bacon's title to be looked upon in all 

 future ages as the great Reformer of Philosophy ; not indeed that he 

 introduced inductive reasoning as a new and untried process, but on 

 account of his " keen perception and his broad and spirit-stirring, 

 almost enthusiastic, announcement of its paramount importance, as 

 the alpha and omega of science, as the grand and only chain for 

 linking together of physical truths, and the eventual key to every 

 discovery and every application." 



A. 



That is all very fine ; but it seems to me rather to account for his 

 having the title than to justify his claim to it ; rather to explain 

 how he comes by his reputation than to prove that he deserves it. 

 Try the question upon a modern case. We are now standing upon 



