A. R. Hunt — A Vindication of Bacon, Huxley, and othevs. 267 



that you must go beyond your facts to your ' axiom ' ; when, if your 

 axiom is sound, it will carry you on to new facts, or, in Bacon's 

 words, will point out ' new particulars.' 



The last quotation, which explains how an axiom is formed from 

 Induction, exactly describes the method by Avhich Darwin formed 

 his great axiom of 'Natural Selection.' What Bacon termed an 

 ' axiom,' Darwin termed a ' theory ' ; but Huxley strangely always 

 called it an ' hypothesis,' which forty years ago meant no more 

 than an ' assumption.' Now Darwin's theory and Bacon's axioms 

 were far removed indeed from assumptions. It is important to note 

 that the axioma of Science " is that which is assumed as the basis of 

 demonstration," while the axioma of Mathematics is " a self-evident 

 proposition." As Bacon talks of axioms " when established," he 

 infers that they are not always so fortunate ; whereas a mathematical 

 axiom is assumed to be established beyond contradiction. 



That Huxley should have preached against the Baconian Induction 

 and Experimental Philosophy, has no doubt given rise to a flood of 

 unsound guesswork, and necessitated the Baconian warning : " Nor 

 can we suffer the understanding to jump and fly from particulars 

 to remote and most general Axioms . . . we must not . 

 add wings, but rather lead and ballast to the Understanding, to 

 prevent its jumping or flying, which has not yet been done; but 

 whenever this takes place we may entertain greater hopes for the 

 Sciences." 



But Huxley, in spite of his heretical preaching, was a staunch 

 Baconian, and never himself lacked the lead and ballast; indeed, in 

 1894 he wrote : " The a priori road to scientific, political, and all 

 other doctrine is H.K.II. Satan's invention — it is the intellectual 

 broad and easy path which leadeth to Jehannum. The King's road 

 is the strait path of painful observation and experiment, and few 

 they be that enter thereon " (L. & L., vol. ii, p. 383). 



It would thus seem that Huxley's attack upon Bacon was owing 

 to a misconception of the Baconian Philosophy. Until I read 

 Huxley's aforesaid attacks I had taken the Experimental Philosophy 

 second-hand, from the practice of such men as Darwin, De la Beche, 

 and Lyell ; but on essaying to read for myself, I found all the 

 popular editions out of print, and had to purchase a fancy volume 

 valued for its tj'pography. Under these circumstances one is 

 tempted to wonder how many of the critics, of the Huxley school, 

 have even read the "Novum Organuni." Some j'ears ago I wrote a 

 somewhat combative paper on " JProfessorial Kesearch," believing the 

 subject to be original! whereas the ''Novum Organum " opens with 

 the remark — " They who have jDresumed to dogmatize on Nature 

 in the professorial style, have inflicted the greatest 

 injury on Philosophy and Learning." Max Miiller, writing in the 

 Nineteenth Century in June, 1894, observed that in German3^ 

 " For a philosopher who does not belong to the professorial caste to 

 gain a hearing is extremely difficult .... the outsider does 

 not exist." Bacon obviously was an amateur in thought as well as 

 in deed, a rank outsider. Strangely enough, Huxley was equally 



