Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

cum

ex

nullis tolerabantur ; verum

eorum fortuito concursu fabricam ipsam rerum absque Mente coäluisse assererent, ab omnibus risu excepti sunt. Adeo ut tantum absit ut Causæ Physicæ homines a Deo et Providentia abducant, ut contra potius philosophi illi qui in iisdem eruendis occupati fuerunt, nullum exitum rei reperiant nisi postremo ad Deum et Providentiam confugiant. Atque hæc de Metaphysica dicta sint, cujus partem de Causis Finalibus in libris et Physicis et Metaphysicis tractatam non negaverim ; in his recte, in illis perperam propter incommodum inde secutum.

CAPUT V. Partitio Operativa Doctrina de Natura, in Mechanicam

et Magiam; que respondent partibus Speculative : Physicce Mechanica, Metaphysico Magia ; et Expurgatio vocabuli Magia. Appendices duce Operativæ ; Inventarium Opum Humanarum et Catalogus Polychrestorum.

OPERATIVAM de Natura similiter in duas partes dividemus, idque ex necessitate quadam. Subjicitur

1“ C'est Dieu,” affirms Leibnitz in a spirit not unlike that of the text, " qui est la dernière raison des choses et la connoissance de Dieu n'est pas moins le principe des sciences que son essence et sa volonté sont les principes des êtres.” And a little further on he remarks that “les principes généraux de la Physique et de la Mécanique même dépendent de la conduite d'une intelligence souveraine, et ne sauraient être expliqués sans le faire entrer en considération. C'est ainsi qu'il faut réconcilier la piété avec la raison, et qu'on pourra satisfaire aux gens de bien qui apprehendent les suites de la philosophie mécanique ou corpusculaire, comme si elle pouvait éloigner de Dieu, et des substances immatérielles, au lieu qu'avec les corrections requises, et tout bien entendu, elle doit nous y mener.” Lettre à Bayle, p. 106. of Erdmann's edition.

[ocr errors]

.

enim hæc divisio divisioni priori doctrinæ Speculativæ : Physica siquidem et inquisitio Causarum Efficientium et Materialium producit Mechanicam ; at Metaphysica et Inquisitio Formarum producit Magiam. Nam Causarum Finalium inquisitio sterilis est, et tanquam virgo Deo consecrata nihil parit. Neque nos fugit esse et Mechanicam sæpius mere empiricam et operariam, quæ a Physica non pendeat ; verum hanc in Historiam Naturalem conjecimus, a Philosophia Naturali segregamus. Loquimur tantum de ea Mechanica, quæ cum Causis Physicis conjuncta est. Veruntamen intervenit quædam Mechanica, quæ nec prorsus operaria est, neque tamen philosophiam proprie attingit. Operum enim inventa omnia, quæ in hominum notitiam venerunt, aut casu occurrerunt et deinceps per manus tradita sunt, aut de industria quæsita. Quæ autem intentionaliter inventa sunt, illa aut per causarum et axiomatum lucem eruta sunt, aut per extensionem quandam vel translationem vel compositionem inventorum priorum deprehensa ; quæ magis ingeniosa quædam res est et sagax, quam philosophica. Hanc vero partem, quam neutiquam contemnimus, non multo post,

1 No saying of Bacon's has been more often quoted and misunderstood than this. Carrying out his division of the Doctrina de Naturâ, which as we have seen depends upon Aristotle's quadripartite classification of causes, he remarks that to Physica corresponds Mechanica, and to Metaphysica, Magia. But Metaphysica contains two parts, the doctrine of forms and the doctrine of final causes. Bacon remarks that Magia corresponds to Metaphysica, inasmuch as the latter contains the doctrine of forms, that of final causes admitting from its nature of no practical applications. “Nihil parit,” means simply “non parit opera,” which though it would have been a more precise mode of expression would have destroyed the appositeness of the illustration. No one who fairly considers the context can, I think, have any doubts as to the limitation with which the sentence in question is to be taken. But it is often the misfortune of a pointed saying to be quoted apart from any context, and consequently to be misunderstood.

cum de Experientia Literata inter Logica tractabimus, cursim perstringemus. Enimvero Mechanicam, de qua nunc agimus, tractavit Aristoteles promiscue ; Hero in Spiritalibus ; etiam Georgius Agricola, scriptor recens, diligenter admodum in Mineralibus ; aliique quamplurimi in subjectis particularibus ; adeo ut non habeam quod dicam de omissis in hac parte ; nisi quod Me chanica promiscua, secundum exemplum Aristotelis, diligentius debuissent continuari per labores recentiorum, præsertim cum delectu eorum Mechanicorum, quorum aut causæ magis obscuræ aut effectus magis nobiles. Verum qui in hisce insistunt, quasi oras tantum maritimas perreptant,

premendo litus iniquum.2

Meo siquidem judicio vix possit aliquid in Natura radicitus verti aut innovari, vel per casus aliquos fortuitos, vel

per tentamenta experimentorum, vel ex luce causarum physicarum, sed solummodo per Inventionem Formarum. Si igitur desiderari eam partem Metaphysicæ quæ de Formis agit posuimus, sequitur ut Naturalis etiam Magia, quæ ad eam est relativa, similiter desideretur. Verum hoc loco postulandum videtur, ut vocabulum istud Magiæ, in deteriorem partem jampridem acceptum, antiquo et honorifico sensui restituatur. Etenim Magia apud Persas pro sapientia sublimi, et scientia consensuum rerum universalium, accipiebatur; atque etiam tres illi reges, qui ab Oriente ad Christum adorandum venerunt, Magorum nomine vocabantur. Nos vero eam illo in sensu intelligimus, ut sit scientia quæ cognitionem Formarum Abditarum ad opera admiranda deducat; atque, quod dici solet, activa cum passivis conjungendo magnalia naturæ? manifestet. Nam quantum ad Naturalem Magiam (quæ in libris plurimorum volitat) credulas quasdam et superstitiosas traditiones et observationes de Sympathiis et Antipathiis rerum, atque de occultis et specificis proprietatibus complectentem, cum frivolis ut plurimum experimentis, potius occultandi artificio et larva quam reipsa admirandis ; non erraverit sane, qui eam dixerit a scientia quam quærimus tantum distare, quoad veritatem naturæ, quantum libri rerum gestarum Arthuri ex Britannia, aut Hugonis Burdegalensis, et hujusmodi heroum umbratilium, differunt a Cæsaris Commentariis, quoad veritatem historicam. Manifestum enim est Cæsarem majora revera perpetrasse, quam illi de heroibus suis confingere ausi sunt, sed modis faciendi minime fabulosis. Hujusmodi doctrinas bene adumbravit Fabula de Ixione ; qui cum Junonis, Potentiæ Deæ, concubitum animo sibi designaret, cum evanida nube rem habuit, ex qua Centauros et Chimæras progenuit. Sic qui insana et impotenti cupiditate feruntur ad ea quæ per imaginationis tantum fumos et nebulas cernere se putant, loco operum, nil aliud quam spes inanes, et deformia quædam ac monstrosa spectra, suscipient. Hujus autem Magiæ Naturalis, levis et degeneris, operatio super homines similis est soporiferis quibusdam medicamentis, quæ somnum conciliant, atque insuper inter dormiendum læta et placentia somnia immittunt. Primo enim intellectum humanum in soporem conjicit, canendo proprietates specificas, et virtutes occultas et tanquam cælitus demissas, et per traditionum susurros solummodo perdiscendas ; unde homines ad veras causas eruendas et indagandas non amplius excitantur et evigilant, sed in hujusmodi otiosis et credulis opinionibus acquiescunt; deinde vero innumera commenta grata, et qualia quis optaret maxime, instar somniorum, insinuat. Atque operæ pretium est notare in illis scientiis, quæ nimium trahunt ex phantasia et fide (quales sunt Magia ista levis, de qua nunc loquimur, Alchymia, Astrologia, et aliæ consimiles), media sua et theoriam solere esse magis monstrosa, quam finis ipse est, et actio

i The Mechanical Problems of Aristotle are here referred to. Of Hero, an Alexandrian physicist, who flourished about B. C. [100], Fludd makes frequent mention, and it is perhaps on this account that he is here introduced. It is remarkable that no notice is taken of Archimedes who, beyond all comparison, was the greatest mechanical philosopher of antiquity. With his writings however there is reason to think that Bacon had no acquaintance, and in the Historia Densi et Rari his most popularly known invention, that of the method of detecting the adulteration of Hiero's crown,

is mentioned in a manner which seems to show that Bacon did not distinctly apprehend the principle on which it depends. With contemporary scientific writers, Bacon seldom appears to be acquainted, and it is therefore less remarkable that no mention is made of Stevinus, Galileo, Guldinus, or Ghetaldus. Galileo's astronomical discoveries were of course more generally known than his mechanical researches.

The writings of Agricola, who has been called the German Pliny, are even now, it is said, of considerable value, and certainly entitle him to a high place among the scientific men of the 16th century. His greatest work is the De re metallica, in twelve books (published at Basle in 1555).

2 Hor. Od. ii. 10.

1 See supra, p. 256.

2 “Magnalia naturæ" is, it may be remarked, a favourite phrase with Paracelsus. The word magnalia occurs in the Vulgate; see Ps. cvi. 22., where our version is * wondrous works."

3 See for instance the Natural Magic of G. B. Porta, published in [1589]; which quite deserves the character here given of the class to which it belongs.

tendunt. Versio argenti, aut argenti vivi, aut alicujus alterius metalli, in aurum, res creditu dura; attamen longe verisimilius est, ab homine qui Ponderis, Coloris flavi, Malleabilis et Extensibilis, Fixi etiam et Volatilis naturas cognitas et perspectas habuerit, quique similiter prima mineralium semina et menstrua diligenter introspexerit, posse aurum multa et sagaci molitione tandem produci ; quam quod pauca Elixiris

quo

« AnteriorContinuar »