stellas figi tanquam nodos in tabula. Negant eccentricos, epicyclos, et hujusmodi fabricas esse reales. Affirmant motum magneticum sive congregativum vigere in astris, ex quo ignis ignem evocat et attollit. Affirmant in cœlis planetarum corpora planetarum velocius moveri et rotare quam reliquum cœli ubi siti sunt, quod utique rotat, sed tardius. Affirmant ex ea inæqualitate fluctus et undas et reciprocationes aetheris planetarum, atque ex iis varios motus educi. Affirmant necessitatem in planetis volvendi celerius et tardius, prout locantur in cœlo sublimius aut humilius, idque ex consensu universi. Sed simul affirmant tædium præternaturalis incitationis in planetis et majoris et minoris circuli. Affirmant solisequium ex natura inopiosa in ignibus infirmioribus Veneris et Mercurii; cum etiam inventæ sint a Galilæo stellulæ errantes Jovis asseclæ. Ista autem nos tanquam in limine historiæ naturalis et philosophiæ stantes prospicimus, quæ quanto quis magis se immerserit in historiam naturalem, tanto fortasse probabit magis. Attamen testamur iterum nos hic teneri nolle. In his enim, ut in aliis, certi viæ nostræ sumus, certi sedis nostræ non sumus. Hæc vero interfati sumus, ne quis existimet nos vacillatione judicii aut inopia affirmandi negativas quæstiones malle. Itaque tenebimus, quemadmodum cœlestia solent (quando de iis sermo sit), mobilem 1 constantiam. 1 ["nobilem" in the original.] The sense requires mobilem, and the antithesis mobilis constantia is I think quite in Bacon's manner PREFACE TO THE DE INTERPRETATIONE NATURÆ SENTENTIÆ XII. THE next piece is not properly a fragment, being complete in itself. It is one of the many drafts of that great "speech of preparation" which Bacon turned into so many different shapes before it issued finally in the first book of the Novum Organum. Of the rejected forms this is perhaps the most remarkable for weight, condensation, and comprehensiveness. It was first published by Gruter in 1653, who places it among the Impetus Philosophici; and though the typographical arrangement makes it seem to be connected with the Tradendi Modus legitimus which follows, I think this must have been by accident or error. It exactly answers to its own title, which contains nothing that should lead one to expect a sequel; while on the other hand there is nothing in the Tradendi Modus legitimus which seems to require an introduction. Considering it then as a separate piece, there seem to be no data for determining when it was composed; though, judging by the form and style, I am myself inclined to refer it to the period when Bacon thought of throwing the exposition of his argument into a dra |