observationum et historiæ, quam omnibus modis acuendam et intendendam esse dicimus, sed tantummodo ut adhibeatur prudentia et summa et sedata judicii maturitas, in abjiciendis aut mutandis hypothesibus. Itaque patefacta jam via, de motibus ipsis dicemus pauca et in genere. Quatuor autem genera esse diximus motuum majorum in cœlestibus. Motum per profundum cœli attollentem et demittentem; motum per latitudinem zodiaci exspatiantem ad austrum et boream; motum per consequentiam zodiaci, citum, tardum, progressivum, retrogradum, statarium; et motum elongationis a sole. Neque objiciat quispiam, motum illum secundum latitudinis, sive draconum, potuisse referri ad motum illum magnum cosmicum, cum sit inclinatio alternans versus austrum et boream, quod et spiræ illæ de tropico in tropicum similiter sunt, nisi quod ille motus sit tantum spiralis, iste vero etiam sinuosus et minoribus multo intervallis. Neque enim hoc nos fugit. Sed plane non sinit constans et perpetuus motus solis in ecliptica absque latitudine et draconibus, qui tamen sol communicat cum cæteris planetis quoad spiras inter tropicos, nos in hac opinione versari. Itaque alii fontes et hujus et reliquorum trium motuum quærendi sunt. Atque hæc sunt illa, quæ circa motus cœlestium nobis videntur minus habere incommodi. Videndum vero quid negent, et quid affirment. Negant terram rotare. Negant esse in cœlestibus duos motus ab oriente in occidentem alterum1; atque affirmant anteversionem et relictionem. Negant obliquum circulum et diversam politatem ejus; et affirmant spiras. Negant primum mobile separatum et raptum: et affirmant consensum cosmicum tanquam commune vinculum systematis. Affirmant motum diurnum inveniri non in cœlo, sed et in aëre, aquis, etiam extimis terræ, quoad verticitatem. Affirmant consecutionem et volubilitatem illam cosmicam in fluidis, esse verticitatem et directionem in consistentibus, usque quo perveniatur ad immobile sincerum. Negant 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 cæli ubi siti sunt, quod utique rotat, sed tardius. Affirmant ex ea inæqualitate fluctus et undas et reciprocationes So in the original. Supply, according to M. Bouillet's suggestion, alterum ab occidente in orientem.-J. S. ætheris 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 assecla. 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 constantiam. ["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 dramatic form; the rather because the allusions to the ordinata chartarum sequela, the coordinationes, reordinationes, charte novella, &c. belong to the days of the Filum Labyrinthi, when he was more occupied in perfecting and explaining his method than in taking steps for collecting a natural history, not having then perceived so fully as I think |