NOTE.

DR. RAWLEY, whose copy of this treatise, as printed in the Opuscula, is our only authority for the text, does not tell us in what state he found the manuscript. I apprehend however that it came into his hands either unfinished or mutilated.

It was evidently meant to correspond in form with the two preceding tituli, namely the Historia Ventorum and the Historia Vitæ et Mortis, and to be set forth according to the plan described in the Norma historia præsentis, p. 17.; and had Bacon prepared it for the press himself, he would certainly not have omitted the Topica Particularia sive articuli inquisitionis. This, being a particular description of the order of inquiry, would have followed the aditus. Each section of the historia would have been assigned by a marginal reference to its proper article, would have been introduced by a connexio, and followed by observationes majores or commentationes; the monita and mandata being inserted in their places immediately after the paragraphs to which they had reference, and distinguished from the historia by italics or some other typographical difference.

Now in Dr. Rawley's edition we find no Topica Particularia ; consequently no references to the several articuli inquisitionis to which the successive portions of the historia relate. In the earlier part of the inquiry, which treats de exporrectione materiæ in corporibus, secundum consistentias suas diversas, dum quiescunt, we find no connexiones, nor anything to indicate the particular relation which the several tabulæ, monita, mandata, observationes, commentationes, &c., bear to each other, or to the subject of inquiry. These are all printed in separate groups; each group having its separate heading (monita, mandata, &c., as the case may be); and the paragraphs into which they are divided are separately numbered; except towards the end, where the numbers are omitted. Thus the various monita which are dispersed through this part of the work are numbered from 1 to 6, after which occur three single ones without any numbers; the various observationes from 1 to 9, and afterwards one without any number; the mandata from 1 to 4; and so on. The paragraphs however to which the several series of numbers apply are not kept together, but intermingled. After the first tabula, for instance, we have monita 1, 2, 3, 4; then observationes

1, 2, 3; then mandata 1, 2; then observationes 4, 5, 6; then mandatum 3; then vellicationes de practicâ, 1, 2, 3, 4; then observatio 7; then historia 1; and so on. From all which I am inclined to suspect that the arrangement of this part had not been completed by Bacon; that Rawley found the monita, mandata, &c., set down in numbered paragraphs on separate sheets, and that the distribution of them into their places in the order of inquiry was his own work; a work which, without the help of the articuli inquisitionis, which should have given the directions, it would not have been easy to accomplish successfully, even if the materials had been themselves complete, which I can hardly think they were.

However that may be, the result is certainly not satisfactory. As the text stands, the relation which the several paragraphs bear to each other is far from clear, and the typographical arrangement (which differs materially from that adopted by Bacon in the two histories edited by himself) is perplexing from the absence of all distinction between the major and minor divisions; not always consistent with itself; and in some places positively incorrect. That it has not been reproduced in its original form by any subsequent editor, is not therefore a matter of regret; but the changes which have been introduced by modern editors (following, with some variations, the example of Blackbourne) do not appear to me to be exactly of the right kind; the object which they had in view being apparently to make the printed page neater and more compact, rather than to exhibit more clearly the order of inquiry and the divisions of subject.

My own object in arranging the text of this third titulus, has been to bring the typographical form more into symmetry with that of the two others. In them, it will be observed, the whole inquiry is distributed into several articuli; each article having its separate connexio, which marks and explains the transition from the article preceding; its separate historia, with monita, mandata, &c., interspersed; and its separate observationes or commentationes (as the case may be), generally coming in at the end, and always distinguished (as stepping beyond the region of pure history into that of interpretation) by being printed in a larger type. That a similar logical arrangement was meant to be followed in the present history is evident enough even from the text as edited by Rawley. But in order to make this arrangement apparent to the eye, so far as that could be attempted without altering the words or the order of paragraphs, I have found it necessary to introduce some headings which are not in the original, and to alter the places of others. I have not however added anything except within brackets, nor altered or omitted anything without mentioning it in the notes. J. S.

HISTORIA DENSI ET RARI,

[SIVE

TITULUS TERTIUS

IN HISTORIA NATURALI ET EXPERIMENTALI

AD CONDENDAM PHILOSOPHIAM :

QUÆ EST INSTAURATIONIS MAGNE PARS TERTIA.]1

But had

The words within brackets are not in the title as printed by Rawley. Bacon himself brought out the work in the same form with the Historia Vitæ et Mortis, they would no doubt have been added.-J. S.

HISTORIA DENSI ET RARI;

NECNON

COITIONIS ET EXPANSIONIS MATERIE PER SPATIA.

ADITUS.

NIL mirum, si natura philosophiæ et scientiis debitrix sit, cum ad reddendas rationes nunquam adhuc sit interpellata. Neque enim de quanto materiæ, et quomodo illud per corpora sit distributum (in aliis copiose, in aliis parce), instituta est inquisitio diligens et dispensatoria, secundum veros aut proximos veris calculos. Illud recte receptum est, Nil deperdi aut addi summæ universali: etiam tractatus est a nonnullis ille locus, Quomodo corpora laxari possint et contrahi, absque vacuo intermisto, secundum plus et minus. Densi autem et Rari naturas alius ad copiam et paucitatem materiæ retulit; alius hoc ipsum elusit; plerique, authorem suum secuti, rem totam per frigidam illam distinctionem actus et potentiæ discutiunt et componunt. Etiam qui illa materiæ rationibus attribuunt (quæ vera est sententia), neque materiam primam Quanto plane spoliatam, licet ad alias formas æquam, volunt, tamen in hoc ipso inquisitionem terminant, ulterius nihil quærunt, neque quid inde sequatur perspiciunt; remque, quæ ad infinita spectat, et naturalis philosophiæ veluti basis est, aut non attingunt, aut non urgent.

Primo igitur, quod bene positum est, non movendum: Non scilicet fieri in aliqua transmutatione corporum transactionem aut a nihilo, aut ad nihilum; sed opera esse ejusdem omnipotentiæ, creare ex nihilo, et redigere in nihilum; ex cursu naturæ vero hoc nunquam fieri. Itaque summa materiæ totalis semper constat; nil additur, nil minuitur. At istam summam inter corpora per portiones dividi, nemini dubium esse possit. Neque enim quisquam subtilitatibus abstractis tam dementatus esse queat,