« AnteriorContinuar »
Inquiratur de mari Caspio, (quæ sunt bene magnæ portiones aquarum conclusæ, absque ullo exitu in oceanum,) si patiantur fluxum et refluxum, vel qualem; siquidem nostra fert conjectura, aquas in Caspio posse habere fluxum unicum in die, non geminatum, atque talem ut littora orientalia ejusdem maris deserantur, cum occidentalia alluantur.
Inquiratur utrum fluxus augmenta in noviluniis et pleniluniis, atque etiam in æquinoctiis', fiant simul in diversis mundi partibus? Cum autem dicimus simul, intelligimus non eadem hora (variantur enim horæ secundum progressus aquarum ad littora, ut diximus), sed eodem die.
Non producitur inquisitio ad explicationem plenam consensus motus menstrui in mari cum motu lunæ; sive illud fiat per subordinationem, sive per concausam.
Inquisitio præsens conjungitur cum inquisitione, utrum terra moveatur motu diurno? Si enim æstus maris sit tamquam extrema diminutio motus diurni; sequetur globum terræ esse immobilem, aut saltem moveri motu longe tardiore quam ipsas aquas.
1 aquinoxiis in the original.-J.S.
2 Zyzygia in the original. —J. S.
DE PRINCIPIIS ATQUE ORIGINIBUS,
CUPIDINIS ET CŒLI:
PARMENIDIS ET TELESII ET PRÆCIPUE DEMOCRITI
FABULA DE CUPIDINE.
DE PRINCIPIIS ATQUE ORIGINIBUS.
BY ROBERT LESLIE ELLIS.
THE following tract is one of those which were published by Gruter. It seems to be of later date than many of the others, as it contains several phrases and turns of expression which occur also in the Novum Organum.
Bacon's design was to give a philosophical exposition of two myths; namely, that of the primeval Eros or Cupid, and that of Uranos or Cœlum. Only the first however is discussed in the fragment which we now have, and even that is left incomplete.
The philosophy of Democritus appeared to Bacon to be nearly in accordance with the hidden meaning of these fables; but we are not well able to judge of his reasons for thinking so, as the only system spoken of in detail is that of Telesius.
Touching the origin of Eros, Bacon remarks that no mention is made anywhere of his progenitors. In this he is supported by the authority of Plato, or rather by that of one of the interlocutors in the Symposium, who affirms that no one, whether poet or not, has spoken of the parents of Eros; but that Hesiod in the order of his theogony places Gaia and Eros next after primeval Chaos.' It seems in truth probable that the fables which make Eros the son of Zeus and Aphrodite are of later origin. From the Symposium Bacon may also have derived the recognition of an elder and a younger Eros, of whom the former was allied to the heavenly Aphrodite, and the latter
1 Sympos. p. 178. ; and see Valcknaer's Diatribe, to whom Stallbaum refers. On the other hand Pausanias mentions as an early myth that Eros was the son of Ilithyia, See Pausan. Boot, ix. 27.