Philosophical Studies c. 1611 - c. 1619

Citation preview

THE OXFORD FRANCIS BACON · VI

General Editors: Graham Rees and Lisa Jardine EditorialAdvisory Board JONQUIL BEVAN JAMES BINNS QUENTIN SKINNER KEITH THOMAS J. B. TRAPP CHARLES WEBSTER

Tms volume belongs co the new critical edition of the complete works of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), an edition which presents the works in broadly chronological order and in accordance with the principles of modern textual scholarship. This volume comprises important natural-philosophical studies written as Bacon developed ideas later found in their mature form in the mas­ sive and unfinished sequence of works called the lnstauratio magna (1620-1626). Of the pieces presented below, one, the De vijs mortis, has never appeared in any collected edition published hitherto; another, the Phaenomena universi, has never befor� been translated into English. All the texts are pre­ sented in the original Latin with facing-page translations.

THE OXFORD FRANCIS BACON · VI

Philosophical Studies c.1611-c.1619 EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION, NOTES AND COMMENTARIES BY

GRAHAM REES with Facing-Page Translations by Graham Rees and Michael Edwards

CLARENDON PRESS · OXFORD 1996

Oxford University Press, Walton Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford New York Athens Auckl.and Bangkok Bombay Calcutta Cape Town Dar es Sal.aam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kual.a Lumpur Madras Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi Paris Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Oxford is a trade mark of Oxford University Press Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Graham Rees 1996 All rights reserved. No part ofthis publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permi its chain­ lines run horizontally, and it carries part of one or other of the water86

For details see Appendix I . 87 This i s taken as the basis fo r comparison fo r sheet X has only 1 5 type-pages. 88 See Appendix I ( Contents) . X3' carries the title TOPICA INQVISITIONIS in 2. 25mm type. The preliminaries exhibit a number of 'archaic' Vs: see *5' and especially *2' (the 2..25mm capitals of VNIYERSALI) . Compare these examples with the 2. 25mm capitals of CAPUT PRIMUM (02') . and the 2.1mm capitals of UNIVERSI (06 r) . Only once did the compositor(s) of sheets A-V use the 'archaic' V (18 v) , and that was the only instance in which titling capitals were set in the same type used throughout for running titles. For running titles the 'archaic' V is used on all sheets including X. 89 See below.

lxxxviii

From Manuscript to Print

marks represented elsewhere in the edition. 90 Indeed, X is so large that it had to carry part of a watermark. Now X could have been imposed, its longer sides parallel to the longer sides of the chase, beside the type­ pages of one or other of the formes for the preliminaries. If that had been so the firm that printed the preliminaries must also have printed X. This economy, which would have reduced the combined costs of presswork on the preliminaries and X by a third, was in fact adopted. If X had been imposed in the manner suggested, all instances of X would have borne part of a watermark on the same edge, and that turns out to be the case. All copies of X examined carry a watermark on the right­ hand edge when X is opened and placed in the normal reading position. Had X been printed on half-sheets cut beforehand and for the purpose, or on offcuts (if such there were) left over from the printing of the pre­ liminaries, the watermark in any given instance would be just as likely to appear on the left as on the right edge. The probability that Elzevier printed X as well as the preliminaries and sheet X is supported by other evidence. The type used for the heading of X ('Tabula Coitionis . . . ') belongs to the same fount as the one used in the body of the dedicatory letter in the preliminaries (*3 r-* 4v). That fount appears nowhere else in the Scripta. 7. Willems did not study the paper, but sheets used in the production of the edition bear one or another of no more than five distinct water­ marks; all are variants of a design resembling the Strasbourg lily, 9 1 a design found quite often and in a variety of forms in other Lodewijk Elzevier duodecimos. 92 The watermarks on sheets A-V appear exactly where one would expect them to in an edition in common duodecimo format: at the upper fore-edge of leaves 7 and 8, or of leaves II and 12. The preliminaries and X are watermarked as noted in the previous two paragraphs. The 8-leaf sheet X either has no watermark93 or one at the upper fore-edge of leaves 7 and 8. None of the five watermarks found in 9° For watermarks see next paragraph and Appendix I . 9 1 See Appendix I fo r further details and beta radiographs. 92 See e.g. H. Savile, In Taciti histor. ; R. Descartes, Meditationes de prima philosophia, Amsterdam, 1642; J. A. Comenius, lam,1,a aurea linguarum, Amsterdam, 1642. Willems (p. xcv) noted that the Elzeviers generally used French paper but occasionally German; Hellinga adds that the French paper trade was dominated by Dutchmen, see Copy and print in the Netherlands, p. 39. 93 After the X sheets had been struck off, a third part of each would have been blank. The blank portion would have been cut off and the remainder folded as an eight-leaf gathering. Clearly, if the watermark were on the offcut, it could not appear in the gathering. The inter­ vals between chain-lines on all X sheets without a watermark are identical to those found on sheets used elsewhere in the edition.

lxxxix

Introduction: Texts and Transmission

the edition is peculiar either to the preliminaries, or X, or sheets A-V, or sheet X. Of the copies inspected no two have the same sequence of watermarks, and any one of the five watermarks may occur on any sheet selected at random. T his might tempt one to conclude that the whole edition was printed by Elzevier's firm. But another story is just as con­ vincing, namely that Elzevier bought in or took from stock enough paper for the edition; retaining some for himself, he sent the rest to a colleague who printed sheets A-V. W hen that had been done, the col­ league sent them back, and Elzevier then printed the preliminaries, sheet X, and perhaps X on the paper which he had kept back. On this hypothesis two firms could have produced the edition, both using paper of the same origin, weight, and quality. 94 8. Finally, the preliminaries, X, and sheet X have one further common feature: all their formes are invariant and quite devoid of errors. Many of the formes of sheets A-V are invariant but none is free of error. It does look as if stricter production standards may have been applied to the preliminaries, X and sheet X than to sheets A-V. Taken by itself no single piece of evidence emphatically precludes the possibility that Elzevier's firm was wholly responsible for producing the edition. His firm printed the preliminaries, the final sheet, and X, so why not the rest? Watermark evidence cannot decide the matter; the type for all sheets could have been set by Elzevier's compositors alone; 9 5 signing in 7s was Elzevier's general not his invariable practice. It is not even beyond the bounds of possibility that Elzevier's compositors could have used demonstrably Elzevirian initials and ornaments for the pre­ liminaries and type-pages of sheet X but not for sheets A-V. Yet the coincidence of this unusual fact with the other typographical peculiari­ ties suggests a difference not between compositors in one firm but between compositors in different firms. It is difficult to believe that a single firm could have produced an edition in which one part displayed 94 If there were two printers, it is improbable that both happened to buy paper originating from the very same range of moulds, and use these very kinds for work on j ust one of a num­ ber of jobs that may have been in hand at the time. The fact that paper with the similar water­ marks occurs in other Elzevier duodecimos may suggest that Elzevier rather than the putative ocher printer selected the paper for the edition. 95 A compositor or compositors employed by Elzevier could have set sheets A-Y. The orig­ inal compositor or compositors could have been assigned co some other task (a special order or rush job) and left type for the final sheet unset. Once the emergency had passed a different compositor could have been instructed to finish the Scripta, a compositor who compressed the running tide and inadvertently used the 'wrong' fount for the body of the text. This possibil­ ity cannot be dismissed out of hand-although it is perhaps questionable chat one printing firm would have gone to the expense of having two such similar founts.

XC

From Manuscript to Print

one set of initials, ornaments, founts and composing practices, while the others exhibited a second. Dutch firms of the seventeenth century were so given to doing work for each other that it is no easy task to identify the printer of sheets A-V. Three scholars have addressed this question-Willems, and his con­ temporaries G. Berghman and Edouard Rahir. Berghman and Rahir accepted Willems's two-printer hypothesis, but whereas Berghman fol­ lowed Willems in proposing Jacques de Jonge as the other printer, Rahir tentatively promoted Philip de Croy. Although Philip de Croy was certainly in business at the right time (1645-69) , there are two objections to Rahir's proposal. 96 In the first place, de Croy worked at Leiden not Amsterdam. Elzevier would not have wanted to pay for transporting perhaps as many as sixty printed reams between the two cities if he could have found a colleague with spare capacity closer to home. 97 In the second place, Rahir printed fac­ similes of a number of fleurons belonging to Dutch firms but did not notice that one of them (allegedly owned by J. Ravesteyn) was in fact the 7 X 40mm fleuron (henceforth Fl ) of Ai r of the Scripta. 98 This fleuron together with the facts that Ravesteyn worked in Amsterdam from 1650 to 1672 , and went on to develop a particular interest in Bacon's works, 99 might suggest that he printed sheets A-V. However, even allowing for the other factors, a case cannot be erected on Fl with­ out supporting typographical evidence, not least because Fl had an intricate career. 1 00 Rahir credited the Fl to Ravesteyn; he also alleged that Ravesteyn printed two books in which it appeared: the 1659 edition ofJeannin's Les negotiations and the 1663 edition ofHoffman's Poeticum. But Rahir presented no testable evidence that Ravesteyn ever owned Fl or printed these books, 1 0 1 and Willems and Berghman (on grounds no 9 6 Catalo e d'une collection unique de volumes imprimees par Les Elzevier et divers typog;raphes gu hollandais du XVJJe siecle, D. Morgand: Paris, 1896, fac. repr. B. de Graaf: Nieuwkoop, 1965, p. 126, no. 1179; J. A. Gruys and C. de Wolf, Thesaurus 1473-1800: nederlandse boekdrukkers en boekverkopers med plaatsen en jaren van verkzaamheid, B. de Graaf: Nieuwkoop, 1989, p. 48. 97 He may well have done something of chis kind in the case of the 1648 Latin Sylva, which was apparently printed by Hackius of Leiden. Once the printing had been completed, such copies as bear Elzevier's imprint were presumably sent co Amsterdam. For bibliographical details see p. lxxvi n. 32 above. 9 8 Catalogue d'une collection, p. 452, no. 213. Rahir also reproduced a fleuron (said to belong to de Croy) quite like the Scripta ornament (p. 446, no. 163) ; perhaps chat was why he identified de Croy as the second printer. 1 00 99 Willems, p. 291; Gibson, nos. 106, 135, 151, 231. See p. xcii below. 101 Les negotiations de monsievr le president leannin, Pierre le Petit: Paris, 1659, vol. I, Al' (Fl is upside down here) . Frederici Hojfmani Silesii . . . poeticum cum musis colludium, Aegidium Janssonium Valkenier: Amsterdam, 1663 (Rahir, p. 245, no. 2205, and p. 237, no. 2142) .

XCI

Introduction: Texts and Transmission

stronger) implicitly denied Rahir's attributions by crediting Fl the Jeanni n and the Hoffman to de Jonge. 1 02 Even if Rahir's claims could be substantiated, it would still not follow that Ravesteyn printed sheets A-V of the Scripta. He could have inherited Fl from some other printer at any time after 1653. Willems's claim that Jacques de Jonge printed sheets A-V is distinctly implausible since de Jonge did not establish his firm until 1657 , i.e. four years after the publication of the Sc ripta. 1 03 Yet Willems was supported by Berghman, 1 04 who drew attention to an edition of Albert the Great's De sec retis mulierum published by Jodoc Jansson at Amsterdam in 1655. According to Berghman, initials and a fleuron used in this had also been used in the printing of the Sc ripta. 1 05 Berghman was right on both counts: Fl (the very one that Rahir attributed to Ravesteyn) crops up in both texts, and the initials (13 X 13mm) of De sec retis belong to the very same set as those used in the printing of sheets A-V of the Sc ripta. 1 06 The Sc ripta and De sec retis were published within three years of each other; they were published in the same city; both were signed in 6s; and, above all, they shared Fl and the same set of initials. Taken individually none of these facts would be very persuasive, but together they strongly suggest that the printer of the 1655 De sec retis also printed sheets A-V of the Sc ripta. 1 07 1 02 G. Berghman, Supplement a l'ouvrage sur les Eizevier de M. Aiphome Willems, Stockholm, 1897, p. 126, says that Willems told him in a personal communication that the Hoffman came from the presses of de Jonge. 1 03 Willems, p. 291 , and p. 430: de Jonge 'parait avoir imprime surtout pour les libraires. Nous ne le connaissons que parce qu'il a mis en son nom a certains livres, entre autres a la fin d'une jolie edition de Voiture, executee pour J. de Ravesteyn, 1657, pet. in-12 . . . Cette cir­ constance nous a permis de lui attribuer par voie d'induction plusieurs volumes imprimes avec non moins de soin et d'elegance.' Willems's reasoning leaves much to be desired. 1 04 Berghman, Supplement, p. 95, no. 327. Idem, Catalogue raisonne des impressiom Elzeviriennes de la Bibliotheque Royale de Stockholm, Stockholm and Paris, 1911, p. 51. 1 05 Albertvs lvfagnvs de secretis mvliervm . . . Amstelodami apud iodocum Iamsonium, 1 655. Berghman , Supplement. 'la vignette d e la p. 2 1 9 s e retrouve sur . . . les Baconi Scripta de 1653 (p . 1 ); enfin, les lettres grises, S, P, C e t A , s e verifient sur le meme Bacon' . Idem, Catalogue raisonne, p. 75, no. 549. Rahir did not record the 1655 De secretis and so did not suggest who had printed it. 1 06 The initials S, P, C and A of De secretis, A2•, A6•, G8• and O2v , are the same as those of Scripta, S12•, 02•, O6v and Ernv respectively. Fl in De secretis appears on K2• and K2v , and in the Scripta on AI•. Berghman, Etudes sur la bibliographie elzevirienne, presents no facsimiles of these initials-another indication that Elzevier never owned or used them. 1 07 In these matters extreme caucion is always necessary. Ornaments and initials were often transferred between printers; Willems (p. 417) noted chat many Elzevier ornaments and char­ acters 'servirent de modele a des contrafac;:ons plus ou moins heureuses, parfois cellemen t serviles qu' elles deroucenc l' oeil le plus exerce.' The items we have noted cannot be copies unless they are so implausibly good as to be indistinguishable from the originals even under strong magnification.

XCll

From Manuscript to Print

Who then printed the De secretis? Although it bears Jodoc Jansson's imprint, Berghman believed that the edition had actually been printed by de Jonge. Berghman pointed out that the final fleuron of De secretis reappeared in the 1660 edition of Quinault's Les coups de /'amour, and that Fl surfaced again in the 1659 edition ofJeannin's Les negotiations. 1 08 He claimed that both these works were printed by de Jonge, 1 09-a claim also made by Willems. 1 1 0 Whether or not de Jonge printed Les negotiations and Les coups, Berghman's 'evidence' left him with a diffi­ culty, namely that de Jonge's firm was founded in 1657, a date agreed upon by Rahir, Willems, and eminent modern authorities, 1 1 1 and not one to be disturbed by a couple of ornaments. Even if one takes it on trust that de Jonge printed Les negotiations and Les coups, it makes more sense to suppose not that he set up in business before 1657 but that he used ornaments once owned by predecessors in the trade. Let us therefore settle for the simplest hypotheses and conclude that the firm which printed De secretis also printed sheets A-V of the Scripta, and that De secretis was published and printed by a single firm-that founded by Jansson. 1 1 2 Jansson's firm (est. 1642 ) survived only until 1656. Jodoc had died in 1652 (or perhaps 1655) but his widow carried on the business until the firm was dissolved. T he immediate fate of Jansson's materials and equipment is unknown but they no doubt passed into the hands of one or more of his successors among whom may have been de Jonge or whosoever printed the books credited to de Jonge's presses. 1 1 3 Turning now to the passage of the edition through the presses, the unknown compositors of the Scripta set its pages seriatim. T he evidence for this rather than composition by formes is very clear. Word-division between formes and signatures, one of the best indicators of seriatim Les covps de l'amovr et de /.a, fortvne . . . Imprimee a Roven, & se vend a Paris, chez Gvillavme de L vyne . . . 1 660; Les negotiations, vol . , I , Al'. 1 09 Supplement, pp. n 5-16. 1 10 Willems, no. 1694, no. 1702 (pp. 459-60) . Rahir, no. 2142 (p. 237) (Rahir says nothing of the printer of Les coups) . 111 Rahir, p. 486. Willems said char de Jonge's firm was founded in char year (p. 430) but claimed char de Jonge had printed the Scripta (p. 291). For an authoritative modern view see Gruys and de Wolf, Thesaurus, p. 103 . 1 12 There is no evidence save the ipse dixit of the 19th-century bibliophiles that Jansson did not print and publish the De secretis. 1 13 G ruys and de Wolf ( Thesaurus, p. 97) say that Jansson died in 1655. For evidence to the same effect see M. M. K.leerkooper and W. P. Stocken Jr., De boekhandel te Amsterdam, voor­ namelijk in de uventiende eeuw: biographische en geschiedkundige aanteekeningen . . . 2 vols. (Bidragen tot de geschiedenis van den Nederlandischen boekhandel, 10) , Marcinus Nijhoff: The H ague, 1914-16, I, p. 299, I I , pp. 1317, 1467. 1 08

XClll

Introduction: Texts and Transmission

composition, is very frequent. T here are 42 instances of words divided betw�en inner and outer formes, 63 between outer and inner, and 5 between signatures. Except for * and sheet X, which are special cases, 1 1 4 no sheet lacks words divided between the inner and outer formes; only three (*, 0 and P) fail to display word-division in the opposite direction, from outer to inner. Besides that, it appears that composition by formes was simply not practised in Holland in the seventeenth century. 1 1 5 As for proof-correction and its effect on the transmission of the text, meticulous collation of thirty-three copies has revealed a mere ten changes introduced during printing. Eight of these were very minor stop-press corrections to eight of the forty-four formes: namely two turned letters righted, 1 1 6 a broken letter replaced, 1 1 7 one literal error corrected, 1 1 8 one signature inserted in a direction line and another straightened, 1 1 9 a space between two words inserted, 1 20 and one word replaced by another. 1 2 1 Only the last of these would have required reference to printer's copy by a press corrector with a good grasp of Latin. T he two remaining changes encompassed two whole formes, the outer formes of sheets N and P. Both were reset from beginning to end. T here is no indication that this occurred to improve the appearance of the type-pages. It may be that the inner forme of every sheet was printed first, but that in the case of sheets N and P some half-finished sheets were overlooked when the rest were perfected. 1 22 Such an oversight would have compelled the compositors to reset the outer formes of N and P so that the edition could be made up. Alternatively, the outer formes could have been removed from the press for correction and, between press and imposing stone (or vice versa), the type could have fallen from the chase-an expensive consequence, perhaps, of defective locking up. I cannot tell from accidental and substantive differences which of the two settings of each of these formes was the earlier and which the later. 1 23 Nor have I been able to distinguish earlier from later from evi1 14

Respectively 6- and 8-leaf gatherings, they were of course printed by Elzevier's firm. P. Gaskell, A new introduction to bibliography, Oxford, 1972, repr. 1974, p. 42. 1 16 D5': Namralibus ➔ Naturalibus. G6 r : couclusus ➔ conclusus. 1 17 1 1 8 G1 r C9 r : RT] FT VISA ➔ FT VISA. 2 : fote t ➔ for et. 1 19 1 20 M12 r , II. H 5 and H6 respectively. 1-2: sensum subsequi ttH . /\ 121 C9 v : aciem ➔ alieni. 1 22 The inner forme of every sheet may have been printed first because it could have been imposed before the last page of the outer had been set. 1 15

XCIV

MS Hardwick 72A. and De vijs Mortis dence furnished by skeletons. A minute search for evidence of regular transfer of 'standing' heads from the wrought-off outer forme of one sig­ nature to the new outer forme of the next has yielded no sign of any such regularity. It seems that after a forme had been wrought off, the typographical elements of the skeletons were stripped and reset for the next forme. W hichever of the two states of sheets N and P were the later ones, they were set from the earlier and not from printer's copy; line breaks and whitespace in one state coincide too often with those in the other for it to have been otherwise. The very small number of stop-press corrections identified in colla­ tion, the presence of invariant formes of a scattering of minor errors of the kind corrected in the variant formes, and the extreme rarity of sub­ stantive errors in all formes suggest two things: (a) that correction dur­ ing the press-run was perhaps a fairly cursory affair, and (b) that the stop-press corrections were preceded by one or more fairly thorough proof-readings. 1 24 The proof-readings and checking during the press­ run were probably undertaken by a scholar, but there is no evidence to suggest that this was Gruter himself. Nor is there any evidence to sug­ gest that the sheets printed by Elzevier may have been seen through the press by his Latinate 'famulus primarius' Nicolaas Schouten. 1 2 5 We recall that these sheets seem to have been produced to a higher standard than those printed by Elzevier's colleague; they seem to be error-free, and no stop-press corrections to these have come to light in collation­ though the possibility that these and other formes might turn out not to be invariant if more copies were collated cannot be ruled out. ( d) MS Hardwick 72A and De vijs mortis MS Hardwick 72A is a slim folio volume (310 X 210mm) bound in half vellum enclosing a light brown buckram. The binding was executed by Richard Birdsall of Northampton in 1 906, and is one of a number of examples of his work to be found among the Hardwick manuscripts. 1 26 The manuscript proper consists of thirty-one leaves, all save one of For the differences between the two states of the outer forme of sheet P see tm to Ph U, P2 , P4v, P5•, P6v , P7•, P8 v , P9•, Pwv , P11•, P12v (pp. 22, 26, 30, 34, 38-40, 42 below) . For che scare adopted in che critical edition of Ph U see Appendix I (register of copies collated) . 1 24 Though not thorough enough co catch all substantive matter perhaps omitted by the compositor or compositors. For such omissions see tns to PhU, O6v , P5•, P7v, DFRM, H7v ; DGI, Fm•; TC, H4v ; DPA O, l12v (pp. 2, 26, 32, 66, 1 54, 192, 204 below) . 1 25 Willems, p. LXIX. 1 26 MSS 50, 52, 55, 57, 66, 79 and 80 are bound in exaccly the same style as MS 72A. On ocher products of che Birdsall firm see C. Coppens, 'A binding by Birdsall and Son, Northampton', Book Collector, 41, part 2, 1992, pp. 220-2. 1 23

v

XCV

Introduction: Texts and Transmission

which measure 2 98 X 195mm. T he lower half of folio 16 has been torn off horizontally so that only the upper 157mm remain. 1 27 T he follow­ ing are blank: folios 16v , 2 o r , 2 2 v, 2 3 v , 2 4v , 2 5v, 2 6v , 2 7 r and 31 r. T he thirty-one leaves are protected by two of coarse donkey-grey paper, one to the front and the other to the rear. T he coarse leaves were once no doubt conjugate and formed the manuscript's cover but are now, like the leaves they shelter, disjunct and mounted on guards. Folio r r has had an additional leaf gummed over it. T his bears a seventeenth-century copy of George Herbert's most famous Latin poem, his eulogy of Bacon and the lnstauratio magna; the copy mistak­ enly attributes the poem to William Herbert. 1 28 Folio r r proper carries the closing words of the De fluxu et refluxu maris; most of these can be read with the aid of white and ultraviolet light. Readings taken from the manuscript are recorded in the notes to the edition of the De fluxu printed below. Folio I r was written by the scribe who drafted the mate­ rial on folios. r v-16 r. T he scribal draft was then revised by Bacon him­ self, and he carried the revisions and expansions over onto folios 17-31. The scribe used a professional italic with boid roman for titles, proper names and canones. Bacon used his normal scrappy italic. 1 29 Beal took the text to be two works; in reality they are but one. 1 30 The identity of the scribe is unknown; we do not know whether he worked for Bacon for a short time or over a period of years; nor do we > know how (if at all) he fitted into the organization of Bacon s private office; he was a fine penman and probably a professional scribe although we cannot rule out the possibility that he may have been one of the gen­ tleman scholars who assisted Bacon from time to time. 1 3 1 All we know for certain is that he performed another task for Bacon: he prepared copies of five B3.con tracts in BL MS Harley 1893. Of these, four were English texts, namely A confession of the faith (IEUvl.� BcF 154) , An 1 27 I n the manuscript this leaf i s f0liated 1 5a, and the leaves after it fa s . 16-30. The folia­ tion is comparatively recent (see pp. cii n. 142 below) and has no authority, so I have ignored it. In this edition fo. 1 5a has become fo. 16, and the remaining leaves fas. 17-3 1. 1 28 The copy, in an unidentified hand, is entitled In honorem !Llustrissimi D.D. Veru/,a.mij, Vicecomitis 5r,. Albani, Magni Sigilli Custodis, post editam ab eo lmtaurationem Magnam. The copy was collated by F. E. H utchinson for his edition of The works ofGeorge Herbert, Oxford, 1941, repr. 1959, pp. 436-7. Hutchinson suggested (p. 597) that the poem must have been com­ posed 'between 27 Jan. 1620/i, when Bacon was created Viscount St. Alban, and the follow­ ing I May, when he was deprived of the Great Seal.' 1 29 See p. cxiv, and Plates I and II below. u o !ELM, BcF 287, BcF 294. Also see Appendix III below. 131 Such, for instance, as George Herbert, William Rawley, Will iam Boswell, and perhap, Thomas Hobbes.

XCVI

MS Hardwick 72.A and De vijs mortis aduertisement touching the controuersies of the churche of Englande (/ELM, BcF 67), Certaine considerations touching the better pacification and edification ofthe church ofEngland (IELM, BcF 1 27) , and An answere to the questions proposed by Sr Alexander Hay touchinge the office of Constable (/ELM, BcF 79). T he scribe used two different hands for these: a version of secretary for the body of the text 1 32 and, for tides, proper names and quotations, the italic which he used in MS Hardwick 72A. T his same elegant, slightly contaminated italic appeared by itself in the fifth Harley tract: In Henricem principem Wallitt elogium (!ELM, BcF 301) . 1 33 It is this tract that enables us to establish that the Harley and Hardwick scribes were the same individual. 1 3 4 Now there are dif­ ferences between the Harley and the Hardwick italics; consider for instance the various forms of the letters d and h. Three forms of d occur in Hardwick 72A, and there does not seem to be any reason, positional or otherwise, why the scribe preferred one form as against another at any particular point. T he predominant form in the Hardwick manu­ script has a dignified looped ascender which inclines slightly to the right. T hat occurs in the Harley texts but very rarely. The most distinc­ tive and frequent Harley ds are ones whose ascenders arc angrily to the left. In the Latin elegy the arcing becomes increasingly furious so that towards the end the ds look like breakers lashed by an onshore gale. This reckless d, if it occurs at all in Hardwick 72A, appears but rarely and in a miserably timid form. Lastly, there is a d with an ascender that curls to the left and then loops back across itself. In the Harley manuscript this appears only in the English tracts; it is really a secretary d, but it does crop up now and again among the italic forms of the Hardwick manuscript. As for h, the Hardwick manuscript has two forms, one a true italic and the other a modified form of the secretary h which the scribe used in the English tracts of the Harley manuscript. T he latter is much the more common in the Hardwick manuscript but nowhere to be seen in the Harley elegy on Henry, which uses only the italic h. The 1 2 3 A hand very similar to that represented in /ELM, BcF 317. 1 33 Some of the letter forms (see below) are not ital ic but urbane modificatio ns of secretary forms. as to wheth �r the Harley 1 34 In the late 198os these differences led me to reserve j udgement I s 198 � had taken It f� r granted and Hardwick itali cs belonged to the same scribe. In the early at the prompnng of the question the to returned I cases. that the scribe was the same in both am now convinced that I and press, the for volume this of draft a read who adviser anonymou s only one scribe was involved.

XCVll

Introduction: Texts and Transmission

,1J

• , P.J'?

�

;,,,' ,/

,,.,

¥

/'

I

De vijs mortis, fo. gv XCVlll

3(d)

MS Hardwick 24 an 7 d

II

De vijs mortis, fo . J 7r

xcix

. . mortts De VJJS

Introduction: Texts and Transmission

modified secretary h does however crop up in a Latin quotation (fo. 6r) in one of the English Harley tracts (BcF 67). T hese differences apart, the forms of all other letters in the Harley version of the elegy on Henry also appear in the Hardwick manuscript. T he Harley elegy reproduces the Hardwick scribe's practices in the matter of punctuation, orthography, contractions and word-division as well as the tell-tale and extravagant addiction to diacritical marks. 1 3 5 Harley 1893 and Hardwick 72A also seem to be linked by date and paper. Both manuscripts were made up from gocd-quality sheets manu­ factured by the same mill; 1 36 it may be that the scribe was employed especially for his skill in producing fair copies of presentation standard. fu for date, the latest composition in the Harley manuscript is the Latin elegy. Bacon wrote it in 1613, not long after Prince Henry's death in November 1612 . We may therefore suppose that all the scribe's work in Harley 1893 was done in or after 1613-i.e. at a date consistent with that established for the scribal contribution to Hardwick 72A. We can go no further at present with the question of the scribe's identity and his work for Bacon, although it is possible the scribe's italic and secretary hands may one day be found among copies of Bacon's letters and that such a find may help us date the scribal contribution to the Hardwick manu­ script more precisely. Qua physical object the manuscript seems to have had an eventful existence. T he presence of the closing words of the De fluxu on folio 1 r suggests that the whole of the essay on tides once formed part of the manuscript. T hat folio gives the final 170-or-so words of the text. T he Gruter version of the De fluxu is 4,760 words long, so the manuscript lacks 4, 590 words. T he scribe responsible for the first sixteen leaves aver­ aged 412 words per leaf and so, if the manuscript and Gruter versions of the De fluxu were roughly similar, the manuscript version must have taken up approximately II leaves in addition to the extant folio 1 r. T he De vijs mortis occupies folio I v and the remaining 30 leaves, so the man­ uscript must once have been at least 42 leaves long. i 37 One cannot be 1 35

For the Hardwick accidentals see Appendix I I . The Harley elegy (fos. 75 r-76 r) runs to some 516 words: diacritical marks occur at the rate of one every seven words; the ratio of acute accents to circumflexes is about the same as in the Hardwick manuscript. Punctuation is used quite generously (once every 4 words as against the once every 6.04 of Hardwick 72A) . Similar contractions occur in both manuscripts, e.g. ho minum (Harley 1893, fo. 75 r , cf. Hardwick 72A, fo. 2 r) ; the scribe divides procul dubio in both manuscripts (Harley 1893, fo . 75·; Hardwick 72A, fo. 15 v) : Bacon's own practice was not to divide it (Hardwick 72A, fo. 3ov ) _ As for ortho­ graphy, the scribe's practices in the two manuscripts are identical. u c, See p. cii n. 141 below. 1v Ocher manuscript works may of course have preceded the copy of DFRM. C

MS Hardwick 72A and De vijs morris sure when the two texts were separated. But it is likely that the divorce took place in Bacon's lifetime-perhaps when he decided to revise the scribal draft of the De vijs. If he were satisfied with the fair copy of De fluxu he would have wished to preserve it while he got on with the busi­ ness of mauling the fair copy of its companion. If the copy of the De fluxu were ever to reappear, it would probably come with a new final leaf replacing the one left behind in the extant manuscript. As for the leaf gummed over folio 1 r, it was probably attached to the manuscript in the seventeenth century, and certainly while it was still known that the manuscript had been Bacon's. T he copy of George Herbert's poem was probably not affixed while the manuscript was still in Bacon's possession for why would he have wanted a fair copy of a poem stuck to a very messy manuscript? And even if he had wanted that, I doubt he would have allowed the attribution of the poem to William Herbert to stand. 1 38 All leaves of the manuscript are disjunct, but I believe that each leaf once belonged to one of perhaps five gatherings and that each gathering consisted of five sheets folded in half and quired inside each other. The watermark evidence is consistent with no other hypothesis involving any arrangement of uncut, folded sheets. 1 39 The argument for this case is complicated. I start by assuming that the manuscript once began with at least two gatherings of ten leaves each, gatherings which, save for the last two leaves of the second, are no longer extant. One such gathering would probably not have sufficed for the De fluxu--given that its last two leaves would have become (as I believe) the first two of manuscript Hardwick 72A. Two gatherings would have left (a) enough room for the De fluxu and ( b) perhaps as many as the first seven leaves of the first gathering for another short text or, if there were more gatherings than the hypothetical two, the end of a longer work. 1 40 So, assuming that the first two leaves of the extant manuscript were the last of a gathering now missing, what of the rest? The chain- and wire-lines of all extant leaves match, and those with a watermark all have the same one-which shows that the leaves originated from sheets manufactured by a single 1 38 He would have known very well who wrote the poem, see p. lxxii above. 1 39 The watermark evidence could allow that the manuscript book was made up of disjunct leaves from the start but that possibility is most unlikely, see p. cvi below. 1 40 The Defluxu would (as we know) have taken up some eleven leaves. One gathering of ten leaves, minus the two assumed to be extant, would have left three leaves too few. Two gath­ erings, minus the extant two leaves and the eleven needed for the De fluxu, would have left seven for some other purpose. Cl

Introduction: Texts and Transmission

firm and that all the sheets issued from a single pair of moulds. 1 4 1 Taking leaves 3-12 first, the relationship of watermarked leaves (w) to leaves with no watermark (nw) is as follows: fo. 3 (nw), fo. 4(nw), fo. 5(w), fo. 6(w), fo. 7(nw), fo. 8(w), fo. 9(nw), fo. rn(nw), fo. u (w), fo. 12 (w). This sequence is consistent with the hypothesis that these once constituted a gathering with the conjugate leaves thus: 3.12 , 4.n, po, 6.9, 7.8-an arrangement represented in Fig. r. spme 3(nw) � � 12 (w) 4(nw) ��----------- 11(w) 5(w) �------- ro(nw) 6(w) �-� 9(nw) 7(nw) �� 8(w) FIG. r. T he hypothetical fos. 3-12 gathering. On the initial hypothesis a similar pattern should be detectable in leaves 13-2 2 . Here the relationship between watermarked leaves and those without is this: fo. 13 (nw), fo. 14(nw), fo. 15(nw), fo. 16(w), fo. 17(w) , fo. 18(nw), fo. 19(nw), fo. 2 o(w), fo. 2 1(w), fo. 2 2 (nw) . Clearly eight leaves could have been conjugate (14.2 1, 15.2 0, 16.19, 17.18), but leaves q and 2 2 , the first and last of the hypothetical gathering, could never have been halves of the same sheet. Now if our hypothesis be true then one of the two must be in the wrong place. Textual continuities insist that folio 13 cannot be out of sequence, and so folio 2 2 must have strayed. At some stage in the manuscript's history a binder must have removed ear­ lier stitching, found himself with 31 separate leaves or a number of gath­ erings which he cut into separate leaves, leaves which he then rebound with some of them in the wrong order. 1 42 14 1

The paper was made by the Heusler firm at Basle. The watermark, a cockatrice ram­ pant perched on a Heusler rebus, is very like the one chat adorns the leaves of copies of Bacon tracts in BL MS Harley 1893. The Harley watermark is a cockatrice rampant perched on the Heusler monogram. For published copies of watermarks very sim ilar co those of the Harley and Hardwick MSS see P. Heitz, Les filigranes avec I.a crossr de Bale, Strasbourg, 1904, pp. xxviii-xxix; Briquet, no. 1383; Heawood, no. 842. 1 42 Since the leaves were not foliated at that time such an error could easily have been made. The foliation , in pencil on recto, includes two leaves that wer"" rebound back co fron r (see p. cv below) . The foliation must therefore b e comparatively recent. Cll

MS Hardwick 72A and De vijs morris It is certain that the first 16 leaves stand in their proper order. 1 43 But folios 17-31, i.e. the ones exclusively in Bacon's own hand do not carry one long stretch of continuous prose but a series of discrete items, mostly punctuated by blank versos. 1 44 If these were ever separated and their order disturbed, it would have been very difficult to put them back in their original sequence. Folios 17-19 are undoubtedly in their proper places; 1 4 5 folios 2 0 and 2 1 are probably in their correct positions; 1 46 and folios 2 9-30, held together by textual continuities, stand in the correct relationship to each other. However, folios 2 9-30 do not necessarily stand in their original relationship to folios 2 2 -8 and 31, folios which are almost certainly not in their original order. T he evidence for the last claim is formidable. In the first place, some leaves bear lists which Bacon drew up as he tried to work out how he was going to proceed with the text. These lists should probably be together, 1 47 but one (fo. 31) is set apart from the others (fos. 2 0-1). In the second place, there are two full drafts of Aphorism 1 and, as the manuscript stands, the later draft (fo. 2 r) precedes the earlier (fo. 2 6 r). Yet given that folio 2 3 must have been blank when Bacon produced the first draft why would he have gone forward to write the first draft on a later folio? And if he had done that why on earth would he then have turned back to write a second draft on an earlier folio when later folios were still virgin at that stage? In the third place, other aphorisms (fos. 2 4r , 2 5 r, 2 8 r-v) do not appear in numerical order. Lastly, the stitching holding the leaves together must have been disturbed at least twice in the manuscript's career-when the De fluxu and De vijs were parted, when the 1906 binding was undertaken, and perhaps on some other occasion too. On one of these occasions at least two leaves had nasty accidents. Every leaf in the manuscript displays redundant stitch holes which belong to a sewing undertaken prior to the 1906 binding. Each leaf displays six such holes and the vertical distances between them are identical on all leaves. 1 48 The holes lurk on the inner margins of all 1 43

1 44 See p. xcvi above. The text that they carry is continuous. They carry a piece of continuous prose which Bacon would have drafted before any of the others meant for inclusion in the scribal draft. On this point see Appendix I I I below. 1 46 These are lists which Bacon drew up as he planned what was to follow in the rest of the manuscript; see Appendix I I I below. 1 47 See previous note. 1 48 There is a pair separated by a vertical distance of 2mm from each other and 43mm from che head edge; 68mm beneath these comes another pair also 2mm apart; 71mm beneath these is a single hole and, 63mm beneath that, another. All lie 2-3mm from the vertical edge, and chat of course suggests that the leaves were already disj unct when the holes were made. 1 45

Clll

Introduction: Texts and Transmission

leaves except folios 23 and 25, where they grace the outer. 1 49 At some time during the manuscript's history these two leaves m ust have been resewn back to front; their current versos should be rectos. All these facts indicate that some leaves are quite clearly not in their original loca­ uons. We can now return to the hypothetical gathering which runs from folio 13 onwards. We know that the two outer leaves can never have belonged to the same sheet, that folio 13 is in its correct position, but that folio 22 is probably not. We know too that folios 20, 21 and 31 carry lists; so why not shift folio 22 and put folio 31 in its place? That would bring together all the leaves with lists; it would also establish potential conj ugacy between the outer leaves of the hypothetical gathering-for while folio 22 lacks the necessary watermark, folio 31 does not. The gathering would therefore turn out as shown in Fig. 2. spme 13 (nw) �� 31(w) 14(nw) ��-------- 21 (w) 15(nw) �� 2o(w) 16(w) -� 19(nw) l 7 (W) � --

----------

� I 8 ( nW)

FIG. 2. The hypothetical fos. 13-21 and fo. 31 gathering. By moving folio 22 and putting folio 31 in its pl3.ce we dispose of a prob­ lem that stands in the way of constructing a hypothetical final gather­ ing. If folio 31 stayed where it was there would be six watermarked leaves among those remaining, and that would never do-it would be incom­ patible with the proposition that the manuscript book was once made up of five-sheet gatherings or quinternions. That said, we are left wi.th another problem: that there are only nine leaves remaining, not the nec­ essary ten. This problem can be solved by the simple expedient of con­ juring an extra leaf out of thin air. That is not quite as arbitrary as it 1 49 The orientation of watermarks on these leaves is a!so anomalous. When viewed fro m recto, they alone display the Heusler cockatrice (see p. cii n. 141) the right way up and faci n g the outer margin. In most other cases t h e beast i s inverted, and in all other cases it faces the inner margi n.

CIV

MS Hardwick 72A and De vijs morris sounds for if the extra leaf were the final leaf in the manuscript and blank on recto and verso, it might easily have been discarded by one or other of the binders. If this conjectural folio 32 actually existed, it would have lacked a watermark for among the remaining extant leaves there are already five with watermarks, and four without: fo. 2 2 (nw), fo. 2 3 (w), fo. 2 4(nw), fo. 2 5(w), fo. 2 6(w), fo. 2 7(nw), fo. 2 8(w), fo. 2 9(w), and fo. 3o(nw). How then were the leaves of the hypothetical final gathering origi­ nally arranged? T here are several solutions to this, but all should meet three requirements: that conjugacy be observed, that the first draft (fo. 2 6 r of Aphorism I precede the second (fo. 2 f), and that (as textual continuity enforces it) folios 2 9 and 30 be kept together and in that order. With these requirements in mind, the best solution to the sequencing problem may be that the leaves be made conjugate thus: 2 6.32 (32 not extant), 2 3.30, 2 7.2 9, 2 8.2 2 , 2 4.2 5 (see Fig. 3). spme 2 6(w) � 32 ?(nw) 2 3 (w) � 3o(nw) 2 7(nw) � 2 9(w) 2 8(w) � 2 2 (nw) 2 4(nw) � 2 5(w) FIG. 3. T he hypothetical fos. 2 2 -30 and fo. 32 gathering. This arrangement has distinct advantages: not only does it comply with the requirements mentioned above, it also places all aphorisms in their proper numerical order (fos. 2 7 r, 2 8 r-v, 2 4 r, 2 5r). Lastly it is worth recall­ ing that in this or any other model of the manuscript's original con­ struction folios 2 3 and 2 5 would both have to stand with their current fore-edges to the volume's spine. In conclusion, it seems likely that the manuscript book once con­ sisted of at least five ten-leaf gatherings or quinternions. T he first two were devoted in the main to the Defluxu, and all save the last two leaves are lost. T he last two leaves are the first of the extant manuscript. The remaining leaves can be arranged as three ten-leaf gatherings. T here is a potential gathering ready-made among leaves whose order cannot have

Introduction: Texts and Transmission

been disturbed (fos. 3-12). T here is a potential gathering (fos. 13-21 and fo. 31) most of whose leaves (fos. 13-19) must be in their original order, and for whose completion only one leaf (fo. 22) needs to be replaced by another (fo. 31). A final gathering can be constructed by relocating folio 22, introducing a hypothetical final leaf (fo. 32) and rearranging the remaining leaves (fos. 23-30) . No other hypothesis involving folded sheets fits the sequence of watermarks on leaves whose order cannot have been disturbed. The book simply cannot have been made up of single sheets folded and laid one on top of anoth�r; nor can it have been assembled from gatherings made up of two, three, four, six, or more sheets folded and quired inside each other; only five will do. If there be an alternative to the quinternion hypothesis it is that all leaves were disjunct from the start. But this alternative is so improbable that it can be virtually ruled out on the spot. In the first place, if Bacon had been using single leaves, why did he not discard leaves bearing early drafts of certain items and retain only the later ones? 1 50 In the second, while the odds against a series of disjunct leaves yielding the watermark sequence of folios 3-12, a sequence compatible with the initial hypoth­ esis, are not in fact very great (6.8 7 5 to 1), the odds against the water­ mark sequence of folios 3-21 happening by chance are 93.67 to 1, 1 5 1 and so the odds against disjunct leaves (folios 3-31) delivering the makings of three hypothetical gatherings must be very long indeed-even after making due allowance for the manreuvres needed to reconstruct the gatherings. 1 52 The provenance of manuscript Hardwick 72A is a mystery. For a start, very little is known of the history of the Hardwick manuscripts. The first and imperfect record of their existence appeared in the Appendix to the Third Report of HMC (1872), pp. 43-4. T hen, accord­ ing to lhe typescript 'Handlist of MSS at Hardwick', the manuscripts were sorted by S. A. Strong, wife of the then librarian. Strong did the preliminary sorting in the years 1895-1905 and then, assisted initially by Mr Jeayes of the British Museum, she spent the next three years rear­ ranging and depositing them in the cupboard of the muniment room at Hardwick Hall. After the Second World War all were moved to their current resting place in Chatsworth House. 1 53 1 5 ° For these see Appendix I I I . 151 I a m grateful t o m y colleague Dr David Goda for the figures. 1 5 2 In this and other cases where arguments can be adduced for rearranging materials in the manuscript, I have abandoned the copy-text order in editing the text (see p. cxiv below) . 15 -� All this information is given in the ' Handlist of MSS. in the Cupboard of the Muni ment Room at Hardwick'. This typescript volume is lodged at Chatsworth H ouse. CVI

3 ( d)

MS Hardwick 72A and De vijs morris

The eighty-seven items noted in the 'Handlist' are a pretty miscella­ neous bunch, but almost all can be dated to the seventeenth century. 1 54 Nearly half are accounts, inventories, surveys, and copies of deeds, most though by no means all of which were drawn up by or for members of the Cavendish family. 1 5 5 The rest of the manuscripts comprise assorted religious, historical, legal and constitutional tracts, literary and political works, travels, grammars, and so forth. Save for the few 1 56 associated with Hobbes's tutorial efforts on behalf of the eventual second and third earls of Devonshire, most of these yield no clues as to the circumstances of their acquisition or, at any rate, clues sufficiently strong to allow one to generalize about the history of the collection. Certainly the manu­ scripts made their way to Hardwick Hall sometime before 1872 , but it is difficult to say just how long before. Most may have been in the pos­ session of the Cavendish family in the seventeenth century. That would certainly be true of most of the accounts, inventories and so forth, almost certainly true of the materials associated with Hobbes, and prob­ ably true of one or two other items. 1 57 But the fact that most of the Hardwick manuscripts date to the seventeenth century and that many must have been owned by the Cavendish family from that time does not mean that all were so owned from then. In the case of the Bacon mate­ rials that leaves something like 2 50 years (c.162 6-18 72 ) unaccounted for. No fewer than four manuscripts contain works by Bacon. MS 43 is a copy of An advertisement touching a holy war. 1 5 8 MS 51 comprises copies of political and legal tracts which Bacon wrote between the late 1 580s and early 162 0s; 1 59 these copies may have been produced by scribes working for Bacon himself; some of the corrections to the scribal drafts may be in Bacon's own hand. At least one of the tracts is of great inter­ est from a textual point of view, 1 60 and several may be the most author­ itative copies of their respective texts currently extant. MS 55 contains 1 54 A couple (MSS 45A and 65) seem to have been drafted in the 16th century. Three, con­ taining accounts and deeds (MSS 1 6A, 17 and 87) , run over from the late 17th into the early 18th century. 1 56 1 5 5 MSS 1-17, 19-20, 22-3, 25-42, 47, 66A, 67, 87. MSS 62, 64, 70, 72. 1 57 In an elegant study of two Hardwick manuscripts, it has been argued that both may have been at Hardwick by the mid-17th century, see Nicholas Ferrar, Sir Thomas Smith 's Misgovernment ofthe Virginia Company: a manuscriptfrom the Devonshire papers at Chatsworth House, ed. D. R. Ransome, Cambridge: for presentation to members of the Roxburghe Club, 1990, PP· XX-XXI. 1 58 /ELM, BcF 60. 1 5 9 Ibid., BcF 69, 105, 109, 118, 130, 143, 1 60, 211, 217, 288, 304. Another five pieces (items 9, 13-16) in this manuscript are also Bacon's but are not recorded in /ELM. 1 60 See p . xxii n. 22 above.

CVll

Introduction: Texts and Transmission

several tracts composed in 1592 but drafted in an early seventeenth­ century hand. Among these is a hitherto unknown copy (fos. 86-12 7) of Observations vpon a Libell a copy drafted in a hand very similar to that represented in MS 43 and on paper very probably from the same mill. 1 6 1 Finally of course there is MS 72A, the one which bears the frJ.gment of the De fluxu J.nd the text of the De vijs. The fact that this unique assortment of Baconiana fetched up in the muniment room at Hardwick Hall is really rather remarkable. T he eighty-seven Hardwick manuscripts constitute c1n ad hoc accumulation seemingly born in the main of a succession of casual and unrelated choices. In such an accumulation one might not be surprised to find one or two manuscripts containing Bacon tracts, but the presence of four suggests something other than mere accident. If we forget the domestic items (accounts, deeds, etc.) and consider only the others, then the number of Bacon texts relative to the remainder is impressive. No other author begins to be as heavily represented-which may suggest either that the Bacon manuscripts came to the Cavendish family at the same time and from a single previous owner, or that someone connected with the family, someone who acted with deliberation and knew a Bacon text when he or she saw one, acquired them from more than one previous owner. These alternatives should perhaps be looked at in the light of other modalities. In the first place we know that manuscript Hardwick 72 A belonged to Bacon but did he own any or all of the other three Hardwick manuscripts in which his texts appear? At present this ques­ tion cannot be answered conclusively. One can say only that the several 1 6 1 MS 55 deserves close attention. Recorded in HMC (see p. cvi above) as an unbound folio, i t w:!�, like MS 72A, bound by Birdsall in 1906. In addition to Ob,avatons vpon a Libel� at least one of the other tracts (entitled A declaraton ofthe true causes ofthe great troubles rsup­ posed to be intended aga' the Realme ofEngland . . . ) (fos. 32-55 v) may have Baconian connec­ tions: the text mentions Bacon's mother and father (fos. 36v , 38 v ) , and the wording of the title is echoed in the titles of the MS 55 and MS 51 (item 7) versions of Observations vpor. a Libell. The MS 55 A declaraton ofthe true causes is preceded by a tract enti tled An aduertisem' written to a Secretarie of my Lord Treasuror ofEngland . . . concerninge another booke newlie written in latine . . . aga' her Ma'ie, late Proclamation . . . (fos. 1' ff.) . Both titles seem to be manuscript copies of printed books ( STC 10005 and STC 19885) banned by the English authorities; for other such copies of these books see J. K. Moore, Primary materialr relating to copy and print in English books of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Oxford Bibliographical Society Occasional Publication, 24) , Oxford, 1992, pp. 3, 9. Beal recorded the MS 51 copy of Observations but the MS 55 copy eluded him (see /ELM, BcF 143). All watermarked leaves of MS 43 bear the same watermark (a version of the arms of Basie) , one almost identical to that found on all watermarked leaves of MS 55; for reproductions of similar watermarks see H ein., Lesfiligranes, no. 99; Heawood, nos. 1217, 1218, and 1226.

CVlll

MS Hardwick 72A and De vijs morris hands represented in these three belong to the first half of the seven­ teenth century; that the manuscripts must therefore have been drafted during Bacon's life or within a few years of his death; that some of the corrections to Hardwick 51 and marginalia to 55 may be holograph; and that manuscripts 43 and 55 were probably drafted by a single scribe on paper that almost certainly emanated from a single mill. 1 62 There is more than a slight chance that all three were prepared on Bacon's orders. Now if that tentative conclusion be correct, did the four Hardwick manuscripts pass from Bacon before or after his death? I cannot think that the second alternative is likely; one would have to account for the fact that they did not pass to Boswell or Rawley. 1 63 As for the first, almost every manuscript that left Bacon's hands during his lifetime did so by gift, loan or theft. 1 64 Hardwick 7 2A would not have attracted the larcenous and can never have been lent out or given away; 1 65 but it could have been transmitted by mistake in a bundle of presentation copies which comprised the other Hardwick Bacon manuscripts. In that case it would be reasonable to suppose that all Hardwick Bacon manu­ scripts were given to a member of the Cavendish family by the author himself. Bacon knew both the first and second earls of Devonshire, and was on such good terms with the latter that he left him a 'casting bottle of gold' in both versions of his will. 1 66 On the other hand, let us suppose that Bacon owned only manuscript Hardwick 72A and that the other three Hardwick manuscripts were copies which never belonged to Bacon himself. In this case the proba­ bility is that, for reasons already stated, the manuscript left Bacon's keeping before his death and that transmission to the Cavendish family was not direct. 1 67 But if the manuscript travelled indirectly, who was the 1 62

See previous note. Few if any of the manuscripts owned by Bacon at his death seem to have eluded Boswell and Rawley, neither of whom seems to have parted with his booty before sending it to the press. 1 64 For theft see p. lxxiv n. 24 above. 1 65 The horrible state of the manuscript precludes that possibility. 1 66 LL, VII , pp. 228, 542. Kiernan (Ess, p. lxxxix, n. 82) thinks the second earl may have been responsible for the second ( S TC 1154 (1618) ) of two I talian translations of Essayes. For detailed evidence concerning this translation and the near certainty that the earl had dealings with Bacon over its revision see Noel Malcolm, De Dominis (1560-1624): Venetian, Anglican, ecumenist and relapsed heretic, Strickland & Scott Academic Publications: London, 1984, PP· 47-54. 1 67 Had che manuscript been in Bacon's possession at che rime of his death, ic would no doubt have passed into che hands of Boswell or Rawley; and both men tended to hang on co Bacon manuscripts, even if some of chem were scrappy. Direct transmission would have been most unlikely. Always concerned about che quality of manuscripts prepared for circulation or 1 63

CIX

Introduction: Texts and Transmission

third party (or parties) through whose hands it passed? If this question is the right one to ask, there is no certain answer to it at the moment. One possibility is that the manuscript came into the hands of Thomas Hobbes, and passed thence to the Cavendish family. A.5 we know, Hobbes was employed by mem hers of the Cavendish family, :md there are materials associated with Hobbes among the Hardwick manuscripts. It is also true that manuscripts of Hobbes's works are to be found else­ where in the Chatsworth collections. However, although Bacon very probably employed Hobbes (as a secretary or or:casional amanuensis), almost nothing is known of relations between them (save that they were probably cordial), and there is no record of literary material passing from the one to the other. 1 68 Evidently progress in the matter of the manuscript's provenance may turn on a proper study of the other three Bacon manuscripts, but that must await systematic editorial work on the texts represented therein. 1 69 For the present we can go no further. Suffice it to say that pending fur­ ther work on the other manuscripts the following guesses seem plausi­ ble: that manuscript Hardwick 72A passed from Bacon's ownership before his death rather than after; that the Hardwick Bacon manuscripts reached the Cavendish family as a single lot or were deliberately col­ lected rather than accumulated ad hoc, and that they reached their des­ tination during the seventeenth, not a later, century. presentation (see, for instance, LL, VII , p. 414) , Bacon would never have given manuscript Hardwick 72.A as a present. 1 68 J ohn Aubrey tells us that Hobbes told him of his connection with Bacon. Aubrey knew Hobbes well and was on the whole accurate in what he wrote about him; see Brieflives, ed. A. Clark, 2 vols. , Oxfo!'d, 1898, I, pp. 70, 83, 331: 'The Lord Chancellour Bacon loved to con­ verse with [Hobbes] . He assisted his lordship in translating several! of his Essayes into Latin, one, I well remember, is that Ofthe Greatnes ofCities-. the rest I have fo,gott. His lordship was a very contemplative person, and was wont to contemplate in his delicious walkes at Gorambery, and to dictate to Mr. Thomas Bushell, or some other of his gentlemen, that attended him with inke and paper ready to sett downe presently his thoughts. His lordship would often say that he better liked Mr. Hobbes's taking his thoughts, then any of the other, because he understood what he wrote, which the others not understanding, my Lord would many times have a hard taske to make sense of what they writt.' Two payments recorded in the first earl's accounts indicate contacts between Bacon and Hobbes in 1619 and 1620, see MS Hardwick 29, p. 605= IO May 1619: 'To Mr Hobbs for a Lettre from the Lord Chauncellor to Jane Countes� of Shrewsbury 2s'; ibid., p. 633: 24 May 1620: 'to M r Hobbs wch he gaue away at 1' Lo: Chane. ij s . ' My thanks to Noel Malcolm (personal communication) for bri 11ging th� in formation in this note to my attention. 1 69 Critical editions of these texts will appear in due course.

ex

T HIS EDITION : PRINCIPLES, C ONVEN TIONS AND A NOTE ON THE T RANSLATIONS (i) General 1 Editorial intervention in the texts has been kept to a minimum, but the edited texts are neither literal transcripts nor quasi-facsimiles of the c-ts. With regard to printed c-ts, ornaments and display initials with their following small capitals have not been recorded or reproduced. Turned letters and wrong-fount letters have been recorded only if bibliographi­ cally significant. T he running headlines in this edition do not match those of the printed c-t. No attempt has been made to reproduce the lay­ out of marginalia, interlineations, etc. as it appeared in the manuscript c-t. T he edited texts are accompanied by two banks of textual footnotes ( tns) : the first relates to substantives, the second to accidentals. After the edited texts stand the commentaries (cmts) . In the main the cmts eluci­ date difficult passages and indicate (especially by quotation) sources, analogues and parallels. In addition they supplement the tns and cross­ reference passages of the edited texts with passages in other Bacon writ­ mgs. Since c-t signatures (printed c-ts) and folio numbers (manuscript c-ts) are the means by which texts in the edition are cross-referenced, suprascript bars ( 1 ) have been introduced to distinguish each c-t page from the next. In the outer margin next to every line of text containing such a bar, the appropriate c-t signature or folio number is set in square brackets ( [ ] ) . To distinguish these bars from those occasionally used by Bacon himself, the latter are printed as normal bars (I). Emendation of substantives has been confined to instances where the c-t appeared to be deficient or corrupt. Illegible words (in the manu­ script c-t) for which no conjecture can be supplied are represented thus: [ illeg.] . Conjectural reconstructions of illegible words or lacunae are also set in square brackets; arguments (where they are necessary) for recon­ structions appear in the tns or in the cmts. Emendations stand in the established text, and are recorded in the tns where the emended word(s) 1

For special principles applying only to the De vijs mortis see pp. ex.iii-xiv below. CXI

This Edition: Principles and Conventions

appear as a lemma (or lemmata) preceded by a line number and fol­ lowed by (r) a closing square bracket ( ] ) and then (2) the c -t reading and/or editorial remarks. Unemended words requiring editorial com­ ment are lemmatized in the same manner. All editorial remarks in the tns are distinguished from the lemma and record of the c -t reading by a /. Variants supplied for the closing words of the De fluxu et refluxu maris, words for which we have an authoritative manuscript fragment, 2 are given in the tns to DFRM, l 7v-I8 r. Variant readings derived from col1ation of thirty-three copies of the printed c-t are noted in the tns. Such readings affect only one text in this volume, namely the Phtenomena universi, whose c -t comprises a sheet whose outer forme exists in two states. 3 For the state adopted for the edited text of Ph U, see Appendix I (register of copies collated). Variants (almost always accidentals) derived from the state not adopted are recorded in the tns thus: lemma] ~ aofvariant (where aof = alternative outer forme) or, if a variant in aof has been adopted in the text, le mma] ~ c-t version (aof lemma). Emendation of accidentals: in general, c-t accidentals have been pre­ served: 'Normativite dogmatisante' is generally inappropriate and par­ ticularly so here. 4 Where accidentals have been emended (generally for the sake of clarity) , c-t readings have been scrupulously preserved in the tns and keyed to the text in the same manner as for substantives. A swung dash to the right of the closing square bracket stands for the lemma; thus, for example, lemma,] ~ ; means chat the comma following the lemma in the edited text replaces a semicolon in the c -t. W here the edited text has punctuation but the c -t has none, the ~ is followed by a caret mark (,); for brackets inserted by editor, ~ is followed by /\

lemma/\ .

Punctuation: texts have their own harmonies, regularities or eccen­ tricities which it would be unwise to disturb more than is absolutely necessary. Punctuation has been emended only for the sake of clarity or to avoid ambiguity. Emendations have been noted in tns in manner 1.

3 See p. xcvi above. See pp. xciv-v above. P. Tombeur, 'De polygraphia', in Grafia e interpunzione de/ /atino ne/ medioevo, ed . A . Maien), Edizioni dell' Ateneo: Rome, 1 987, pp. 69- 1 0 1 , p. 74: 'II est frap pant de constater combien certains historiens de la phil0sophie, par exemple, veulent, quand ils editent des textes, annihiler la diversite des formes graphiques et gram­ maticales . . . pretendant que tout ce qui n'est pas conforme a leurs propres regles n'est qu'un amas de fautes et que cela n'a d'ailleurs pas de signification . ' Quite. 2

4

CXll

This Edition: Principles and Conventions

indicated in previous paragraph. The practices of Bacon, scribes and printers in this matter are considered in Appendix II. 2 . C-t paragraphing has been retained without exception. Beginnings of paragraphs are indented, outdented or neither in- nor outdented in accordance with c-t practice. 3. C-t orthography has been retained for the most part. It makes no sense in what aims to be an honest edition to 'normalize' the differing practices of Bacon, his scribes, and printers on some 'modern' or other arbitrary standard. Apparent orthographical errors (no doubt typo­ graphical in many cases) have been corrected and c-t forms noted in the tns. Modern practice in the cases of i versus j and u versus v has been (quite properly) ignored. The long s has been silently altered to the modern form. In the edition c-t digraphs have been retained. 4. Abbreviations: certain holograph abbreviations have not been expanded, i.e. seru. (seruntor?), descr. (descriptum est?), Ad. (Adjungite?), Aph. (Aphorismus) . Ampersands and standard contrac­ tions marked by suprascript letters, i.e. -tr (-tur) and qd (quod), have been preserved in the edited texts. All other c-t contractions have been expanded (in italics where the c-t has roman, and in roman where the c-t has italic) . Where the c-t omits a contraction sign (generally a swung dash or a horizontal straight line) normally used in the c-t, the missing letters have been supplied in italics enclosed in square brackets. Caudate e has been represented as an italicized £. 5. Diacriticals: all have been retained or omitted according as the c-ts retain or omit them. Sometimes they help the reader and sometimes constitute evidence of differences between holograph, scribal, and print-shop practices. 6. C-t initial capitals and lower-case letters: these have been emended only in a very few cases for clarity's sake. Emendations have been recorded in textual notes thus: lemma] c-t form. Small caps following display initials have not been recorded or reproduced. (ii) The De v ijs mortis: Supplementary Notes Special considerations attach to the De vijs mortis, some of which do not arise in connection with any other Bacon c-t. If an editor sought to give a just representation of the text as the author would have wished it to be, then the De vijs could not be edited at all. Bacon's final intentions cannot be deduced from the manuscript, and it would be unwise if not arrogant to edit the manuscript in such a way as to elicit a putative 'final' form of the text at the point when Bacon abandoned it. I have not CXlll

This Edition: Principles and Conventions

sought to establish a 'final' text; to have done so would at best have been to obscure and at worst to destroy the very features which give the text its special significance for the serious scholar. I have therefore adopted a conservative editorial approach: the text presented is in effect a genetic text, a record of the text's evolution, and one which preserves much of the evidence from which the manuscript's physical history can be deduced. I have however been persuaded that the c -t leaves (i.e. fos. 22 to 31) should be rearranged in accordance with arguments adduced in connection with the physical history. 5 It is better to restore Bacon's sequence than to preserve accidents of the bindery. In addition to the editorial principles noted above, the following supplementary principles have been adopted for this text. 1. T he scribe used a fine professional italic for most of the text but used a firm, non-cursive roman for tides, proper names and canones. 6 In the edition scribal practice has been reversed: roman for italic and italic for roman. In order to distinguish between scribal hand and holograph, Bacon's scruffy italic has been set in Gill Sans Light. 2. All matter deleted by Bacon or the scribe has been res tored. Smaller scribal deletions (from single letters to whole sentences) have been delimited by angle brackets ((. . . )). Short deletions made by Bacon are delimited by ((. . . )). Longer deletions have been signalled not in the edited text but in the tns. 3 . All marginalia have been incorporated in the body of the edited text and delimited by braces ({}). Most marginalia were meant to be so incorporated. Marginal and other matter not meant to form part of the text7 has been positioned in the text and enclosed in these brackets [I ]]. Such matter has been commented upon in the tns and Appendix III. 4. lnterlineations have also been incorporated in the text. Simple interlineations have been delimited by normal and reverse primes (' . . . ' ) , interlineations within interlineations by doubling the primes (" . . . "). 5. Underlined matter in the c-t has been underlined in the edited text. Inferior square brackets mark holograph underlining of scribal matter, e.g. [ tertium quid] . See pp. c-cvi above. The scribe's practice is so similar to the typogfc:t p hical style of the 1 620 edi t io n of NO that he may perhaps have prepa red the printer's copy of that text. 7 e.g. letters, numbers or sigla that Bacon used to indicate where marginal and other revisions were meant to be located. 5

6

CXIV

This Edition: Principles and Conventions

(iii) A Note on the Translations In translating the texts presented in this volume we have not tried to imitate Jacobean English; still less have we tried to imitate a Victorian imitation of Bacon's English. In fact we have chosen not to remain close to the letter or spirit of the translations presented in the Victorian edi­ tion. Spedding and Ellis were not well served by their translators who, lacking a good grasp of Bacon's work, tended to play safe by adopting a timid literalism which sometimes lapsed into incoherence. We have aimed to reproduce the sense of the Latin in fluent modern English, but it must be confessed that this is easier said than done. Any translation of Bacon's philosophical Latin superimposes a modern semantic system on an earlier one and, in particular, risks blurring, fal­ sifying or misrepresenting the meanings of specialist terms. T he effort to reproduce these meanings or to alert readers to their character has sometimes resulted in a degree of awkwardness which is perhaps diffi­ cult to avoid when late twentieth-century English is being asked to con­ vey early seventeenth-century distinctions and differences. Here are one or two instances to illustrate the problem. T he term consistens could be taken for a synonym of solidus (a term which Bacon also used), so why not translate both as solid ? The answer is that even in the case of apparently uncomplicated synonyms we can­ not afford to assume too much. Here Bacon may have been trying to draw attention to the shape-retaining aspect of solidity, so where consis­ tens occurs we have translated it as consistent, and reserved solid for solidus. Reference to consistent bodies may seem odd in modern English but we believe that it is desirable none the less. In the same category come such apparent synonyms as pars and portio, expansio and explica ­ tio, coitio and contractio. In these cases too we have tried t o carry over the possibility of difference into the English. Thus, for instance, coitio (especially when set against expansio) has been translated as coition or coming together, and contraction reserved for contractio. In the case of the polysemic specialist terms for which no modern English word seems to be available, we have often chosen to Anglicize the Latin. T hus schematismus has been rendered as schematism; the Victorian preference for configuration has been abandoned not least because Bacon also used the word conjiguratio but never as a synonym for schematismus. In certain instances we have also translated Latin terms with their English derivatives even though the particular derivative may carry quite different meanings in modern English. For CXV

This Edition: Principles and Conventions

example Bacon often used sph£ra to denote something like volume or extension in space, we have nevertheless chosen to translate the Latin as sphere, once again with the object of signalling what we take to be a con­ scious choice on Bacon's part, a choice which perhaps involved leaving aside such possibilities as exporrectio or dimensio. In translation as in so much else the De v ijs mortis turned out to be a special case. We took a brisk view of materials that were not meant to be an integral pan of the text; for the most part we have simply left them out. We took a similar view of many of Bacon' s minor deletions and excluded them in the interests of presenting an English version more readable than the Latin. We decided case by case whether or not to translate any particular deletion, but with a predisposition in favour of leaving it untranslated. Only in cases where Bacon prepared successive holograph drafts of particular passages did we carry all or nearly all the minor deletions over into the translation; the object of this was to allow readers without Latin to look in detail at ways in which Bacon elabo­ rated his materials.

CXVl

PHJEN OM ENA UNIVERS I

PHJEN OMENA UN IVERS I ;

[ Q 6r]

Sive

H I STO RIA NATURALI S Ad CON D EN DAM PH I LO S O P H IAM .

PRJEFAT I O . Cum nobis homines nee opinandi nee experiendi vias tenere prorsus videantur, omni ope huic infortunio subveniendum putavimus. Neque enim major aliunde se ostendit bene merendi ratio, quam si id agatur, 10 ut homines, & placitorum larvis & experimentorum stuporilms liberati, ipsi cum rebus magis fida & magis arcta inita societate contrahant, quasi per experientiam quandam literatam. Hoc enim modo Intellectus & in v [06 ] tuto, & in summo collocatur, atq ue pr�sto insu 1 per erit, atque ingruet rerum utilium proventus. Atque huj us rei exordia omnino a Naturali 1 5 Historia ducenda sunt; nam universa philosophia Gr�corum, cum Sectis suis omnigenis, atque si qua alia philosophia in manibus est, nobis videtur super nimis angustam basin Naturalis Histori� fundata esse, atque ex paucioribus quam par erat pronuntiasse. Arreptis enim quibusdam ab Experientia & traditionibus, neque iis interdum aut 20 diligenter examinatis [ aut certo compertis notionibus] , reliqua in meditatione & ir1genii agitatione posuere, assumpta in majorem rei fiduciam Dialectica. Chymist� autem & universum Mechanicorum & Empiricorum genus si & illis contemplationes & philosophiam tentare audacia creverit, paucarum rerum accurat� subtilitati assueti, miris 25 modis reliquas ad eas contorquent; & placita magis deformia & monstrosa, quam Rationales illi producunt. Illi enim parum ex multis, hi rursus multum ex paucis, in philosophi� materiam sumunt; utriusque autem ratio, si verum dicendum sit, infirma est & perdita. Sed [ 0 7'] Natura/is Historia, qu� hactenus congesta est, primo intuitu co 1 piosa 30 videri possit, cum re vera sit egena & inutilis, neque adeo ej us generis, [aut certo compertis notionibus] ] / suspecting a lacuna, and drawing on similar remarb in NO (H2 r (SEH, I, p. 173) ), Spedding (SEH, I I I , p. 685 n. 1 ) suggested that these words be supplied 7 ut homines,] ~ " 20

2

1

P H ENOMENA O F THE UN IVERSE Or

NATURAL H I STO RY Fo r

T H E B U I L D I N G UP O F PH I LO S O PHY

PREFACE Since it seems to me that people do not keep strictly to the straight and narrow when forming their opinions or putting things to the test, I have decided to use all the means at my disposal to remedy this misfortune. For in nothing else does the aspiration to deserve well show itself than if things are so arranged that people, freed both from the hobgoblins of belief and blindness of experiments, may enter into a more reliable and sound partnership with things by, as it were, a certain literate experi­ ence. For in this way the intellect is both set up in safety and in its best state, and it will besides be I at the ready and then come upon harvests of useful things. Now the beginnings of this enterprise must in general be drawn from natural history; for the whole body of Greek philosophy with its sects of all kinds, and all the other philosophy we possess seem to me to be founded on too narrow a natural-historical basis, and thus to have delivered its conclusions on the authority of fewer data than was appropriate. For having snatched certain things from experience and tradition, things sometimes not carefully examined or ideas not securely established, they leave the rest to meditation and intellectual agitation, employing Dialectic to inspire greater confidence in the matter. But the chemists and the whole pack of mechanics and empirics, should they have the temerity to attempt contemplation and philosophy, being accustomed to meticulous subtlety in a few things, they twist by extra­ ordinary means all the rest into conformity with them and promote opinions more odious and unnatural than those advanced by the very rationalists. For the latter take for the matter of philosophy very little out of many things, the former a great deal out of a few, but in truth both courses are weak and past cure. But the Natural History which has been accumulated hitherto may seem abundant on casual inspection, 3

Ph£nomena universi

10

15

[07 v J

20

25

30

[OW]

35

quod qu::£rimus. Neque enim a fabulis & deliriis purgata est, & in Antiquitatem, & Philologiam, & narrationes supervacuas excurrit, circa solida negligens & fastidiosa, curiosa & nimia in inanibus. Pessimum autem est in hac copia, quod rerum Naturalium inquisitionem amplexa est, rerum autem Mechanicarum magna ex parte aspernata. Atque h::£ ips£ ad Natur::£ sinus excutiendos longe illis pr::£stant; Natura enim sponte sua fusa & vaga disgregat lntellectum, & varietate sua confun­ dit; verum in mechanicis operationibus contrahitur j udicium, & n atur.e modi & processus cernuntur, non tantum effect:t. Atque rursus universa Mechanicorum subtilitas citra rem, quam qu::£rimus, sistitur. Artifex enim operi & fini suo intentus ad alia (qu::£ forsan ad Natur::£ inquisi­ tionem magis faciunt) nee animum erigit, nee manum porrigit. ltaque magis exquisita cura opus est, & probationibus electis, atque sumptu etiam, ac summa insuper patientia. Illud enim in Experimentalibus omnia perdidit, quod homines etiam a principio fructifera Experimenta, non I Lucifera, sectati sunt, atque ad opus aliquod magnificum educendum omnino incubuere, non ad pandenda Oracula Natur::£, quod opus operum est, & omnem potestatem in se complectitur. lntervenit & illud ex hominum curiositate & fastu, quod ad secreta & rara se plerumque converterunt, & in his operam & inquisitionem posuerunt, spretis experimentis atque observationibus vulgatis, quod videntur fecisse au t admirationem & famam captantes, aut in eo lapsi & decepti, quod Philosophi::£ officium in accomrnodandis &c. reducendis rarioribus eventibus, ad ea qu::£ familiariter occurrunt, non ::£que in ipsarum illarum vulgarium rerum causis & causarum causis altioribus eruendis, situm esse existimarunt. Univers::£ autem huj us de Naturali Historia querel::£ causa, ea pr£cipua est, quod homines non in opere tantum, sed in ipso instituto aberrarum. Namque Historia illa Naturalis, qu::£ exstat, aut ob ipsorum experiment0rum utilitatem, 3.Ut ob narrationum j ucunditatem confecta videtur, & propter se facta, non ut philosophi::£ & scientiis initia, & veluti mammam pra:beat. ltaque huic rei pro facultate nostra deesse nolu 1 mus. Nobis enim quantum philosophiis abstractis sit tribuendum, jampridem constitutum est. Etiam vias lnductionis ver£ & bon::£, in qua sum omnia, tenere nos arbitramur, & lntellectus humani versus scier nias facultatem

20 plerurnque] / nU as plerunque in SEH (III, p. 686) 21 vulgatis,] � . 29 exscac] / chis possibly Gruterian preference nUas exrac i n SEH 26 exiscirnarunt.] ~ /\ (III, p. 686)

4

Phenomena ofthe Universe

while in reali ty it is sketchy and useless, and not even of the kind I am seeking. For it has not been stripped of fables and ravings, and it rushes into antiquity, philology and superfluous narratives, neglectful and high-handed in matters of weight, over-scrupulous and immoderate in matters of no importance. But the worst thing about this abundance is that it has embraced the inquiry into things natural but largely spurned that into things mechanical. Now the latter are far better than the for­ mer for examining nature's recesses; for nature of its own accord, free and shifting, disperses the intellect and confuses it with its varie ty, but in mechanical operations the judgement is concentrated, and we see nature's modes and processes, not just its effects. Yet, on the other hand, all the subtlety of mechanics stops short of what I am seeking. For the craftsman, intent on his work and its end, does not direct his mind or put his hand to other things, things which perhaps do more for the inqui ry into nature. T herefore we need more meticulous care and hand­ picked trials, not to mention funding and the utmost patience besides. For it has ruined everything in the experimental field that right from the beginning men have continually aimed at Experiments of Fruit not 1 ones of Light, and have devoted their energies entirely to producing some splendid work, not to revealing nature's oracles, which is the work of works and encompasses in itself all power. It also comes about from men's misguided conceit that they have mostly applied themselves to things hidden and rare, and put their efforts and inquiry into those while spurning common experiments and observations, and this seems to have come about either because they sought admiration and fame, or because they fell for the belief that the function of philosophy lies in accommodating and reducing rarer events to those which occur famil­ iarly, not equally to unearthing the causes of these common things themselves and deeper causes of those causes. But the main point of the whole accusation against natural history is that men have gone astray not only in the work, but in its very plan. For the natural histo ry which is in existence seems to have been composed either for the usefulness of the experiments themselves, or for the agreeableness of their narratives, and to have been made for their own sake, not so as to furnish the mak­ ings of philosophy and the sciences and as it were breast-feed them. T hus, as far as it is within my power, I do not wish I to fail to do my du ty in this matter. For I have long since decided how much I should grant to abstract philosophies. Indeed, I believe that I hold fast to the ways of true and good induction, in which all things lie, and which can help the frail and crippled facul ty of human intellect towards the 1

5

Phttnomena universi

incompetentem & prorsus imparem, veluti per machinas, aut filum aliquod Labyrinthi posse juvare. Neque nescii sumus, nos si Instaurationem illam scientiarum, quam in animo habemus, intra inventa ulla majora cohibere voluissemus, ampliorem fortasse honoris fructum percipere potuisse. Verum cum nobis Deus animum indiderit qui se rebus submittere sciat, quique ex meriti conscientia & successus fiducia speciosa libens prcetereat; earn etiam partem operis nobis desumpsimus, quam existimanms alium quemquam aut in universum fugere, aut non pro instituto nostro tractare voluisse. Circa hoc autem 10 duo sunt, de quibus homines & alias & nunc prcecipue, cum ad rem ipsam accingimur, monitos volumus. Primo, ut mittant illam cogitationem, quce facile hominum mentes occupat & obsidet, licet sit falsissima & perniciosissima, earn videlicet, q uod rerum particulari um v [08 ] inquisitio infinitum quiddam sit & sine I exitu: Cum illud verius sit, 1 5 opinionum & disputationum modum nullum esse; sed phantasias illas ad perpetuos errores & infinitas agitationes damnari; particularia autem & informationes Sensus (demptis individuis & rerum gradibus, quod Inquisitioni veritatis satis est) Comprehensionem pro certo, nee earn sane vastam aut desperatam, patiuntur. Sec undo ut homines subinde 20 meminerint quid agatur, atque cum inciderint in complures res vulgatissimas, exiles, ac specie tenus leves, etiam turpes, & quibus (ut ait ille) honos prcefandus sit, non arbitrentur nos nugari, aut Mentem humanam inferius, quam pro dignitate sua deprimere. Neque enim ista propter se qucesita, aut descripta sunt, sed nulla prorsus alia patet 25 Intellectui humano via, neque ratio operis aliter constat; Nos siquidem conamur rem omnium maxime seriam, & humana Mente dignissimam, ut lumen Naturce purum & minime phantasticum (cujus nomen hactenus quandoque jactatur, res hominibus penitus ignota est) per facem a divino Numine prcebitam & admotam, hoc nostro seculo 30 accendatur. Neque enim dissimulamus, nos in ea opinione esse, [09•] prceposteram illam ar 1 gumentorum & meditationum subtilitatem, primce informationis, sive vera:: Inductionis subtilitate, &. veritate suo tempore prxtermissa, aut non recte instituta, rem in integrum restitu�re nullo modo posse, licet omnia omnium cetatum ingenia coierint; sed 35 Naturam, ut fortunam, a fronte capillatam, ab occipitio calvam esse. Restat itaque ut res de integro tentetur, idq ue majoribus prcesidiis atque

22 pr�fandus sit,] ~ ;

6

Phenomena ofthe Universe

sciences, as by mechanical aids or by some thread to guide it through a labyrinth. Nor am I unaware that if I had been willing to restrict that instauration of the sciences which I have in mind to any of the greater inventions, I could perhaps have harvested a greater crop of honour. But since God has given me a mind which knows how to submit itself to things and which readily rejects the specious out of a sense of what is right and from confidence that things will turn out well, I have also taken upon myself that part of the work which I think others have wanted either to avoid entirely, or to treat in a way different from my idea of it. But there are two things which I wish to warn people about in this connection both for the future and, since I am girding myself for the very thing itself, for now especially. T he first is to get rid of that idea which, though it be utterly false and harmful, easily invades and takes hold of men's minds, namely that the inqui ry into particulars is some­ thing infinite and without I end, when it would be truer to say that the way of opinions and disputations is the trifling one; but in fact these vain imaginings are condemned to perpetual errors and infinite distur­ bances, whereas particulars and the informations of the sense (which, when individuals and the gradations of things have been left out, is suf­ ficient for the inqui ry into truth) allow understanding for certain, and that, to be sure, neither forlorn nor hopeless. T he second is that I would have men never forget what is involved and, when they have come across troops of thoroughly vulgar things, things slight and to all appearances frivolous, even vile, and which (as the man says) must be brought in with an apology, they do not think I am trifling, or reducing the human mind to things beneath its dignity. For these things are nei­ ther examined nor described for their own sake, but in fact there is sim­ ply no other alternative open to the human intellect, and the grounds of the work are left insecure without them. I am then certainly under­ taking the most serious business of all and most worthy of the human mind, that nature's light, pure and quite unclouded by vain imagination (that light whose name has sometimes been mentioned thus far, while people have known nothing about the thing itself), may be lit in this age of ours by a torch furnished and brought near by the Divine Will. For I do not hide the fact that I believe that that preposterous subtlety of argument I and thought can by no means put things right again, though all the intellects of all ages be gathered together, when, at the proper time, the subtlety and truth of the basic information or true induction have been overlooked or incorrectly established, but that nature, like fortune, is long-haired at the front and bald at the back. It remains, 7

Pht£nomena universi

exutis opm1onum zelis, detur aditus ad regnum Philosophi� & Scientiarum, (in quo opes human� sit� sunt, Natura enim nonnisi parendo vincitur) qualis patet ad regnum illud c�lorum, in quad nisi sub persona Infantis ingredi non licet: usum autem hujus operis 5 plebejum illum & promiscuum ex experimentis ipsis omnino non contemnimus (cum & notiti� & lnventioni hominum, pro varietate Artium & ingeniorum, plurima utilia procul dubio suggerere possit) attamen minimum quiddam esse censemus pr� eo aditu ad Scientiam & potentiam humanam, quern ex misericordia divina speramus. A qua 10 etiam supplices iterum petimus, ut novis Eleemosynis per manus nostras familiam humanam dotare dignetur. I Natura rerum aut Libera est, ut in specie bus, aut perturbata, ut in f0 9 vJ monstris, aut constricta, ut in experimentis Artium; facinora autem ejus cujuscunque generis digna memoratu & Historia. Sed Historia 15 Specier um, qu� habetur, veluti plantarum, Animalium, Metallorum & fossilium, tumida est & curiosa; Historia Mira bilium, vana & e rumore; Historia Experimentorum manca, tentata per partes, tractata negligenter, atq ue omnino in usum practic�, non in usum philosophi�. Nobis itaq ue stat decretum, Historiam specierum contrahere, Historiam 20 Mirabilium excutere atque expurgare; prtecipuam autem operam in Experimentis Mechanicis & Artificialibus, atque natur� erga manum humanam obsequiis collocare. Quid enim ad nos iusus Natur� & lascivia? hoc est pusill� specicrum ex figura differenti�, qu� ad opera nil faciunt, in quibus nihilominus Naturalis Historia luxuriatur. 25 Mirabilium autem cognitio grata certe nobis, si expurgata & electa sit; sed quamobrem tandem grata? Non ob ipsam admirationis suavitatem, sed quad s�pe Artem offi.cii sui admonet, ut naturam sciens eo 1 [010 r ] perducat, quo ipsa sponte sua nonnunquam pr�ivit; omnino pri mas panes �.d excitandum lumen natur� Artificialibus tribuimus; non 30 tantum quia per se utilissima, sed quia naturalium fidissimi lnterpretes. Num forte fulguris, aut lridis naturam tam dare explica.sset quisquam, antequam per tormenta bellica, aut artificiosa lridum super parietem simulachra, utriusque ratio demonstrata esset? Quad si causarum fidi lnterpretes, etiam effectorum & operum certi & felices indices erunt. 35 Neque tamen consentaneum putamus ex triplici ista partitione

3 Crlorum] / nldas ccdorum in SEH (III, p. 687) SEH (loc. cit.)

8

5 plebej um] / nldas plebei um i n

Phenomena ofthe Universe

therefore, for the matter to be attempted anew, and that with better help and with the zeal of opinions laid aside, so that we may enter into the kingdom of philosophy and the sciences (in which human power is sit­ uated, for nature is conquered only by obeying it) in the way that we gain access to the Kingdom of Heaven, which none may enter save in the likeness of a little child. Yet I do not wholly despise the base and indiscriminate custom of working by experiments themselves (for it may doubtless suggest very many useful things to men's knowledge and invention, according to the variety of their arts and capacities), never­ theless I think it is something very trivial in comparison with that entrance into human knowledge and power which I hope for from the Divine Mercy, which indeed I again humbly beseech to allow me to endow the human family with new alms through my efforts. 1 The nature of things is either free, as in species, or disturbed, as in monsters, or confined, as in experiments of the Arts; yet its deeds of what­ ever kind are worthy of report and history. But the History ofSpecies cur­ rently available, as for example of plants, animals, metals and fossils, is puffed up and full of curiosities; the History ofMarvels empty and based on rumour; the History ofExperiments defective, attempted piecemeal, dealt with carelessly, and entirely for practical not philosophical use. Therefore it is my resolve to curb the History of Species, to shake out and purify the History of Marvels, but to put special effort into Mechanical and Artificial Experiments where nature gives in to human intervention. For what are the sports and frivolities of nature to us? That is, the tiny differences of species as to shape, which contribute nothing to works but in which Natural History none the less abounds. Now knowledge of Marvels certainly pleases me, if it be purified and sifted; but why in the final analysis is it pleasing? Not for the fun of being astonished, but because it often reminds Art of its duty to lead nature knowingly where it has itself sometimes gone before of its own accord. In general I assign the leading I roles in shedding light on nature to arti­ ficial things, not only because they are most useful in themselves, but because they are the most trustworthy interpreters of natural things. Can it be said that anyone had just happened to explain the nature of lightning or a rainbow as clearly before the principles of each had been demonstrated by artillery or the artificial simulacra of rainbows on a wall? But if they are trustworthy interpreters of causes, they will also be sure and fertile indicators of effects and of works. However, I do not think it appropriate to divide my history in accordance with this three­ fold partition, so as to deal with singular instances separately, but I shall 9

Phttnomena universi

[010vJ 10

15

20

25 [Ou r ]

30

Historiam nostram distrahere, ut singula seorsim tractentur, sed genera ipsa miscebimus, naturalia artificialibus, consueta admirandis adjungentes, atque utilissimis quibusque maxime inh�rentes. Atque a Ph�nomenis �theris ordiri sollennius foret. Nos autem nil de severitate instituti nostri remittentes, ea anteferemus, quc:e naturam con­ stituunt & referunt magis communem, cujus uterque globus est parti­ ceps. Ordiemur vero ab Historia corporum secundum earn differentiam qu� videtur simplicissima; ea est copia aut paucitas Materi� intra idem spatium sive eandem circumscriptionem content� & exporrect�, nam cum ex I pronuntiatis de Natura nil verius sit quam propositio illa gemella, Ex nihilo nihil fieri, neque quicquam in nihilum redigi, sed quantum ips um Naturtt, sive materitt s um ma m universale m perpetuo manere & constare, & neutiquam augeri aut minui. Etiam illud non minus certum, tametsi non tam perspicue notatum, aut assertum sit (quicquid homines de potentia Materi� �quabili ad formas fabulentur) ex quanto illo Materi� sub iisdem spatiorum dimensionibus, plus & minus contineri, pro corporum diversitate a quibus occupantur, quorum alia magis compacta, alia magis extensa sive fusa evidentissime reperiuntur. Neque enim parem Materi� portionem recipit vas aut concavum aqua & aere impletum; sed illud plus, istud minus. ltaque si quis asserat, ex pari aeris contento, par aqu� contentum effici posse; idem est ac si dicat aliquid fieri posse ex nihilo. Nam quod deesse supponitur ex materia, id ex nihilo suppleri necesse foret. Rursus si quis asserat, par contentum aquce in par contentum aeris posse verti, idem est ac si dicat aliquid posse redigi in Nihilum. Nam quod superesse supponitur ex materia, id ad nihilum evanuisse I similiter necesse foret. Neque nobis dubium est, quin h.ec res etiam calculos pati possit, surdos fortasse in aliquibus sed definitos & certos [in aliquibus] , & Natur.e notos. Vduti si quis dicat auri corpus collatum ad corpus spiritus vini, esse coacervationem materi.e superantem ratione vicecupla simpla aut circiter, non erraverit. ltaque exhibituri jam Historiam earn quam diximus de copia & paucitate materi.e, atque de materi.e coitione atque expansione, ex quibus notiones ill.e Densi & Rari (si proprie accipiantur) ortum habent, hunc ordinem servabimus, ut primo

28 [in aliquibus] ] / c-t makes no sense without some such emendation : surds can not be de-­ fi nite or certain as a similar passage in CDNR (Rn r (SEH, I I I , p. 23) ) makes abundan tly clear 4 sollennius] / nld as solennius in SEH (III, p. 688) 9 exporrectce,] ~; na m] 14 assercum sit] ~; 25 est] ~, 25 ac si dicat] ~, 34 habenc,] Nam IO

Phenomena ofthe Universe

mix the three kinds, joining things natural with artificial, ordinary with extraordinary, and paying very close attention to all the most useful ones. Now it would be more usual to begin with the phenomena of the ether. But I, sacrificing nothing of the seriousness of my undertaking, shall give priority to things which make up and answer to a nature more general, in which both globes share. I shall begin in fact with a history of bodies according to the difference which seems the simplest, that is, the abundance or paucity of the matter contained and spread out within the same space or boundaries, seeing indeed that none of I the pro­ nouncements about nature is truer than that double proposition, Nothing comes from n othing, nor is anything reduced to n othing, but the very quantum ofnature, or the whole sum of matte r always remains and stays the same, and is in no way increased or diminished. Moreover, it is no less certain, even though not so clearly noted or asserted (whatever stories people make up about the impartial potential of matter towards forms) that more or less of this quantity of matter is contained in the same volumes of space according to the diversity of the bodies which occupy them, bodies some of which we find to be very obviously more compact, others more extended or diffuse. For a vessel or cauldron filled with water and air does not hold an equal portion of matter, but more of the one and less of the other. T herefore if someone claimed that a given amount of water could be made from the same amount of air, it would be the same as saying that something can come from nothing. For what you deem to be lacking from the quantity of matter would have to have been made up from nothing. On the other hand, if some­ one claimed that a given amount of water could be turned into the same amount of air, it would be the same as saying that something can be reduced to nothing. For what you deem to be extra in the quantity of matter would likewise have to have vanished I into nothingness. T here is no doubt in my mind that this business is capable of being reduced to calculation, to indefinite proportions perhaps in some things, but to ones precise and certain in others, and known to nature. As, for exam­ ple, if someone said that the concentration of matter in a body of gold exceeded that of a body of spirit of wine by a factor of twenty to one or thereabouts, he would not be wrong. So as I now mean to present the history I mentioned concerning the abundance and paucity of matter, and its coming together and expansion, things from which the notions of Dense and Rare (if properly understood) take their origin, I shall so order matters that I shall draw up the relative figures for different II

Ph£nomena universi

[On v] 10

15

20

25

[012 r]

30

35

corporum diversorum (ut auri, aqu�, olei, aeris, flamm�) rationes ad invicein recenseamus. Examinatis autem rationibus corporum diversorum, postea unius atque ejusdem corporis subingressus & exspatiationes cum calculis sive rationibus memorabimus. Idem enim corpus etiam absque accessione aut ablatione, aut saltem minime pro rata contractionis & extensionis, ex variis impulsibus tum externis tum internis, sustinet se congerere in majorem & minorem sphteram. Interdum enim luctatur corpus, & in veterem sph�ram se restituere nititur; interdum plane transmigrat, nee I revertere satagit. Hie cursus primo atque differentias & rationes corporis alicujus naturalis (quoad extentum) collati cum aperturis aut clausuris suis memorabimus, videlicet cum pulveribus suis, cum calcibus suis, cum vitrificationibus suis, cum dissolutionibus suis, cum distillatis suis, cum vaporibus & auris, exhalationibus, & inflammationibus suis memorabimus; deinde actus ipsos & motus, & progressus & terminos contractionis & dilatationis proponemus, & quando se restituant corpora, quando transmigrent secundum extentum; pr�cipue autem efficientia & media, per gu� hujusmodi corporum contractiones & dilatationes sequuntur, notabimus: atque interim virtutes & actiones qua: corpora ex hujusmodi compressionibus & dilatationibus induunt & nanciscuntur, obiter subtexemus. Cumque probe noverimus quam difficilis res sit, in pr�senti animorum statu, jam ab ipso Principio cum natura consuescere, observationes nostras ad attentionem hominum & meditationem excitandam & conciliandam adjiciemus. Quod ad demonstrationem autem attinet, sive retectionem densitatis & raritatis corporum, nil dubitamus aut cun'ctamur quin quoad Corpora crassa & palpabilia motus gravitatis (quern vocant) loco optim� & maxim� expedit� probati0nis sumi possit; quo enim corpus compactius, eo gravius, Verum postquam ad gradum aereorum & spirituaiium ventum est, tum profecto a lancibus destituimur, atque alia nobis industria opus erit. Incipiemus autem ab A uro, quod omnium, qu� habemus (neque enim tam adulta est philosophia, ut de visceribus terr� statuere debeamus) gravissimum est atque plurimum materi� minimo spatio complectitur; atque ad hujus corporis sph�ram reliquorum rationes applicabimus; illud monentes, Historiam ponderum hie nos minime tractare, nisi quatenus ad corporum spatia sive dimensa demonstranda lucem pr�beat. Cum vero non conjicere & ariolari, sed invenire & 5 ablatione] oblatione / silenrly emended thus in SEH (I l i , p. 689) 24 adj iciemus] abjiciemus / silcnrly emended chus in SEH(III, p. 690) ; cf. PhU, 012" 29 aereoru m] aer eorum 22 statu,] ~ 11 28 compactius,] ~ 11 12

Phenomena ofthe Universe

bodies (as of gold, water, oil, air and flame) first. Then after examining these, I shall record with calculations or ratios the retreats and expatia­ tions of each particular body. For a given body, even without anything being added to it or taken away, or at least not in proportion to its con­ traction and extension, allows itself to be gathered by various impulses both external and internal into a larger or smaller sphere. Sometimes the body struggles and strives to restore itself into its old sphere, sometimes it clearly goes beyond that and does not I t ry to revert. Here I shall first record the courses, differences and proportions of any natural body (as to its extent) compared with its openings and closings up, that is, with its powders, its calces, its vitrifications, its dissolutions, its distillations, vapours and breaths, its exhalations and inflammations; then I shall set out the actions and motions themselves, the progressions and the limits of contraction and dilatation, and when bodies restore themselves and when they go beyond that in respect of their extent; but I shall especially note the efficient causes and media by means of which such contractions and dilatations of bodies come about; and meanwhile I shall in passing append the virtues and actions which bodies get and take on from such compressions and dilatations. And since I know well how difficult a thing it is, in the present climate of opinion, to familiarize oneself with nature right from the very beginning, I shall add my own observations to gain men's attention and arouse them to contemplation. Now as far as the demonstration or revealing of the density and rarity of bodies is concerned, I have no doubt or hesitation I that as to dense and palpable bodies the motion ofgravity (as they call it) may be taken as the best and most ready test, for the more compact the body, the heavier it is. But when it comes to the level of ai ry and spiritual things, then scales will for sure be of no use to me, and I shall need another kind of industry. I shall begin, however, with Gold, which of all the things we have (for phi­ losophy has not grown up enough for us to say anything for certain about the bowels of the Earth) is the heaviest and contains the most matter in the smallest space, and I shall relate the ratios of the rest to the sphere of this body, with the reminder that I am not dealing here with the history of weights except in so far as it sheds light for demonstrat­ ing the space or dimensions of bodies. But since I have set out not to conjecture and prophesy, but to discover and know, and since I judge

13

012

PhtEnomena universi

5 [Q12v ]

10

15

[x]

v

scue nobis proposnum sit, hoc autem in examme & probatione experimentorum primorum, magnopere positum esse j udicemus, prorsus decrevimus in omni Experimento subtiliore modum experimenti, quo usu sumus, aperte subj ungere; ut postquam patefactum sit quomodo singula nobis constiterint, videant homines & quatenus fidem I adhibeant, & quid ulterius faciendum sit, sive ad errores corrigendos, qui adha'.rere possint, sive ad excitandas atq ue ad operandas probationes magis fidas & exquisitas. Quin & ipsi de iis, qua'. nobis minus explorata atque errori magis exposita, & quasi finitima videbuntur, sedulo & sincere monebimus. Postremo observationes nostras (ut modo diximus) adj iciemus, ut licet omnia integra Philosophia'. servemus, tamen faciem ipsam Historia'. Naturalis etiam in transitu versus Philosophiam obvertamus. Atque porro illud cu rabimus, ut qua'.cunque ea sine sive experimenta, sive observationes, qua'. pra'.ter scopum lnquisitionis occurrunt atque interveniunt, & ad alios titulos proprie pertinent, notemus, ne lnquisitio confundatur. 1

Tabula Co"itionis & Expansionis Materia'. per spatia in Tangibilibus, cum supputatione rationum in Corporibus diversis. Idem spatium occupant, sive a'.que exporriguntur:

uncia sive Den. 20 . Auri puri De n. 19 . Argenti vivi Den. 12. Plumbi Den. IO. Argenti puri Plumbi cinerei Den. 10 . 25 Ang/ice Tynglasse. Den. 9 . Cupri Aurichalch i Den. 9 . Den. 8. Chalybis Den. 8 . /Eris Communis 30 Ferri Den. 8 . Stanni Den. 7 . Magnetis De n. 5 . Den. 3 . Lapidis Lydii Marmoris Den. 2 . 35 Silic is Den. 2 .

20

Gran. Gran. Gran. Gran.

o.

I

9.

2

I.

dim.

3

21.

Gran. 13 . Gran. 8 . Gran. 5 . Gran. I O . Gran. 9 . Gran. 6 . Gran. 2 2 . Gran. 12. Gran. I . Gran. 2 2 . D. qu. Gran. 2 2 . D.

5 6 7 8 9 IO II I2 13 14

15

3 mod um morum I si lently emended thus in SEH ( I I I , p . 690) 7-8 ad operandas ] adoperandas 17 [x] ] for supplementary notes on chis see cmts on x; in c-t each item is numbered, but the numbering ceases at 64 2 posicum esse] ~ , 19 exporriguncur:] ~ . 2 6 Gran. 8 . ] ~ 11

14

Phenomena ofthe Universe that this is heavily dependent on the examination and trial of basic experiments, I am quite decided in the case of every more subtle exper­ iment to say clearly how I went about it, so that when my decisions in single cases have been disclosed, men may see both how far to believe in them, 1 and what more has to be done either to correct any mistakes in them or provoke and carry out more trustworthy and precise trials. Furthermore, I shall myself warn sincerely and faithfully of things which shall appear to me to be less certain and more open to error, and as it were on the borderline. Finally, I shall add my own observations (as I just said) so that, although I leave all matters of philosophy inviolate, I can nevertheless turn the very face of natural histo ry towards philoso­ phy even in passing. Moreover, lest the inqui ry become confused, I shall undertake to note anything in the way of experiments or observations which crop up but lie beyond the scope of my inqui ry and properly belong to other tides. 1 A Table of the Coition and Expansion of Matter in respect of space in Tangible Bodies, with a computation of the proportions in different Bodies. T he following occupy the same space, or are of equal bulk:

one ounce or Pure Gold Quicksilver Lead Pure Silver Tin Glass Copper Yellow Brass Steel Common Brass Iron Tin Loadstone Touchstone Marble Flint

Dwt. Dwt. 12 Dwt. IO Dwt. IO Dwt. 9 Dwt. 9 Dwt. 8 Dwt. 8 Dwt. 8 Dwt. 7 Dwt. 5 Dwt. 3 Dwt. 2 Dwt. 2 Dwt. 20 I9

15

o Gr. 9 Gr. I½' Gr. 21 Gr. 13 Gr. 8 Gr. 5 Gr. I O Gr. 9 Gr. 6 Gr. 22 Gr. 12 Gr. l Gr. 22¼ Gr. 22¼ Gr.

I 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO

II 12

13 14

15

Phttnomena universi

5

IO

15

20

25

30

35

Vitri CrystaLii Alabastri Salis Gemmtt Luti Communis Luti Albi Nitri Ossis Bovis Pulveris Margaritarum Sulphuris Terrtt Communis Vitrioli Albi Eboris Aluminis Olei Vitrioli Arentt Albtt Crettt Olei Sulphuris Salis Communis Lign i vittt Carnis ovil/4 Aquttfortis Cornu bovis Balsami lndi Lign i Santai. rubei Gagatis Cttptt recentis in corpore Caphurtt Radicis Larictt recentis Lign i Ebeni Sem. faniculi dulcis Succini Lucidi Aceti Agresttt ex pomis acerbis Aqutt communis Vrintt

Den. 2. Den. 2. Den. 2. Den. 2. Den. 2. Den. 2. Den. 2. Den. 2. Den. 2. Den. 2. Den. 2. Den. 1 . Den. I . Den. I . Den. I . Den. 1 . Den. 1 . Den. I . Den. I . Den. I . Den. I . Den. I . Den. I . Den. 1 . Den. I . Den. I . Den. I . Den. I . Den. I . Den. r. Den. r. Den. I . Den. r. Den. I . Den. I . Den. I .

Gran. 20. D. Gran. 1 8 . Gran. 12. Gran. I O . Gran. 8. D. Gran. 5 . D. Gran. 5. Gran. 5 . Gran. 1 . Gran. 2. Gran. 1 . D. Gran. 22. Gran. 21 . D. Gran. 21 . Gran. 21 . Gran. 20 . Gran. 1 8 . D. Gran. 18 . Gran. I O . Gran. 10. Gran. I O . Gran. 7 . Gran. 6 . Gran. 6 . Gran. 5 . Gran. 5 . Gran. 5 . Gran. 4. Gran. 4. Gran. 3. D. Gran. 3. Dim. Gran. 3 . Gran. 3. D. Gran. 3 . Gran. 3 . paulo minus. Gran. 3 .

X 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

44

45 46 47 48 49 50

SI

34 Agresttr] Agresstr I not s o emended i n SEH(III, p. 69 1 ) , but see HDR, A5 r (SEH, I I , p . 2 4 5) and HDR(M) , fo. 7 r 3 1 Dim.] Dem.

16

X

Phenomena ofthe Universe

Glass Crystal Alabaster Rock-Salt Common Clay White Clay Nitre Ox Bone Pearl Powder Sulphur Common Earth White Vitriol Ivo ry Alum Oil of Vitriol White Sand Chalk Oil ofSulphur Common Salt Lign um Vitte Mutton Aqua Fortis Ox Horn Indian Balsam Red Sandalwood Jet Whole Fresh Onion Camphor Root ofFresh Fig Ebony Wood Sweet Fennel Seed Clear Souse Vinegar Verjuice of Unripe Apples Common �ter Urine

2 Dwt. 2 Dwt. 2 Dwt. 2 Dwt. 2 Dwt. 2 Dwt. 2 Dwt. 2 Dwt. 2 Dwt. 2 Dwt. 2 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt.

17

20½' Gr. 18 Gr. 12 Gr. IO

Gr.

8½' Gr. 5½ Gr. 5 Gr. 5 Gr. 2 Gr. 2 Gr. I½' Gr. 22 Gr. 2I½'Gr. 21 Gr. 21 Gr. 20 Gr. 18½' Gr. 18 Gr.

Gr. Gr. I O Gr. 7 Gr. 6 Gr. 6 Gr. 5 Gr. 5 Gr. 5 Gr. 4 Gr. 4 Gr. 3½ Gr. 3½ Gr. 3 Gr. 3½' Gr. 3 Gr. and just under 3 Gr. 3 Gr. IO

IO

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Phamomena universi

5

IO

15

20

Olei Caryophyllorum Vini Clareti Sacchari Albi Cm£ .fia.vt£ Radicis Chint£ Carnis pyri brumalis crudi Aceti distillati Aqut£ rosacet£ distillatt£ Cineris Communis Beniovis Myrrht£ Butyri Adipis Olei amygdalini dulcis Olei Maceris viridis expressi Herbt£ Sampsuchi Petrolei Florum Rost£ Spiritus vini Ligrz i quercus Fuliginis Communis & Camino press. Ligrzi abietis 1

25

30

P1r

Den. I . Den. 1 . Den. 1 . Den. 1 . Den. 1 . Den. 1 . Den. 1 . Den. 1 . Den. 1 . Den. 1 . Den. 1 . Den. 1 . Den. 1 . Den. o. Den. o. Den. o. Den. o. Den. o. Den. o. Den. o.

Gran. 3 . paulo minus. Gran. 2 . D. qu. Gran. 2 . D. Gran. 2 . Gran. 2 . Gran. 2. Gran. 1 . Gran. 1 . Gran. D. Gran. o. Gran. o. Gran. o . Gran. o . Gran. 23 . D. Gran. 23 . D. Gran. 23 . Gran. 23 . Gran. 22 . Gran. 22. Gran. 1 9 . D.

Den. o. Den. o.

Gran. Gran.

52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

17 . 15.

Modus Experimenti circa Tabulam suprascriptam.

lntelligantur pondera quibus usi sumus ej us generis & computationis, quibus aurifabri utuntur, ut libra capiat uncias 12. uncia viginti Denarios, Denarius grana 24. Delegimus aucem corpus auri, ad cuj us exporrectionis mensuram reliquorum corporum rationes applicaremus, non tantum quia gravissimum, sed quia maxime unum & sui simile. Reliqua enim corpora qu.e quiddam continent volaci!is, etiam i_ gnem passa varietatem retinent ponderis & spatii; sed aurum depuratum earn plane exuisse videtur, atque ubique simile esse. Experimencum vero huj usmodi erat. Unciam auri puri in figuram alea:'. sive cubi 14 Den. o.] Den. 1 . / cf. HDR, A5 v (SEH, 11, p . 246); HDR()vf) , fo. 7' 16 Gran . 2 3 . ] Gran. 22. / nor s o emended in SEH ( I I I , p. 692), bur see I'hU, P6 v , which, agreeing wirh HDR (A5 v (SEH, I I , p. 246) ) and HDR(M) (fo. 7') , gives gran. 23 10 Beniovis] I HDR(M) (fo. 7') and HDR (A5' (SEH, II, p . 245) ) have Benjovi n. 24 Sheet P: outer forme-see Inrroducrion, 3 (c) , and 'Th is Edition' , p. cxii above. 18

P1 r

Phenomena ofthe Universe

Oil of Cloves Claret White Sugar Yellow Wax China Root Raw Winter Pear Distilled Vinegar Distilled Rose- Witer Common Ashes Benzoin Myrrh Butter Lard Oil ofSweet Almond Pressed Oil of Green Mace The Herb Marjoram Petroleum Rose-Flowers Spirit of \Vine Oak Wood Common Soot Compacted in the Chimney Fir Wood 1

1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. 1 Dwt. o Dwt. o Dwt. o Dwt. o Dwt. o Dwt. o Dwt. o Dwt.

and just under 3 Gr. 2 ¾ Gr. 2 ¼ Gr. 2 Gr. 2 Gr. 2 Gr. l Gr. l Gr. o¼ Gr. o Gr. o Gr. o Gr. o Gr. 2 3¼ Gr. 2 3¼ Gr. 2 3 Gr. 2 3 Gr. 2 2 Gr. 2 2 Gr. 19¼ Gr.

o Dwt. o Dwt.

17 Gr. 1 5 Gr.

52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

63 64

The Wiy in which the Experiment usedfor the above Table was conducted

Let it be understood that the weights I have used belong to the system employed by the goldsmiths, so that a pound has 12 ounces, an ounce 2 0 pennyweights, and a pennyweight 2 4 grains. Now I chose a body of gold as the standard of bulk to which I would relate the weights of the other bodies because it was not only the heaviest but also the most uni­ form and homogeneous substance. For other bodies have a volatile com­ ponent and when heated continue to be variable in weight and volume, but refined gold seems evidently to have lost this variability and to be homogeneous in all circumstances. Now the experiment was as follows. I fashioned an ounce of pure gold into the shape of a die or cube; then

19

Ph11momena universi

10

15

20

25

efformavimus; dein vasculum quadratum paravimus, quod corpus illud auri caperet, atque ei exacte conveniret, nisi quod esset nonnihil altius, ita tamen ut locus intra vasculum, quo cubus ille auri adscenderat linea conspicua signaretur. Id fecimus liquorum gratia, ut cum liquor aliquis intra idem vasculum immittendus esset, ne difflueret, atque hoc modo justa men 1 sura commodius servari posset. Simul autem aliud vasculum fieri fecimus; quod cum altero illo, pondere & contento prorsus par esset; ut in pari vasculo corporis contenti tan tum ratio appareret. Tum cubos ej usdem Magnitudinis sive dimensi fieri fecimus, in omnibus materiis in Tabula specificatis, qu� sectionem pati possent; liquoribus vero ex tempore usi sumus, implendo scilicet vasculum quousque l iquor ad locum illum signatum adscenderet; Pulveres eodem modo; sed intelligantur pulveres maxime & fortiter compressi. Hoc enim potissimum ad �quationem pertinet, nee casum recipit. ltaque non alia fuit probatio quam ut unum ex vasculis vacuum cum uncia in una Lance, alterum ex vasculis cum corpore in altera parte poneretur, & ratio ponderis exciperetur; quod quanto esset diminutum, canto dimensum ej usdem corporis intelligitur auctum. Exempli gratia, cum auri cubus det unciam unam , Adipis vero denarium unum; liquet exporrectionem corporis auri collatam ad exporrectione m corporis adipis habere rationem vicecuplam. Mensur� autem ej us qu� unciam auri capiebat, modum etiam excipere & notare visum est; 1 Ea erat pint� vinari�, qualis apud nos Anglos in usu est, pars 269 paulo minus. Probatio vero talis erat. Pondus Aqu�, quod intra vasculum sub ilia linea continebatur, notavimus, ac tum pondus aqu� intra pintam contentum similiter notavimus, & ex rationibus ponderum rationes mensurarum collegimus. M O N ITA .

30

[1.] Videndum num forte contractio corporis arctior ex vi uni ta nanciscatur majorem rationem ponderis, quam pro quantitate materi�; id utrum fiat nee ne ex historia propria ponderis constabit. Quod si fiat, fallit certe supputatio; & quo Corpora sunt extensiora, eo plus habent materi� quam pro calculo ponderis & mensur�, qu� ex eo pendet.

II ex tempore] extempore 26 contentum] contentam / silently emended thus in SEH 29 [ 1 . ] ] / om in c-t (I I I , p. 693) 8 appareret.] ~ ; 2 3 pars 269] ~ . 3 0 q uantitate materi�;] ~ , 20

Phenomena ofthe Universe

I prepared a small cubical container which would hold the gold body and fit round it snugly, save only that the container would be a bit taller and such that the height inside the container to which the cube of gold reached could be marked by a distinct line. I did this for the sake of liquids, so that when any liquid was poured into the container, it would not overflow and an accurate measurement I might be taken more eas­ ily in this way. Now at the same time I had a second container made which was of just the same weight and capacity as the first one, so that only the value for the body held in the second would be furnished. T hen I had cubes made of the same size or dimension for all the materials specified in the Table as were capable of being cut into shape; but I used liquids without further ado, i.e. by filling the container to the point where the liquid came up to the line marked; and I did the same with powders, i.e. with powders compressed as much as it is possible for them to be. For this goes a long way to equalizing their distribution and reduces the chance of error. So I carried out the trial in exactly this man­ ner: one of the containers was placed empty with the ounce of gold in one scale, the other container with the body in it in the other scale, and the difference of weight was taken down; and by how much the body's weight was less than that of gold, by so much was the dimension of that same body judged to be greater. For example, since the gold cube weighs one ounce and the cube of lard one pennyweight, it is evident that the bulk of the body of fat compared with the bulk of the body of gold is as twenty to one. It also seemed proper to take down and note the way of determining the volume of an ounce of gold, 1 a volume which came to just under a 2 69th of an English wine pint. Now I did the trial like this: I noted the weight of water in the space below the line in the container, and then I likewise noted the weight of water contained in the pint, and I derived the values for the volumes from those for the weights. SUG G EST IONS [1. ] See whether the closer contraction of a body resulting from con­ centrated force perhaps acquires a greater amount of weight than its quantity of matter would warrant; and whether this be the case or not will be established by the particular history of weight. But if it be the case, the computation certainly breaks down; and the more extended bodies are, the more matter they have than would appear from a reck­ oning of their weight and volume. 21

Phamomena universi

[P2v ] 5

10

15

20

2. Parvitas vasis quo usi sumus, & forma etiam (licet ad cubos illos recipie11dos habilis & apta) ad rationes exquisitas verifi.candas minus propria fuit. Nam nee minutias infra grani dimidium & quadrantem facile excipere licebat, & quadrata ilia superfi.cies in parvo nee sensibili adscensu sive altitudine notabi 1 lem ponderis differentiam trahere potuit contra quam fit in vasis in acutum surgentibus. 3. Minime dubium est etiam complura corpora, qua: in Tabula ponuntur, intra suam speciem magis & minus recipere quoad pondera & dimensa. Nam & aqua: & vina, & similia sum certe alia aliis graviora. ltaque quoad calculationem exquisitam casum quendam ista res recipit; neque ca individua, in qua: Experimentum nostrum incidit, naturam speciei exacte referre, neque cum aliorum experimentis fortasse omnino in minimis consentire possu m. 4. In Tabulam superiorem conjecimus ea corpora, qua: spatium sive mensuram commode implere corpore integro, & tamquam similari possent, qu�que etiam pondus habeant, ex cujus rationibus de materice coacervatione judicium faciamus. ltaque tria genera corporum hue retrahi non poterant. Primo, ea qua: dimensioni cubicce satisfacere non poterant, ut folia, flares, pelliculce, membrance. Secundo, corpora incequaliter cava & porosa, m spongice, suber, vellera. Tertio, pneumatica [ quia] pondere non dotantur. 1

25

30

OBSE RVAT ION ES .

Coacervatio materi.£ in corporibus Tangibilibus, qua: ad nostram notitiam pervenerunt, intra rationes partium 21 vel circiter vertuntur. Coacervatio enim maxime compacta invenitur in aura, maxime expansa in spiritu vini, (ex corporibus dicimus qua: unita sunt, nee evidenter porosa) . Namque spiritus vini occupat spatium Yicies & semel repetitum, quad occupat aurum, juxta rationes uncice unius ad grana 2 2 . Ex 21 enim illis partibus, quibus corpora alia aliis sunt magis compacta, 13 partes occupant metalla; nam stannum, quad metallorum est levissimum, ponderis est denar. fere 8, quad decrevit infra pondus auri denariis 13. Omnigena autem illa varietas postquam a metallis decessimus, intra 8 illas reliquas panes clauditur; ac rursus insignis illa varietas, qua: incipiendo a lapidibus inclusive ad alia illa protenditur, 21 pneumacica [quia] pondere] / not emended thus in SEH (l l i , p. 694) , buc HDR(.M) (fo. 8') and HDR (A6 v (SEH, I I , 247) ) suggest chat ic should have been 11 reci pic;) ~ , 19 Secundo] aof Secundo 24 parcium 2 1 ] ~ . 27 porosa) . ] ~ .) 29 Ex 21] ~. 30 13) ~ . 33 in tra 8) ~ . 22

Phenomena ofthe Universe

The smallness of the vessel that I used as well as its shape (even though handy and convenient for receiving the cubes) was less suitable for determining precise values. For one could not easily measure minute differences below three-quarters of a grain, and that square surface could, with a small or imperceptible increase in height, bring about a big I difference in weight, which is not what happens in conical vessels. 3. There is also no doubt that many bodies set down in the Table vary within their own species as regards their weights and dimensions. For some waters and wines and the like are certainly heavier than oth­ ers. Therefore as regards precise calculation, a certain degree of chance enters into the matter; and, what is more, the individual samples with which my experiment deals may neither represent exactly the nature of their species nor happen to agree with the experiments of others in their smallest details. 4. I included in the above Table bodies which could conveniently fill the space or measure with the body whole and as it were uniform, and which also have weight, from whose proportions I could make an esti­ mate of their concentration of matter. Thus three kinds of bodies could not be considered here. First, those which could not be made into the shape of a cube, such as leaves, flowers, pellicles and membranes; sec­ ondly, bodies unevenly hollow and porous, such as sponges, cork and wool; and thirdly, pneumatic substances, because they are weightless. 2.

1

OBSE RVATIONS

The concentration of matter in the tangible bodies which have come to my notice lies within a range of values of 21 parts to 1 or thereabouts. For the most compact concentration is found in gold, the most spread out in spirit of wine (of the bodies, I mean, which are united and obvi­ ously not porous). For spirit of wine occupies a space twenty-one times more than that occupied by gold, according to the ratio obtaining between one ounce and 22 grains. Then of these 21 parts, by which some bodies are more compacted than others, metals occupy 13 parts; for tin, the lightest metal, weighs about 8 dwt. which falls short of the weight of gold by 13 dwt. But after we leave metals, variety of all sorts is con­ fined within the 8 remaining parts; and again, the remarkable variety which, beginning with stones, extends to take in these others, is

23

Phttnomena universi

intra tres tantum panes aut non multo plus cohibetur. Nam lapis Lydius, qui est ex lapidibus gravissimus (excepto Magnete) parum (P 3 vJ denariis 3 pr�ponderat. Spiritus autem vini, qui est terminus le 1 vitatis in corporibus unitis, denario uno paulo levior est. Videtur saltus magnus sive hiatus ab auro & argento vivo ad plumbum; scilicet a 20 denariis & paulo minus ad 12. Atque licet metallica magna varietate exuberem, vix tamen existimamus in hoc hiatu multa inven iri corpora media; nisi sint prorsus rudimenta Argenti vivi. A plumbo autem gradatim adscenditur ad ferrum & stannum. 10 Rursus alterum magnum hiatum sive saltum invenimus inter metalla & lapides; scilicet ab 8 denariis ad tres; tantum enim aut circiter a stanno distat ad lapidem Lydium. Solummodo inter h�c se interponit, & fere ex �quo Magnes, qui est lapis Metal licus, atque existimamus inveniri & alia fossilia mistur� imperfecc�, & composit� natur� inter metallum & 1 5 lapides. A lapidibus certe ad reliqua parvis intervallis proceditur. In vegetabilibus autem minime dubitamus, ac etiam in partibus Animalium se ostendere quam plura corpora etiam satis £Equalis textur�, qu£E spiritum vini levitate superent. Namque etiam lignum quercus, qu� videtur esse ex lignis robustis & solidis, spiritu vini est r [ P4 ] 20 levius; 1 & lignum Abietis adhuc magis. Florum autem & foliorum plurima, & membran� & pellicul�, ut spolia Serpentum & ala:'. insectorum, & similia, procul dubio ad minores rationes ponderum (si dimensionem illam cubicam capere possent) accederent, ac multo magis artificialia, ut papyrus, linteus pannus exstinctus (quali ad fomites 25 flammarum utimur) folia rosarum qu£E supersunt a distillatione, & huj usmodi. Reperimus plerumque in partibus animalium corpora nonnulla magis compacta, quam in plantis. Ossa enim & carnes magis sum compacta, quam ligna & folia; cohibenda ac etiam corrigenda est illa 30 cogitatio, in quam animus humanus propendet; compacta nimirum qu�que & maxime solida, �sse durissima, & consistere maxime; fluido vero adesse naturam minus contractam. Nam coacervatio materi£E non minor est in corporibus qu� fluunt, quam in iis, qua:'. consistunt, sed major potius. Siquidem Aurum mollitie quadam vergit ad fluorem , 35 atque cum liquescit neutiquam extenditur, sed priore spatio continetur. Et Argenturn vivum ex se fluit, & plumbum facile fluit, ferrum �gre, 1 v [P4 ] quorum alte rum ex gravissimis metallis est, alterum ex levissimis. Sed 4 paulo levior] paulo levius / silently emended thus in SEH (Ill , p. 694) 3 3] ~ . 6 20] ~ . II 8] ~. 2 4 exstinctu s] ~ / nld as excinctus in SEH (I II, p. 695) 29 & folia;] ~ ,

Phenomena ofthe Universe

contained within only three parts or not much more. For touchstone, which (loadstone excepted) is the heaviest stone, weighs little more than 3 dwt. But spirit of wine, which stands at the extreme of lightness I in compact bodies, is rather lighter than 1 dwt. There seems to be a yawning gap or void between gold and quick­ silver and lead, namely from 20 dwt. and a little less to 12. Now although metallic substances abound in great varie ty, nevertheless I hardly think that many intermediate bodies are to be found in this gap, unless they be the absolute rudiments of quicksilver. From lead, however, there is a gradual ascent to iron and tin. Again, I find another large gap or gulf between metals and stones, that is from 8 dwt. to three; for such or thereabouts is the interval between tin and touchstone. The only thing lying between these, and almost equidistant, is loadstone which is a metallic stone, and I think we also find other fossils of imperfect mix­ ture and composite nature between metal and stones. Certainly, from stones to the rest, things proceed without big gaps. Now I have little doubt that in vegetables, as well as in the parts of animals, we find very many bodies which are of tolerably even texture which are lighter than spirit of wine. For even oak, which seems to be one of the strongest and most solid of woods, is lighter than spirit of wine; 1 and fir wood lighter still. But most flowers and leaves, and mem­ branes and pellicles, such as snake skins and insect wings and the like, would without doubt yield smaller values by weight (if they could take on that cubical shape), and that would be much more the case with arti­ ficial things, such as paper, charred linen rags (such as we use for start­ ing fires), rose petals left over from distillation, and things of that kind. I very often find in the parts of animals a number of bodies more compact than in plants. For bones and flesh are more compact than wood and leaves. But a thought to which the human mind is inclined must be checked and corrected: that the things which are compact and very solid are evidently the hardest and most consistent, but that a fluid has a nature less contracted. For the concentration of matter is no less in bodies which flow than in those which are consistent, but rather greater. For gold, with a certain softness, tends towards fluidi ty, and yet when it liquefies it in no way spreads, but stays within its original vol­ ume. Quicksilver flows of itself, and lead flows easily, iron with diffi­ cul ty, and of these two the one I is among the heaviest metals, the other

25

Phttnomena universi

10

15

[Ps']

20

25

30

illud pr�cipuum quod generaliter metalla, lapides (fluida videlicet corpora fragilia) pondere longe superent. Accidit Auro & Argento vivo, qu� ex metallis reliquis tanto sum graviora, res mira, nempe ut reperiantur quandoque in granis & parvis portionibus quasi a natura perfecta, & fere pura; quod nulli fere aliorum metallorum contingit, qu� necesse habent ut per ignem purgentur, & coeant; cum tamen h�c duo, quorum coitio longe maxima est & verissima, id a natura quandoque absque ignis beneficio consequantur. In Inquisitione de re metallica ac de natun lapidum attendatur parum, qu� sint ea metalla, q u tt solent esse c�teris depressiora & magis in profundo sita, si qu� hujus rei norma sit & Experimentum constans; in quo tamen ipso ratio habenda est Regionis in qua fodin� sunt, an ipsa fuerit terra aha, an terra humilis. Similiter de Lapidibus & Gemmis, Crystallis, an natura lapidea penetret terram tam profunde, quam metallica, an potms in superficie h�reat, quod mag1s ex1st1mamus. 1 Sulphur, quern patrem metallorum esse communis est opinio, licet a peritioribus fere repudiata, aut ad sulphurem quendam naturalem non communem translata, habet coacervationem materi�, omni metallo, etiam Lapidibus, & terris robustioribus inferiorem, scilicet denariorum 2 & granorum 2; neque id tamen obstat (si c�tera convenirent) quin cum Mercurio confusum, propter ejusdem eximiam gravitatem, pondera omnium metallorum pro ratione temperamenti reddere posset, pr�ter pondus Auri. Efficiens coitionis in corporibus ad coacervationem non semper spectatur. Nam vitrum quod coit per ignem acrem & fortem, pr�ponderat Crystallo, quod nativum est & educitur sine igne aut evidenti calore (nam quod glacies sit concreta, id populare est atque ipsum crystallum longe ponderosius est [glacie] , qu� manifeste a frigore cogitur, ac tamen aqu� supernatat). Mixtura liquorum ex rationibus ponderum solummodo non pendet 18-19 naturalem non communem] I thus in c-t, but naturalem may be wrong. The alchemists did not distinguish between common and natural sulphur but between common and philo­ sophical or sophic sulphur, the latter being a principle that entered into the composition of metals, a principle of which co mmon or natural sulphur was merely a material approximation 29 [glacie] ] I emended thus in SEH (III, p. 696) 6 con ringit, qu.e] ,wfcontingit, qui:e habent] 2 corpora] ~) fragilia) ] ~ " 10 paru m, qu,e] aof 8 consequantur] aofconsequamut aof habent] ~ , II Experimentum] aofexperimentum parum, qu.e metalla, qu,e] aofmetalla, qu.e 1 2 Regionis] aofregionis 1 9-20 denariorum 2] ~. granorum 2;] ~. 28 populare est] ~) 29 frigore] ftigore (aoffrigore) 30 supernarat) .] ~ "

Phenomena ofthe Universe

among the lightest. But what is most important is that generally metals are far heavier than stones (i.e. fluid bodies are far heavier than fragile ones). An extraordinary thing happens to gold and quicksilver, which are so much heavier than the rest of the metals, namely that they are some­ times found in grains and small portions as if perfected by nature and practically pure; this happens to virtually none of the other metals, which need to be purified by fire and then to come together, while these two whose coming together is by far the greatest and truest, neverthe­ less achieve it by nature and sometimes without benefit of fire. In the inqui ry into matters metallic and the nature of stones too lit­ tle attention is paid as to which are the metals that are usually deeper down than the rest and buried at greater depths, and if there be some rule in this matter and a reliable experiment; nevertheless, in this ve ry thing account has to be taken of the region in which the mines are, whether the ground itself was high or low. Similarly with stones, gems and c rystals, whether the stony nature penetrates the earth as deeply as the metallic one, or whether it rather clings to the surface, as I am inclined to believe. 1 Sulphur which common opinion takes to be the father of metals, an opinion which the more knowledgeable have largely rejected or referred to some uncommon natural sulphur, has a concentration of matter infe­ rior to that of eve ry metal and also that of stones and harder earths, that is, 2 dwt. 2 gr. But, all other things being equal, that does not prevent it when mixed with mercu ry (because of mercury's exceptional heaviness) from being able to reproduce (in accordance with the amounts blended) the weights of all metals save that of gold. The efficient cause of coming together in bodies does not always relate to its concentration. For glass, which comes together by means of a fierce and strong fire, outweighs c rystal, which is natural and sum­ moned up without fire or perceptible heat (for that it is ice concreted is a vulgar error, and indeed crystal is itself far heavier than ice, which is plainly thickened by cold and yet floats on water) .

Phamomena universi [P5 vJ

10

15

aut procedit, siquidem spiritus vini cum oleo amigdalarum expresso non m1scetur; sed (quod qu is fortasse non putaret) su 1 pernatat oleo, quemadmodum oleum supernatat aqu�; & tamen grano tantum & dimidio (ut in Tabula conspicitur) levior est. At idem spiritus vini A.qu� licet graviori longe facilius miscetur; ut & Aqua ipsa rursus facilius miscetur cum oleo vitrioli, quam cum oleo amigdalarum; & tamen oleum vitrioli aqua est granis 18 gravius; oleum amigdalarum vero tantum granis 4 levius. Neque hoc accipiendum est, quin in corporibus proportionatis ad mixturam pr�cipua sit ponder!s ratio. Nam videmus vinum aqu� supernatare, si cohibeatur agitatio, vel primi casus sive descensus perturbatio; veluti cum in vase, ubi continetur aqua, vinum superinfunditur, sed mediante offa panis, vel linteo, quod vim ipsam casus primi frangat. Atque idem in aqua super oleum vitrioli, cum hac industria infusa, usu venit. Atque quod magis est, licet vinum infundatur prius & aqua posterius, (super offam, vel per pannum ut dictum est) 1nvenit locum suum, & permeat per vinum, & in fundo se colligit. Continuatio Historitt Coitionis & Expansionis Materit2 in Co rpore eodem.

[P6 r]

30

Rationes pulverum majore cum utilitate I inquiri, si fiat collatio eorum cum corporibus ipsorum integris, quam si ponerentur per se & simpliciter, judicavimus. Hoc enim modo & de corporum diversitate, & de arctissimis illis natur