That which was eminently his own in his system was the end which he proposed to himself.The end being given, the means, as it appears to us, could not well be mistaken.If others had aimed at the same object with Bacon, we hold it to be certain that they would have employed the same method with Bacon.It would have been hard to convince Seneca that the inventing of a safety-lamp was an employment worthy of a philosopher.It would have been hard to persuade Thomas Aquinas to descend from the making of syllogisms to the making of gunpowder.But Seneca would never have doubted for a moment that it was only by means of a series of experiments that a safety-lamp could be invented.Thomas Aquinas would never have thought that his barbara and baralipton would enable him to ascertain the proportion which charcoal ought to bear to saltpetre in a pound of gunpowder.Neither common sense nor Aristotle would have suffered him to fall into such an absurdity.
By stimulating men to the discovery of new truth, Bacon stimulated them to employ the inductive method, the only method, even the ancient philosophers and the schoolmen themselves being judges, by which new truth can be discovered.By stimulating men to the discovery of useful truth, he furnished them with a motive to perform the inductive process well and carefully.His predecessors had been, in his phrase, not interpreters, but anticipators of nature.They had been content with the first principles at which they had arrived by the most scanty and slovenly induction.And why was this? It was, we conceive, because their philosophy proposed to itself no practical end, because it was merely an exercise of the mind.A man who wants to contrive a new machine or a new medicine has a strong motive to observe accurately and patiently, and to try experiment after experiment.But a man who merely wants a theme for disputation or declamation has no such motive.He is therefore content with premises grounded on assumption, or on the most scanty and hasty induction.Thus, we conceive, the schoolmen acted.On their foolish premises they often argued with great ability; and as their object was "assensum subjugare, non res," [Novum Organum, Lib.i.Aph.29.] to be victorious in controversy not to be victorious over nature, they were consistent.For just as much logical skill could be shown in reasoning on false as on true premises.But the followers of the new philosophy, proposing to themselves the discovery of useful truth as their object, must have altogether failed of attaining that object if they had been content to build theories on superficial induction.
Bacon has remarked [De Augmentis, Lib.i.] that, in ages when philosophy was stationary, the mechanical arts went on improving.
Why was this? Evidently because the mechanic was not content with so careless a mode of induction as served the purpose of the philosopher.And why was the philosopher more easily satisfied than the mechanic? Evidently because the object of the mechanic was to mould things, whilst the object of the philosopher was only to mould words.Careful induction is not at all necessary to the making of a good syllogism.But it is indispensable to the making of a good shoe.Mechanics, therefore, have always been, as far as the range of their humble but useful callings extended, not anticipators but interpreters of nature.And when a philosophy arose, the object of which was to do on a large scale what the mechanic does on a small scale, to extend the power and to supply the wants of man, the truth of the premises, which logically is a matter altogether unimportant, became a matter of the highest importance; and the careless induction with which men of learning had previously been satisfied gave place, of necessity, to an induction far more accurate and satisfactory.
What Bacon did for inductive philosophy may, we think, be fairly stated thus.The objects of preceding speculators were objects which could be attained without careful induction.Those speculators, therefore, did not perform the inductive process carefully.Bacon stirred up men to pursue an object which could be attained only by induction, and by induction carefully performed; and consequently induction was more carefully performed.We do not think that the importance of what Bacon did for inductive philosophy has ever been overrated.But we think that the nature of his services is often mistaken, and was not fully understood even by himself.It was not by furnishing philosophers with rules for performing the inductive process well, but by furnishing them with a motive for performing it well, that he conferred so vast a benefit on society.
To give to the human mind a direction which it shall retain for ages is the rare prerogative of a few imperial spirits.It cannot, therefore, be uninteresting to inquire what was the moral and intellectual constitution which enabled Bacon to exercise so vast an influence on the world.
In the temper of Bacon,--we speak of Bacon the philosopher, not of Bacon the lawyer and politician,--there was a singular union of audacity and sobriety.The promises which he made to mankind might, to a superficial reader, seem to resemble the rants which a great dramatist has put into the mouth of ail Oriental conqueror half-crazed by good fortune and by violent passions:
"He shall have chariots easier than air, Which I will have invented; and thyself That art the messenger shall ride before him, On a horse cut out of an entire diamond, That shall be made to go with golden wheels, I know not how yet."But Bacon performed what he promised.In truth, Fletcher would not have dared to make Arbaces promise, in his wildest fits of excitement, the tithe of what the Baconian philosophy has performed.
