[118] This is noted by Glassford in his tr. of the Novum Organum (1844, p. 26); and by Ellis in his and Spedding’s edition of the Works. (Routledge ed. pp. 32, 473, note.) [↑]
[119] De Augmentis, bk. iii, ch. iv, end. [↑]
[121] Valerius Terminus, ch. xxv. [↑]
[122] De Principiis, ed. cited, pp. 648–49. Cp. pp. 612–43. [↑]
[124] Valerius Terminus, ch. ii; De Augmentis, bk. v, ch. iv. Ed. cited, pp. 199, 517. [↑]
[125] Cp. Brewster, Life of Newton, 1855, ii, 400–404; Draper, Intel. Devel. of Europe, ed. 1875, ii, 258–60; Dean Church, Bacon, pp. 180–201; Fowler, Bacon, ch. vi; Lodge, Pioneers of Science, pp. 145–51; Lange, Gesch. d. Materialismus, i, 197 sq. (Eng. tr. i, 236–37), and cit. from Liebig—as to whom, however, see Fowler, pp. 133, 157. [↑]
[126] Novum Organum, ii, 46 and 48, § 17; De Aug. iii, 4; Thema Coeli. Ed. cited, pp. 364, 375, 461, 705, 709. Whewell (Hist. of Induct. Sciences, 3rd ed. i, 296, 298) ignores the second and third of these passages in denying Hume’s assertion that Bacon rejected the Copernican theory with “disdain.” It is true, however, that Bacon had vacillated. The facts are fairly faced by Prof. Fowler in his Bacon, 1881, pp. 151–52, and his ed. of Novum Organum, Introd. pp. 30–36. See also the summing-up of Ellis in notes to passages above cited, and at p. 675. [↑]
[127] Aubrey, Lives of Eminent Persons, ed. 1813, vol. ii, pt. ii, p. 383. [↑]