agrees in itself with the Materialistic philosophy—not indeed better, but also not worse, than with most other systems. Only, as to the extensive use which Bacon makes of spirits' (spiritus) in his natural philosophy, we may offer a few observations.

Bacon leans here upon tradition, but with a self-sufficiency in his treatment which did little honour to the 'restorer of the sciences.' 'Spirits' of all kinds play a great part in the cosmology and physiology of the NeoPlatonic-Scholastic philosophy; especially, too, among the Arabians, where the spirits of the stars govern the world by means of mystical sympathies and antipathies with the spirits that inhabit earthly things. The doctrine of 'spiritus' took scientific shape chiefly in psychology and physiology, in which its effects may be traced even to the present (for example, in the notion of the slumbering, waking, or excited 'animal spirits'). On this head Galen's theory of the psychical and animal 'spiritus' in connection with the doctrine of the four humours and the temperaments was very early in the Middle Ages fused cannot be softened by any reply (see the literature in Ueberweg, Grundriss, iii. S. 39, 3 Aufl., E.T. Hist. of Phil. ii. 35-6); the facts are too forcible. The most frivolous dilettanteism in his own scientific experiments, the degradation of science to hypocritical courtliness, ignorance or misapprehension of the great scientific achievements of a Copernicus, a Kepler, a Galilei, who had not waited for the 'Instauratio Magna,' malignant hostility and depreciation of real inquirers in his immediate neighbourhood, such as Gilbert and Harvey-these are points enough to display Bacon's scientific character in as unfavourable a light as his political and personal character, so that the view of Macaulay (Critical and Historical Essays, 'Lord Bacon') already properly controverted by Kuno Fischer (Baco von Verulam, Leipzig, 1856, S. 5 ff.), has lost all support.

Less simple is the judgment upon Bacon's method. Here Liebig has certainly emptied bath and babe together, although his critical remarks on the theory of induction (comp. also "Induction und Deduction," München, 1865) contain extremely valuable contributions to a complete theory of scientific method. And yet it is worthy of attention that thoughtful and learned writers on method like W. Herschel (Introd. to the Study of Natural Philosophy, 1832) and Stuart Mill, still regard Bacon's theory of induction as the first although inadequate foundation of their own theory. It is quite right that we have recently begun to recall the forerunners of Bacon in Methodology, such as Leonardo da Vinci, Luis Vives, and especially Galilei; and yet here again we must beware of such exaggerations as that, for instance, in Ad. Franck, Moral

with the Aristotelian psychology. According to this doctrine, which may be found at full length even in Melanchthon's Psychology, the four fundamental humours are prepared in the liver (second organic process after the first has taken place in the stomach); out of the noblest humour, the blood, the 'spiritus vitalis' is prepared by a new process in the heart; and this is finally (the fourth and last process) in the cavities of the brain refined into the spiritus animalis.'

This theory probably owed the deep hold which it obtained chiefly to the fact that it seemed to superficial thought a sufficient bridging over of the gulf between the sensible and the supersensible, a need which was felt as well by the Neo-Platonists as by the Christian theologians. Thus, for example, we find still in Melanchthon that the material and gradually refined 'spiritus' is the immediate bearer of influences, which in theory should be purely spiritual, but which, in fact, are represented by this learned theologian in very material fashion. Thus the divine spirit mingles with these vital and animal spirits of man; but if a devil has his abode in the heart, he blows upon the spirits and brings them into confusion,61

works, we also take into account the authority of his exalted rank, and the fact that he, with a happy appreciation, gave its proper watchword to the age, we shall be doing nothing to depreciate his historical import

ance.

To really logical thought the gulf is, of course, equally istes et Philosophes, Prris, 1872, p. 154: "La méthode de Galilée, antérieure à celle de Bacon et de Descartes, leur est supérieure à toutes deux." Moreover, we must not overlook the simple fact that, Bacon's great reputation did not proceed from a later historical misapprehension, but that it has come down through a constant tradition from his contemporaries down to our selves. This justifies us in asserting the extent and the intensity of his influence, and this influence, despite all the weaknesses of his doctrines, yet essentially resulted in advantage to scientific progress and the importance of the natural sciences. If, then, in addition to his powerful style and the kindling flashes of light in Bacon's

61 Comp. the following passage at the end of the physiological part (p. 590 of the Zürich edition): " Galenus inquit de anima hominis : nos spiritus aut animam esse, aut immediatum instrumentum animae. Quod certe verum est, et luce sua superant solis et omnium stellarum lucem. Et quod mirabilius est, his ipsis spiritibus in hominibus piis miscetur ipse divinus spiritus, et eflicit magis fulgentes divina luce, ut agnitio Dei sit illustrior et assensio firmior, et

great between the supersensible and the finest particle of the finest matter, or the whole globe. The spirits of the modern spiritualists' of England and America, are therefore quite right when they shake their believers roughly by the coat-sleeve, or when they career around a room with heavy furniture.

But by the side of this modest, and in form, at least, rigidly scientific doctrine of the vital spirits in the animal organism, there stands the fantastic doctrine of the astrologers and alchemists, which resolves the essence of all things into the workings of such spirits, and thus destroys all distinction between the sensible and the supersensible. We may indeed maintain that the 'spirits' of this theory of nature are absolutely material, and identical with what we nowadays call forces; but even leaving out of sight that in this very notion of force there still perhaps lurks a remnant of this same want of clearness, what shall we think of a kind of matter that acts upon other material things, not by pressure and collision, but by sympathy? We have only to add to this, that the idea of nature held by the astrologers and alchemists in its more fantastic forms attributed even to inanimate things a kind of consciousness, and we shall no longer find it a very great step to Paracelsus, who conceived the 'spiritus' anthropomorphically, and peopled all the details of the world, both great and small, with innumerable demons, from whom all life and all activity proceed.

And now as to Bacon. To all appearance, indeed, he took up a tolerably decided opposition to the alchemistical theory of nature. He repeatedly treats the spirits as matter and material forces, so that we might believe that the Materialism of Bacon is nowhere to be more clearly seen than in his doctrine of the 'spiritus.' If we look, however, a little closer, we find that he not only adopts into his

motus sint ardentiores erga Deum.

-E contra, ubi diaboli occupant corda, suo afflatu turbant spiritus in corde et in cerebro, impediunt udi

cia, et manifestos furores efficiunt, et impellunt corda et alia membra ad crudelissimos motus." Comp. Corpus Reformatorum, xiii. 88 sqq.

theory all kinds of superstitious assumptions from the wisdom of the Kabbalists, but that even his Materialistic rendering of magic into 'natural' phenomena is extremely threadbare, and often enough is an entire failure. Thus, for instance, Bacon does not hesitate to attribute to bodies a sort of power of conception, to make the magnet "perceive" the neighbourhood of the iron, and to exalt the "sympathy" and "antipathy" of the "spiritus" into a cause of natural phenomena; and accordingly the "evil eye," the sympathetic curing of warts, and so on, fit admirably into this kind of natural science.62 It is also quite in harmony with it when Bacon, in his favourite theory of heat, quietly ranks the astrological 'heat' of a metal, a star, and so on, on a line with the physical heat.

It is indeed true that the alchemistico-theosophic theory of nature derived from the Kabbala had won so deep a hold in England, and especially among the aristocratic class, that Bacon in all these matters is laying down nothing original, but is simply moving among the ideas of his environment; and we may in fact assume that Bacon, in his boundless servility, adopted, merely out of complaisance to the court, many more of such views than he could answer for to himself. On the other hand, again, we may observe that the assumption of soul running through all, and even through inorganic nature, as it was taught particularly by Paracelsus, stands in a very peculiar correlation with Materialism. It is the opposite extreme, which not only comes into contact with Materialism, but, in fact, frequently proceeds from it, since in the last result the production of spirit must be attributed to matter as such,— though through infinitely numerous gradations. The fantastical and personifying ornamentation of this doctrine of the universal diffusion of soul in matter, such as we find it in Paracelsus, belongs to the pointless absurdities of the age, and from this Bacon managed to keep himself toler

63 Comp. the extracts collected by Schaller, Gesch. der Naturphilosophie, Leipzig, 1841, S. 77-80.

ably free. His spiritus' have no hands or feet. And it is remarkable what a colossal misapplication the 'Restorer of the natural sciences' could make of his spirits in the explanation of nature without being exposed by his more knowing contemporaries. But so is it with our history: we may take it up where we will, we shall find similar phenomena. As to the much-debated question of the relation of Materialism to morality, we may unhesitatingly assume that Bacon, if his character had been purer and firmer, would, by the peculiarity of his thinking, have undoubtedly been led to strictly Materialistic principles. We find not fearless consistency, but scientific halfness and hesitation here again, in connection with moral degeneracy.

As to Descartes, the progenitor of the opposite line of philosophical succession, who established the dualism between mind and material world, and took the famous Cogito ergo sum' as his starting-point, it might at first appear that, as opposed to the Materialistic philosophy, he only reacted upon it in point of its consequence and clearness. But how then shall we explain the fact that the worst of the French Materialists, De la Mettrie, wished to be a thoroughgoing Cartesian, and not without having good reasons for so wishing? Here again, then, we find a more direct connection, which we shall later have to explain.

With regard to the principles of investigation, Bacon and Descartes occupy primarily a negative attitude against all previous philosophy, and especially against the Aristotelian. Both begin by doubting of everything; but Bacon, in order that he may then be led to the discovery of truth by the hand of external experience; Descartes, to elaborate it by deductive reasoning out of that self-consciousness which was all that had remained to him amidst his doubts.

Here there can be no doubt that Materialism lies only upon Bacon's side, that the Cartesian system, if consis

VOL. I.