¹ Whewell, William, The Philosophy of the inductive Sciences (1840), (eds Buchdahl, G. and Laudan, L., London, 1967) from the 1847 edn, Part ii: vi. 227Google Scholar; Koyré, A., Études Galiléennes, Paris, 1939, chapter I, 6n.Google Scholar

² Rossi, Paolo, Francis Bacon: From Magic to Science (1957), revised edn 1974; trs Rabinovitch, S., London, 1968)Google Scholar; Jardine, Lisa, Francis Bacon: Discovery and the Art of Discourse, Cambridge, 1974Google Scholar; Yates, Frances, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, London, 1964Google Scholar and The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age, London, 1979Google Scholar; Vasoli, C., L'enciclopedismo del Seicento, Naples, 1978Google Scholar; Crescini, A., Le origine del metodo analitico: Il Cinquecento, Udine, 1965Google Scholar and Il problema metodologico alle origini della scienza moderna, Rome, 1972.Google Scholar

³ Pérez-Ramos, A., Francis Bacon's Idea of Science and the Maker's Knowledge Tradition, Oxford, 1988, pp. 7–41Google Scholar for an assessment of these studies. A recent Baconian apologia from a Popperian view point is Urbach, Peter's Francis Bacon's Philosophy of Science, La Salle, 1987.Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. Lakatos, Imre, ‘Changes in the Problem of Inductive Logic’, in The Problem of Inductive Logic, (ed. Lakatos, I.) Amsterdam, 1968, pp. 315–417, especially p. 318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Dictionary of the History of Ideas, (ed. Wiener, P.) New York, 1968–1973Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Baconianism’, I, pp. 172–179, especially p. 172.Google Scholar

⁶ Kuhn, T.S., ‘Mathematical versus Experimental Tradition in Western Science’, The Essential Tension, Chicago, 1977, pp. 31–66, especially pp. 41–52.Google Scholar

⁷ Thorndike, Lynn, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, New York, 1923–1958, vol. iii, pp. 63–88.Google Scholar

⁸ The literature on this topic is immense, but I refer the reader to Funkenstein, A.'s masterly Theology and the Scientific Imagination from the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth Century, Princeton, 1986, pp. 12–22Google Scholar and passim. Cf. my review of this book (‘And Justify the Ways of God to Men’) in Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, forthcoming 1990.Google Scholar

⁹ Schneiders, W., ‘Einige Bemerkungen zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Bacon-Forschung’, Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, (1962), 16, pp. 450–471Google Scholar; Francis Bacon: Science et Méthode (eds Malherbe, M. and Pousseur, J.-M.), (Paris, 1985)Google Scholar; Francis Bacon: Terminologia e fortuna nel XVII secolo, (ed. Fattori, M.) (Rome, 1984).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Fisch, H. and Jones, H.W., ‘Bacon's Influence on Sprat's History of the Royal Society’, Modern Language Quarterly, (1951), 12, pp. 399–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wood, P.B., Methodology and Apologetic: Thomas Sprat's History of the Royal Society’, British Journal for the History of Science, (1980), 13, p. 26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sprat, T., The History of the Royal Society of London, London 1667, (eds Cope, J.I. and Jones, H.W.) London, 1959, pp. 30ff.Google Scholar

¹¹ Hunter, M., Science and Society in Restoration England, Cambridge, 1981Google Scholar; Pérez-Ramos, A., op. cit. pp. 14–18Google Scholar and G. Rees' studies in note 14.

¹² Thorndike, L., op. cit. (7)Google Scholar; Dijksterhuis, E.J., The Mechanization of the World-Picture, 1959; trans. Dikshoorn, C., Oxford, 1961, pp. 396–403Google Scholar; Mittelstraß, J., ‘The Galilean Revolution: The Historical Fate of a Methodological Insight’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, (1972), 2, pp. 297–328, especially 320–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ Kuhn, T.S., op. cit. (6) p. 46Google Scholar; cf. also Hesse, M., ‘Francis Bacon's Philosophy of Science’, Essential Articles for the Study of Francis Bacon, (ed. Vickers, B.) London, 1968, pp. 114–139.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Rees, G., ‘Francis Bacon's Semi-Paracelsian Cosmology and the Great Instauration’, Ambix, (1975), 22, pp. 161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘The Fate of Bacon's Cosmology in the 17th Century’, Ambix, (1977), 24, pp. 27–37Google Scholar; ‘Matter-Theory: A Unifying Factor in Francis Bacon's Natural Philosophy?’, Ambix, (1977), 24, pp. 110–125Google Scholar; ‘Atomism and Subtlety in Francis Bacon's Philosophy’, Annals of Science, (1980), 37, pp. 549–571Google Scholar; ‘An Unpublished Manuscript by Francis Bacon: “Sylva Sylvarum”’ Drafts and other Working Notes, Annals of Science, (1981), 38, pp. 377–412Google Scholar; ‘Bacon's Philosophy: Some New Sources with Special Reference to the Abecedarium Novum Naturae’, in Francis Bacon: Terminologia e fortuna (ed. Fattori, M.) Rome, 1984, pp. 223–244Google Scholar; ‘Quantitative Reasoning in Francis Bacon's Natural Philosophy’, Nouvelles de la République des Lettres, (1985), 1, pp. 27–48Google Scholar; ‘Mathematics and Francis Bacon's Natural Philosophy’, Revue Internationale de Philosophie, (1986), 40, pp. 399–426Google Scholar; Rees, G. and Upton, Ch., Francis Bacon's Natural Philosophy: A New Source [De viis mortis], Chalfont St Giles 1984Google Scholar. Cf. Vicker, B.'s review of the lastmentioned book in British Journal for the History of Science (1988), 21, pp. 256–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and my essay-review ‘Bacon in the Right Spirit’, Annals of Science, (1985), 42, pp. 603–611.Google Scholar

¹⁵ For a general overview cf. Mittelstraß, J.'s Die Rettung der Phänomene. Ursprung und Geschichte eines antiken Forschungsprinzips, Berlin, 1962Google Scholar; Blake, R.M., ‘Theory of Hypothesis among Renaissance Astronomers’, in Theories of Scientific Method: the Renaissance through the 19th Century, (ed. Madden, E.H.) Washington, 1966, pp. 22–49Google Scholar; and Jardine, N., ‘The Forging of Modern Realism: Clavius and Kepler Against the Sceptics’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science (1979), 10, pp. 141–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ Aristotle's position could justify both approaches. Astronomy is a branch of mathematics in Metaphysica I, 8Google Scholar; XII, 8; a branch of natural philosophy in Physica II, 2Google Scholar. Later commentators like Simplicius tried to conciliate both views: the natural philosopher is concerned with the essence of the heavenly bodies and their qualities; the astronomer dwells on their relative sizes and distances, and on the configuration of their motions. If both want to prove eg. that the Earth is round, Simplicius argues, they do it by different routes: In Aristotelis physicorum libros quatuor priores commentarla, (ed. Diels, H., 2 vols, Berlin 1882/1895), B. 2. pp. 291f.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Cf. Krafft, Fritz, ‘Physikalische Realität oder mathematische Hypothese? Andreas Osiander und die physikalische Erneuerung der antiken Astronomie durch Nikolaus Copernicus’, Philosophia Naturalis (1972), 14, pp. 243–275Google Scholar; Westman, R.S., ‘The Astronomer's Role in the 16th Century: A Preliminary Study’, History of Science (1980), 18, pp. 105–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ Cf. Jardine, N., ‘The Significance of the Copernican Orbs’, Journal for the History of Astronomy (1982), 13, pp. 168–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krafft, F, ‘Copernicus Retroversus II’, Studia Copernicana XIV, Warsaw, 1975, pp. 113–123Google Scholar, and ‘Copernicus Retroversus II’, Studia Copernicana XIV, Warsaw, 1975, pp. 65–78Google Scholar. Many Copernicans were prepared to accept a ‘pragmatic compromise’ between Copernicus' mathematics and Aristotelian natural philosophy; cf. Westman, R.S., ‘The Melanchthon Circle, Rheticus and the Wittenberg Interpretation of the Copernican Theory’, Isis, (1975), 66, pp. 165–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ Westman, R., ‘Kepler's Theory of Hypothesis and the “Realist Dilemma”’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science (1972), 3, pp. 233–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krafft, Fritz, ‘Johannes Keplers Beitrag zur Himmelsphysik’, Internationales Keplersymposium Weilder-Stadt, (eds Krafft, F., Meyer, K. and Sticker, B.), Hildesheim, 1973, pp. 55–139.Google Scholar

²⁰ The Works of Francis Bacon, (eds Elis, R.L., Spedding, J. and Heath, D.D.), 14 vols, London, 1857–1874Google Scholar, reprinted Stuttgart, 1961–1963, Vol. i, pp. 551–554; IV, 347–349: ‘Such demonstrations, however, only show how all these things [i.e. the heavenly phenomena] may be ingeniously made out and disentangled, not how they may truly subsist in Nature; and indicate the apparent motions only, and a system of machinery [machinam] arbitrarily devised and arranged to produce them—not the very causes and the truth of things [non causas ipsas et veritatem rerum]. Wherefore astronomy, as it now is, is fairly enough ranked among the mathematical arts, not without disparagement to its dignity; seeing that, if it chose to maintain its proper office [proprias partes], it ought rather to be accounted as the noblest part of physics (IV, 348–349; V, 553).

²¹ Descartes refers to Bacon's method in astronomy in a letter to Mersenne, , Oeuvres de Descartes, (ed. Adam, C. and Tannery, P.), Paris, 1897–1910, vol. i, pp. 251–252Google Scholar, on ‘l'histoire des apparences célestes, selon la méthode de Vérulamius’. Cf. Pérez-Ramos, A., Francis Bacon's Idea of Science, op. cit. (3), pp. 10ff.Google Scholar

²² Rees, Graham, ‘Francis Bacon's Semi-Paracelsian Cosmology’, op. cit. (14), p. 81.Google Scholar

²³ Cf. Rossi, P., ‘Venti, Maree e ipotesi astronomiche in Bacone e Galilei’, Aspetti della rivoluzione scientifica, Naples, 1971, pp. 151–222.Google Scholar

²⁴ On Alpetragius cf. Samsó, J.'s arride in Dictionary of Scientific Biography (ed. Gillispie, C.C.), New York, 1970–1980, vol. xv, Supplement I (1978), pp. 33–36Google Scholar; and Duhem, Pierre's study in his monumental Le Système du monde. Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic, Paris, 1914, (rep. 1965), vol. ii, pp. 146–156Google Scholar. Goldstein, B.R. has edited and translated the original Arab and Hebrew texts. On the Principles of Astronomy, New Haven & London, 1971Google Scholar. Though the book had been translated into Latin by Michael Scot in 1217 (De Motibus Caelorum), the first printed edition was a Latin translation of the Hebrew version: Theoria Planetarum, Venice, 1531Google Scholar. Graham Rees thinks Bacon learned of Alpetragius' theories as early as 1592 through his reading of Telesio's De Rerum Natura; cf. ‘Francis Bacon's Semi-Paracelsian Cosmology’, op. cit. (14), p. 92 n.63.Google Scholar

²⁵ Preface to the Descriptio Globi Intellectualis, III, 715–726, p. 716.Google Scholar

²⁶ Cf. Grant, E., Much Ado About Nothing. Theories of Space and Vacuum from the Middle Ages to the Scientific Revolution, Cambridge, 1981, pp. 182–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosen, E., ‘Francesco Patrizi and the Celestial Spheres’, Physis, (1984), 26, pp. 305–324Google Scholar; ‘The Dissolution of the Solid Celestial Spheres’, Journal of the History of Ideas (1985), 46, pp. 113–131.Google Scholar

²⁷ Cf. also Thema Coeli III, 557Google Scholar; V, 778. For a survey of contemporary views on this matter, cf. Jardine, N.'s ‘The Status of Astronomy’, The Birth of History and Philosophy of Science. Kepler's Defence of Tycho Against Ursus with Essays on its Provenance and Significance, Cambridge, 1984, pp. 225–257Google Scholar. Even Pascal in a letter to Noël, E. (29 10 1647)Google Scholar resorts to the same argument as Bacon in order to dismiss the claims of astronomy: ‘C'est ainsi que, quand on discourt humainement du mouvement ou de la stabilité de la Terre, tous les phénomènes des mouvements et rétrogradations des planètes s'ensuivent parfaitement des hypothèses de Ptolémée, de Tycho, de Copernic et de beaucoup d'autres qu'on peut faire, de toutes lesquelles une seule peut ètre véritable’, Oeuvres Complètes, (ed. Mesnard, J.), Paris, 1964, vol. ii (1970), p. 524.Google Scholar

²⁸ ‘Nor is body acted on except by body [neque corpus nisi a corpore patitur]’, III, 762Google Scholar; V, 537; and Novum Organum I, 4Google Scholar. Cf. Hesse, M., Forces and Fields. The Concept of Action at a Distance in the History of Physics (London, 1961), pp. 91–97Google Scholar; p. 95: ‘Magnetism and gravity are the only physical phenomena for which Bacon can conceive no corpuscular explanation’ (italics in the original).

²⁹ That is, not as the result of induction: cf. III, 780; V, 559.

³⁰ For an analysis of this experiment, cf. Pérez-Ramos, A., Francis Bacon's Idea of Science, op. cit. (3), pp. 247–249Google Scholar. In the Historia Ventorum (1622)Google Scholar Bacon returned to this topic and expatiated on the ‘general wind’ (cf. II, 26–27; V, 147).

³¹ On the Baconian concept of historia naturalis cf. Gavazza, M., ‘Concept baconien d'histoire naturelle’, Les Études Philosophiques (1985), pp. 405–414Google Scholar. Kambartel, F. has studied the sources and development of that concept in Erfahrung und Struktur. Bausteine zu einer Kritik des Empirismus und Formalismus (Frankfurt-On-Main, 1976, 2nd edn), pp. 50–86.Google Scholar

³² There is a mistranslation in the Spanish text. The Latin reads mobilem constantiam (Spedding rightly corrected the original nobilem of the 1653 edition). In neither case is ‘razonable constancia’ admissible.