An Idol of the Market-Place: Baconianism in Nineteenth Century Britain

Cowley A. , in Sprat T. , The history of the Royal Society of London (London, 1667), Stanza V, no page.

Quoted in Hunter M. , Science and society in Restoration England (Cambridge, 1981), 14.

For a generally critical account, see Popper K. , “On the sources of knowledge and ignorance”, in Conjectures and refutations (London, 1974), 3–32. Although neglected by most recent philosophers of science, there have been some sympathetic treatments of Bacon. See Hesse M. , “Bacon”, in Gillispie C. C. (ed.), Dictionary of scientific biography , i (New York, 1970), 372–7; Horton M. , “In defence of Francis Bacon: A criticism of the critics of the inductive method”. Studies in the history and philosophy of science, iv (1973), 241–78. Alexandre Koyré suggested that historians of science should also be sceptical about Bacon's link with the scientific revolution: “Bacon, the founder of modern science, is a joke…. In fact Bacon understood nothing about science. He was credulous and completely uncritical”. Koyré A. , Galileo studies , trans. by Mepham J. (Brighton, 1978), 39. See also Kuhn T. , The essential tension (Chicago, 1977), 116–17. For more general accounts, see Rossi P. , Francis Bacon: From magic to science (London, 1968); Jardine L. , Francis Bacon: Discovery and the art of discourse (London, 1974); Quinton A. , Francis Bacon (Oxford, 1980).

Appeals to Bacon were apparent at the time of the foundation of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, which was presented as a realization of the vision of collaborative scientific research. See Morrell J. and Thackray A. , Gentlemen of science: Early years of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Oxford, 1981), 159, 264–7.

Fowler T. , Bacon (London, 1881), 200.

Kingsley C. , “How to study natural history”, in Works (28 vols, London, 1880–85), xix, 308.

Darwin C. , Autobiography, ed. by de Beer G. (Oxford, 1974), 71. See also Gillespie N. C. , Charles Darwin and the problem of creation (Chicago and London, 1979), 43, 65.

Gillispie C. , The edge of objectivity (Princeton, N.J., 1960), 314.

Gillispie C. , Genesis and geology (New York, 1951), 128.

Millhauser M. , Just before Darwin: Robert Chambers and “Vestiges”(Middletown, Conn., 1959), 144.

Cannon S. F. , Science in culture: The early Victorian period (New York, 1978), 73.

ibid., 74.

ibid., 229.

For a general account see Rossi P. , “Francis Bacon”, in Wiener P. (ed.), Dictionary of the history of ideas (4 vols, New York, 1973), i, 172.

Murray J. (eds), The Oxford English dictionary (12 vols, Oxford, 1933), i, 617.

Webster C. , The Great Instauration: Science, medicine and reform 1626–60 (London, 1975), 499. See also pp. 492–500.

See Webster C. , “The origins of the Royal Society”, History of science, vi (1967), 106–28; Ben David J. , The scientist's role in society: A comparative study (New York, 1977), 72–74; Wood P. , “Methodology and apologetics: Thomas Sprat's History of the Royal Society”, The British journal for the history of science, xiii (1981), 1–26. In various ways, these authors question the historiography which accepted seventeenth century statements about Baconianism as unproblematic evidence of prevailing methodological commitments.

D'Alembert J. , Preliminary discourse to The encyclopedia , trans. by Schwab R.N. (New York, 1963), 74. For the observations on Bacon's “division of the sciences”, ibid., 143–64. See also Luxembourg L. K. , Francis Bacon and Denis Diderot (New York, 1967).

The Plan of the French Encyclopaedia: Or universal dictionary of arts, sciences, trades and manufactures (London, 1752), 178–9.

Stewart D. , Preliminary dissertation exhibiting a general view of progress of metaphysical, ethical and political philosophy since the revival of letters in Europe , in Encyclopaedia Britannica (7th edn, 21 vols, Edinburgh, 1830–42), i, 56.

Shorr P. , Science and superstition in the eighteenth century: A study of the treatment of science in two encyclopaedias of 1725–1750 (New York, 1932).

Chambers E. , Cyclopaedia (2nd edn, 5 vols, London, 1738), i, no page.

Diderot D. and D'Alembert J. , Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers (27 vols, Paris, 1757–80), ii, 8–10. For identification of author, see Lough J. , The Encyclopédic (London, 1971), 141.

See de Maistre J. , Examen de la philosophie de Bacon (2 vols, Paris, 1836); also Lively J. (ed.), The works of Joseph de Maistre (London, 1965); for the defence of Bacon, see de Luc J. A. , Précis de la philosophie de Bacon (Paris, 1802).

Fischer K. , Francis Bacon of Verulam: Realistic philosophy and its age, trans. by Oxenford J. (London, 1857), pp. xii–xvii. For his account of the nineteenth century French debate, see pp. 326–40.

Morley J. , Diderot and the Encyclopaedists (2 vols, London, 1878), i, 116.

See for example Soloway R. A. , Prelates and people: Ecclesiastical social thought in England, 1783–1852 (London, 1969), 26–29, 34, 45; Norman E. R. , Church and society in England 1770–1970 (Oxford, 1976), 16, 20–23; Garfinkle N. , “Science and religion in England, 1790–1800: The critical response to the work of Erasmus Darwin”, Journal of the history of ideas, xvi (1955), 376–88.

Bacon F. , The advancement of learning , ed. by Johnston A. (Oxford, 1974), 94–95 and Novum organum, ed. by Anderson F. H. (New York, 1960), 121–2.

Stewart D. , Elements of the philosophy of the human mind (2 vols, Edinburgh, 1814), ii, 443–61.

See Whewell W. , Indications of the creator (2nd edn, London, 1846), 64–66, 84–87, 91–95. Even Baden Powell, who was critical of traditional teleology, felt it necessary to distinguish Bacon's views on final causes from the more extreme attack of Comte; see Powell B. , “Comte's system of positive philosophy”, Monthly chronicle, iii (1839), 227–38, pp. 229, 235. Authorship of anonymous reviews has been identified in Houghton W. H. (ed.), Wellesley index to Victorian periodicals (3 vols, Toronto, 1966–76).

See Fowler T. (ed.), Bacon's Novum organum (2nd edn, Oxford, 1889), 106.

This appeared as the general preface to the Encyclopaedia metropolitana, which was based on Coleridge's classification of knowledge. The editor, Rose H. J. , was a High Church theologian who saw Coleridge's philosophy as an answer to the materialist and empiricist heritage of the Enlightenment. See Forbes D. , The liberal Anglican idea of history (Cambridge, 1952), for this perspective.

Coleridge S. T. , “General introduction; or preliminary treatise on method”, in Encyclopaedia metropolitana (29 vols, London, 1845), i, 32.

ibid., 27.

ibid., 24–25.

ibid., 32.

Stallo J. B. , General principles of the philosophy of nature (Boston, 1848), vii.

Lewes G. H. , A biographical history of philosophy (4 vols, London, 1845–46), iii, 52, 263. See also Finch A. , On the inductive philosophy, including a parallel between Lord Bacon and A. Comte as philosophers (London, 1872).

Doherty J. , “Flaws in the philosophy of Bacon”, in Edward H. (ed.), Essays on religion and literature (London, 1874), 309. For a similar view, see Laing F. H. , Lord Bacon's philosophy (London, 1877).

Bacon , Novum organum , ed. by Anderson (ref. 28), 115–16, 118–19. For the ambivalence attached to the idea of utility in the Restoration, see Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 2), ch. 4.

Herschel J. , A preliminary discourse on the study of natural philosophy (London, 1831), 44–74; Whewell W. , “Modern science — inductive philosophy”, Quarterly review, xiv (1831), 374–407, pp. 404–5.

Macaulay T. B. , “Francis Bacon”, Edinburgh review, lxv (1837), 1–104, pp. 65, 101. On the utilitarian conception of science and its uses, see Bowring W. , “Education of the people”, Westminster review, vii (1827), 269–317, and idem, “Scientific education of the upper classes”, Westminster review, ix (1828), 328–73.

Herschel , op. cit. (ref. 41), 10.

Whewell W. , The philosophy of the inductive sciences (2 vols, London, 1840), i, p. xiii.

ibid., ii, 576, 464. See also Herschel J. , “Whewell on the inductive sciences”, Quarterly review, lxviii (1841), 177–238, pp. 177–8, 185.

See Whewell W. , “Francis Bacon”, Edinburgh review, cvi (1857), 287–322, pp. 320–2 for praise of Remusat's non-utilitarian reading. For Whewell's philosophical response to utilitarianism see Yeo R. , “William Whewell, natural theology and the philosophy of science in mid-nineteenth-century Britain”, Annals of science, xxxvi (1979), 493–516. See Fischer , op. cit. (ref. 25), 382–405 for criticisms of Macaulay. For an emphasis on the practical facets of Baconianism, see Webster , op. cit. (ref. 16), 494–6, 519–20; Rossi, op. cit. (ref. 3), ch. 1; and Farrington B. , Francis Bacon: Philosopher of industrial science (London, 1949).

Laudan L. , Science and hypothesis: Historical essays on scientific methodology (Dordrecht, Boston and London, 1981), 34.

Shaw P. (ed.), The philosophical works of Francis Bacon, methodized and made English (3 vols, London, 1733), i, pp. iii–viii.

Voltaire , Letters concerning the English nation (new edn, London, 1767), 64–65.

Hallam H. , Introduction to the literature of Europe (4 vols, London, 1838–39), iii, 225–7; also Montagu B. , “Bacon's Novum organum”, Retrospective review, iii (1821), 141–67, p. 141, on the greater popularity of the Essays.

See Wordsworth C. , Scholae academicae: Some account of the studies at the English universities in the eighteenth century (Cambridge, 1877), 78. For the number of editions see Gibson R. W. , Bacon: A bibliography of his works and of Baconiana to the year 1750 (Oxford, 1950).

A new royal and universal dictionary … (London, 1769), entry on Bacon; Crocker T. H. (ed.), The complete dictionary of the arts and sciences (3 vols, London, 1764).

In the eighteenth century, references to Bacon were often associated with praise of Newton's anti-conjectural method. See the works of Pemberton, Turnbull (who was Reid's teacher) and Goldsmith cited in Laudan, op. cit. (ref. 47), 103–8.

Hume D. , The history of England (new edn, 6 vols, Boston, 1851), iv, 525.

Hallam , op. cit. (ref. 50), iii, 227.

Laudan L. , “Thomas Reid and the Newtonian turn of British methodological thought”, in Laudan , op. cit. (ref. 47), 86–110; Olson R. , Scottish philosophy and British physics 1750–1880 (Princeton, 1975).

Davie G. , The democratic intellect: Scotland and her universities in the nineteenth century (Edinburgh, 1961), 189–90, 321; Buckle T. H. , Introduction to the history of civilization in England (new and revised edn, London, n.d.), 834.

Stewart D. , Account of the life and writings of Thomas Reid (Edinburgh, 1802), 27.

Reid to Gregory R. , quoted ibid., 41–42.

Reid T. , Works (Edinburgh, 1863), 711–13.

Stewart , op. cit. (ref. 20), 32.

Playfair J. , Dissertation third: Exhibiting a general view of the progress of mathematical and physical science since the revival of letters in Europe , in Encyclopedia Britannica (7th edn), i, 468–74.

Napier M. , “Remarks illustrative of the scope and influence of the philosophical writings of Lord Bacon”, Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, viii (1818), 373–425, p. 373.

ibid., 374–6.

ibid., 383, 386, 391.

Stewart , op. cit. (ref. 58), 44, and idem, Elements of the philosophy of the human mind (new edn, Edinburgh, 1843), part ii, 545.

Macintosh J. , “Stewart's introduction to the Encyclopaedia”, Edinburgh review, xxvii (1816), 180–244, p. 186.

Napier , op. cit. (ref. 63), 385, 387.

“Stewart's Dissertation”, Quarterly review, xvii (1817), 50–53.

Napier , op. cit. (ref. 63), 378–80.

ibid., 396–409.

ibid., 404.

“Stewart's Dissertation” (ref. 69), 52.

Macintosh J. to Napier M. , 8 January 1832, in Napier M. (ed.), Selections from the correspondence of the late Macvey Napier (London, 1879), 33–34; Napier , op. cit. (ref. 63), 384–5.

Napier , op. cit. (ref. 63), 391.

Young T. to Napier M. , 23 April 1818, Napier Papers, British Library, Add Ms. 34,612, ii, f. 188. I am grateful to Geoffrey Cantor for this reference.

Mill J. to Napier M. , 30 April 1818, in Napier (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 74), 18–19. For the general Scottish interest in Bacon, and its political dimension, see Robertson J. C. , “A Bacon-facing generation: Scottish philosophy in the early nineteenth century”, Journal of the history of philosophy, xiv (1976), 35–45, p. 41, and Collini S. Winch D. and Burrow J. , That noble science of politics: A study in nineteenth-centurv intellectual history (Cambridge, 1983), 48–49, 52–53.

Brown T. to Napier M. , 14 April 1818, in Napier (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 74), 17.

Stewart D. , Elements of the philosophy of the human mind (London, 1792), 8–9.

Robertson , op. cit. (ref. 77), 43–48; Davie , op. cit. (ref. 57), 176.

Napier , op. cit. (ref. 63), 382.

Olson , op. cit. (ref. 56), 6, 15.

Stewart D. , Collected works, ed. by Hamilton W. (10 vols, Edinburgh, 1854–58), iii, 299.

ibid., 303.

ibid., 289, 298, 301.

ibid., 305, 309.

ibid., 302.

Robison J. , “Philosophy”, Encyclopaedia Britannica (7th edn), xvii, 426–46, p. 443.

Forbes J. , “On the inductive philosophy of Bacon, his genius and achievements” (Moral philosophy essays, 1827–28), 24–25, 27, 39–40, Forbes Papers, St Andrews University. See also the reference to this in Olson, op. cit. (ref. 56), 226.

Brougham H. to Napier M. , 18 March 1827, in Napier (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 74), 47–48.

Olson , op. cit. (ref. 56), chs 4–5.

Stewart , op. cit. (ref. 83), iii, 314–16.

Napier M. , Treatises on various subjects of natural and chemical philosophy by Sir John Leslie, with a biographical memoir (Edinburgh, 1838), 49. On Leslie's criticism of “dull experiment”, see Cantor G. N. , “The academy of physics at Edinburgh 1797–1800”, Social studies of science, v (1975), 109–34, pp. 133–4.

Brewster D. , The life of Sir Isaac Newton (London, 1831), 330. See also Brewster D. (ed.), Edinburgh encyclopaedia (18 vols, Edinburgh, 1830), iii, 181–6, which contained some critical comments. Brewster told Napier that “Macaulay's article is splendid. It would have killed Playfair, who took me to task for inserting a similar view of Bacon's character (written by Dr Lee) in the Edinburgh Encyclopaedia”. Brewster to Napier, 27 July 1837, in Napier, op. cit. (ref. 74), 194.

D. Brewster to Edgeworth M. , 26 April 1824 in Gordon M. , The home life of Sir David Brewster (2nd edn, Edinburgh, 1870), 24.

Quoted in Olson , op. cit. (ref. 56), 238; see also pp. 178–86 for the view that Brewster's methodological views did not radically depart from those of Stewart and Brown.

Malkin B. H. , “Brewster's life of Newton”, Edinburgh review, lvi (1832), 1–37, p. 37.

Fowler (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 31), 152.

Herschel , op. cit. (ref. 41), 104–5; also p. 188.

Athenaeum, 15 January 1831, 38–39, p. 38.

Whewell , op. cit. (ref. 41), 377.

ibid., 379, 398.

Agassi J. , “Sir John Herschel's philosophy of success”, Historical studies in the physical sciences, i (1971), 1–36, pp. 1–2.

ibid., 20–21.

Herschel , op. cit. (ref. 41), 272; also p. 188.

ibid., 164.

Cannon , op. cit. (ref. 11), 232; Cannon W. F. , “John Herschel and the idea of science”. Journal of the history of ideas, xxii (1961), 215–39, esp. pp. 221–2; Agassi , op. cit. (ref. 103), 8.

Agassi , op. cit. (ref. 103), 11–12.

Cannon , op. cit. (ref. 11), 73–74, 228–9.

Agassi , op. cit. (ref. 103), 27.

Cannon , op. cit. (ref. 11), 93.

Losee J. , A historical introduction to the philosophy of science (London, 1972), 116.

Herschel , op. cit. (ref. 41), 190, 196.

Olson , op. cit. (ref. 56), 264–70.

In claiming that Herschel adopted the “sophisticated view of hypotheses” which she identifies with Humboldtianism, Cannon notes its Scottish roots. Cannon, op. cit. (ref. 11). However, the previous discussion of the Scottish debate shows how this view of hypotheses was presented as compatible with Baconianism. It is interesting that William Gladstone, a non-scientific reader of Bacon, compiled detailed notes on the Novum organum in 1834 and concluded that the Baconian account of induction need not exclude “that elasticity of spirit” which stimulated hypotheses. Gladstone Papers, 44, 723. F196–231, British Library.

Faraday M. to Herschel J. , 10 November 1832, in The selected correspondence of Michael Faraday , ed. by Williams L. Pearce (2 vols, Cambridge, 1971), i, 235; Darwin , op. cit. (ref. 7), 38; Mill J. S. , “Herschel's Discourse”, Examiner , 20 March 1831, 179–80, p. 180; Whewell , op. cit. (ref. 41), 377, 398.

Whewell W. to Jones R. , 24 April 1831, in Todhunter I. , William Whewell D. D.: An account of his writings (2 vols, London, 1876), ii, 118.

Whewell W. to Jones R. , February 1831, in ibid., 115.

Whewell , op. cit. (ref. 41), 381, 399–400.

Whewell W. to Herschel J. , 9 April 1836, in Todhunter , op. cit. (ref. 117), ii, 1; Herschel J. , “Views on public education”, Philosophical magazine, viii (1836), 432–8, p. 434.

Macaulay , op. cit. (ref. 42), 39.

ibid., 65–68. See also his “Mill's Essay on government”, Edinburgh review, xlix (1829), 159–89, pp. 101–2, for his criticism of utilitarianism as a pre-Baconian philosophy.

Macaulay , op. cit. (ref. 42), 88; also p. 73.

ibid., 81.

ibid., 89–92.

ibid., 91.

Brougham H. to Napier M. , 28 July 1837, in Napier (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 74), 197.

Whewell W. to Jones R. , 6 September 1837, in Todhunter , op. cit. (ref. 117), ii, 258.

Mill J. S. , A system of logic (London, 1843), 376.

Ibid ., 378. See also Bacon , Novum organum, ed. by Anderson (ref. 28), 98–99.

Brougham H. , in Napier (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 74), 196. But there is evidence of a continuing support for Macaulay's attack on methodology. In a review of Baconian scholarship, one writer praised Macaulay and remarked that “No logic of any kind ever taught a man to reason”. See Smith W. H. , “Spedding's life of Bacon”, in Blackwood's magazine, xciii (1863), 480–99, p. 497.

See Whewell , op. cit. (ref. 41), 379, for reference to the “plebeian notions, which represent the Baconian method … as something obvious”; Herschel , op. cit. (ref. 41), 113–14; Powell B. , An historical view of the progress of the physical and mathematical sciences from the earliest ages to the present time (London, 1834), 196–212; Whately R. , Bacon's Essays (2nd edn, London, 1857), pp. xiii–xiv. Mill J. S. , “Whately's Logic”, in Westminster review, ix (1828), 137–72, pp. 141–8.

Macaulay , op. cit. (ref. 42), 92–94.

Whewell W. , On the philosophy of discovery (London, 1860), 165–6, 170–80. 1 have used this later work which contains the chapter on Bacon from the Philosophy of the inductive sciences and additional material.

ibid., 126–8.

ibid., 130–2.

ibid., 182.

ibid., 135.

ibid., 145.

ibid., 135.

ibid., 135–6.

ibid., 140–1.

Whewell , op. cit. (ref. 46), 316–17.

Whewell , op. cit. (ref. 134), 138.

Ibid ., 253. For Whewell's remarks about the currency of a more narrow view of induction and its association with interpretations of Bacon and Newton, see his The philosophy of the inductive sciences (2nd edn, 2 vols, London, 1847), ii, 56–58.

Agassi , op. cit. (ref. 103), 2, 12.

See Spedding J. , Evenings with a reviewer (2 vols, London, 1848). Ellis became seriously ill in 1853 and could not continue his work. He died in 1859.

Ellis R. , “Preface to the philosophical works”, in Spedding J. Ellis R. and Heath D. (eds), The works of Francis Bacon (14 vols, London, 1857–74), i, 25–38. For more recent and less dismissive treatments of Bacon on ‘forms’, see Broad C. D. , The philosophy of Francis Bacon (Cambridge, 1926), 30–46; Hesse M. , “F. Bacon”, in O'Connor D. J. (ed.), A critical history of western philosophy (London, 1964), 145–9; Quinton , op. cit. (ref. 3), 45–46, 63–65.

Whewell , op. cit. (ref. 134), 151.

Ellis , op. cit. (ref. 147), 64.

Whewell W. , Novum organon renovatum (London, 1858), pp. iv-v.

Whewell W. , History of the inductive sciences (3rd edn, 3 vols, London, 1857), i, 4; also p. viii.

Whewell , op. cit. (ref. 44), ii, 186.

ibid., i, 9.

Whewell W. , “Remarks on the review of the ‘Philosophy of the inductive sciences’ in the Athenaeum” 22 September 1840, Trinity College, Cambridge, Whewell Papers, 266.C.80), 7.

W. Whewell to de Morgan A. , 18 January 1859, in Todhunter , op. cit. (ref. 117), ii, 417. See also Gore G. , The art of discovery (London, 1878).

Spedding (eds), op. cit. (ref. 148), i, 370–90. This is an account of a dialogue between Ellis and Spedding on the question of Bacon's major claim to fame. For a discussion of seventeenth century programmes, see Hall M. B. , “Solomon's house emergent: The early Royal Society and co-operative research”, in Woolf H. (ed.), The analytic spirit: Essays in the history of science (Ithaca, 1981), 177–94.

Whewell , op. cit. (ref. 46), 313–16 and op. cit. (ref. 95), 153–6.

Whewell W. to de Morgan A. , 14 February 1859, in Todhunter , op. cit. (ref. 117), ii, 418.

Brewster D. , Memoirs of the life, writings and discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton (2 vols, Edinburgh, 1855), ii, 404. Augustus de Morgan also rejected any link between Bacon and Newton, remarking that “If Newton had taken Bacon for his master, not he, but somebody else, would have been Newton”. See his “The works of Francis Bacon”, Athenaeum , 18 September 1858, 332–4, 367–8, p. 368. Another critical work is Lasson A. , Über Bacon von Verulam's wissenschaftliche Principien (Berlin, 1860).

Hacking I. , Representing and intervening (Cambridge, 1983), 157.

Cantor G. N. , Optics after Newton: Theories of light in Britain and Ireland. 1704–1840 (Manchester, 1983), 173–86.

Brewster D. , “Whewell's History of the inductive sciences”, Edinburgh review, lxvi (1837), 110–51, pp. 146–51; Davie , op. cit. (ref. 57), 172, 175.

Quoted in Cantor , op. cit. (ref. 162), 178–9.

Airy G. to Herschel J. , 16 July 1831; Herschel Papers, i, no. 19, Royal Society of London.

Brewster D. , “M. Comte's Course of positive philosophy”, Edinburgh review, lxvii (1838), 217–308, pp. 306–7.

Cantor , op. cit. (ref. 162), 179–81.

Brewster , op. cit. (ref. 160), 404.

Ibid ., 405. George Davie suggests that Brewster distinguished between “a superficial and a profound version of empiricism”, and that he and Forbes believed Whewell did not sufficiently acknowledge this. See op. cit. (ref. 57), 185. But it is not clear from the evidence supplied that Whewell would not have accepted this distinction.

Brewster , op. cit. (ref. 163), 121.

Quoted in Brewster D. , “Whewell's Philosophy of the inductive sciences”, Edinburgh review, lxxiv (1842), 265–306, p. 291.

Brewster , op. cit. (ref. 163), 120–1.

Brewster , op. cit. (ref. 171), 302.

Forbes J. D. , “The history of science and some of its lessons”, Fraser's magazine, lvii (1858), 283–94, p. 292.

Masson D. to Whewell W. , 15 May 1863; Trinity College, Cambridge, Whewell Papers, Add. Ms. 89¹⁴⁵.

von Liebig J. , Ueber Francis Bacon von Verulam und die Methode der Naturforschung (Munich, 1863), 45–46.

Ibid ., pp. iii–iv; von Liebig J. , “Lord Bacon as natural philosopher”, Macmillan's magazine, vii (1863), 237–49, 257–67, pp. 264–5.

See Sonntag O. , “Liebig on Francis Bacon and the utility of science”, Annals of science, xxxi (1974), 373–86.

Von Liebig , op. cit. (ref. 177), 246–9, 262–3.

ibid., 263.

von Liebig J. , “Induction and deduction”, Cornhill magazine, xii (1865), 296–305, p. 299, 304–5.

Adamson R. , “Bacon”, Encyclopaedia Britannica (9th edn, 25 vols, Edinburgh, 1875–89), iii, 200–18, p. 216. For further late nineteenth century recognitions of the weaknesses in Bacon's philosophy, see Fowler (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 31), 133; Church R. W. , Bacon (London, 1884), 187–98. It should be noted however that the earlier confidence about his method could still be found in popular expositions. See James J. , The philosophy of Lord Bacon and the systems which preceded it (Bradford, 1860), 11–12; Goulburn E. , Bacon: The first principles of his philosophy stated in a popular form (London, 1860), 21.

Hankins T. L. , Jean d'Alembert: Science and enlightenment (Oxford, 1970), 89–92.

Jevons W. S. , The principles of science: A treatise on logic and scientific method (2nd edn, London, 1877), 507. See also de Morgan , op. cit. (ref. 160), 367–8. Bacon's neglect of mathematics was noted even by his most gentle critics. See Powell , op. cit. (ref. 132), 211.

Huxley T. H. , “The progress of science” (1887), in Bibby C. (ed.), The essence of T. H. Huxley (London, 1967), 42. See also Bernard C. , An introduction to experimental medicine (New York, 1927), 50–51: “I do not think … it is very profitable for men of science to discuss definitions of induction and of deduction, nor, for that matter, the question whether we advance by one or other of these so-called processes of mind”.

Laudan , op. cit. (ref. 47), 4–18.

ibid., 127–36.

Coleridge , op. cit. (ref. 33), 25.

Adamson , op. cit. (ref. 182), 217. Compare the more favourable assessments in earlier editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (3rd edn, Edinburgh, 1788–97), ii; (8th edn, Edinburgh, 1853–60), iv, 357.

Huxley T. H. to Darwin C. , in Huxley L. (ed.), The life and letters of T. H. Huxley (2 vols, London, 1900), ii, 14. Whewell W. to de Morgan A. , 18 January 1859, in Todhunter , op. cit. (ref. 117), ii, 417. For typical late nineteenth century accounts of Bacon's character, method and historical significance, see Adamson , op. cit. (ref. 182); Fowler T. , “Bacon”, Dictionary of national biography (London, 1885), ii, 349–60. Apart from Brewster, it was foreign commentators who made the most extreme attacks. The American writer, William Draper, said that Bacon was “a pretender in science, a time-serving politician, an insidious lawyer, a corrupt judge, a treacherous friend, a bad man”. Draper W. , The history of the intellectual development of Europe (2 vols, New York, 1860), ii, 259–60.

For various approaches to this question, see Schuster J. A. and Yeo R. R. (eds), The politics and rhetoric of scientific method: Historical studies (Dordrecht, forthcoming). For some references to the way in which Baconian ideas of method were deployed in the Darwinian debates, see Sedgwick A. , “Darwin's origin of species”, Spectator, 7 April 1860, 335; Owen R. , “Darwin on the Origin of species”, Edinburgh review, cxi (1860), 487–532, pp. 495–6; Ellegard A. , Darwin and the general reader (Goteburg, 1958), ch. 9; Hull D. (ed.), Darwin and his critics (Cambridge, Mass., 1973). This issue is relevant to the present article but would require more extensive treatment.

See Gillispie C. C. , “The Encyclopédie and the Jacobin philosophy of science”, in Clagett M. (ed.), Critical problems in the history of science (Madison, 1959), 255–89; Wood , op. cit. (ref. 17); Ben-David , op. cit. (ref. 17); Morrell and Thackray (eds), op. cit. (ref. 4), 19–34.

Chalmers A. , Evidence and authority of the Christian revelation (2nd edn, Edinburgh, 1815), 189–229.

H. Brougham to Napier M. , 18 March 1827, in Napier, op. cit. (ref. 74), 47–48.

Whewell W. to Jones R. , February 1831, in Todhunter , op. cit. (ref. 117), ii, 115.

Carlile R. , An address to men of science (London, 1821), 23.

I owe this information to Gomme Andor , writing in the Times literary supplement , 11 February 1983, 139–40. See Montagu B. , The works of Francis Bacon. Lord Chancellor of England: A new edition (16 vols, London, 1825–34).

Laudan R. , “Ideas and organisation in British geology”, Isis, lxviii (1977), 527–38, pp. 530–1; Porter R. , The making of geology: Earth science in Britain 1660–1815 (Cambridge, 1977), 138, 146. Phillips J. , “Geology”, Encyclopaedia metropolitana (ref. 33), vi, 530–4.

Lyell C. , Principles of geology (2nd edn, 3 vols, London, 1832), i, 1–42. For a contemporary reference to Lyell's account of past errors as indicative of Bacon's relevance, see Martin T. , Character of Lord Bacon: His life and works (London, 1835), 154–5. See also Porter R. , “Charles Lyell and the principles of the history of geology”, The British journal for the history of science, ix (1976), 91–103, pp. 91–98.

Lyell , op. cit. (ref. 199), i, 81.

[ Fitton W. H. ], “Transactions of the Geological Society”, Edinburgh review, xxix (1817), 70–94, p. 70.

“Geological inquiries”, Philosophical magazine , xlix (1817), 421–9, pp. 421–2. But it should not be assumed that these public statements about an accessible method represented the methodology of all members of the Geological Society. In any case, Baconian ideas of a division of labour could be deployed to stress the need for a specific role for theorists. For a reference to the task of generalization which could be “performed only by philosophers”, see ibid., 421.

Craik G. L. , The pursuit of knowledge under difficulties (2 vols, London, 1846), i, 2; Smiles S. , Self help (new edn, London, 1860), 46–47. For a similar contrast between method and genius see Martineau H. , Miscellanies (2 vols, Boston, 1836), i, 72–73, 103–4.

Drinkwater J. , Lives of eminent persons (London, 1833), 15, 54. This work, and that cited by Craik above, were published for the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. The society sponsored the publication of cheap editions of Bacon's works and commentaries on them. See Hoppus J. , An account of Bacon's Novum organon scientiarium (2 parts, London, 1840); Craik G. L. , Bacon: His writing and his philosophy (3 vols, London, 1846–47). The method/genius dichotomy was sometimes associated with a contrast between Bacon and Descartes as alternative models for scientific thinking. See Chalmers, op. cit. (ref. 193), 200; Whewell W. , Astronomy and general physics considered with reference to natural theology (Cambridge, 1834), 303–41, for a discussion of the contrasting moral effects of inductive and deductive habits.

See Morrell and Thackray , op. cit. (ref. 4), 269–72. See Turner F. M. , “The Victorian conflict between science and religion: A professional dimension”, Isis, lxix (1978), 356–76; Brooke J. H. , “The natural theology of the geologists: Some theological strata”, in Jordanova L. J. and Porter R. S. (eds), Images of the earth: Essays in the history of the environmental sciences (Chalfont St Giles, Bucks, 1979), 39–64.

For an example of this confidence, see Pearson K. , The grammar of science (London, 1892), ch. 1.

Bacon , Novum organum, ed. by Anderson (ref. 40), 56. See Robertson J. M. (ed.), Works of Francis Bacon (London, 1905), pp. xiv–xv, for the continuing appeal of Bacon's analysis of error.

Macaulay , op. cit. (ref. 42), 102.

Webster , op. cit. (ref. 17), 117.

See Yeo R. , “Scientific method and the image of science 1831–1891”, in MacLeod R. M. and Collins P. (eds), The parliament of science: The British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1831–1981 (Northwood, 1981), 65–88.

Laudan , op. cit. (ref. 198), 527, 530, 536; Gillispie , op. cit. (refs 8 and 9). Gillispie suggested that the “critical instinct for mathematical clarity … saved French science … from submersion in the Baconianism which vulgarised the English tradition…”. Gillispie C. , “Science in the French Revolution”, in Barber B. and Hirsch W. (eds), The sociology of science (Middletown, Conn., 1962), 91.

Cannon , op. cit. (ref. 11).