hers and critics, I will simply note that he was
born in 1561; was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he
learned to distrust the Aristotelianism of his masters, and planned his
own vast scheme of reform; went to Paris; sat in Parliament as member
for Middlesex; was successively appointed of the Privy Council, and lord
chancellor; was created Viscount Verulam; was impeached and condemned
for corruption as a judge; and died in the spring of 1626. "For my name
and memory," said the dying man, "I leave it to men's charitable
speeches, and to foreign nations, and the next age."

Posterity has been generous; the fame of Bacon is immense. Admirers have
not always been unanimous as to his special claims; but there has been
no lack of enthusiasm, no questioning of his genius. He has been lauded
for achievements in which he had no part, and has been adorned with
titles to which he had doubtful pretensions; while his most important
services have been overlooked. But the general recognition of his
greatness, and our national pride in it, have not prevented certain
attacks on his reputation, which have been answered in a rather angry
spirit; and thus from one cause and another there is great difficulty in
arriving at any candid and thorough appreciation of the work he did. It
seems to some persons that Bacon did very little in rising against the
philosophy of his day, and pointing out a new path; and to others it
seems that he did nothing of the kind. But whoever looks closely into
the writings of Bacon's predecessors will see that what now seems
obvious and trivial was then startling and important. As M. Remusat
felicitously says, "_Il fallait du genie pour avoir ce bon sens_." And
to those who deny that Bacon did head the revolution, I would oppose not
simply the testimony of nearly three centuries, but the testimony of
Gassendi, who, both as contemporary and as foreigner, was capable of
judging the effect then produced. It is indeed apparent to anyone
familiar with the writings of some of Bacon's immediate predecessors,
especially Galileo, that there was little novelty in his denunciations
of the erroneous method then popular, or in his exhortations to pursue
observation, experiment, and induction. But it is not less apparent that
he had wider and profounder views of the philosophy of method than any
of them, and that the popular opinion does not err in attributing to him
the glory of heading the new era.

In England