of knowledge, Whewell, filled with
the deepest sense of all that the world owes to Bacon, takes for granted
that "though Bacon's general maxims are sagacious and animating, his
particular precepts failed in his hands, and are now practically
useless;" and assuming that Bacon's method is not the right one, and not
complete as far as the progress of science up to his time could direct
it, proceeds to construct a _Novum Organum Renovatum_. But Bacon's
writings have recently undergone the closest examination by two editors,
whose care for his memory is as loyal and affectionate as their capacity
is undoubted, and their willingness to take trouble boundless. And Mr.
Ellis and Mr. Spedding, with all their interest in every detail of
Bacon's work, and admiration of the way in which he performed it, make
no secret of their conclusion that he failed in the very thing on which
he was most bent--the discovery of practical and fruitful ways of
scientific inquiry. "Bacon," says Mr. Spedding, "failed to devise a
practicable method for the discovery of the Forms of Nature, because he
misconceived the conditions of the case.... For the same reason he
failed to make any single discovery which holds its place as one of the
steps by which science has in any direction really advanced. The clew
with which he entered the labyrinth did not reach far enough; before he
had nearly attained his end he was obliged either to come back or to go
on without it."

"His peculiar system of philosophy," says Mr. Spedding in another
preface, "that is to say, the peculiar method of investigation, the
"_organum_," the "_formula_," the "_clavis_," the "_ars ipsa
interpretandi naturam_," the "_filum Labyrinthi_," or by whatever
of its many names we choose to call that artificial process by
which alone he believed man could attain a knowledge of the laws
and a command over the powers of nature--_of this philosophy we can
make nothing_. If we have not tried it, it is because we feel
confident that it would not answer. We regard it as a curious piece
of machinery, very subtle, elaborate, and ingenious, but not worth
constructing, because all the work it could do may be done more
easily another way."--_Works_, iii. 171.

What his method really was is itself a matter of question. Mr. Ellis
speaks of it as a matter "but imperfectly apprehended." He differs from
his fellow-labourer Mr. Spedding, in what he