Rethinking Sylva Sylvarum: Francis Bacon's Use of Giambattista Della

Rethinking Sylva sylvarum: Francis Bacon’sUseof Giambattista Della Porta’s Magia naturalis

Doina-Cristina Rusu University of Bucharest

This article analyzes the relation between Francis Bacon’s Sylva sylvarum one of its most important sources, Giovan Barttista Della Porta’s Magia naturalis. I claim that Bacon used Della Porta’s experimental reports as a basis upon which he built his science of metaphysics and natural magic. Since Della Porta’s interest lies in the immediate transformation of individual bodies, Bacon considers his approach an inferior kind of science, what he called physics mechanics. There are several changes Bacon made to Della Porta’s experimental reports. They can be grouped by addition of causal explanations, generalizations, selection reordering of instances under different headings. Through all these transformations, Bacon acquires a more profound knowledge of nature and its inner activities and takes Della Porta’s experimental reports to the “superior” science of metaphysics and natural magic.

1. Introduction The study of vegetables represents one of the main topics in Bacon’s Sylva sylvarum. Not only in quantitative terms, because plants occupy about a third of the entire book, but the centuries on plants are among the most structured, and this reveals Bacon’s particular interest for the topic. The key to understanding Bacon’s interest can be found in both his Sylva

Research for this article has been supported from the CNCS Project From Natural History to Science. The Emergence of Experimental Philosophy, PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0719. Some paragraphs of this paper correspond to parts of my Ph.D. dissertation From Natural History to Natural Magic: Francis Bacon’s Sylva sylvarum (Radboud University Nijmegen and University of Bucharest 2013). I would like to thank Christoph Lüthy and Dana Jalobeanu for their useful comments on this study when it was a dissertation chapter, and the two reviewers for helping me improve my argument. I am also grateful to Becci Hutchins, Ed Slowik, and Daniel Collette for their English corrections on the various versions of this paper.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 2 Bacon and Della Porta

sylvarum and the Historia vitae et mortis, where Bacon explains how the results of studying certain processes in plants can be later transferred and applied to animals and humans. In the context of his discussion of nourishing foods and drinks, Bacon addresses the question of how nourishment gets assimilated in the body. One of the ways in which the process of assimilation is slowed down is when parts of a body can no longer draw in the nourishment rapidly and vigorously. This leads to decay. Paraphrasing Aristotle, Bacon explains why plants live longer than animals: because they continuously grow new leaves and branches. The new branches have more force to draw nourishment, which, in passing, also nourishes the older parts of the plant, prolonging their life. Bacon’s aim when discussing plants is to transfer his observations to the animal realm. But given that it is impossible for animals to grow anything analogous to new branches, they need to rely on a different method, namely the restoration of what is easily repaired and through this, the revitaliza- tion of what is not: Transfer therefore this observation to the helping of nourishment in living creatures: the noblest and principal use whereof is, for the prolongation of life; restoration of some degree of youth; and inteneration of the parts; for certain it is, that there are in living creatures parts that nourish and repair easily, and parts that nourish and repair hardly; and you must refresh and renew those that are easy to nourish, that the other may be refreshed and (as it were) drink in nourishment in the passage. (The Works of Francis Bacon, ed. Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, II, p. 364. Hereafter SEH)

This kind of transfer of knowledge from one class of beings to another is very commonly found in Bacon’s natural historical work. For example, the Historia vitae et mortis starts by studying inanimate bodies and then trans- fers that knowledge to the human body (The Oxford Francis Bacon XII, p. 151. Hereafter OFB.). In the same way, processes such as growth and the aforementioned alimentation and assimilation are investigated in plants throughout Sylva and the Historia vitae et mortis with the aim of transferring them to animals, and most importantly to humans in order to cure diseases, preserve health, and prolong life. To give another example, concocted aliments lead, according to Bacon, to the preservation of health and the prolongation of life. Bacon’s argument in favor of this theory is a clear analogy between grafting, the process though which one plant nourishes on the already concocted sap of the other plant (and thus the graft does not spend time in processing the nourishment and only assimilates it), and nourishing on soups and broths, which can be immediately assimilated,

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 3

because they are already cooked.1 What is more important, a big part of the centuries on plants from Sylva studies the processes and substances which can produce this attraction of nourishment, and the process of grafting and assimilation, with experiments and recipes to be found also in the Historia vitae et mortis or with references to the recipes found in other parts in Sylva. This possibility of transferring knowledge from one domain of investigation to another is a significant feature of Bacon’s natural philosophy and it characterizes his conception of natural magic, the superior operative science. Because it relies on the knowledge of nature based on matter theory (what Bacon calls “metaphysics,” the knowledge of forms), natural magic can modify objects through techniques that have not been discovered by investigating the objects themselves. This characteristic is grounded on Bacon’s presupposition that the basic appetites and motions of matter are identical for all composed bodies.2 In compiling his experiments with plants for Sylva, Bacon borrowed heavily from Della Porta’s Magia naturalis and incorporated the latter’s experimental reports into his own system of investigating nature. The aim of this paper is to show how Bacon builds a science of natural magic on the borrowings from Della Porta, whose experiments remain, according to Bacon’s own definitions, at the level of mechanics, the inferior operative science by comparison with magic. I claim that unlike Della Porta, who was concerned with the transformation of individual plants and the production of “curiosities,” Bacon’saimwasthediscoveryofthesecret processes of matter, with the final goal of using this information to prolong human life.3 The way in which Bacon builds a science of magic using

1. The recipes are given in the first century, and then, when analyzing nourishment in plants, Bacon concludes that “[i]t proveth also that our former opinion; that drink incorporate with flesh or roots (as in capon-beer, &c.) will nourish more easily than meat and drink taken severally” (SEH II, pp. 478–79). Throughout the Historia vitae et mortis substances are taken in soups and broth for a better assimilation and similar recipes can be found in the text, without any explanation of their efficacy. 2. For Bacon, matter was created at once as he explains in the fable of Cupid (see De sapientia veterum, SEH VI, pp. 654–57, 729–30, and De principiis atque originibus, OFB VI, pp. 197–267). This means that the basic appetites and the simple motions are common for all portions of matter. Bacon argues against the Aristotelian distinction between celestial and sublunary matter in both the Descriptio globi intellectualis (see OFB VI, p. 113 and pp. 159–61) and the Novum organum (OFB XI, 121). Diversity rises as a result of different combinations of motions. It is true that some structures of matter are more complex than others: compared to plants, animals have also senses, and compared with them, humans have reason. However, when decomposing these bodies, the basic motions and appetites are identical. 3. I do not claim that Bacon was not interested at all in the production of effects. More than once in Sylva he mentions the possible profit of the experiments he reports. However, I

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 4 Bacon and Della Porta

Della Porta’s reports can only be understood through a detailed analysis of his changes to the Italian’s experimental reports. The selection of instances, specific changes to borrowed case descriptions (generalizations, additions of causal explanations, and methodological criticism), and the rearrangement of the sections constitute arguments in favor of this thesis. In addition to this comparison, which reveals the characteristics of Bacon’s method of dealing with sources, this paper will also provide a number of instances of previously unidentified borrowings from the Magia naturalis. Bacon’s relation with the tradition of Renaissance magic has been de- bated. Paolo Rossi considers that magic and alchemy had “little or no influence on Bacon” (Rossi 1987, p. 21) and that his science was a reaction to Renaissance magic (Rossi 1987, p. 11). This vision has been challenged by Sophie Weeks, who claimed that Bacon’s magic was not a reaction against, but rather a purification from impostures and fantasies (Weeks 2007, p. 22). Moreover, discussing Bacon’s science of magic, Weeks has also claimed that Sylva is an application of it, but without further devel- oping the topic. Weeks’s arguments are based on the fact that Bacon himself presented Sylva as natural magic4 and on the presence of processes such as “version,”“conversion,”“perfect concoction,” or “maturation” (Weeks 2007, p. 29 n70). Though I agree with her general claim that Sylva expounds Bacon’s science of magic, better arguments can be made in support of this claim, since the operations mentioned by Weeks can be performed also at the level of mechanics, and they do not represent the specificity of magic. In what follows I will offer arguments that show why the experiments borrowed from the Magia naturalis exhibit the characteristics Bacon assigned to natural magic, while Della Porta’s remain at an inferior level. I will begin the second section by showing why the use of sources is so important in Bacon’s conception of building a natural history, and why

believe that there are several reasons, and they will be shown in this paper, to assume that for Bacon they are secondary. Regarding plants and vegetables, Bacon was clearly concerned with them not only as models of animals and humans, but because he had an interest in gardens, as Paula Henderson has shown (see Henderson 1992, 2008). 4. In experiment 93 Bacon affirms that “this work of our Sylva sylvarum is (to speak properly) not natural history, but a high kind of natural magic” (SEH II, p. 278). Graham Rees interpreted this affirmation as a clear reference to Della Porta’s work, because of Bacon’s addition of causal explanations to the latter’s experimental reports (Rees 1990, p. 270). Given the context in which Bacon made this affirmation, an instance of changing the colors of feathers that does not seem to be borrowed from Della Porta, this is not clear. Rather, I take Bacon to be making a distinction between natural history and natural magic, where the former is a mere description of nature and the latter an operative discipline (on the topic of Baconian natural histories, criticism of previous one and the relation between natural history and natural philosophy see Findlen 1997; Rees 2000, 2007; Jalobeanu 2010, 2013; Anstey 2012; Giglioni 2012; Rusu 2012, 2014).

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 5

Della Porta’s book on plants was the main source for Bacon’s own centuries on the same topic. In the third section I will give a full account of the changes to which Della Porta’s experiments were subjected. All these changes, such as generalizations of the subject matter, addition of causal explanations, methodological criticisms, the selection of experiments, reordering of the sections and of the experiments under different topics, lead to the conclusion that Della Porta and Bacon had different interests in experimenting with plants, and that Bacon used Della Porta’s book to advance the knowledge of nature. This aspect will be discussed at length in the last section of this paper, where I will introduce Bacon’s conceptions of matter theory, metaphysics and magic, and explain why these changes take the experiments with plants in Sylva, borrowed from the Magia naturalis, to the level of natural magic.

2. Using Sources in the Context of the Natural and Experimental Histories Bacon’s natural histories, including the posthumous Sylva sylvarum, have begun to gain scholarly attention over the last several years, but his use of sources has remained mostly neglected in the secondary literature. I consider that neither Sylva nor Bacon’s natural philosophy in general can be understood in the absence of a proper analysis of the way in which Bacon dealt with the information borrowed from his sources. It is by appropriat- ing or criticizing his sources that Bacon builds both his experimental reports and his speculative ideas. This does not mean, of course, that Bacon’s philosophy is not original. On the contrary, his use of sources is highly creative. This will be sufﬁciently shown in the rest of this paper. In an article intended to introduce a comparison between the Magia naturalis and Sylva, Graham Rees concludes that it would have been impossible for Bacon to conduct all of Sylva’s one thousand experiments per- sonally, so it may have been more expedient to borrow some experiments reported in other sources, just to arrive at this number, and thus “some of the materials drawn from Della Porta’s work may only have been intro- duced into the text as a make-weight” (Rees 1990, p. 271).5 This vision has been challenged by Dana Jalobeanu, who shows that Bacon used his sources creatively. In comparing some of Bacon’s experiments on the preservation of fruits with those of Della Porta and Hugh Platt, she concludes that Bacon did not simply copy his predecessors’ work, but that he “selected,

5. Graham Rees’ article was intended to precede Marta Fattori’s comparison between the two books, but unfortunately Fattiori’s paper was never written. Before Rees, Robert Leslie Ellis, who compiled the introduction and the footnotes for the nineteenth edition of Sylva, had stated that Bacon was a mere “transcriber” of other authors, pseudo-Aristotle and Della Porta being the most signiﬁcant among them (Ellis 1859 in SEH II, p. 372).

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 6 Bacon and Della Porta

developed and sometimes criticized recipes, trials and experiments collected from works of natural history, husbandry and natural magic” (Jalobeanu 2016). Though I agree with this general claim, my reading of Bacon’s experiments in comparison with Della Porta’s goes further than this interpretation in two respects: first, by comparing individual instances I trace those specific changes that create a pattern in Bacon’s use of sources, and second, I show that these changes have as their aim to transform what was for Bacon an inferior types of natural philosophy into a science of natural magic. Despite his various criticisms of ancient and modern authors, Bacon em- phasizes the importance of relying upon sources.6 Because the variety of natural phenomena is very large and a lifetime is not enough to investigate them, Bacon argues for a cumulative and collaborative approach. In this context, each natural philosopher should use existing knowledge and further transmit his own discoveries, thus both the use of sources and the transmission of knowledge are integrant parts of Bacon’s natural philosophy. Given that Bacon viewed both ancient and his contemporary natural philosophy as corrupted, he established some rules that have to be observed when taking information from sources: everything must be written down in a very concise way; the name of the author should not be cited unless the issue is doubtful; it should be noted whether the sources is an ancient or a modern experiment, and whether the author borrowed the experiment or created it himself (OFB XI, p. 463). However, what is central is that the selection of both sources and their ideas should be performed with great care and without blindly accepting the authority of certain writers. An experiment or a theory is not true because the person who reports it is an authority; information must be tested or compared with the existing system of knowledge already accepted as reliable. However, when the information is not empirically tested and the comparison with the system is not conclusive, Bacon establishes three levels of reliability―wholly reliable, doubtful, and unreliable: But as for the reliability of the materials taken into the natural history, they are of necessity wholly reliable, of doubtful reliability, or downright unreliable (aut fidei Certae, aut fidei Dubiae, aut fidei Damnatae). Now the first sort should be put down plain; the second with a note, for instance with a phrase like they say,orthey report,orI have it on good authority, and the like. For it would be very hard work to put down the arguments about reliability pro and

6. On note-taking and compilations of books and manuscripts in the early modern period, see Blair 2010, esp. pp. 62–116,173–229.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 7

contra, and they would no doubt hold up the writer no end. (OFB XI, pp. 466–67)7 In what follows it will become very clear how Bacon applied these theo‐ retical considerations in composing his own histories. Given that the use of sources is necessary and that great care should be devoted to this practice, let us now see why Giambattista della Porta’s book was so relevant for Bacon. In the Parasceve, Bacon argues for the supremacy of the histories of arts over histories of generations and preter-generations. Histories of arts study things in motion and lead to practice, they “display, change and prepare natural bodies and material things” (OFB XI, p. 463). Useful for the completion of the histories of arts are several practices in which nature is changed, including agriculture, cookery, chemistry, dyeing, the manufacture of glass, enamel, sugar, gunpowder, pyrotechnics, paper, and the like. Given the superiority of the history of arts in the study of nature, it becomes evident that Bacon was not interested in a typical natural history of plants written according to a descriptive model, but in producing a book based on experiments and on transforming nature. This is the reason why a book such as Della Porta’s Magia naturalis, a highly operative treatise, was used by Bacon as the main source for his centuries on plants.8 As the title of the book on plants suggest (Agriculturae praecepta promit, de nouis producendis, commiscendisque plantis), Della Porta’s aim was the creation of plants that did not previously exist in that form. In this way, melioration of plants in the sense of changes of color, shape, taste and smell, making plants medicinal, and even acceleration and retardation of germination, are according to Della Porta, techniques to create new kinds. This implied changing natural bodies and thus, compared to the existing natural histories on plants

7. The problem of “doubtful” facts is discussed in Manzo 2009. For a more general discussion on the concept of authority, see Snider 1994, pp. 21–88. Bacon’s tripartition of borrowed material can represent a Ramist influence. For Ramus, testimony could have been necessary, probably or contingent, and false. On Bacon and testimony see Serjeantson 1999, esp. 208–11. 8. Della Porta’s Magia naturalis was published for the first time in Naples in 1558 and consisted in four books, which appeared in translation in the following years: Italian (1560), French (1565) and Dutch (1566). In 1589 Della Porta published an enlarged version containing twenty books, which went through several editions and was very popular all over Europe. It was translated into English in 1658 and had several editions in the second half of the seventeenth century. Della Porta also wrote a typical natural history of plants, called Vilae, but this held no interest for Bacon, though Ellis has identified one experiment borrowed from this book. On Della Porta’s life and work, see Muraro 1978; Torrini (ed.) 1990; Balbiani 1999; Piccari 2007. Though Bacon might have had access to both Latin editions of the Magia naturalis, there is no doubt he used the second, enlarged, edition. I compared the two editions and several experiments borrowed in Sylva do not appear yet in the first one.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 8 Bacon and Della Porta

that were descriptive and classiﬁcatory, Della Porta’s treatise was completely different; it sought to transform nature, and this was also Bacon’saim. It should be mentioned that Bacon’s treatment of sources is not identical in all cases and the results of the analysis I will provide for Della Porta cannot be applied to all the sources Bacon used for his Sylva. The reason for such differences is given by the fact that the books he used are very diverse. In the case of authors such as (Pseudo-) Aristotle, Pliny, or Sandys, given that their books are collections of observations of particular phenomena, their observations are expounded and then explained by Bacon with either his own matter theory or an endorsement of the authors’ own explanations. What is common to his use of sources in general is that they are all used as material for building a natural philosophy.

3. Including Della Porta’s Experiments with Plants in Sylva sylvarum

3.1. Theoretical and Methodological Criticism I begin my analysis with the inclusion of the negative instances. The main reason for this is that the rejection of false theories and experiments9 is prior to accepting the correct ones. Only after error is expunged from natural philosophy may the construction of a true science start. The rejection of false theories and experiments is thus an important ﬁrst step. It is not enough to exclude them or to present them as false, they must be mentioned and refuted with arguments. Otherwise these errors will keep on preventing the advancement of learning.10 Several instances in Sylva

9. The concept of experiment is fundamental for Bacon’s philosophy and at the same time very problematic. The way in which I use the term in this paper is equivalent with ‘instance’ or ‘paragraph’, following the example of Sylva, where all the paragraphs are labelled as “experiments” (irrespective to their being interventionist experiments, observations, speculations, classiﬁcations, etc.). Nevertheless, I do consider that, except for these headings, Bacon has a clear understanding of experiment as contrived experience. The way in which he uses the terms in both theoretical and practical writings, and even in Sylva in the body of text, represents a proof of this assumption. Della Porta’s case is different from that of Bacon. He uses ‘experience’ and ‘experiment’ interchangeably. For clearness, I will use “experiment” or “experimental report” when I refer to his experimental practices as reported in the Magia naturalis. On Bacon’s concept of experiment see Pesic 1999, 2008; Manzo 2001; Fattori 2002; Pastorino 2011; Jalobeanu 2013. 10. In Parasceve Bacon says “If there is anything in any narration which is doubtful or worrying, I would not at all want it to be suppressed or kept quiet but to be put in writing plainly and clearly by way of a note or advice” (OFB XI, p. 469). Of course, not all the experiments and theories considered false had to be written down and refuted, but only those that represent a threat to the advancement of natural knowledge because of their popularity or implications. Just as the human mind must be cleansed from idols before being able to become the receptacle of knowledge, natural history and natural philosophy must be cleansed from those features so they can advance.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 9

deal in fact with this polishing of natural history and natural philosophy, and Della Porta, though one of the main sources of Sylva, is no exception. Though there are more instances in which Bacon criticized Della Porta, I will discuss only one which best reveals the way in which Bacon deals with sources: rejecting what he considers to be false, but keeping as much of the correct information, which he integrates into his own system. For Della Porta, grafting was the most important technique for altering plants. Irrespective of whether he desires to accelerate or retard germination, to make the fruit sweeter, compounded, or tastier, he invariably takes recourse to grafting. All that Della Porta believes he needs to know about the matter is which trees are better suited for the kind of grafting he has in mind or objective he wishes to reach. As a consequence, we encounter grafting very prominently in each of his chapters on plants, except in the chapter dealing with plants generated by putrefaction. According to Della Porta, grafting is to plants as copulation is to living creatures. And just as new animal kinds are generated by copulation, as happens with the mule or with other combined animals, so one can also create new species of plants by means of grafting: As we heard before of diverse living creatures, that they might be mingled into one, by copulation, so now we will show also how to contrive diverse kinds of fruits, by grafting into one fruit. For grafting is in plants the same that copulation is in living creatures. Yet I deny it not, but there are other means whereby this may be effected, as well as by grafting. But above all other, grafting is most praiseworthy, as being the best and ﬁttest means to incorporate one fruit into another, and so of many to make one, after a wonderful manner. (Della Porta 1658, p. 63)11 While the general analogy of grafting with copulation is clear, and the main objective of producing “new plants” is explicit, the logic and mechanism behind the results obtained are hardly addressed. In fact, Della Porta deals with theoretical questions rather casually and light-heartedly. He is not concerned with explanations of the workings of grafting, and even when he sets down some practical rules, he quickly forgets about them. In his first chapter on compound fruits (chapter III of book 3), which first introduces grafting as a technique, he specifically mentions

11. There is another similar passage on p. 58. These passages would conﬁrm Rebecca Bushnell’s comment that for Della Porta and his readers, grafting was a kind of “magical copulation” between different species of plants, and that they “did not seem to know or care to draw any line between the practical and the fantastical” (Bushnell 2003, p. 144).

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 10 Bacon and Della Porta

three rules that we must follow in grafting: the two trees to be grafted on each other should have the bark of the same nature and should furthermore display similar cycles of growth, budding and blossoming; the grafting should be carried out at the purest place of the stock; and the trees must be of a fruitful kind and both young (Della Porta 1658, pp. 63–4). But contrary to this, in his chapter on retardation of germination, he mentions grafting as the most important technique in making fruits or flowers develop late. After providing the examples of cherries, pears, and roses, he concludes: “To be short, all kinds of fruits may be made to grow later by this kind of engrafting” (Della Porta 1658, p. 80). Yet, when he tells us how to proceed with this type of grafting, he quickly contradicts himself: first he prescribes that “we must engraft forward fruits into later trees” (Della Porta 1658, p. 79). But when he presents his first experiment, it is in fact the later fruit which is engrafted into an early tree (an amarendula into a cherry), while one should, following his advice, have engrafted the cherry into the amarendula so as to obtain later fruits. Indeed, his examples of retardation by grafting contradict even his ﬁrst general rule, namely that the two trees, to be combined, should have the same period of blooming and bearing fruit. Overall, then, his explanations and rules are ad hoc. This contradiction is not as innocent as it may seem, because it reveals Della Porta’s lack of theoretical underpinnings. The contradictory statements about how to retard blooming and fruit-bearing shows that Della Porta has not settled the fundamental issue of whether the force of retardation lies in the stock, or instead in the scion. The sceptic, as well as the careful experimenter or the careful reader, might easily take his experimental reports as proving that, according to Della Porta’s own rules, grafting cannot possibly be responsible for either retardation or acceleration. Bacon was precisely such a careful reader. He must have noticed the contradictory rules and explanations with which Della Porta surrounded his grafting experiments, for in the last section dealing with techniques for delaying natural plant rhythms, he adds the following “warning” against a “common opinion”:

Men have entertained a conceit that sheweth prettily; namely, that if you graft a late-coming fruit upon a stock of a fruit-tree that cometh early, the graft will bear fruit early; as a peach upon a cherry; and contrariwise, if an early coming fruit upon a stock of a fruit-tree that cometh late, the graft will bear fruit late; as a cherry upon a peach. But these are but imaginations, and untrue. The cause is, for that the scion over-ruleth the stock quite, and the stock is but passive only, and giveth aliment, but no motion, to the graft. (SEH II, p. 480)

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 11

Bacon’s own suggestion is that the time when the tree is supposed to bear fruit is not transmitted to the scion. For this reason, grafting cannot be used either to speed up or slow down fruiting. Instead, grafting adjusts the way in which the scion takes from stock nourishment that has already been concocted. One of the desired consequences of these techniques is that the fruit will grow bigger than usual. In other words, and as I already hinted in the introduction, for Bacon grafting finds a correspondent process in animals, namely nourishment. In the same way in which a plant grows bigger, sweeter or faster as a consequence of grafting (because it does not need to process the nourishment and can directly assimilate it), certain types of food, which are already concocted, lead to a longer or healthier life in animals and humans. This is the reason why, though without agreeing with Della Porta’s theory or in some cases with his techniques, Bacon still uses some of his reports on grafting. This rejection of what was for Della Porta the most important technique to transform plants is repeated by Bacon a few times throughout the centuries on plants.12 This repetition reveals much about Bacon’sdesireto completely eliminate false theories from natural philosophy. But even while he downplays the effects of grafting, Bacon does establish some rules in order for this method to work. What is puzzling is that he uses Della Porta’s examples in order to illustrate these rules. Grafting is particularly meaningful as well as successful when an inferior stock is over-ruled by a young, fresh scion.13 In other words, Bacon uses Della Porta’s experimental reports, but assigns completely different causes to the success of the technique. In conclusion, Bacon accepts Della Porta’s reports whenever they seem consonant with his own theoretical framework, and otherwise either

12. See for example SEH II, pp. 492, 487, and the following footnote. 13. Experiment 467 states that “As grafting doth generally advance and meliorate fruits, above that which they would be if they were set of kernels or stones, in regard the nourishment is better concocted; so (no doubt) even in Grafting, for the same cause, the choice of the stock doth much; always provided that it be somewhat inferior to the scion; for otherwise it dulleth it. They command much the grafting of pears or apples upon a quince” (SEH II, p. 490). In this experiment, Bacon responds to two of Della Porta’s reports: one involves the scion of a musk pear, which makes the fruit bigger (Della Porta 1658, p. 82); the other an apple, the fruit of which becomes tastier (Della Porta 1658, p. 98). Della Porta’s reason for choosing the quince as the stock has nothing to do with this tree being “dull” in comparison with the other trees, but because of a particularly suitable quality, namely the bigness of the fruit (Della Porta 1658, p. 82). A similar example is the experiment 515 (SEH II, p. 505), where a citron grafted upon a quince will have few or no seeds at all. For Bacon the explanation resides in the fact that a sour fruit grafted on a sweet one makes the fruit sweeter and void of the harsh matter of the kernels or seeds. For Della Porta the result is due to the fact that the stalk is more watery and the scion makes the fruit watery as well, by a simple transfer of qualities (Della Porta 1658, p. 87).

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 12 Bacon and Della Porta

rejects or corrects them. This tells us that he does not accept or reject an author or a theory and its illustration in toto, but selects what can be used and criticizes what might prove dangerous for future philosophy.

3.2. Addition of Causal Explanations The only transformation discussed by Graham Rees in connection with Bacon’s use of Della Porta was the addition of causal explanations. He correctly observes that this is a very important feature of Sylva, as causes are present in the majority of experiments. However, according to Rees, Bacon used Della Porta’s experiments to illustrate his own matter theory (Rees 1990, p. 269). While this observation is valuable, since the causes are given in terms of matter theory, it both underestimates the degree of Bacon’s reworking of the experiments reported in the Magia naturalis and fails to call attention to the implications that this has for Bacon’s understanding of natural history and natural philosophy. In other words, if we agree with Rees’s interpretation, we should assume that Bacon selected those instances suitable to explanation by means of his own conceptions. An analysis will prove that such an interpretation is overstated. That Bacon’s causal explanations are not borrowed from Della Porta is obvious from the very small number of theoretical explanations in the Magia naturalis and from their superﬁcial level. Most of the time, the Neapolitan magus limits himself to the reporting of recipes and techniques. Put differently, Della Porta is far more interested in the production of astonishing effects than in obtaining theoretical knowledge, and prefers supplying additional examples to providing explanations.14 It is of course true that each of his chapters begins with a theoretical part containing a general explanatory framework. However, these introductions contain sometimes no more than simple descriptions or lists of the techniques or methods that will be presented in the ensuing pages. When he does attempt to invoke physical principles, these remain vague: he might gesture, for example, at the general importance of the quantity of moisture or at the effect of heat and cold, but he does not explain the inner phenomenon for which these features are essential.

14. I refer here to the experiments with plants; I do not wish to generalize. On Della Porta’s relation to theory in the field of magnetism see (Kodera 2014, p. 24): “He was far less interested in the theoretical framework that might explain the causes of magnetism: as any other causa occulta, it was by definition hidden and therefore must remain so.” Borrelli has exposed a different attitude towards theory in Della Porta’s writings, this time in the field of optics. She claims that the geometrical constructions are, for Della Porta, experimental tools that freed him from justifying his results on a more theoretical basis (Borrelli 2014).

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 13

When we turn to Sylva we find, by contrast, that almost every instance is followed by a causal explanation or one is given for all the instances of a group of experiments under the same heading. But Bacon does not only offer more explanations than Della Porta, he is also much more detailed and specific. Furthermore, his causes go much deeper in the knowledge of nature than Della Porta’s. We will see that these explanations range from simple indications about the effects of the quantity of moisture upon the growth of plants, to the activity of the pneumatic matter enclosed in the plant, and to the basic appetites and processes of matter.15 Here is a first example, taken from Bacon’s section on the melioration of fruits. It borrows examples from different chapters of the Magia naturalis, which must be explained by the fact that for Bacon, acceleration and melioration have the same cause, namely an increase in the quantity of sap in a plant – an increase that can be brought about by different means. This understanding of melioration and acceleration as related phenomena clearly explains why a number of experiments in this section are taken from Della Porta’s chapter on how to make fruits and flowers ripen before their due time, and why Bacon’s own section on acceleration does not borrow instances from the Magia naturalis. Let us compare the two texts, so as to see how Bacon adds causes which do not appear in the source he used:

Della Porta, Magia naturalis 3, Bacon, Sylva sylvarum, VIII, pp. 76–7: SEH II, pp. 485–6: Likewise if you would have 444. It is reported, that if you A vine to bring forth before her time, take nitre, and mingle it with you must take nitre, and pown it, water to the thickness of honey, and mix it with water, so that it and therewith anoint the bud after be made of the thickness of honey, the vine is cut, it will sprout forth and as soon as you have pruned within eight days. The cause is like the vine, lay good store of your to be, (if the experiment be true,) nitre upon the vine buds, and so the opening of the bud and of the shall your buds shoot forth within parts contiguous, by the spirit of eight days after (…).16 the nitre; for nitre is (as it were) the life of vegetables. Moreover, if you want to have 445. Take seed or kernels of apples, anything to bud forth very timely, pears, oranges; or a peach, or a Theophrastus says you may procure plum-stone, &c., and put them it by setting the same Into the into a squill, (which is like a great sea-onion: for if a ﬁg-tree be set onion,) and they will come up much but near it, it will cause the earlier than in the earth itself. This speedly ripening of ﬁgs. And to I conceive to be as a kind of grafting

15. On the role of matter theory in Sylva, see Giglioni 2010. 16. I have changed the English text, which translated the original “eight days” of the Latin text into “nine days.” See Magia naturalis, Latin edition from 1589, p. 112.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 14 Bacon and Della Porta

be brief, there is nothing set in in the root; for as the stock of a graft the sea-onion, but will more yieldeth better prepared nourishment easily and speedily shoot forth, to the graft than the crude earth, by reason of the strong inward so the squill doth the like to the seed. heat which that herb is endued And I suppose the same would withal. be done by putting kernels into a turnip or the like; save that the squill is more vigorous and hot. It may be tried also with putting onion-seed into an onion-head, which thereby (perhaps) will bring forth a larger and earlier onion. Our practice is this; when the 446. The pricking of a fruit in ﬁgs begin to wax ripe, we take several places, when it is almost at a wooden needle, and anoint his bigness, and before it ripeneth, it with oyle, and so thrust in hath been practised with success, through both ends of the ﬁgs; to ripen the fruit more suddenly. whereby in few days the fruit We see the example of the biting is ripened. of wasps or worms upon fruit, whereby it manifestly ripeneth the sooner. Pliny shews How to make coleworts branch 447. It is reported, that alga marina before their time; and this is by (sea-weed), put under the roots of laying good store of sea-grasse coleworts, and (perhaps) of other about it, held up with little plants, will further their growth. The props. virtue (no doubt) hath relation to salt, which is a great help to fertility.

Let us look at each of these ﬁve experiments separately and examine not only Bacon’s addition of causal explanations and their relation to his matter theory, but also their relation to other experiments in Sylva. We will see that such an analysis not only renders the explanations themselves clearer, but also helps us understand the non-arbitrary reasons for which Bacon selected the experiments from Della Porta that he did, while omitting others. In the ﬁrst example (experiment 444 from Sylva and its counterpart), Della Porta gives no explanation of the phenomenon whatsoever. Bacon, by contrast, explains what happens, and why it happens the way it does: the spirit of niter facilitates the opening of the buds, accelerating an otherwise natural process. This takes place because the niter is “(as it were) the life of vegetables.”17 Why niter possesses such a special property is not said

17. Niter was very well known as a fertilizer at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Della Porta and Bacon were by no means the only authors for whom niter represented an important substance in the process of germination and growth of plants. The entire

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 15

here, but only makes sense when related to several other experiments reported in Sylva and the Novum organum, where the virtues of niter are presented and explained. Experiments 30, 355, and 596 are, for example, all connected to this issue. In experiment 30, niter is defined as one of the few substances that contain both air and flame, together with the vital spirit of plants and animals (SEH II, pp. 351–52). In the other two experiments, spontaneous germination is described through the process in which the sun gathers the niter from the earth.18 This nitrous fattiness acts like the vital spirit contained in the seed and has the power of transforming watery substances from the earth into oily ones and to keep them together in order to create the body of the new plant. If we now return to experiment 444, which Bacon borrows from Della Porta, we will see that niter is here said to act in the way it does because it possesses this substance similar to the spirit of plants. Put on the buds, it supplements the quantity of spirit and increases its motion, thereby accelerating the natural process through which the flowers develop and the buds open. In the second experiment, 445, Bacon changes Della Porta’s original set-up and also the explanation, this being one of the experiments in which Della Porta offers a cause. As a comparison between the texts shows, Bacon invites the reader to put seeds or kernels of diverse fruit trees inside the sea-onion and predicts that these will sprout earlier than normal. In addition, his explanation for the effect is unlike Della Porta’s, who refers to the heat of the sea-onion (although Bacon, too, is ready to admit that it is a hot plant). According to Bacon, as in the sea-onion the juices are already concocted, the seeds will not need as much time to produce the plant as it takes when planted simply into earth. Bacon calls this action “grafting in the root,” because the only difference from common grafting is the part of the plant where the grafting is done.19 Grafting is, in this and similar

Paracelsian tradition was interested in niter, as can be seen in the work of Joseph Du Chesne, for whom niter was defined as a life-giving substance reaching the Earth as the consequence of a macrocosmic distillation, and was held to be responsible for both vivifi- cation and growth of vegetables and animals (see Debus 1964, pp. 51–4). 18. “The instances we have wherein crude and watery substance turneth into fat and oily, are of four kinds. First in the mixture of earth and water; which mingled by the help of the sun, gather a nitrous fatness, more than either of them have severally; as we see in that they put forth plants, which need both juices” (SS exp. 355; SEH II, pp. 459–60). The same idea is found in experiment 596, where Bacon discusses the diverse types of grounds and considers that simple earth is fertile in itself because it contains niter. He further explains how to improve this effect by preventing the niter from consuming itself in the formation of vegetables (SEH II, p. 525). 19. Della Porta also uses this kind of grafting. He reports that a gillyflower engrafted into a carrot changes its color and becomes red (Della Porta 1658, p. 94), or that if you engraft figs into the roots of hellebore or sea-lettuce, they will become purgatives (Della

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 16 Bacon and Della Porta

instances (as it became clear from the detailed analysis in the previous section), no longer a process of uniting two trees, but any process through which a plant is fed upon the already concocted juice of another plant. The following experiment, 446, which discusses the acceleration of maturation as a consequence of piercing the skin of fruits, offers an explanation that rests on an analogy between art and nature: given that in nature a fruit that is pricked by wasps ripens earlier, man should learn from this observation and also prick the fruits so as to quicken the process of ripening. This analogy, which represents one of the modes of experientia literata20 (translation from nature to art), justifies the use of a technique borrowed from Della Porta, while replacing Della Porta’s explanation.21 Now, it might be objected that Bacon’s analogy does not add up to an explanation, as it remains unclear why fruit should ripen more quickly when pricked by a wasp. The explanation is nevertheless given in century I, where pricking is given as an instance of percolation, while percolation is indicated as a cause for the sweetness of fruit (SEH II, p. 341). Indeed, Bacon considers the terebration of fruit and the pricking of trees to be the same process (see experiment 464), because they produce the same effect: the fruit will be sweeter or ripen earlier. Percolation is a kind of separation of different parts, of thick and the thin, gross and the fine, and so forth. The sweetness of taste follows, Bacon suggests, when “the finer parts are severed from the grosser” (SEH II, p. 341). When pricked, part of the spiritual matter will leave the fruit, having found a channel by which to escape, whereas the grosser matter, which is responsible for the sweetness, will remain inside after being concocted by the spirit passing through it in order to escape the body.

Porta 1658, p. 107). In both examples the scion will take the virtues of the roots into which they have been planted. Another example is found in his chapter on how to make fruits more tender and beautiful to the eye (chap. XIX), where Della Porta includes two experiments on monstrous generation. Both of them occur as a consequence of the qualities of the onions. The reason why these examples are not included in Sylva is precisely the fact that Bacon does not believe that plants can take the virtues from the roots into which they are set, as he is critical in this section of the idea of making plants in general change their qualities or acquire medicinal properties with the help of different substances (SEH II, pp. 498–500). 20. Experientia literata is Bacon’s art of experimenting, which teaches how to move from one experiment to another and represents an alternative to induction, the method of moving from experiences to middle axioms and from these to higher axioms. On Bacon’s concept of experientia literata, see Jardine 1990, Weeks 2008, and Giglioni 2013. 21. Although the experiment was borrowed from Della Porta, it was of course generally known that a fruit pricked by an insect (or by man) ripens more quickly and also starts to putrefy at the place where stung or pricked. The technique of pricking fruits was known in the tradition of husbandry that goes back to Varro and Columella.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 17

The fourth example in this sequence, experiment 447, concerns the use of seaweed for the acceleration of germination. As the textual comparison documents, Della Porta just reports the example, invoking Pliny’s authority, without giving any explanation for the effects this plant could have upon colewort. Once again, Bacon adds a causal explanation: seaweed grows in sea water and therefore must contain a great quantity of salt. In another experiment, we are told that salt increases the lust or the spirits of the root, so that plants will become bigger, as is shown in the example of colewort watered with salt water (experiments 457 and 460, SEH II, p. 488). And once again, we can look elsewhere in Sylva for fuller explanations. For example, in century I, Bacon speaks of the quick spirit of salt (experiments 2 and 73, SEH II, pp. 339–40, 371). Taken all together, his reasoning goes as follows: if the root possesses a quick spirit or if its spirits are agitated, it will require additional tangible matter to feed upon, and thus the root will have to draw more substance from the earth, which will eventually be transformed into the body of the plant. In fact, together with niter, salt is featured as a fertilizer throughout Sylva. In the section on composts and “helps of the ground,” salt is deﬁned as “the rudiment of life” (SEH II, p. 525).22 The same expression, “rudiment of life,” is also used in another experiment, where the seaweed is presented as participating in the nature of saltiness (SEH II, pp. 539–40). The sense in which salt must be considered a rudiment of life is even more clearly expressed in the “Preface” to the Historia sulphuris, mercurij et salis, where the deﬁnition of salt is very close to that of niter in Sylva: it is a mixture of sulphur and mercury “held together by an energetic spirit.”23 Bacon’s explanation for why salt helps plants to grow faster or improve their quality therefore resembles his treatment of niter: being a substance composed of the watery and the oily, it accelerates the process of nourishment in the plant. The provisional character of the causes offered in the natural histories is clearly stated by Bacon in the “Preface” to his Historia naturalis et experimentalis: “Iputforwardspeculationsand,asitwere, certain imperfect attempts at

22. For the entire section on the composts and helps for the ground, see exp. 595–600, SEH II, pp. 524–27. 23. “But if we want to take salt in its literal and not in its figurative sense, salt is not a third principle distinct from sulphur and mercury, but a mixture of those two held together by an energetic spirit. For all salt has inflammable parts, and other parts which not only do not conceive flame, but shrink and fly from it with all speed. Nevertheless since the inquiry into salt has a certain kinship with the other two things, and is in addition of great utility―given that salt combines the sulphurous and mercurial natures, and is a rudiment of life in itself―this too I have decided to bring into this history and inquiry” (OFB XII, pp. 137–9).

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 18 Bacon and Della Porta

the interpretation of causes; I do this sparingly, more to hint at what might be the case than to present it cut and dry” (OFB XII, p. 15). This addition of provisional causal explanations is, as we have seen, an essential feature of Sylva. In many cases, these causes are not understood by themselves; they must be read together with other causes or experiments. Looking only at individual instances, Sylva might appear superﬁcial at the level of theoretical considerations, but reading more carefully throughout this work, one can understand Bacon’s complex network of causal explanations, which leads us to believe that Bacon’s interest in these experiments was different from Della Porta’s.

3.3 Generalizations Having looked at Bacon’s addition of causal explanations, let us turn to another distinctive mark of his treatment of the experiments contained in the Magia naturalis, namely the way in which he tends to generalize from particular cases to classes of analogous cases. Often, he clusters a number of Della Porta’s experiments, which reduces his texts. By “generalization,” I don’t mean the requirement of “brevity” that Bacon makes in the Parasceve, or such techniques as paraphrasing or abbreviating.24 Rather, I mean Bacon’s attempt to discern the common features of a group of individual cases that display, under the same experimental treatment, the same effect. These common features are not connected to the external resemblance of plants, but to their inner characteristics. If we look at Della Porta’s Magia naturalis, we will ﬁnd that he mostly presents individual cases and techniques, after which he sometimes adds: “the same method can be used for another case.” While Della Porta often does not tell his reader why “the same method” might work for more than one plant, and which other plant he has in mind, Bacon creates groups of plants for which a certain method works, in accordance with the shared characteristics of plants. He furthermore seeks to establish limits beyond which a given method cannot be applied, once more offering theoretical explanations. Taken together, the picture that emerges is that of Bacon groping towards a general understanding of the inner processes of plant life, borrowing from Della Porta’s examples, which he uses as illustrations of more general rules.

24. Abbreviations were characteristic for note-taking in the Renaissance, according to AnnBlair,whoconsidersBacontobethefirst to have theorized on the efficiency of paraphrasing sources. For this view, she relies on Snow’s article “Francis Bacon’s Advice,” which is based on a letter she identifies as being in Bacon’s writing, though the sender could be the Earl of Essex (Blair 2003, pp. 19–22). For a discussion about the authorship of this letter see also Stewart 2012, pp. 200–3.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 19

Let us give some examples to illustrate this point. Both Bacon and Della Porta are intensely interested in the ways in which one kind of plant can be transformed into another―a transformation called “miracle” by Della Porta and magnalia naturae by Bacon, which for both authors, is something contrary to the normal course of nature. For Della Porta, one way to do this is by what is commonly called “degeneration”―the transformation of a superior plant into an inferior one. Now, when we compare Bacon’s “Exper- iments in consort touching the degeneration of plants and of the transmutation of them one into another” with Della Porta’ssecondchapter, “How plants are changed, one of them degenerating into the form of the other” (“Quomodo mutant plantae, ut ex una in alteram formam abeant”), we will ﬁnd that they have partially the same structure, use the same experiments and the same examples. I say “partially,” because Bacon makes a distinction between “degeneration” and “transmutation,” the latter being a complete transformation into another plant, which is transmitted to younger plants through seed, and only this is a magnalia naturae. As a consequence of his conceptual distinction, Bacon’s section has two parts, only the ﬁrst of which is taken from Della Porta:

Della Porta, Magia naturalis, Bacon, Sylva sylvarum, exp. 519, Book 3, II, p. 61 SEH II, p. 506 [To turn one thing into another] Whatsoever fruit useth to be set can be done by negligence, or upon a root or a slip, if it be by cunning handling and dressing sown will degenerate. Grapes them, that plants may forsake sown, figs, almonds, pomegranate their natural kind, and be quite kernels sown, make the fruits turned into another kind; wholly degenerate and become wild. And degenerating, both in taste, and again, most of those fruits that colour, and bigness, and fashion: use to be grafted, if they be set of and this I may easily be done, either kernels or stones, degenerate. It is if you neglect to dresse or handle true that peaches, (as has been them according to their kind, or touched before), do better upon else dresse them more carefully stones set than upon grafting; and artificially then their own kind and the rule of exception seem requires. Furthermore, every plant to be this: that whatsoever plant has his proper manner, and peculiar requireth much moisture, prospereth kind of sowing or planting, for better upon the stone or kernel, some must be sowed by seed, than upon the graft. For the others planted by the whole stem, stock, though it givetha finer others set by some root, others nourishment, yet it gives a grafted by some sprig or branch: scanter, than the earth at large. so that if that which should be sowed by seed, be planted by the root, or set by the whole stock, or grafted by some branch; or if any that should be thus planted be

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 20 Bacon and Della Porta

sowed by seed; that which comes up will be of a divers kind from that which grows usually, if it be planted according to its own nature, as Theophrastus writes. (…)

If you would change A white vine into a black, or a black into a white Sow a seed of a white garden vine, and that which cometh of it will be a black wilde-vine, and so the seed of a white garden vine will bring forth a white wilde-vine, as Theophrastus teaches. The reason is, because a vine is not sowed by seed, but the natural planting of it is by sprigs and roots. Wherefore, if you deal with it otherwise than the kind requires, that which comes of it must needs be unkindly. By the like means, A white fig-tree will degenerate into a black, For the stone of a fig if it be set, never brings forth any other but a wilde or a wood fig-tree, and such as most commonly is of a quite contrary colour; so that of a white fig-tree it degenerates into a black, and contrariwise a black fig-tree degenerates into a white. Sometimes also, of a right and noble vine is generated a bastard vine, and that so different in kind oftentimes, that is has nothing of the right garden-vine, but all merely wilde. In the like manner are changed The red myrtle and the red bay-tree into black, And cannot choose but lose their colour: for these likewise degenerate, as the same Theophrastus reports to have seen in Antandrus; for the myrtle is not sowed by seed, but planted by grafting; and the bay-tree is planted by setting a little sprig

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 21

thereof that has in some part of the root as we have showed in our discourse of husbandry. So also are Sweet almonds and sweet pomegranate changes into sowre ones, For the stones or kernels of the Pomegranate are changed from their right blue, into a baser colour, and the pomegranate itself, though it be never so good, degenerates into a hard, and commonly sharp fruit. The almonds degenerate likewise also in taste, and also in feeling, for of a soft one cometh a harder; therefore we are counselled to graft him when he is prettily well grown, or else to change him, and shift him oft.

As becomes evident from a comparison between these two passages, what in Della Porta takes up one full page, which starts with a rule and then proceeds to the individual examples with detailed descriptions, becomes in Bacon one short paragraph. In it, he simply presents the rule, namely that what is ordinarily planted by setting sprigs or roots, will degenerate if planted by seed. He then goes on to offer a few examples, all of which are taken from Della Porta, but which omit the myrtle and the bay-tree. While for Della Porta all these examples illustrate the effects of sowing kernels instead of planting sprigs or grafting, Bacon limits himself to the case of planting sprigs. This first example demonstrates that Bacon’s preoccupation is not with individual trees or the consequences of their degeneration – changes in color, taste, or shape – but the manner in which generation determines the figuration of plants. For him, grafting and setting slips are instances of generation without seed, because the result is a new individual, different from the graft or the slip, and that did not develop out of a seed. The changes obtained in a plant by setting a sprig or root, or by grafting are, as he tries to show, not handed down to the seed. Thus they do not affect the spirit of the plant that figures and determines its shape and characteristics. According to his theory, in the cases of grafting and setting a sprig, the plants have already generated, so that all further changes are brought about by the way in which they are nourished. However, the power of nourishment is not so forceful as to transmit the change performed on the given plant to its seeds, which would transmit them further to the new plants, and this is why, contrary to Della Porta, Bacon distinguishes

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 22 Bacon and Della Porta

between transmutation and degeneration, establishing them as two completely different processes. This first example also seems to show that Bacon was not only interested in the degeneration of plants, but also in establishing general rules concerning the way in which trees could be helped to multiply themselves. Although it is true that the majority of fruit trees develop better when grafted, grafting should nevertheless not be practiced blindly, but only after checking the qualities or characteristics of the tree. Experience shows a tree like the peach will grow better when planted, because the nourishment in the earth is more watery, while the nourishment offered by the tree upon which it is grafted is finer and more concocted, so that as a consequence the fruits will not be as watery as they should when grafted. In other words, by generalizing from Della Porta’s examples, Bacon establishes rules for the germination of plants, establishing at the same time exceptions from these rules, both rules and exceptions being justified by the characteristics of plants. The last example of a generalization I wish to discuss is an experiment mentioned towards the end of the section on retardation of germination (experiment 420). The majority of the examples in that section are once more borrowed from Della Porta. They all display the characteristics I have been at pains to emphasize, and add theory to mere experimental reports. At the beginning of this section, Bacon announces that the techniques he will present make roses and other flowers blossom late. But of the eight rules he offers, only three are about roses, while three others are about trees in general and the remaining two are about any kind of plant. Without having offered individual illustrations of these rules, he tells us at the end of the section: “these means may be practiced upon other, both trees and flowers, mutatis mutandis” (SEH II, p. 480). This statement can be explained by the fact that for Bacon, the cause of retardation lies always in the control of the sap in the plant and its redirection to new branches, flowers or fruits, which by ever similar means can be made to grow later than under natural conditions. Once the cause for such a delay has been identified in one given plant, the same means can be applied to any kind (provided the presence of structural similarities). This also explains why, in this case, Bacon does not define the limits of this particular technique. After all, the rules that determine the growth of plants are thought to be the same everywhere. It thus becomes clear that Della Porta and Bacon have different aims for their experiments. Della Porta is interested in the transformation of individual plants, while Bacon is interested in manipulating characteristics of plants. To be more precise, Della Porta has a basic knowledge of species and can change the individuals belonging to those species. Bacon,

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 23

by aiming at a more profound knowledge, transcends species: the same method is used to perform changes to all individuals, irrespective of the species they are part of, having a given characteristic. Exceptions are as important for Bacon because they function to set the limits of both technique and nature.

3.4. Selection and Reordering of the Instances The previous sections looked at comparisons between individual instances. In this last I would like to provide a comparison of the two approaches on plants. The way in which Bacon’s interest diverges from Della Porta’sis reflected both in the way in which Bacon modifies the individual instances themselves and in the way in which he re-orders the centuries on plants with respect to the corresponding book of the Magia naturalis. The structures of the two sections on plants in the Magia naturalis and in Sylva respectively are indeed quite different. The fact that the majority of the experimental examples are not even presented under the same titles is a clear indication that Della Porta and Bacon, even while studying the very same experiment, were interested in different processes and different aspects of the process. A telling example to illustrate this difference is an experiment in which garlic planted close to a rose augments the latter’s scent. While Della Porta includes this example in the section on “How fruits and flowers may be made to yield a better savour then ordinary,” for Bacon this furnishes an example of the sympathy and antipathy between plants (See Della Porta 1658, p. 97; Bacon, SEH II, p. 494). Such differences in the structure of Sylva compared to the Magia naturalis, together with Bacon’s sometimes complete transformation of individual instances, say something important about his specific interest in vegetative life and about his understanding of natural magic. The way in which Bacon restructured Della Porta’s sections on plants (after taking them on) is documented in Appendix 2, and need not be discussed in much additional detail. From this table, it becomes evident, however, how Bacon’s regrouping of different experiments under the same title testifies to his more theoretical interests. The table also documents that Bacon skipped some of Della Porta’s chapters, while at the same time inserting experiments “in consort” which have no counterpart in Della Porta. These are “Experiments in consort touching the acceleration of plants” and “Experiments in consort touching the procerity and lowness and artificial dwarfing of trees” in century V, and the last five sections in century VI, which address the seasons when plants spread, the period of life of trees and herbs, the figures of plants and their differences, and composts and improvements to earth. Some of these are either very theoretical (such as the section about composts) or based on personal observations (such as

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 24 Bacon and Della Porta

the section on the seasons of the year when plants grow), or more oriented towards further experimentation (such as the section about dwarfing of trees). It may seem odd that experiments about the acceleration of germination should be added to this list, given that Della Porta has a section with the same title. Bacon’s treatment of this topic is however very theoretical, more than other sections of the same century: here, he explains his techniques only in very general terms, especially regarding composts that help the earth. And even though similar substances are found in Della Porta (warm water, dung, ashes, wine, earthen vessels, digging), it is difficult to find a clear correspondence between the two chapters. Instead, some of Della Porta’s examples from this chapter have been placed in Bacon’s section about melioration. Sure enough, there are some other sections where the correspondence between the two texts is very close. This is the case, for example, for the sections on retardation, on compound fruits and flowers, on making plants medicinal, and on the degeneration of plants. In yet other cases, experiments taken from the same chapter of the Magia naturalis are distributed by Bacon among different sections. Those experiments taken from Della Porta in the three sections on rudiments and excrescences, on perfect plants without seeds, and on foreign plants are all from the same first chapter on “Plants generated of putrefaction.” But even when the correspondence is very close, not all the experiments in Sylva have the Magia naturalis as a source. There are two sections that attract our particular attention for the reason that they include instances from several of Della Porta’s chapters, namely those concerning the melioration of fruit and those dealing with curiosities. What Bacon calls melioration is composed of experiments found in Della Porta’s chapter on acceleration,25 on rendering fruits more tender and beautiful, sweeter, bigger, or with a better flavor (in chapters 8, 19, 17 and 11, respectively). As can be seen from the subjects Bacon takes from Della Porta and inserts into his own section, “melioration” implies a large range of effects, all of which have to do with the increase either of quantity (the number of fruit produced by a tree or making the fruit grow bigger) or of quality (taste, smell). In terms of matter theory, these effects are achieved by very similar means, namely by means of an increased quantity of nourishment or by manipulating the activity of the pneumatic

25. It is not obvious whether Bacon drew inspiration from Della Porta when he afﬁrmed that acceleration and melioration frequently rely on the same methods. Though he never states it as clearly as Bacon does, Della Porta uses the same experimental reports in the chapter on acceleration and other chapters, such as on rendering fruit more tender and beautiful, on producing fruits without kernels in almonds and chestnuts, or on making fruits tender.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 25

spirits of the plants in such a way that the tangible matter will behave in the desired way. The effects obtained by these techniques may be different either because the motion produced in the individual plant differs from that of another, or else because they are differently influenced by the existing qualities. The section on curiosities26 gathers experiments that Della Porta had mentioned in his chapters on producing fruits that are more tender and beautiful, fruits with figures or inscriptions, changing the color of fruits and flowers or bearing fruits without kernels (chapters 19, 18, 15, 2 and 12). I will offer here one single example that illustrates the way Bacon builds his matter theory on Della Porta’s experimental reports. I believe that his inquiry into matter theory in this part of Sylva exceeds in detail even his discussion of heat in the Novum organum, because Bacon here con- nects his analysis of simple natures27 with the theme of the quantity of moisture in bodies and the degree of concoction, which is the result of the motion of spirits. Nevertheless, in order to fully understand that Bacon and Della Porta have different interests in experimenting with plants, we must enter the domain of Bacon’s matter theory. Consequently, I must begin by mention- ing that the aim of Bacon’s operative science, as declared in the Novum organum, is to induce one or more simple natures on a given body (OFB XI, p. 201). And this is exactly what Bacon is interested in doing in some of the experiments on curiosities: to induce, upon flowers, the simple nature of a different color: It is good therefore to see what natures do accompany what colours; for by that you shall have light how to induce colours, by producing those natures. Whites are more inodorate (for the most part) than

26. Interestingly enough, curiosities, according to Bacon, should not be a theme of natural histories. Aware of this tension between his theoretical works, such as the De augmentis,where he condemns natural histories that are nothing but collections of “curiosities,” (SEH IV, pp. 295–6 and I, pp. 497–8) Bacon justifies the presence of this category in Sylva in the introduction to this section by conceding that “we must apply ourselves somewhat to others” (SEH II, p. 501). On Bacon’s use and reform of wonders, see Daston and Park 1998, pp. 220– 31. The impression Bacon wishes to convey is that he uses the label “curiosities” only to attract readers, by making them “curious,” while in reality he engages them in a discussion on simple natures and their reciprocal relations. Bacon does not present them as simple “curiosities,” but as phenomena that can be created with the help of art and which are only considered “curiosities” because of a lack of understanding of natural and artificial phenomena. 27. Simple natures, or schematisms of matter, are for Bacon the qualities of the bodies. As we will see in more detail in the following section, the aim of Bacon’s philosophy is to discover the material, efficient, and formal cause of these simple natures. For the list and definitions of simple natures see Abecedarium novum naturae (OFB XIII, pp. 174–91).

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 26 Bacon and Della Porta

flowers of the same kind coloured; as is found in single white violets, white roses, white frilly-flowers, white stock-gilly-flowers, &c. We find also that blossoms of trees, that are white, are commonly inodorate; as cherries, pears, plums; whereas those of apples, crabs, almonds, and peaches, are blushy, and smell sweet. The cause is, for that the substance that maketh the flower is of the thinnest and finest of the plant; which also maketh flowers to be of so dainty colours. And if it be too sparing and thin, it attaineth no strength of odour; except it be in such plants as are very succulent; whereby they need rather to be scanted in their nourishment than replenished, to have them sweet. As we see in white satyrion, which is of a dainty smell; and in bean-flowers, &c. And again, if the plant be of nature to put forth white flowers only, and those not thin or dry, they are commonly of rank and fulsome smell; as may-flowers, and white lilies. (SEH II, p. 503) The discussion continues in the same manner for several experiments. What Bacon is seeking here are the relations between color and fragrance in flowers, and between color and taste in fruits and berries, in other words, relations between simple natures. His explanations refer of course to the motions of matter responsible for these simple natures and to the degree of concoction of the tangible matter, since they are, according to Bacon’s theory, responsible for taste and smell, concoction making fruits and flowers sweeter. When I claim that this discussion goes further than anything he says about the form of simple natures in the Novum organum, this is, first, because he here attributes to tangible matter the paramount causal role, and second, because he specifies the relation between the motions of pneu- matics and the degree of concoction, likening them to the two quaternia of things, that is, Sulphur and Mercury, which are, according to Bacon, the most profound simple natures.28 We do not need to recapitulate Bacon’s entire account of the relation between color, smell, and taste here. Suffice it to say that his entire presentation of colors is given in terms of tangible matter worked upon by pneumatic matter. Let us summarize this important point. In the examples just examined, we find Bacon using some of Della Porta’s experiments on changing the color of flowers as his starting point. But his interest is not in these changes themselves and, very import, these are not what could have been called a “curiosity.” His purpose is to

28. For the deﬁnitions of Sulphur and Mercury as simple natures, see OFB XIII, pp. 188–91 and the introduction to the Historia Sulphuris, Mercurij et Salis, OFB XII, pp. 136–9. On Bacon’s quaternia and the Paracelsian inﬂuences, see Rees 1975a; 1975b; 2006.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 27

establish the effects of the motion of the spirits in the process of growth upon the color, scent and taste of flowers, berries and fruits. Given that all of these vegetable parts come about as a result of the same motion, Bacon considers that they can be manipulated in the same manner once the form of any of them has been discovered. The difference in their forms (formal cause of a simple nature) consists not in the motions of their spirits (which are identical), but in the schematisms of the bodies and in the influence of the outside, also influencing these motions. These examples are more telling than the previous on the addition of causal explanations; with the same experimental reports, Della Porta wishes to produce astonishing effects to impress the public who does not understand the workings of nature, while Bacon wishes to make the connection between the sensible qualities of bodies and the manifest characteristics and inner processes of matter.

4. Conclusion: Different Interests in Experimenting with Plants Bacon’s pyramid of knowledge has at its base the natural histories on which physics and mechanics are built, while at the top one finds metaphysics and magic. Physics and mechanics deal with material and efficient causes of simple natures (such as dense and rare, heat and cold, etc.), while metaphysics and magic with formal causes (SEH IV, p. 346). In other words, the first pair of sciences is bound to individual bodies, explaining their transformations through material and efficient causes and imitating nature in performing similar changes (or transferring them to similar subjects). The second pair aims at more abstract and general knowledge. Simple natures are known by their forms, each of which is common to all bodies in which that simple nature is present. This means that magic can perform changes which go beyond the simple imitation of nature in two respects: first, by revealing the effects of a certain process upon a class of subjects it becomes possible to transfer to another class, and second, it is able to create things did not exist in nature before.29 However, in order to do this, the magician must have a deep knowledge of nature.30 The difference between the two pairs of sciences reflects exactly the difference between Della Porta’sandBacon’s approaches to the study of

29. On new objects in Bacon’s philosophy and their relation with other artiﬁcial objects in general, see Weeks 2007, pp. 73–85. 30. Though it is interesting that Della Porta’s and Bacon’s approaches to magic are very similar. For both of them natural magic should be the manipulation of nature based on the knowledge of the same. Moreover, both authors consider that the term has to be cleansed of superstitions and witchcraft, and refer to the Persian Magi as the model to be followed (see Della Porta 1658, pp. 1–25, esp. 1–6; Bacon SEH IV, pp. 366–8). It is nevertheless clear that Bacon goes much further in deﬁning magic because of its association with the operative side of metaphysics, the science of forms. It is true Della Porta talks about forms in his

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 28 Bacon and Della Porta

plants. Though it is true that some of Della Porta’s experiments also go beyond the mere imitation of nature, they are nevertheless bound to the transformation of individual bodies. When causes are assigned to processes, they remain, from Bacon’s perspective, at the level of material and efficient causes – the identification of a certain substance or technique which modifies nature, but without an explanation of why this happens. Bacon goes a step further and creates a science of magic on the basis of Della Porta’s reports. All the transformations previously discussed represent arguments in favor of this thesis. In the first section I discussed theoretical and methodological criticisms, in order to show that Bacon did not have an indiscriminate reading of sources. When experiments or theories are wrong and they affect science, he presents them as such in order to cleanse natural philosophy of its errors. The remaining three types of changes made to Della Porta’s experiments have to do with Bacon’s transformation of Della Porta’s science into a superior one. Bacon is not primarily interested in the transformation of individual plants in search of profit or curiosity. Because they represent the material upon which matter theory can be studied, Bacon is bound to manipulating individual plants. But he aims at a deeper knowledge of processes taking place in the given plant. The provisional causal explanations he adds do not remain at the level of exposing the material and efficient causes. These are in a way implicit, in the sense that he trusts Della Porta’s testimony on the efficacy of one technique or another. By contrast, Bacon’s explanations go further and touch upon the activity of the pneumatic matter responsible for all the visible changes in nature and, more importantly, common to all bodies.31 The same interest results from what I have called “generalization”; Bacon is interested in the behavior of groups of plants sharing the same features in terms of matter theory, transcending their classification by species. This classification is very important, because it goes further than the external similarities between plants and explains processes using what he considers to be the hidden activity of matter. This supposes a profound knowledge of the subjects of the investigation. Finally, Bacon selects and reorders Della Porta’s reports to accommodate them to his purpose: the study of the relation between simple natures or of the hidden motions of matter. Though provisional, the type of knowledge resulting from reading

ﬁrst chapter of the book, but as I have shown in several of my examples, his speculative system is never joined with operative science. This is also why for Bacon, Della Porta, though claiming to do magic, is doing only mechanics. On Della Porta’s concept of magic see Kodera 2010, pp. 251–70; Saito 2011, pp. 21–71; on Bacon’sdeﬁnition of natural magic, see Weeks 2007, esp. 247–57. 31. See footnote 2.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 29

and processing Della Porta’s book on plants is part of Bacon’s metaphysical program, which aims at the knowledge of forms of simple natures. This is why operations upon plants are part of natural magic—they are based on a profound knowledge of the processes of matter. There is one last significant remark to be made. Bacon’s metaphysics, upon which magic should be based, is defined as the knowledge of forms. Neither the experiments on plants, nor the other experiments in Sylva reveal a profound knowledge of forms. However, the shift from physics and mechanics to metaphysics and magic is done gradually, knowledge of nature becoming more and more abstract, until attaining the discovery of forms. Though an objection lingers that the experiments on plants are not experiments in metaphysics and magic in a strong sense (as yielding complete knowledge of forms), it is clear that they are superior to the type of knowledge proper to the first pair of sciences, physics and mechanics. Moreover, in Bacon’s system of philosophy, in which the mind can never be cleaned of idols, it is not evident whether there can be a complete and definite metaphysics in the strong sense. In this case, provisional metaphysics and experiments in magic based on it represent all humans can achieve, and there is no doubt that in this sense Bacon used Della Porta’s reports to build his provisional metaphysics and to transform natural bodies using imperfect natural magic.

References Anstey, Peter. 2012. “Francis Bacon and the Classiﬁcation of Natural History.” Early Science and Medicine 17:11–31. Bacon, Francis. 1985. The Oxford Francis Bacon (OFB). Edited by Graham Rees. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bacon, Francis. 1857–1874. The Works of Francis Bacon (SEH). Edited by James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis, and Douglas Denon Heath, 14 vols. London: Longmans and Co. Balbiani, Laura. 1999. La Magia Naturalis di Giovan Battista Della Porta. Lingua, cultura e scienza in Europa all’inziio dell’età moderna. Bern: Peter Lang. Blair, Ann. 2003. “Strategies for Coping with Information Overload ca. 1500– 1700.” Journal for the History of Ideas 64:11–28. Blair, Ann. 2010. Too Much to Know. Managing Scholarly Information before the Modern Age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Borrelli, Arianna. 2014. “Thinking with Optical Objects: Glass Spheres, Lenses and Refraction in Giovan Battista Della Porta’s Optical Writings.” Journal of Early Modern Studies 3: 39–61. Bushnell, Rebecca. 2003. Green Desire: Imagining Early Modern English Gardens. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 30 Bacon and Della Porta

Daston, Lorraine, and Katharine Park. 1998. Wonders and the Order of Nature 1150–750. New York: Zone Books. Debus, Alan. 1964. “The Paracelsian Aerial Nitre,” Isis 55: 43–61. Della Porta, Giovan Battista. 1658. Magia naturalis. London (Latin edition 1581, Frankfurt). Ellis, Robert Leslie. 1859. “Praface to Sylva sylvarum.” Pp. 325–32 in The Works of Francis Bacon II (SEH). Edited by James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis, and Douglas Denon Heath, 14 vols. London: Longmans and Co. Fattori, Marta. 2002. “Experientia-experimentum: un cofronto tra il corpus latino e inglese di Francis Bacon.” Pp. 234–258 in Experienza.Editedby Marco Veneziani. Firenze: Olschki. Findlen, Paula. 1997. “Francis Bacon and the Reform of Natural Histories in the Seventeenth Century.” Pp. 239–260 in History and the Disciplines. The Classiﬁcation of Knowledge in early Modern Europe.EditedbyDonaldR. Kelley. New York: University of Rochester Press. Giglioni, Guido. 2010. Mastering the Appetites of Matter: Francis Bacon’s Sylva Sylvarum.Pp.149–167 in TheBodyasObjectandInstrumentof Knowledge: Embodied Empiricism in Early Modern Science. Edited by Charles T. Wolfe and Ofer Gal. Dordrecht: Springer. Giglioni, Guido. 2012. “Historia and Materia: The Philosophical Implica- tions of Francis Bacon’s Natural History.” Early Science and Medicine 17: 62–86. Giglioni, Guido. 2013. “Learning to Read Nature: Francis Bacon’sNotionof Experiential Literacy (Experientia Literata).” Early Science and Medicine 18: 405–434. Henderson, Paula. 1992. “Sir Francis Bacon’s Water Gardens at Gorhambury.” Garden History 20:116–131. Henderson, Paula. 2008. “Sir Francis Bacon’s Essay ‘Of Gardens’ in Context.” Garden History 36: 59–84. Jalobeanu, Dana. 2010. “The Philosophy of Francis Bacon’s Natural History: A Research Program.” Studii de Ştiinţă şi cultură 23: 18–37. Jalobeanu, Dana. 2012. “Francis Bacon’s Natural History and the Senecan Natural Histories of Early Modern Europe.” Early Science and Medicine 17: 197–229. Jalobeanu, Dana. 2013. “Learning from experiment: classiﬁcation, concept formation and modelling in Francis Bacon’s experimental philosophy”. Revue Roumaine de Philosophie 57: 75–93. Jalobeanu, Dana. 2016. “Bacon’s Apple. A Case Study in Baconian Experimentation.” Pp. 83–113 in Motion and Power in Francis Bacon’s Philosophy. Edited by Guido Gigliony and James A. T. Lancaster with Sorana Corneanu and Dana Jalobeanu. Dordrecht: Springer.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 31

Jardine, Lisa. 1990. “Experientia literata or Novum Organum? The Dilemma of Bacon’s Scientific Method.” Pp. 47–67. In Francis Bacon’s Legacy of Texts edited by William A. Sessions. New York: AMS Press. Kodera, Sergius. 2010. Disreputable Bodies: Magic, Medicine, and Gender in Renaissance Natural Philosphy. Toronto: Center for Reformation and Renaissance Studies. Kodera, Sergius. 2014. “The Laboratory as Stage: Giovan Battista Della Porta’s Experiments.” Journal of Early Modern Studies 3: 15–38. Manzo, Silvia. 2001. “Experimentación, instrumentos científicos y cuantificación en el método de Francis Bacon,” Manuscrito 24: 49–84. Manzo, Silvia. 2009. “Probability, Certainty, and Facts in Francis Bacon’s Natural Histories. A Double Attitude towards Skepticism.” Pp. 123–38 in Skepticism in the Modern Age: Building on the Work of Richard Popkin edited by Neto Maia, R. José, Gianni Paganini and John C. Laursen. Leiden: Brill. Muraro, Luisa. 1978. Giambattista Della Porta mago e scienziato.Milano: Feltrinelli. Pastorino, Cesare. 2011. “Weighing Experience: Experimental Histories and Francis Bacon’s Quantitative Program.” Early Science and Medicine 16: 542–70. Pesic, Peter. 1999. “Wrestling with Proteus. Francis Bacon and the ‘Torture’ of Nature.” Isis 90: 81–94. Pesic, Peter. 2008. “Proteus Rebound. Reconsidering the ‘Torture of Nature’,” Isis 99: 204–317. Piccari, Paolo. 2007. Giovan Battista Della Porta. Il filosofo, il retore, lo scienziato. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Rees, Graham. 1975a. “Francis Bacon’s Semi-Paracelsian Cosmology,” Ambix 22: 81–101. Rees, Graham. 1975b. “Francis Bacon’s Semi-Paracelsian Cosmology and the Great Instauration,” Ambix 22: 163–73. Rees, Graham. 1990. “Bacon’s Sylva Sylvarum: Prelude to Remarks on the Influence of the Magia naturalis.” Pp. 261–72 in Giovan Battista della Porta nell’Europa del suo tempo. Edited by Maurizio Torrini. Naples: Guida. Rees, Graham. 2000. Introduction. Pp. xix–xcvi in The Oxford Francis Bacon (OFB). Edited by Graham Rees and Brian Vickers. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rusu, Doina-Cristina. 2012. “Francis Bacon: Constructing Natural Histories of the Invisible.” Early Science and Medicine 17: 112–33. Rusu, Doina-Cristina. 2014. “Abolishing the Borders between Natural History and Natural Magic. Francis Bacon’s Sylva sylvarum and the Historia vitae et mortis.” Society and Politics 8: 23–42.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 32 Bacon and Della Porta

Saito, Fumikazu. 2011. O telescópio na magia natural de Giambattista della Porta. São Paolo: Editora PUC-SP. Serjeantson, Richard. 1999. “Testimony and Proof in Early-Modern England.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 30: 195–236. Snider, Alvin. 1994. Origin and Authority in Seventeenth-Century England: Bacon, Milton, Butler. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Stewart, Alan. 2012. Introduction. Pp. 199–206 in Oxford Francis Bacon I. Edited by Alan Stuard. Oxford: Clarendon Press Torrini, Maurizio. 1990. (ed) Giovan Battista della Porta nell’Europa del suo tempo. Naples: Guida. Weeks, Sophie. 2007. Francis Bacon’s Science of Magic. PhD dissertation, University of Leeds. Weeks, Sophie. 2008. “Mechanics in Bacon’s Great Instauration.” Pp. 133–96 (vol I) in Philosophies of Technology: Francis Bacon and His Contemporaries. Edited by Claus Zittel, Gisela Engel, Romano Nanni and Nicole C. Karafyllis. Leiden: Brill.

Appendix a. Table of Borrowings from Giambattista Della Porta’s Magia Naturalis in Sylva sylavrum, centuries V and VI

Francis Bacon, Giambattista Della Porta, Giambattista Della Porta, Sylva sylvarum Magia naturalis (1589) The Natural Magick (1658)

421(480) 3, X, 127–28* 79–80 422 (481) 3, X , 136 84–85 444 (485) 3, VIII, 123* 76 445 (485) 3, VIII, 123* 76 446 (486) 3, VIII, 125* 77 447 (486) 3, VIII, 123* 76 448 (486) 3, VIII, 124* 77 449 (486) 3, XI, 132 82 451 (486–87) 3, VIII, 123* (also XIX) 76 455 (488) 3, XIX, 161* 103–104 456 (488) 3, XIX, 161* 104

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 a. (Continued )

Francis Bacon, Giambattista Della Porta, Giambattista Della Porta, Sylva sylvarum Magia naturalis (1589) The Natural Magick (1658)

457 (488) 3, XIX, 161–62* 104 458 (488) 3, XIX, 162* 104 459 (488) 3, XIX, 162* 104 460 (488) 3, XIX, 162–63* 105 (76;100) (also VIII, 123 and XVII, 157) 461 (488) 3, XIX, 163* (also XVII, 157) 105 (99) 462 (488–89) 3, XIX, 164* 106 463 (489) 3, XVII, 156* 98 464 (489) 3, XVII, 156* 98 465 (489) 3, XVII, 156* 99 466 (489–90) 3, XVII, 157* 101–2 467 (490) 3, XVII, 153* (also XI) 98 (81–82) 468 (490) 3, XI, 133* 83 469 (490) 3, XI, 134* 83 470 (490) 3, XI, 134* 83–84 474 (491) 3, XI, 136 83 intro to 477 (492) 3, Proemium, 97–99 58 477 (492–93) 3, IV, 109–10* 66–7 478 (493) 3, V, 113* 69 479 (493) 3, V, 113–14* 69 480 (494) I, VII, 14 9 481 (494) 3, XVI, 152* 97 499 (498–99) 13, XX, 65–67 106–8 500 3, XX, 165–67* 106–8 501 (501) 3, XIX, 164–65* 106 502 (501) 3, XVIII, 158–60* 101–103 503 (502) 3, XVIII, 160* 103 504 (502) 3, XVIII, 160–1* 103 506 (502–03) 3, XV, 148–50* (also II, 104) 94–95 (62–3) 513 (505) 3, X,

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 a. (Continued )

Francis Bacon, Giambattista Della Porta, Giambattista Della Porta, Sylva sylvarum Magia naturalis (1589) The Natural Magick (1658)

514 (505) 3, XII, 139–40* 87–88 515 (505) 3, XII, 139* 87 516 (505–06) 3, XII, 138–39* 86–7 517 (506) 3, XII, 142* 89 518 (506) 3, II, 102–5* 61–63 519 (506) 3, II, 102–3* 61–62 520 (506) 3, II, 103* 62 521 (506–07) 3, II, 104* 62 522 (507) 3, II, 105* 63 524 (507) 3, II, 103–4* 62–3 525 (507) 3, II, 103–4* 62–3 547 (512) 3, I, 100* 60 548 (513) 3, I, 100* 60 549 (513) 3, I, 101* 60 550 (513) 3, I, 101* 60 551 (513) 3, I, 100 60 563 (516) 3, I, 100* 59 564 (516) 3, I, 100* 59 566 (516–17) 3, I, 100* 59 574 (518) 3, I, 99* 59

The experiments with * are those identiﬁed by Robert Leslie Ellis.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00233 by guest on 24 September 2021

b. Scheme of Bacon’s borrowing from Della Porta’s Magia naturalis in Sylva sylvarum, centuries V and VI