." Among
other writers, Leibnitz and Huygens give testimony which is the more
valuable as being critical. Leibnitz speaks of Bacon as "divini ingenii
vir," and, like several other German authors, classes him with Campanella;
Huygens refers to his "bonnes methodes." If, however, we are to attach
weight to English writers of the latter half of the 17th century, we shall
find that one of Bacon's greatest achievements was the impetus given by his
_New Atlantis_ to the foundation of the Royal Society (_q.v._). Dr Thomas
Sprat (1635-1713), bishop of Rochester and first historian of the society,
says that Bacon of all others "had the true imagination of the whole
extent" of the enterprise, and that in his works are to be found the best
arguments for the experimental method of natural philosophy (_Hist. of the
Royal Society_, pp. 35-36, and Thomas Tenison's _Baconiana_, pp. 264-266).
In this connexion reference should be made also to Cowley's _Ode to the
Royal Society_, and to Dr John Wallis's remarks in Hearne's _Preface to P.
Langtoft's Chronicle_ (appendix, num. xi.). Joseph Glanvill, in his
_Scepsis Scientifica_ (dedication) says, "Solomon's house in the _New
Atlantis_ was a prophetic scheme of the Royal Society"; and Henry Oldenburg
(_c._ 1615-1677), one of the first secretaries of the society, speaks of
the new eagerness to obtain scientific data as "a work begun by the single
care and conduct of the excellent Lord Verulam." Boyle, in whose works
there are frequent eulogistic references to Bacon, regarded himself as a
disciple and was indeed known as a second Bacon. The predominating
influence of Bacon's philosophy is thus clearly established in the
generation which succeeded his own. There is abundant evidence to show that
in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge (especially the latter) the new
spirit had already modified the old curricula. Bacon has frequently been
disparaged on the ground that his name is not mentioned by Sir Isaac
Newton. It can be shown, however, that Newton was not ignorant of Bacon's
works, and Dr Fowler explains his silence with regard to them on three
grounds: (1) that Bacon's reputation was so well established that any
definite mention was unnecessary, (2) that it was not customary at the time
to acknowledge indebtedness to contemporary and recent writers, and (3)
that Newton's genius was so strongly mathematical (whereas Bacon's great
weakness was in mathematics) that he had no special reason t