HISTORY is either Natural or Civil. Natural history relates the deeds and actions of nature; civil history those of men. Matter of Divinity shows itself no doubt in both, but more in civil; so much so indeed as to constitute a distinct species in history, which we call Sacred or Ecclesiastical. This therefore I attribute to Civil; but first I will speak of Natural. Natural history does not treat of particular objects separately. Not that I was wrong in saying that history deals with individuals, circumscribed by place and time. For properly it is so. But since there is in natural objects a promiscuous resemblance one to another, insomuch that if you know one you know all, it would be a superfluous and endless labour to speak of them severally. And therefore we see that where there is no such promiscuous resemblance, natural history does take in individuals; such I mean of which there is not a body, or nation as it may be called. For of the sun, moon, earth, and the like, which are unique in their species, it is very right that separate histories should be written; nor less of such things as notably deviate from their species, and are prodigies; since in their case a description and knowledge of the species itself is neither sufficient nor competent. These two kinds of individuals therefore natural history does not reject; but for the most part (as has been said) it is concerned with species. But I will make the division of natural history according to the force and condition of nature itself; which is found in three states, and subject as it were to three kinds of regimen. For nature is either free, and allowed to go her own way and develop herself in her ordinary course; that is when she works by herself, without being any way obstructed or wrought upon; as in the heavens, in animals, in plants, and in the whole array of nature ;-or again she is forced and driven quite out of her course by the perversities and insubordination of wayward and rebellious matter, and by the violence of impediments; as in monsters and heteroclites of nature ;- or lastly, she is constrained, moulded, translated, and made as it were new by art and the hand of man; as in things artificial. For in things artificial nature seems as it were made, whereby a new array of bodies presents itself, and a kind of second world. Natural history therefore treats either of the libel'ty of nature or her errors or her bonds. And if anyone dislike that arts should be called the bonds of nature, thinking they should rather be counted as her deliverers and champions, because in some cases they enable her to fulfil her own intention by reducing obstacles to order; for my part I do not care about these refinements and elegancies of speech; all I mean is, that nature, like Proteus, is forced by art to do that which without art would not be done; call it which you will,- force and bonds, or help and perfection. I will therefore divide natural history into history of generations, history of preter-generations, and history of arts; which I also call mechanical and experimental history. And I am the rather induced to set down the history of arts as a species of natural history, because it is the fashion to talk as if art were something different from nature, so that things artificial should be separated from things natural, as differing totally in kind; whence it comes that most writers of natural history think it enough to make a history of animals or plants or minerals, without mentioning the experiments of mechanical arts (which are far the most important for philosophy) ; and not only that, but another and more subtle error finds its way into men's minds; that of looking upon art merely as a kind of supplement to nature; which has power enough to finish what nature has begun or correct her when