abstract:This paper critically examines Stephen Gaukroger's claim that "The list of prerogative or privileged instances [in Bacon's Novum Organum II] … serve very much the function of the topics, as conceived by Aristotle … and by his Renaissance followers as rhetorical guide." Gaukroger's comparison of the prerogatives with the topics provides a basis for an inclusive account of the twenty-seven prerogative instances, including those clearly intended by Bacon as preparatory devices for retraining the mind. Reading the prerogatives backwards in light of the topics, rather than forwards in light of subsequent scientific practices, also allows us to see how different the prerogative instances are, as a "post-topical" discipline of observation of natural phenomena, from their rhetorical forbearers, allowing us to measure accurately the extent of Bacon's innovation in the theorization of discovery.

中文翻译：

---

主题转换：重新构建培根特权实例

摘要：这篇论文批判性地考察了斯蒂芬·高克罗格 (Stephen Gaukroger) 的说法，即“特权或特权实例的清单 [在培根的《新器官II》中]……在很大程度上起到了主题的作用，正如亚里士多德……以及他的文艺复兴时期的追随者所设想的修辞指南。” Gaukroger 对特权与主题的比较为包含 27 个特权实例的包容性说明提供了基础，包括培根明确打算作为重新训练思想的准备工具的那些实例。根据主题向后阅读特权，而不是根据随后的科学实践向前阅读，也使我们能够看到特权实例作为观察自然现象的“后主题”学科与其修辞先行者有何不同,