User talk:Arion 3x3: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:52, 14 October 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Arion 3x3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hi Aburesz, I will be mediating the dispute on Ascended master at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Ascended_master. Please indicate on that page whether you are interested in mediation. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting your concerns on my talk page. Are you interested in mediation regarding these issues and any other issues mentioned on Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Ascended_master? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, As mediation requires the agreement of all parties involved. If you do not agree to mediation the case will be rejected. Please respond by Friday to avoid rejection of the case. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have agreed to Mediation, and welcome this opportunity to restore a neutral, academic and informative atmosphere to the article page on the topic of "Ascended Masters" - which is NOT unique to any one person or religious organization. Aburesz 16:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. If you go back in the history to the original Ascended Master article from eight or nine months ago, it also included for example the Eight immortals of Daoism. Theosophy is only one of many religious traditions that believes in this concept.Keraunos 09:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hi, I have sent you and the other members involved in the dispute at Ascended master an email using Special:Emailuser/Aburesz. Once everyone has responded mediation will begin by email. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retreats

What exactly is a "retreat"? According to the Church Universal and Triumphant it is possible to go there when you sleep, so apparently it is on the etheric plane or astral plane. I assume you are saying that it is not a whole "etheric city" but simply a small ashram on the etheric plane where people are said to go at night, would that be correct? Keraunos 09:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Bacon

I admire you for keeping your nerve there even when being outnumbered and insulted; however, the point is surely to argue only for a proportionate representation of the matter rather than to challenge the work of writers on the subject. There surely is a case to be made that Bacon might have been a homosexual, but it needs to be made dispassionately and without overemphasis if the article is not to sound amateurish. I would favour a formulation of the following sort, which I found in Zagorin: "Although the question of Bacon’s sexual identity will probably always remain a puzzle, the likelihood that he may have been a homosexual is undeniable". Good historical scholars will speculate but always acknowledge the limits of that speculation: what is lacking in the article for me (apart from proportion) is the hedging language with which I'm familiar from scholarship (might, probably, likely, perhaps, on the other hand, can be interpreted, etc.). qp10qp 22:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that for you to argue against what writers have written is original research. As with women's studies, there are scholars of gay history who have reinterpreted history according to a non-traditional agenda, determined to unlock secret history, codes, etc. Much of this work may strike one as tendentious; but as long as these writers are in print and we are not, then their theories are validly referenceable on Wikipedia. However, the article is very unsatisfactory at the moment because those who would use material from such books have gone about it in the wrong way. They should quote the scholars rather than the primary sources (which in themselves prove nothing); if they did so with integrity, they would find that, as in the quotation from Zagorin above, claims that Bacon was homosexual are always circumscribed. Even scholars who conclude that Bacon was homosexual will note, for example, that d'Ewes, being Bacon's enemy, is an unreliable source, that other possible sources were written later on the basis of gossip or in a political atmosphere that reviled anyone associated with the Stuarts; they will also place his mother's letter in context. None of this balancing comment is reflected in the article.qp10qp 23:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I just wish I had as an extensive Francis Bacon library as you apparently do. I am proud of what I do have, though, especially the books by Batchelor, Pott, Dodd and Dawkins. Artemis1102 04:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching the discussion on Talk:Francis_Bacon for some time. Although I am not in any way competent to participate in it, I felt that I must compliment you on your unfailing courtesy and objectivity in the face of what, I have to say, can only be regarded as a virulent personal attack. Personally I would not have had your forbearance - well done. --Stephen Burnett 09:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick response to one of your approaches to Bacon...I'm not all-too-qualified in this area, and this will sound rather vague, but I'm not sure if this might be a reason for discussing Bacon's sexuality. It is sometimes claimed that Bacon regarded scientific pursuit as a mode of male exploration of a female body. Some have argued, as a minor point of interest, that this is a theme throughout colonialism and the scientific enlightenment. Anyway, the point is: the claim that Bacon's mode of thinking of scientific discovery is gendered and sexualised may well make discussion of sexuality relevant in the long run. I thought it worth mentioning, without much commital.

Anyway, it's good to see such commitment to wikipedia. It's well worth kudos. Great stuff. Bosola 10:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith : the heterosexual claims are unsubstantiated and there are false, because there isn't the tiniest proof of Bacon's heterosexuality, but indications of his homosexuality. I think you don't want to realize that your old friend "Francis" is gay. I tkink you couldn't have a gay friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.25.190 (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nieves Matthews was an homophobic narrow-minded biographer. She didn't know anything about homosexuality like a lot of people. You should read Havelock Ellis, who was a specialist of sexuality, homosexuality and a humanist : While Shakespeare thus narrowly escapes inclusion in the list of distinguished inverts, there is much better ground for the inclusion of his great contemporary, Francis Bacon. Aubrey in his laboriously compiled _Short Lives_, in which he shows a friendly and admiring attitude toward Bacon, definitely states that he was a pederast. Aubrey was only a careful gleaner of frequently authentic gossip, but a similar statement is made by Sir Simonds D'Ewes in his _Autobiography_. D'Ewes, whose family belonged to the same part of Suffolk as Bacon's sprang from, was not friendly to Bacon, but that fact will not suffice to account for his statement. He was an upright and honorable man of scholarly habits, and, moreover, a trained lawyer, who had many opportunities of obtaining first-hand information, for he had lived in the Chancery office from childhood. He is very precise as to Bacon's homosexual practices with his own servants, both before and after his fall, and even gives the name of a "very effeminate-faced youth" who was his "catamite and bedfellow"; he states, further, that there had been some question of bringing Bacon to trial for sodomy. These allegations may be supported by a letter of Bacon's own mother (printed in Spedding's _Life of Bacon_), reproving him on account of what she had heard concerning his behavior with the young Welshmen in his service whom he made his bedfellows. It is notable that Bacon seems to have been specially attracted to Welshmen (one might even find evidence of this in the life of the Welshman, Henry VII), a people of vivacious temperament unlike his own; this is illustrated by his long and intimate friendship with the mercurial Sir Toby Mathew, his "alter ego," a man of dissipated habits in early life, though we are not told that he was homosexual. Bacon had many friendships with men, but there is no evidence that he was ever in love or cherished any affectionate intimacy with a woman. Women play no part at all in his life. His marriage, which was childless, took place at the mature age of 46; it was effected in a business-like manner, and though he always treated his wife with formal consideration it is probable that he neglected her, and certain that he failed to secure her devotion; it is clear that toward the end of Bacon's life she formed a relationship with her gentleman usher, whom subsequently she married. Bacon's writings, it may be added, equally with his letters, show no evidence of love or attraction to women; in his _Essays_ he is brief and judicial on the subject of Marriage, copious and eloquent on the subject of Friendship, while the essay on Beauty deals exclusively with masculine beauty.

Alice Barnham

Any suggestion as to how to handle this issue on the Alice Barnham article? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "Any suggestion as to how to handle this issue on the Alice Barnham article?"

I don't believe the speculation on homosexuality needs to be interjected into the Alice Barnham article. It appears that Bacon married Alice to get himself more acceptable for holding public office, and to let King James know (by marrying a "commoner") that he did not intend to challenge him for the monarchy (since he was the som of Queen Elizabeth). Arion 09:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. You seem to be saying that the Barnham marriage wasn't that important to Bacon; well, that may be so, but it was rather important to Barnham, and I'm interested in the point of view of writing the Alice Barnham article, not as much the Francis Bacon article. In that article, the Bacon marriage really is over half of the Barnham story; and the main points of it seem to be that:

they married when she was 13 years old
the marriage was unhappy
no children
she has been accused of adultery,
after Bacon's death she married the person she was accused of adultery with
Bacon changed his will to revoke grants to her "for great and just cause"

Now if Bacon were homosexual, that would throw all those points into a completely different light; rather than him being madly in love with her and her betraying him, it would imply that she was deprived of intimacy during the years of their marriage, making any adultery, and even romantic attachment to another man during the marriage, much more understandable, from sheer loneliness. I can't see leaving that out, it seems quite important. Your comment, about yet another political, rather than emotional, reason for the marriage, only adds to that.

I can make it brief as it was, or I can put a paragraph in with sentences about why it's disputed, or I can put it some other way if you suggest, but ... well, for an article about X, whose main reason for notability is "unhappy wife of Y", leaving out "scholars believe Y was gay" seems to miss a rather important point. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(copying from User talk:AnonEMouse as an attempt to keep one place with a reasonably complete record of the conversation) The only problem I would have with the Alice Barnham article perpetuating the homosexuality theory about Francis Bacon is the protrayal of those theorists as "scholars" - they are a few authors who have questionable methods. For example, Alan Bray's book Homosexuality in Renaissance England states that male servants were male prostitutes, and since Francis Bacon had male servants, he must have been having sexual relations with them (!):

"There is though a further form of homosexual prostitution which it is possible to distinguish, and there are parallels with heterosexual prostitution here also: the young man living in a household, nominally with the status of a servant but haying a relationship with the master of the household with strong overtones of prostitution. This might be a matter of no more than a few days, as in John Marston's description of the sodomite whose personal servant — apparently a page — is really a prostitute who has been 'closely' i.e. secretly hired:

"But ho, what Ganymede is that doth grace

"The gallant's heels, one who for two days' space Is closely hired?

"It might also be a matter lasting weeks, months, or even years. This is presumably part of what Middleton, Brathwaite and Wilmot, quoted earlier in a different context, had in mind; their pages and 'private parasites' seem to have been prostitutes, albeit established in the household, as much as they were servants. It also partly explains the ambivalent position of some of the young men in the households of Francis Bacon and the Earl of Castlehaven: it is not clear whether these young men were servants or a kind of domestic prostitute, and perhaps one would be wrong to try and make a sharp distinction between the two. The relationship between client and prostitute — as indeed between teacher and pupil — had obvious analogies with the basic and influential relationship of master and servant; in the domestic prostitute the two are hardly distinguishable."

The real story that I have been discovering is much more interesting than the simple pet theories that he must have been a homosexual. For example there were the money issues . . .

Francis was secretly publishing materials for the Freemasons, Rosicrucians, Spear-Shakers, Knights of the Helmet, as well as publishing the materials he had written under the pen name of "Shake-Speare". Alice was very interested in fame and fortune, and when there were no large reserves of money left in the later years of their marriage, there was constant complaining about where was all the money going. I am waiting for some additional research materials that I had ordered several weeks ago, and when I assemble a rough draft of a paragraph proposal, I will submit it to you for your editing and modifactions. Arion 16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that certainly sounds interesting, but the Bacon/Shakespeare theory is no less controversial than the Bacon homosexual theory, and slipping it into the Alice Barnham article as a way of explaining marital strife seems a bit of a stretch. I understand that Alice was supposed to be highly interested in fame and fortune, but surely being Shakespeare could not have been that much of a money sink. Shakespeare may not have been universally acknowledged as greatest English language writer of all time just then, but he was generally acknowledged as at least one of the top 3-4 playwrights at the time; it's hard to believe anyone can lose money being a successful playwright. But clearly you know more about it than I do; write it, let's see. Don't feel you have to run it by me before putting it in; I wrote most of the article, but I don't own it. Put it in, and we'll both edit it "mercilessly" as the blurb at the bottom of the page says. :-)

Also, I am still interested in keeping at least some kind of mention of the homosexuality bit. I understand that the books speculating about Bacon's homosexuality may not be correct, but they do exist, we need to say something about them. Perhaps we could put both that and the Shakespeare theories under a "speculations" section, or add additional references to books which explicitly question their scholarship or otherwise argue with them. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but it has been a month, and I haven't seen anything added here or to the Alice Barnham article that would tend to resolve our issue. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GWB

Hello,

Iam sorry, what do you mena by millions of years ago? Why don´t you write abt it on the article? The article ie very poor, it tells almost nothing abt this secret society.

Besides, seven rays explain and is a complement to the name: white.

I also observe that when you say millions of years, it reffers to the ever existence of the spiritual entities. When I reffer to the foundation it concerns the period when they became a secret society.

Do you agree with that? I think it would be also wonderful if we could explain to the readers this difference.

I do look forward to hearing from you.

If you pls consider this artcile. I´ll be expectign yr comments.

http://www.qdeansloan.com/articles/brotherhood.htm

This WP article talks abt "metaphysical/occult" and "adepts" --all of this are pointing to secret society.

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 15:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don´t agree

Iam sorry, the article is very good. It talks abt the secret socities that derive from GWB.

What ´s the meaning of these words: :"metaphysical/occult" and "adepts" ? They are written on the article. AS I´ve said, I agree that as divines beings, as spiritual entities, they have always been there. But as a beings that help humanity, they started their contact with humans and tehir teachings in Egypt. Have heard of Kenneth Burtun? He says that in his book.

Yes, I agree individuations of God, The One, ever existed, yes, ok with that. But we also cannot precise when GWB, S. Kumara appeared -- as it is really millions of years ago. Secret society for me is every gathering os "sages", such as those I mentioned on my draft, Socrates, Pitagoras, Aristotle. They transmit and receive their tasks, their knowloedge in a private, secret ceremony for their adepts when they are ready. Maybe that´s why the article talks abt "adepts" (paragraph above) and "occult". Secret society for me means that the wisdow is not transmited to anyone.

Well, according to yr words, the IAm movement teaches that --but is that the teching of GWB as whole? As far as I know, the "I am" is one of many GWB schools or whereveer name you give to it.

Well, I think all of this talk we are having should be mentioned on the article. I find very important to offer a histocial context of this: from a secret society to an open initiation (1930). Do you have citations of this shift of GWB?

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 13:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pops

Hello Aburesz,

Can I disturb you again? Do you know how can I insert pop-ups?

Tks

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 14:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their reply

Hello Aburesz,

There are branches of the GWB that are relatively secret, but most aren't these days. The GWB has been part of the Egyptian tradition since its inception via Atlantean missionaries, tens of thousands of years ago.

Best wishes, Mark Amaru Pinkham

Just as a curiosity.

This was the reply I received from that web site.

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 18:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and Suggestion

Hello Aburesz, with your interest and skills you might be a good contributor to the on-going difficulty in the Alice Bailey article/discussion.James 21:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metaphysics

Category:Metaphysics is for philosophical metaphysics; that is for articles about the philosophical discussion of existence. The theosophical pages do not contain philosophical arguments at all. There are no arguments referring to recognisd phuilosophers or noteworthy arguments. If they were to be discussed philosophically, they would be treated as empirical examples, not part of the discipline of philosophy. Perhaps you could start a new category Metaphysics (spirituality)? Although, I would have thought that it would contain exactly the same things that are already in the spirituality category. If you diagree, perhaps we could shift this discussion to the Category:Metaphysics talk page? I am, to be honest, bemused as to why you want these pages included in the metaphysics category at all. They are in several other completely appropriate categories, are linked into the philosophy category through Category:Theosophy Anarchia 23:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by theme and foundation. I think I know what you mean about teaching about the nature of reality and the relationship between mind and matter etc. The problem is that saying the nature of reality is X is not doing metaphysics. Consider the pages in question:

Lady Master Nada contains no arguments about the nature of reality. This page is a bunch of statements about a person. There is no discussion of anthing to do with metaphysics.
Kuthumi also contains no arguments about the nature of reality.
Sanat Kumara also contains no arguments about the nature of reality. It is, again, a bunch of statements about "the Lord or Regent of Earth and of humanity", which makes a claim about existence, but this is not what metaphysics is about. It would be as ridiculous to include Jesus or Buddha or every page form the Catholic church, which probably also thinks it is inherently concerned with existence, in category:metaphysics.
Morya Ditto.
The Temple of The Presence Ditto, athough it seems to state facts and events that occur in a community rather than facts or events that occurred for people.
The Bridge to Freedom Ditto.

Where is the philosphical metaphysics on these pages? Why do you want these pages included in the category?Anarchia 06:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the articles that you have asserted should not be listed under the category of "Metaphysics" are in fact directly concerned with philosophical metaphysics. Organizations of Ascended Master Teachings, as well as those discussions purported to originate directly from Ascended Masters, investigate principles of reality that transcend any particular science, traditionally including cosmology and ontology. They are also concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of existence, self-conscious being and the physical and non-physical world. They discuss subjects that are purported to be beyond the physical world, thus bridging the known material knowledge of man and the purported "Science of the Initiates".

There does not need to be a discussion of the general subject of a category for an article to be listed under that category. For example, there are 145 articles listed in Wikipedia under the category of "Nanotechnology". Each of these articles does not go into a discussion of the general subject of "Nanotechnology" - nor would it be expected to go into such a discussion. Arion 02:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you completely that an article does not need to include the word 'metaphysics' to be in catregory:metaphysics, and also agree that an article need not discuss the subject in general terms to belong in a category. I believe that none of the pages concerned in our discussion here shows signs of investigating reality that would be recognised by any philosopher, and the category in question in philosophical metaphysics. They definitely do discuss "subjects that are purported to be beyond the physical world". But, as most of the pages on Wikipedia do this, this cannot, on its own, be an indicaiton that they belong in cat:metaphysics.

I ask again, what is it you believe is achieved by including these pages in cat:metaphysics, especially when they are already appropriately linked into cat:philosophy?

Would you like me to ask for this dispute to be mediated?Anarchia 02:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that anyone who is familiar with the subject of "Ascended Masters" and the organizations promoting this philosophical metaphysics regarding the nature of existence and the nature of Reality would agree that "Metaphysics" as a category best describes this subject. Those unfamiliar with the subject may disagree. Arion 03:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offence, but I, on the other hand, believe that anyone who has a decent degree in metaphysics would agree that it does not. I think we have a situation here that really is best dealt with by informed mediation. Do you agree? Anarchia 05:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree for the reason that I stated above. Arion 16:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven rays

Hi -- I noticed you reverted the capitalization change at Seven rays today. It's not a big issue to me, so no worries. I though you might want to know why I made the change:

It was based on the MoS at WP:MOS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents, where it states:

Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth, original sin or transubstantiation.

If you prefer the other way, I'll leave it, but it wasn't an arbitrary change, it seemed better to follow the guideline.--Parsifal _Hello 02:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Received your message. Thanks for the explanation. --Parsifal _Hello 16:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there

Hello, Aburesz! I´d like you to comment on this spirituality subtitle I´ve just wroted on Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira. Can you please? Tks...Ludovicapipa ^yes? 15:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, tks, indeed. DO you knwow Simone? Have you ever heard of her? What is yr opinion abt this light focus she sees? Oh, by the way, she was born on 25th december, Jesus´s birth.

Do you knw this Youtube video? Shows how many miths were born under this date, from a virgin, on a lighty day, etc...

http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=QKd45wDcXEc&mode=related&search=

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 12:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I´d also add the fact that aside from 25th (2+5= seven), she was born seven minutes after midnight, she is the seventh daugther, according to numerolgy, the resullt of the sum of the letters of her name is seven...and, in portuguese, the seventh note SI is the first two letters of her name... [1], [2]. Ludovicapipa ^yes? 12:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu Margarida (talk • contribs) [reply]

Texts

Hello Aburesz,

You once told me you don´t trust this site --do you still think they are not to trust? They look very good, I think.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jb/index.htm

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 21:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celebs

Hello, Arion, I wonder if there are many celebrities such as Simone who are GWB discipules. Do you know? Wouldn´t be interesting to cite them on the article? Ludovicapipa ^yes? 16:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simone´s trivia

Hello Arion! Would you like to take a look at this?? Nad if you´d like to comment... Ludovicapipa ^yes? 15:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 Bad faith : the heterosexual claims are unsubstantiated and there are false, because there isn't the tiniest proof of Bacon's heterosexuality, but indications of his homosexuality. I think you don't want to realize that your old friend "Francis" is gay. I tkink you couldn't have a gay friend.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.218.25.190|86.218.25.190]] ([[User talk:86.218.25.190|talk]]) 19:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+Nieves Matthews was an homophobic narrow-minded biographer. She didn't know anything about homosexuality like a lot of people. You should read Havelock Ellis, who was a specialist of sexuality, homosexuality and a humanist :
+While Shakespeare thus narrowly escapes inclusion in the list of distinguished inverts, there is much better ground for the inclusion of his great contemporary, Francis Bacon. Aubrey in his laboriously compiled _Short Lives_, in which he shows a friendly and admiring attitude toward Bacon, definitely states that he was a pederast. Aubrey was only a careful gleaner of frequently authentic gossip, but a similar statement is made by Sir Simonds D'Ewes in his _Autobiography_. D'Ewes, whose family belonged to the same part of Suffolk as Bacon's sprang from, was not friendly to Bacon, but that fact will not suffice to account for his statement. He was an upright and honorable man of scholarly habits, and, moreover, a trained lawyer, who had many opportunities of obtaining first-hand information, for he had lived in the Chancery office from childhood. He is very precise as to Bacon's homosexual practices with his own servants, both before and after his fall, and even gives the name of a "very effeminate-faced youth" who was his "catamite and bedfellow"; he states, further, that there had been some question of bringing Bacon to trial for sodomy. These allegations may be supported by a letter of Bacon's own mother (printed in Spedding's _Life of Bacon_), reproving him on account of what she had heard concerning his behavior with the young Welshmen in his service whom he made his bedfellows. It is notable that Bacon seems to have been specially attracted to Welshmen (one might even find evidence of this in the life of the Welshman, Henry VII), a people of vivacious temperament unlike his own; this is illustrated by his long and intimate friendship with the mercurial Sir Toby Mathew, his "alter ego," a man of dissipated habits in early life, though we are not told that he was homosexual. Bacon had many friendships with men, but there is no evidence that he was ever in love or cherished any affectionate intimacy with a woman. Women play no part at all in his life. His marriage, which was childless, took place at the mature age of 46; it was effected in a business-like manner, and though he always treated his wife with formal consideration it is probable that he neglected her, and certain that he failed to secure her devotion; it is clear that toward the end of Bacon's life she formed a relationship with her gentleman usher, whom subsequently she married. Bacon's writings, it may be added, equally with his letters, show no evidence of love or attraction to women; in his _Essays_ he is brief and judicial on the subject of Marriage, copious and eloquent on the subject of Friendship, while the essay on Beauty deals exclusively with masculine beauty.
 === [[Alice Barnham]] ===