Talk:Francis Bacon

Sinologist

I added this section from Nova Organum. I'm not totally sure so someone clean up/trim this section.

-Works on East Asia- Francis Bacon was a prominent studier historical inventions. In his work Novum Organum, he attributes three world changing inventions to ***unknown sources**...

Not sure if he knew or didn't know it was from China.

"Printing, gunpowder and the compass: These three have changed the whole face and state of things throughout the world; the first in literature, the second in warfare, the third in navigation; whence have followed innumerable changes, in so much that no empire, no sect, no star seems to have exerted greater power and influence in human affairs than these mechanical discoveries." -Novum Organum

"For our ordinances and rites we have two very long and fair galleries. In one of these we place patterns and samples of all manner of the more rare and excellent inventions; in the other we place the statues of all principal inventors. There we have the statue of your Columbus, that discovered the West Indies, also the inventor of ships, your monk that was the inventor of ordnance and of gunpowder, the inventor of music, the inventor of letters, the inventor of printing, the inventor of observations of astronomy, the inventor of works in metal, the inventor of glass, the inventor of silk of the worm, the inventor of wine, the inventor of corn and bread, the inventor of sugars; and all these by more certain tradition than you have. Then we have divers inventors of our own, of excellent works; which, since you have not seen) it were too long to make descriptions of them; and besides, in the right understanding of those descriptions you might easily err. For upon every invention of value we erect a statue to the inventor, and give him a liberal and honorable reward. These statues are some of brass, some of marble and touchstone, some of cedar and other special woods gilt and adorned; some of iron, some of silver, some of gold."

-intranetusa

Birthday

jan 22 1561

His birthday is given as January 22, 1561 (not 21) in Wikipdia for January 22.

I don't know who added the unsigned comment above, but I just found the same thing myself - in fact every non-Wikipedia source I can find says January 22, so I've changed it. Andrewa 14:16, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Language in 1593 subsidy text?

I don't understand the following sentence:

The House of Commons duly information on state necessities, assented to a double subsidy and appointed a committee to draw up the requisite articles.

The phrase "duly information on state necessities" doesn't seem to be grammatical. If "duly" is an adverb, there should be a verb in the clause, and it should probably be set off by commas (e.g., "duly informed on state necessities"). If the whole expression (including "The House of Commons") is a committee title, something still seems wrong (at least to my American eyes). I don't know the history, so I can't fix it. Could someone look at this? -- Jeff Q 09:01, 9 May 2004 (UTC) haha

Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia

The incredibly long encyclopedia entry added to this Talk page doesn't really serve the purpose of a Talk page, does it? Shouldn't it be moved to Wikisource? -- Jeff Q 09:01, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Well it looks like User:Mackensen has removed the text now. At first I couldn't see the point of just deleting potentially useful information and considered restoring it to a subpage here. On the other hand we don't keep text dumps of the 1911 Britannica lieing around, just in case someone wants to use it. Perhaps the best solution is to give the link to the source here;

For additional PD source material on Francis Bacon, see Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia (1911)

Or seeing as how some of the material has been used, the link could be put into the References section of the main page. -- Solipsist 08:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Best known for scientific revolution?

If Francis Bacon "has become best known as an advocate and defender of the scientific revolution", shouldn't there be something more in this very lengthy article about his contributions, rather than just this tiny statement? If I knew them myself, I'd add some text, but I'm in learning mode on this topic. ☺ -- Jeff Q 09:21, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Oops! I spent so much time reading about Bacon's life, I forgot there was another paragraph (well, sentence, really) at the top that had a link to the Baconian method. I grudgingly concede that this serves the purpose I was after. ☺ -- Jeff Q 09:27, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

"Page here appears to have been missed in the scanning" note (and cleanup)

I'm not sure what this refers to, unless it's to text that was somehow lost from the 1911 Britannica (although not much in the text as it stands appears to match the 1911 sentence for sentence). Nevertheless, in my research, I didn't see many details in the philosopher's life that were left out in this mysterious "missing" section, so I filled in what I could find about the years 1600-1603 (a couple of sentences, at most), and I removed the "page here appears to have been missed in the scanning" note. ffirehorse 05:55, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Listing on cleanup

I'm listing this on cleanup because the article seems to have a tone and focus problem. In addition to concentrating from his political life, copied from the 1911 encyclopedia, it has a few bizarre statements under "rumors" which are ambiguous and unencyclopedic in tone. Cool Hand Luke 06:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removed Rosicrucian links

I removed the following links, mainly because they have little to do with the actual person Francis Bacon.

1. Bacon's "Secret Society": The Ephrata Connection
2. Bacon's hidden life and works
3. Painting by Barbara Gaffney showing Bacon as the Imperator of the Rosicrucian Order

PRiis 20:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So which Francis Bacon are they referring to if not 'the actual person'? THere's a huge amount of sepculation about Bacon's connection to the Rosicrucians, even among creditable scholars (ie not just nutty secret society conspiracy theorists). The highly respected and amdired historian Prof Frances Yates, in her books The Occult Tradition And the Elizabethan Age and The Rosicrucian Enlightenment presents a great deal of evidence that he was involved in some of the more closed intellectual movements of his day - as were a whole host of other important British figures such as Elias Ashmole, Robert Fludd and several others. The picture of Bacon by Gaffney is a bit silly but you can't just dismiss this line of inquiry into Bacon.ThePeg 17:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Interlanguage links are fixed

• Halló! See GlobalWPSearch Francis Bacon by de:Benutzer:Aka and Wikipedia:Template:Interwikiconflict.

• I like this: "Little or nothing is known of their married life: modern scholars speculate that he may have been a homosexual. — Others reserve that he had been a Negro." — Maybe this is also a speculation. At least it is an opinion Best regards Gangleri | Th | T 00:21, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Did Bacon write Shakespeare's plays?

Possibly, and possibly not. It is a legitimate question, but any discussion here should largely move a reader to read the more rounded discussion at Shakespearean authorship.

Recently an anon author has twice introduced a paragaph [1] to discuss the question which has a number of problems.

1. ) Firstly it is too POV in favour of Bacon being a likely author when there are several other candidates.
2. ) It uses weasel words such as 'Some have theorised', rather than attributing the theory to known authors.
3. ) It contains statements of fact that are incorrect. The phrase the first word of the manuscript of The Tempest (Boteswaine) has Francis Bacon's name around the B contains at least three errors. There is no known manuscript of The Tempest, the statement should refer to the printed text of the first folio edition. 'Boteswaine' is not the first word of The Tempest, it is the first spoken word. Bacon's name is not written around the initial capital 'B', at least not in clear text as is implied. It is possible to say that the name is encoded in a complex cipher involving the letter near the opening capital B. See http://home.att.net/~tleary/bote.htm which looks like a more credible source and includes a scan of the First Folio text.
4. ) It pushes a link to sirbacon.org, when this is far from the most useful web site on the question. A more balanced collection of links is presented in Shakespearean authorship article.

It looks like there is a fair amount of dispute on the Shakespearean authorship page, but I don't think we need that POV war to spill over here. -- Solipsist 22:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Changed "claims by many good scholars" to "claims by many scholars". Calling the scholars 'good' violates WP:NPOV -- Ted BJ 09:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never understood why Shakespeare (of all the writers in the world!) should invite this kind of speculation. In fact if you look at everything Bacon wrote there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he might have written the plays. Intellectually the two men were completely different and there is considerable suspicion in Bacon's writing for art and poetry in general. One particularly silly argument I have read was from Manly Hall who seemed to base his proof on the fact that Shakespeare had no real formal education and clearly didn't have a library. His reasoning was that for Shakespeare to have written his plays with their wealth of references he would have had to have had access to vast amounts of books. Well as we now know the leading artistic and intellectual lights of the Elizabethan period found their focus in John Dee (cf The Occult Tradition And The Elizabethan Age by Frances Yates) who had one of the largest libraries in England at the time (third only to Oxford and Cambridge). You can see in Shakespeare's plays the voraciousness with which he must have devoured books, absorbed ideas and fashioned them to his own ends. An analytical scholar like Bacon would have worked in a very different way - indeed you can see from his writing how clinical he was. Whatever the truth of it why do we think Shakespeare couldn't have written his plays? Do we think Tolstoy didn't write his books? Or Marlowe not write his plays? Why Shakespeare? ThePeg 17:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Scientific method

Some material has been added to the History section if the scientific method article concerning Bacon. If someone here has a chance to look over it I would be gateful. Chris 08:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Please, the fascist who wrote this garbage about the genius Francis Bacon who wrote plays under he pen name Shake-a-speare. Shakespeare and William Shakespeare is a fraud. Why does this disinformation disseminator not want you to know the truth?

http://www.sirbacon.org/

"In Shakespeare's plays we have Thought, History, Exposition, Philosophy, all within the round of the poet. It is as if into a mind poetical in form there had been poured all the matter which existed in the mind of his contemporary Bacon. The only difference between him and Bacon sometimes is that Bacon writes an Essay and calls it his own, while Shakespeare writes a similar essay and puts it into the mouth of a Ulysses or a Polonius." orthodox Professor David Mason 72.28.136.72 09:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual

As a history of science undergrad, I've long understood Bacon to be gay. A quick trawl of the web turned up this, which references some pretty clear documents, assuming they're real - http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/baconfra.htm I know I first read of it in an academic text about him, though - I'll have a look for it asap, because if his homosexuality is as clear as I casually understood it to be, it's kinda dishonest not to mention it in the article. Athenemiranda 09:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't and it is not clear as some claim - But suggest that, if their is documentary evidence of allegations, this should be mentioned.

King James Bible editor

There is no mention in the article King James Bible that Francis Bacon was on the committee which did the final editing. Because the statement in the FB article goes even further, stating he was the sole final editor, I have removed it pending the provision of some documented evidence. --Blainster 19:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The 1611 editions of this Bible were printed under the same guidance and in the same manner as were the Shakespeare plays, and the ornaments for the various pages were drawn in pen and ink and on wood by artists engaged by Bacon who worked under his supervision. Everyone of the ornaments concealed some Rosicrucian emblem and occasionally a Masonic emblem or some initials that would reveal Bacon's name or the name of the Rosicrucians. Such ornaments were put not only in the Christian Bible that Bacon had rewritten but in the Shakespeare plays, and in some of Bacon's own books, and a few other books that were typically Rosicrucinan in spirit. That alone leave me to believe that he was either a major editor of the King James Bible. And that is fair grounds for a section similar to the Bacon and Shakespeare section. I request someone please rewrite it or I will in the near future.--Davin Bacon 19:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a widely held hypothesis. If you wish to add something, make sure it is well documented. --Blainster 00:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Psychological views

Could someone explain and discuss the psychological views and developments Francis Bacon had and led/added to? --Cyberman 15:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry

Other than identifying Bacon as a freemason at the beginning of the article their is no other mention of his connection with the mystical 'secret societies'. Numerous sources suggest that he was a high initiate or indeed even the founder of the Order of Rosicrucianism, so I think this at least deserves mention in the article. Can somebody implement some information regarding Bacon's relationship and influence within these societies? Panentheon 15:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The writers of the article on the Rosicrucians clearly hold Bacon's involvement to be speculative at best, so unless you can produce authoritative sources detailing his involvement, I would be inclined otherwise Athenemiranda 15:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like the claim about being a homosexual: "He's one of us!"

A Rosicrucian AND a homosexual! Good heavens! Hmmm. Its interesting. No-one knows who founded Rosicrucianism. Dee is another candidate. They were contemporaries. The Rosies didn't 'go public' until the Rosicrucian Manifestos which are attributed to Johannes Valentin Andreae who was German. Who knows? ThePeg 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It was the manifestos which started the whole Rosicrucian dough-ball a-rolling. Everything else belongs to the realm of occult conspiracy theory and not in an article about a famous advocate of rationalism. Jamrifis 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Triboluminescence

Supposedly Bacon is the first person in history to record the phenomenon of triboluminescence in Advancement of Learning while he chopped a block of sugar at night. However I cannot find the refrence. Does anyone know where it is in this book? --Deglr6328 20:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Found it! It was in Novum Organum [2] where he states: "It is well known that all sugar, whether candied or plain, if it be hard, will sparkle when broken or scraped in the dark.".--Deglr6328 07:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

BACON!

Mmmmmm I like Bacon! lol Sorry I couldn't resist. I really do like Francis Bacon though, philosopher, nobleman, atheist, bacon, what's not to love? Seriously though I'm sure this is in the article but was bacon named after him or was he named after bacon or is it coincidental? --LucaviX 02:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Atheist? Sounds even more wild as the homsexual charge.

No, Bacon (food) was named after Francis Bacon. Before Francis became famous bacon (food) was called smalle porke. --bodnotbod 02:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This seems extremely implausible. The Oxford English Dictionary has attestations of bacon as a noun meaning 'The back and sides of the pig' dating back to c.1330. Sorry to spoil a good story. Oldhamlet 21:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

So the part in the death section where it says "(in 1558 he had used a saline nitrate process to invent bacon)" is a mistake or vandalism and ought to be removed? 81.106.192.178 01:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It turely would make the greatest story, along with the Earl of Sandwich inventing the Sandwich. Y control 10:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My last name is Bacon (Davin L. Bacon), it would be rather neat to be related to him.--Davin Bacon 08:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Death

Replaced

Francis Bacon's death had a considerable element of irony.

with

The cause of Bacon's death is notoriously comic.

Irony is the (usually comic) occurrence of something unexpected, given the situation. Stuffing a chicken with snow and subsequently catching pneumonia, whilst amusing, is not ironic. Soobrickay 00:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it Ironic don't you think - As comic as it is, could it be argued that this is ironic; he was trying to prevent death and illness from food poisoning, and died whilst attempting this. Y control 23:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Pneumonia is a virus, so he could not have got it from being cold, I think the article should be reworded to state that the experiment had nothing to with his death. unless of course he contracted the pneumonia from the chicken. --Davin Bacon 22:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but pneumonia is an inflammatory disease of the lungs, whereby they become filled with fluid, not necessarily a result of infectious agents. As well as bacterial and viral causes, it can be caused by damage to the lungs. There's quite a comprehensive wikipedia article on this.~~DJ 24 Sep 2006

Not at all funny

Bacon's death wasn't ironic, and wasn't comic either. Bigturtle 20:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• It was ironic if you keep in mind that he was trying to find a new means of preserving meat in order to save many more lives, but as a result he lots his own.Davin Bacon 23:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the stuffing of fowl with snow caused the pneumonia. At any rate, nobody catches pneumonia while stuffing chicken with anything. If he fell ill with pneumonia right after the experiment, then it's certainly an unrelated event. If it happened days later, it still doesn't prove anything. I'll call it a coincidence. In my opinion, this is neither comic nor ironic; it's just a coincidence of most likely unrelated events. --Tito4000 14:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In an article about a philosopher of scientific method (perhaps the greatest), you're quite right to be sceptical. Presumably we can rule out bird flu? However, as Hume pointed out, science can never have the certainty of mathematics, being based on observation; for example the fact that B has always been observed to follow A does not provide certainty that B will always follow A; it is merely persuasive. As Bacon was also a lawyer, he would probably say that the circumstantial evidence strongly points to the snow, his immediately feeling ill, the cold damp bed that Hobbes and Aubrey reported, and his death soon after, not being entirely unrelated, whatever virus or whatever he had caught. They may have been unrelated, but the circumstances of his death (which were certainly bizarre enough) were sufficient to make him in contemporary people's eyes a martyr to the experimental method. I've added Aubrey's account so people can judge for themselves. --Straw Cat 21:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Those tending to hold to Bacon having been deeply involved in Rosicrucianism, Masonry, and writing under the names of others find the death first to be mysterious - and then funny. Funny in the sense that he was having people on and 'died a philosopher's death'. Four different people report upon his death, all four saying that he died at a different address, yet none stating that they even saw a body. There's never a mention of a dead body anywhere. It's notoriously difficult to prove a negative (that the death was unreal?) without firm evidence, and I don't attempt here to 'prove' it. But FB was well-known as a great wit, was well-travelled, and had plenty of places and contacts to retreat to following the bribery allegations. His tomb is in the small church opposite Gorhambury: but it was found to be empty. No body! Being acqainted with Bacon's work as well as others' accounts about him, it is possible to suspect both the comic and the ironic in the death episode. Biographer Fuller: "There is a legend that at Highgate he simply gave the world a slip and sailed via Holland for America. The end, like the beginning, is a mystery."Steranko 00:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Name

I've moved this page back to Francis Bacon, because he's by far the best known carrier of that name. Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Instauratio Magna

This, as his most important philosophical work, deserves its own entry, even though or even more so as Novum Organum has one. I'd be willing to do a stub on which others could and should expand. Anyone interested? Maybe write on my talk page, then. Gwyndon 19:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Slashdot linkage

Heads up, folks. This article has been listed on Slashdot. --CoderGnome 05:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Link please? Mikker ^(...) 10:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ask, and you shall receive: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/10/1919216 CoderGnome 22:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Plate Tectonics

The wikipedia article on continental drift lists him as an important discoverer. I can't see anything about that in this article.--Screwball23 ^talk 14:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Missing Works

This page is missing a lot of his works that can be found here. I will work on these in the future, but not now. --Rajah 02:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't even a reference to The New Atlantis in this article! <KF> 19:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC) (three months later)

Bacon pederasty

Engleham, I am not clear on your reasoning for deleting the "pederasty" categorization. I am well aware of the Elizabethan use of the term, but the article states specifically that he was accused of associating with youths, which, for an older man, is the clear demarcation for pederasty. That he also slept with young men does not in any way disqualify him from that category. Haiduc 11:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

An the evidence for all this would be...?

Perhaps in the very article: "John Aubrey in his Brief Lives states that Bacon was "a pederast"." Though it is granted that pederasts in those days included men who went to bed with older youths and even men, Bacon, while loving strapping youths in their twenties, also took in teenage boys, at least one at age fifteen. Haiduc 23:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... you can't use Wikipedia as a source in Wikipedia. If it is indeed "well known" that he was a pederast (and not just someone accused of pederasty, which is very different) please provide a reputable source. Mikker ^(...) 00:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm...John Aubrey? john k 10:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

John Aubrey was born 27 days before Bacon died... Aubrey was paid for his satirical, controversial writing, a precursor to Esquire magazine. Why does hearsay get so much credit on Wikipedia? Npov edit 08:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is just more of the same - NAMBLA supporters claiming several historical figures like Bacon were pederasts. Not a shred of evidence.

I don't speak english, but I know that there is at last two others testimonies about Bacon Homosexuality or pederasty : d'Ewes and Bacon's mother herself. That's very dishonest to claim that there is "not a shred of evidence" : that's simply false. You could say that if someone tried to claim that Henry the eight, Casanova or Kennedy is homosexual : here, not a shred of evidence, for sure, but in the case of Francis Bacon (the scientist, not the painter who was also homosexual), there is at least four evidences at different times, like Rictor Norton stated it. Be careful of the SUPPORTERS OF THE UNIVERSAL HETEROSEXUALITY who are very powerful and ready to hid the reality of homosexuality. What did you expect : a confession written by Francis Bacon saying : "Yes, I'm gay !" In that case, it's right that you could claim that it is not a true document. "Not a shred of evidence"? That's simply false.

Cultural depictions of Francis Bacon

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Parentage

There appears to be nothing on the main page (or indeed on this Talkpage) about the theory that Francis Bacon was the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth and Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester (along with Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex). Whilst this may be a purely romantic notion on the SirBacon website, there is reasonably documented evidence that Elizabeth visited Nicholas Bacon's house at Gorhambury at least twice [3] and was entertained by the 8 or 9 year old Francis [4]. It was here, surely, that he would have earned the title "little Lord Keeper", not at Cambridge when he was 12, as it says in the 3rd para of "Early life": "At Cambridge he first met the Queen, who was impressed by his precocious intellect, and was accustomed to call him "the young Lord Keeper."" Can anyone provide other sources for the early meetings of Bacon and the queen, which may (or may not?!) shed light on their genetic links? 195.217.52.130 18:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the very title of a "Sir Bacon" website expresses why not better than any of us could! Bacon seems to attract the paraliterate. -Wetman 19:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The theory is hardly just the repository of one website(!), and has been looked at in detail in many books in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. For example, most recently by author Peter Dawkins in numerous books, and who holds week-long seminars at The Globe Theatre on the Authorship question. Alfred Dodd, in his "Francis Bacon's Personal Life-Story" purports to give the entire story of how Bacon discovered his actual royal parentage: a plain and not short account supposed to be in Bacon's own words. However the story is derived by reading a cipher into Shakespearean works, and the cipher side is not my forte. In 1981 Jean Overton Fuller's biography included fascinating scientific evidence by a leading geneticist, suggestive that his parents were other than those supposed. In Fuller's very detailed second chapter she does much research in the field into existing portraits and accounts of the eye colours and other characteristics of Bacon, and his supposed parents. Eventually she wrote to Prof. Brisco Ford, Fellow of the Royal Society, who responded: "You can certainly quote me in saying that if Sir Francis Bacon had dark brown eyes, and had both his parents had grey [as appears to be the case], the chance that he is illegitimate is very high indeed. It would be down to mutation level which, in this case, will be less than 1:100,000."Steranko 00:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Offspring

Why is there no refference to his three sons? Two moved to the states to creat there fortunes up-state New York. Although I can't find any info on line about them there are some things around town here where I live that at least one is mentioned.

You'd have to check out things on Lake George, Fort Ann, Fort Edward, Glens Falls Even French Indian War.

Also about Sir Bacons supposedly homosexuality, shouldn't the times in which he lived be taken into account? It's not so much homosexual activity if it's more a cultural thing, Women and young ladies where not really available to date so young men oftne "spent time" with other young men, and the various activities involved, it doesn't mean they favored it, it was just all that was around.*l*

My name is Bacon and I know I am related, I am just looking for the proof and actual documentation If anyone can help...Thanks

How do you know that he had three sons ? And do you think that he was pederast because he had no girls around him ?

External Link to Bacon's Essays

I found the following link to be useful for wikipedia users. I put the links up a couple of weeks ago but somebody took them down claiming they were redundant and that they were a conflict of interest - I'm pretty sure they're neither though. The books are in PDF format and I found them to be way easier to read than the Project Gutenberg, HTML, or plain text links that are already here. I just think it’d be a better option for people. I’ve found them quite useful. Should I put them up on the site? Or would somebody else like to?

http://www.magellanfreebooks.com/Books/Bacon-Essays.html

Jay ryann 20:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have replied at User talk:Jay ryann expressing some concerns about the appropriateness (and possible conflict of interest) of these Magellan links, at least as they have been added so far (redundant, without bibliographic information, etc.). Wareh 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have also replied at User talk: Jay ryann with clarification. I still think that it is the format that counts here and the PDF version is better for the average reader than the plain-text files of Gutenberg et al. (Not to say that Project Gutenberg isn't a tremendously valuable resource - because they are.) Jay ryann 20:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Curious paragraph

This paragraph seems to me a little curious: "In 1603 Bacon analyzed his own mental character and establishes his goals, which were threefold: discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Knowing that a prestigious post would aid him toward these ends, in 1580 he applied, through his uncle..." as it seems to imply that he was aware of these goals 23 years prior to actually establishing them. 85.225.8.121 12:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your analyses and have removed the offending sentence. If anyone has an objection please raise it here with a supporting citation for the verbage. Wjhonson 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

EB cleanup

I tagged this as requiring cleanup -- outdated EB language. General article quality is poor -- needs rewriting with ref to sources such as ODNB -- { Markku Peltonen, ‘Bacon, Francis, Viscount St Alban (1561–1626)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, May 2006 accessed 17 April 2007 }

Another problem is that he has LGBT categs, but no info on this is mentioned in article. --mervyn 10:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This would be because a massive amount of text was removed by a vandal. I've now restored the material, so maybe the refs you are after are in the restored text? Carcharoth 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

zachs dont touch: GETTING TO KNOW: FRANCIS BACON

1. Birthday: 22 Jan 1561 2. English philosopher 3. Statesman 4. Essayist 5. Defender of the scientific revolution 6. He created the scientific method 7. youngest of five sons of Sir Nicholas Bacon 8. At Cambridge he first met the Queen, who was impressed by his precocious intellect, and was accustomed to call him "the young Lord Keeper". 9. In 1584 he took his seat in parliament for Melcombe in Dorset.

Influences and Influenced

I have started a discussion regarding the Infobox Philosopher template page concerning the "influences" and "influenced" fields. I am in favor of doing away with them. Please join the discussion there. RJC ^Talk 14:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

China

Bacon was in no sense a sinologist, and had no idea that his famous 'three inventions' came from China. This section needs to be edited. Simonwinchester 13:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Are there links between Bacon and homosexuality ?

Some have attempted to link Bacon to homosexuality, and have quoted John Aubrey. John Aubrey certainly is not a credible source on Bacon. He was born 27 days before Bacon reportedly died. Also, Bacon did not address homosexuality in his book New Atlantis or his essays On Friendship and On Beauty. Stating that "recent scholarship generally accepts that he had homosexual inclinations" does not make it a true statement. And how on Earth can another person determine that someone has "homosexual inclinations". That is total nonsense. Aburesz 19:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Aubrey is not considered the litmus test of accuracy, but his comments are consistently quoted by biographers as accumulative supporting evidence, as it is assumed he had access to primary sources that have since disappeared and/or people who knew the people he wrote of. As with the majority of historical figures there is no direct evidence of homosexuality, but the supporting evidence is significant, and would certainly be considered enough to accuse someone of heterosexuality. It's highly indicative that every trace of his brother's conviction for sodomy was erased from English archives: we only know of it of course because of the diligence of Daphne du Maurier who found the records in France. In On Friendship and On Beauty Bacon addresses male love, or 'masculine love' as he significantly terms it in New Atlantis. Male love can obviously be platonic, but the term was also employed by the earliest writers who self-identified as what we now term homosexual, so it adds to the supporting evidence. Some of the referenced sources offer a deeper discussion of the context of Bacon's use of the term, and Elizabethan homosocial writing. It was I who originally referenced Mathews in the article as a scholarly source for the opinion that Bacon wasn't homosexual. In your change you retained Mathews, but deleted the other references I also supplied that show the spectrum of scholarly opinion. How true to type. I don't debate with sneaks, let alone bigots, so this is the only reply I shall offer you. But I do pity your patients. Engleham 11:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Aburesz, could you say what do you think of d'Ewes : Aubrey is not the only source about Bacon's homosexuality, like you seem to believe. 83.200.60.64 12:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Candid.

There is no credible evidence that exists regarding Francis Bacon's imagined "homosexual inclinations" or actions. John Aubrey's "Brief Lives" is the kind of "documentation" that has been used. In his Foreward in the edition of Aubrey's "Brief Lives" published in 1962 by University of Michigan Press, Edmund Wilson wrote of Aubrey: "He loved to compile gossip about famous men. . . He would try to get things down on paper the morning after a convivial evening - 'Sot that I am!' is the apologetic cry that is reiterated in his writings - when the people he was visiting were still in bed and he himself was suffering from hangover. He sometimes mixed anecdotes about different people . . . "

Taking note of such terms as "bigot" and "sneak" leveled against me, and statements such as "I pity your patients", I would suggest Engleham review the Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks policy. Also of importance, Engleham states on his user page that he supports a "broad homosexual or bisexual agenda" - which could result in a violation of the Wikipedia:NPOV policy about maintaining a neutral point of view in the article entries. Wikipedia is intended to be a useful academic encyclopedia - not a forum for pushing personal agendas.

Francis Bacon's eloquent writings about Divine Love (a more transcendant form of Love than just "Platonic Love") can in no way be construed as being about sexual sense gratification. I love Engleham - but that does not mean I have "homosexual inclinations". Aburesz 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Aubrey is not alone to state that Bacon was a "pederast" : d'Ewes was contemporary with Bacon and that's clear for him that Bacon was homosexual : he wrote that in his diaries ; they were not supposed to be published. Aubrey, D'Ewes and Bacon's mother, three different sources at different times. Do you think it's not enough ? Then for you is Francis Bacon heterosexual, and his brother too ? 83.200.60.64 14:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Candid.

Aburesz, you accuse Engleham to "support a broad homosexual or bisexual agenda", but let me say to you that Matthews, the "rehabilitater" of Francis Bacon was the student of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (Osho), who "blessed" her book. That teacher was known to be very homophobic and Matthews was for sure like him. Bacon' admirer and homophobic... It is not astonishing if she didn't want to believe all the sources of Bacon's homosexuality, that is not "imagined" contrary to the case of other historical personalities. There is an homophobic agenda too : Matthews, Osho, but I don't think that you are homophobic ; you are perhaps like Saint Thomas : you believe only what you can watch and it's difficult for homosexuality. In our societies, heterosexuality, even without sources, is more believable. That's comprehensible, but is it very neutral ? 83.200.60.64 17:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Candid

Francis Bacon was one of the most important and extraordinary historical innovators in the fields of literature, science, and philosophy in the last 4 centuries of Western civilization. Why would anyone feel it is relevant to an enclyclopedia entry about Francis Bacon to have a paragraph of speculation about his "sexual orientation"? I find this highly inappropriate for an academic compendium such as Wikipedia was intended to be.

Taking bits and pieces of various sladerous writings by Bacon's enemies and trying to build a case for homosexuality is ludicrous! As a supporter of Queen Elizabeth and later King James, and serving in public office, Francis had a number of envious and malicious adversaries: Edward Coke (a life-long rival who especially hated him), Wilson, Simonds D'Ewes, and Catherine Macaulay. During that time period in England, the worst verbal mud-slinging you could assault your enemy with was to call them a homosexual (or in their words, accuse them of the "sin of sodomy").

The Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. II, 1846, contained a review of the Autobiography and Correspondence of Sir Simonds D'Ewes in which it was stated that his opinions of the men with whom he occasionally came into contact were very often not to be trusted, because, in the words of the reviewer: "D'Ewes was a narrow-minded man, who looked with strong prejudice upon everyone whose faith did not exactly square with his own, and in reference to such persons was uncharitably willing to believe all kinds of nonsense. Hence his slanders against Lord Bacon and Sir Robert Cotton, and his depreciation of Selden and many other persons."

Ann Bacon had a turbulent relationship with her 4 sons and her step-son Francis. (Baconian scholars are fully aware of the true biological parents of Francis, and that Nicholas and Ann Bacon were asked to raise Francis.) Her statements complaining about the company that her boys were keeping could never be rationally construed as indicating "homosexual inclinations". Aburesz 04:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if Aubrey should be considered as an enemy of Bacon. If her mother was anxious about the acquaintances of his sons (don't forget that Anthony was convinced of sodomy in France), that was by sure not on speculations : she had a "turbulent relationship" with Francis... well, his behaviour contribute certainly to this kind of relationship. It's easy to "dismiss" the testimony of d'Ewes, because he is not in the way you are. He discusses Bacon's homosexuality with precision and facts. People tried to hid Bacon's homosexuality in D'Ewes diary, and in a sermon of 1619 too. Four different sources at different times and the case of Anthony seems to be like Francis'. The documents were falsified because, as you are an illustration, people don't want him to be homosexual. He was not te only man of the time with ennemies : why is he the only prominent politician of the time to be accused to be homosexual ? Perhaps because it's true. You seem to believe that he couldn't be homosexual because he was "one of the most important historical innovators in the fields of literature, science and philosophy." But other homosexual people are important figures : Francis Bacon the painter, Alan Mathison Turing, the creator of the idea of the computer, the architect Philip Johnson, the novelist Marcel Proust... I know : it's difficult for a straight man to admit that his hero is a homosexual and all you can do to convince yourself is to claim that all the different sources and clues are obviously false. If there were a single indirect testimony of more than alleged Bacon's heterosexuality, your behaviour would certainly be very different. But there is no testimony on Bacon's heterosexuality and it is not enough to disdain all the different people at different times, for different reasons who claim that Bacon was not an icon of sexual purity. But I know that these arguments are nothing to you and that you even can't imagine that Bacon was homosexual. That's a pitty, but Have a nive day. 83.200.60.64 11:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Candid.

And your precious 1846' "Gentleman's Magazine", how can these people say that d'Ewes is not believable ? I think that, for these people, d'Ewes is not believable only because he writes that Bacon is homosexual : d'Ewes writes that Bacon is homosexual, so he is not believable and then, as he's not believable, Bacon was not homosexual... That's interesting. 83.200.60.64 11:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Candid.

D'Ewes was a narrow-minded mind because he thought that Bacon's homosexuality was against nature. I think that people of the """Gentleman's Magazine""" were narrow-minded as well. And today, there is a lot of people like them : Matthew Nieves, Osho, and all people thinking they are wright because marvelous people can't be anything but straight, because they are straight themselves and they of course marvelous too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.94.86 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

" Why would anyone feel it is relevant to an enclyclopedia entry about Francis Bacon to have a paragraph of speculation about his "sexual orientation"?"

1. Because it enables a greater sense of the man. 2. Because it is considered significant enough to have been incorporated in every Bacon biography for the last two decades. 3. Because a significant amount of modern scholarship is focused on how it affected the development of his ontology. 124.180.236.69 12:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, it doesn't matter what people on this page think. The article needs only to reference the differing points of view, expressed by scholars.

At the moment, the article's treatment of the subject is not quite satisfactory, in my opinion, because it is giving greater weight to primary sources than secondary ones: primary sources are quoted as evidence, while the comments of scholars are on the whole generalised into phrases such as "Some have attempted to link Bacon to homosexuality" and "Scholars have suggested that...", though the latter does note one scholar. It should be the other way round: bring what scholars have said directly into the article to show the readers the debate. The tone of the wording is also slightly suspect in places, as if the article is accusing Bacon of homosexuality: but if we are to adopt a modern approach, then we should not echo Bacon's contemporaries by insinuating that homosexuality is a fault or a sin. The following phrase strikes me as particularly misjudged in that respect: "Bacon exhibited a penchant for young Welsh serving-men..." (it makes it sound like a kink)—hardly neutral language. qp10qp 15:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I insist on the fact that Matthews is not neutral about homosexuality and that she has no evidence that he was not homosexual. She attempts to make him a saint.

---

It certainly is not true that Bacon's supposed homosexuality has been "included in every Bacon biography in the last two decades." One assumes that the biographers who don't even raise the subject don't do so as they don't consider sources to be credible, and/or that there's a more convincing circumstantial case along the lines that it's doubtful he was.

On Anthony Francis, it's been noted that Daphne du Maurier thought him (not Francis) to be homosexual: why then is it not further noted that she thought him to have such inclinations, but chastely, and that charges against him were false? Aged thirty-eight, he wrote of physical problems to his doctor, adding that they could derive not from venereal disease as he had never had carnal contact. He would not, thinks du Maurier, have lied to his doctor. Spedding feels that Anthony's mother had "lost the command of her faculties some years before her death ... she was little better than frantic in her age". At the time, Francis Allen wrote to Anthony: "In my simple judgement, she spoke it in passion and repented immediately her words", as he'd found her to be in a general fury, accusing of anything that came into her head.

There's a good reason why many people won't understand the weight of evidence against the claim against FB, and the reason is that Bacon's membership - or even leadership - of the early Rosicrucians, and involvement in what may have evolved into Masonry isn't given enough emphasis in conventional biographies, or in the Wikipedia entry. It takes a fair amount of study to tease out the huge amount of data in support of this, as well as sources such as Bacon's notebook or 'Promus' which is the only existing 'Shakespeare notebook' i.e. the working out of ideas, phrases, and poetry before it was included in the plays - but written by Bacon! How is this relevant? A good knowledge of this side of Bacon's life leaves it quite abundantly clear that he was the pivotal or central figure to a large school of what we might actually call disciples.

Bacon wrote that at the age of but twelve, he conceived a vast plan for revolutionising the "whole wide world" through science, literature, and many other means; and that he never ceased in this vast project which he called "the Great Instauration". He most certainly didn't go about this vast task alone, but he also didn't go about much of it in his own name, or openly. Upon his death, over thirty great minds collected together their eulogies of him: it is clear from all these eulogies that he was not only "loved" - deeply, and certainly in the eulogies this is a platonic love - but that there was something about his character which led men even of the stature of Ben Jonson to hold him in reverence and awe. Jonson is surely writing of platonic love in his words: "I love the man, and do honour his memory above all others." This depth of platonic or Divine Love of a large body of men toward Bacon is misunderstood today, but can be comprehended somewhat in the manner that disciples love a master. Yes, it was love, and yes, many will have been younger men than Bacon. His mother has been quoted, but even she - who may not have been his biological mother according to some - may not have been taken into the understanding of what his meetings with young men were really about.

Considering all that Bacon is certainly known to have accomplished, but adding to this the many well-supported notions of what else he might have also accomplished behind the scenes (which in my view deserve greater attention in the article), it simply appears imbalanced to spend so many words discussing - his sexuality. This would be worthwhile and necessary if it were central to what he stood for: if, for example, he was chiefly some sort of sexual revolutionary of his day. Evidently he was not, yet from a few scattered sentences in first or secondary documents found to be suggestive, a good portion of the article is constructed! Not balanced, in my opinion. In fact, rather bizarre to lend it such weight, even if it were true. But some biographers consider the whole matter to have been deep and platonic, altruistic love, yet misunderstood. Steranko 01:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a big laugh over the suggestion that Francis was asexual. That escape clause was always the old favourite when denying historical gay figures a sexuality. e.g. Gustav Ungerer was spinning exactly that line about Anthony before du Maurier located his trial records. I don't know anyone who has entertained the belief that Bacon had buggered Jonson. As for his servants, that's a different matter. Bray suspects that it may have been the money Bacon gave them that brought the matter to notice: certainly, homosexual relations between masters and servants were clearly common enough to provide a rich field for the satirists, from Rochester and earlier. As for the weight allotted to it in the article: this is a classic Wikipedia charge. Any implication of homosexuality in an historical figure has to be detailed and fully referenced, otherwise it is then accused by the homophobic of being an unsupported allegation, with the resulting endless edit war. If the detailing is provided they then complain it's too much: indeed, in their eyes any reference to homosexuality at all only gives it validity -- which unlike heterosexuality, it is unworthy of. Get the picture? If Catch 22 didn't exist, they'd have had to invent it. In addition, the earlier point made on this thread that it should be properly detailed "Because a significant amount of modern scholarship is focused on how it affected the development of his ontology" is extremely valid. The growth of gay studies departments within universities in recent years, and the flood of research and interpretation, is having a significant impact, and is literally re-writing history. To give another tiny example: the discoveries and interpretations in Crompton's 'Byron and Greek Love' have affected every Byron biography published after 1985. Multiply this a thousand times, and one gets an idea of the tsunami of change. For the homophobic this presents a confronting situation. Tough tit. Engleham 08:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A comment above begins: "I had a big laugh over the suggestion that Francis was asexual". I've read through the entries twice, and don't see that suggestion being made. I also wonder if it's considered laughable to suggest that anyone lives a celibate life anyway? If I may stray into the non-scholarly regions for a second, I personally know two males who feel heterosexual, yet have been celibate all their lives (now in their 50s), and two similar males who have lived a celibate life and probably don't know what their inclination is. Further, none of these are even celibate for religious or spiritual reasons. So I know that this is out there, factual, and not particularly laughable or serious either. Anthony Bacon wrote that he had never had carnal contact, aged thirty-eight. On consideration, it made me think how many mothers today would react or think if they knew their son had been with no woman and was thirty-eight. In an emotive state, one can easily imagine them coming out with words such as Anthony's mother ... which in this case some take as being 'evidence'!

Elsewhere here we read of "homophobic bigots". That's verging upon personal attack though not directed upon a single individual. Personally, I don't consider myself a bigot, and know for a fact I'm not homophobic. People are exercising their right here to correct what they regard as imbalance in the article. Personally I'm doing it for the sake of what I regard as accuracy, so far as we can arrive at it. That's an intellectual pursuit. It's rather less intellectual and somewhat emotive to use such language as I quote above. No need for it: let's get back to facts on the biography. Steranko 00:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC discussion

(I note, in passing, that the comment immediately above may have been intended as part of this discussion, as it quotes part of the text of the RfC.)

I want to make a couple of points about this issue. I'd like to make clear at the outset that I write as someone who is fairly familiar with Wikipedia, but not at all familiar with Francis Bacon.

1. First of all, to those who would like to suppress any discussion of Bacon's sexual orientation in our article: Please note that discussions of the personal lives of the subjects are a very common feature of our articles on people. There is absolutely no reason to assert that this material is "unencyclopedic" because it simply is not.

2. It should be kept in mind that heterosexuals have always enjoyed the privilege of having their romantic relationships accepted and documented, while this privilege is extremely new for homosexuals, who have really only enjoyed it for about 10-15 years or so (and it's still in a very precarious position). This has obviously distorted the availability of primary sources and scholarly material on same-sex relationships. This doesn't mean we should change our standards for inclusion of material in Wikipedia (see my next point), but it means we should consider dialing down the contempt when we discuss these issues.

3. WP:V and WP:RS are paramount. Material that is included in the encyclopedia must be verifiable and reliably sourced. This means that groundless speculation has no place in Wikipedia. However, it does not mean that only mainstream points of view may be presented. WP:POV covers this explicitly. If there is scholarly speculation about Bacon's sexual orientation, it should be presented as exactly that; if there is a scholarly consensus that he was homosexual, that should be presented. However, as long as there is controversy among scholars over the issue, those differences of opinion should be covered in our article.

Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is, in my opinion, an article that does a good job of presenting the various scholarly viewpoints on Lincoln's sexual orientation in an even-handed manner. It may be helpful in deciding on an approach for this article as well.

--Tkynerd 14:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Hey people. First of all, the whole idea of speculating 4 centuries later about a historical figure's sexuality is ridiculous. If that person was a campaigner for sexual issues, or was involved in a sexual scandal that cost him his position, then it would make sense. Neither of these two scenarios was the case with Bacon. There were no sexual accusations or scandals that affected Francis Bacon's public life. Secondly, the groundless specualtion that has intruded into this article is so weak, that even the National Enquirer or any other gossip tabloid would consider it below their standards! Artemis1102 12:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Hey, guys, 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.94.86 (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi, I came here from RFC. I'd like to make 2 comments -

Comment 1: One would expect any biographical article to document the significant interpersonal relationships of its subject. In addition, where those relationships were the source of contemporary scandal, one would expect either the scandal or the accusations to be documented too. However, if the accusations were of a scurrilous or political nature, without substance and designed to defame, then obviously it is the impact of the accusations on the life and career of the subject that is of importance; if the impact was negligible then they should be omitted. A good example of someone with all three varieties (as well as plenty of scurrilous undocumented accusations) is Bill Clinton.

Summary: I think that some information about Bacon's interpersonal relationships should be included; the nature of those relationships should determine exactly what to include and the manner of its presentation.

Comment 2: I'm looking at the paragraph of the article that begins with John Aubrey (1626–1697) in his Brief Lives writes that Bacon was "a pederast". I don't think that that this is the best way to present this information; as it stands this paragraph reads like an essay or academic paper, setting out arguments, quotations and evidence to support a conclusion. As an essay this is fine; in an encylopedia article it is not. In large parts it constitutes (or at least reads as) original research. If scholarly text exists to support a conclusion then the conclusion should be documented and cited; it is not necessary to document the premises that led to that conclusion. It may be appropriate to summarize the nature of the arguments for example: Dr John Clever argues that contemorary accounts suggest that Jane Notable had several homosexual affairs. Including excerpts from such hypothetical accounts to support a conclusion is the job of the academic and not of the encylopedia editor.

Summary: Present and summarize conclusions not the minutiae of the arguments.

CIreland 22:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a lovely dream. Unfortunately, with regard to homosexuality (or any other contentious issue for that matter) it never works on Wikipedia. See my earlier comment for the details as to why. Engleham 00:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The material on Bacon's sexual interests is well sourced and of great historical interest, as it begins to fill in an under-reported aspect in the lives of notable individuals. If this was an encyclopedia of philosophy, or of scientific history, then one might argue that his personal life was not germane to the topic. However, since this is a general encyclopedia, to which people of all stripes are likely to resort, even gender studies scholars or their acolytes, it behooves us to cover all aspects of his life, not just his professional contributions. Haiduc 04:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the page is reading increasingly oddly. One might come to the article to read about Bacon in general and find one has stumbled into a detailed prosecution of the chap for homosexuality, as if it were still a crime. In my opinion, it would be more appropriate for the article to take the isue of homosexuality in its stride rather than getting carried away over it and lining up primary sources to prove the point. The issue is dealt with disproportionately, in my opinion (the article has only half a sentence on Bacon's prosecution of the earl and duchess of Somerset, for example, one of the momentous events of the age). qp10qp 04:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Hey guys, what's wrong with this picture? Someone lifted entire sections from Rictor Norton's "Gay History & Literature Essays" website. It has been pointed out that the accusations by Simonds D'Ewes, the political and religious enemy of Francis Bacon, were of a scurrilous nature, without substance and designed to defame - and written in a private diary! It was pointed out on this page that John Aubrey was born 27 days before Bacon died (actually his feigned "death" on Easter Sunday 1626) - so how can anyone call him a "contemporary"? It was pointed out on this page that the stepmother of Francis, Ann Cooke Bacon, made negative statements about the friends of Francis, but that: "she spoke it in passion and repented immediately her words".

So with these phony arguments exposed as the misrepresentations that they are, why have you not edited these two paragraphs to make them neutral as Wikipedia describes the policy at WP:NPOV, or simply removed this trash copied from Rictor Norton's homosexual agenda website ???? Artemis1102 04:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "written in a private diary" ; that's why the testimony is of great value!!!!!!! Private statement is more sincere than public accusations. Bacon had a lot of servants. Aubrey and d'Ewes knew that Bacon was homosexual, because one or several servants made indiscretions. It is not very clever to claim that a private diary is not as valuable than a public accusation. Don't you think that private diaries are more sincere ? Is Samuel Pepys not a good example ? The argumentation of "Aburesz" and "Artemis" is really weak and not valuable. But they're wright : Homosexuality is of course trash, dirty and against nature. At the contrary, straight people are kind, honest, unblemished, and are genious. Don't you think that without homosexuality, the world would be much better ? That would be the better way to suppress homophoby, don't you think ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.94.86 (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I have repeatedly attempted to modify these paragraphs to make them neutral (NPOV), only to be personally attacked and have the entire excerpts from Rictor Norton's web site essay put right back into this article. Aburesz 13:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Homophobic bigots are SO platitudinous:

1. Demand endless citing of sources.

2. Endeavour to discount them when they're provided.

3. When that fails, suggest the whole topic is trivial.

4. When that fails...wait for it...suggest plagiarism!

One has to laugh. Usually it's just steps 1,2 & 3, rinse and repeat. However, this Step 4 is a whole new one I'm now thrilled to document. Especially as I wrote the majority of the text they refer to. How delightful to have my writing mistaken for that of the eminent Dr Norton. But of course, there is no mistake on their part, and no plagiarism. For this is nothing more than a pathetic try on...in their hope that the paragraphs will be edited out. This is not to say I believe these types have come within *a mile* of any of the works I read and referenced to provide the primary source quotes. But as we've seen earlier (see my documenting comment of 11:30, 12 June 2007), they'll try ANYTHING if they think they can get away it. Such types are beyond shame. It's just a game for them. Engleham 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence seems substantial, well-documented, and presented in a reasonably balanced way. (I have removed one tendential adverb, however.) My interest in Bacon is philosophical, but the controversy's existence during his lifetime makes it reasonable that it appears as part of his biography in the present manner.Hgilbert 19:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The so-called "evidence" is not substantial, well-documented, or presented in a reasonably balanced way. As someone pointed out, these paragraphs are presented as if this was a "detailed prosecution of the chap for homosexuality". And the hint that there has been "uncovered new supporting evidence" simply falls apart when you actually look at the Jardine & Stewart book Hostage to Fortune. Since I have this and all the other sources referenced by Engleham in my own extensive library, unsubstantiated claims will not slip by my notice. Aburesz 20:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN. --Tkynerd 21:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidences of Bacon's homosexuality are substantial. It is not the case of Aburesz' argumentation. He should write why he thinks that Bacon was heterosexual : is there "substantial evidence" to make a case about Bacon's heterosexuality ? It would be a best way to expose them. But it is not possible, because Bacon was homosexual. And there is not other way for homophobic people to use a negative and unsubtantial argumentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.94.86 (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea whether Bacon was homosexual or not and no objections to the point being raised as part of his biography, but one doesn't need to know anything about the issue to see that the paragraphs concerned are not in keeping with Wikipedia policy on two grounds:

1. They use primary sources too heavily.

An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.(W:NPOV)

So if you want to make a case, quote the scholars rather than the primary sources upon which the scholars have based their conclusions, since the readers will largely not have the knowledge and specialist skills to evaluate the primary sources quoted.

2. The matter is overemphasized and allotted space disproportionate to the information in the rest of this fairly short article, thereby giving it undue weight.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. (W:NOR)

qp10qp 22:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(personal attack removed) Wrad 22:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I would like to point out that there was no public controversy about Bacon involving sexuality during his lifetime, and Bacon's government service and public life was not affected by even by D'Ewes attempts to start a controversy.

2. I heartily agree with User:Tkynerd that the Wikipedia policy on "Ownership" WP:OWN should be kept in mind. There should not be editors who keep distorting this article on Francis Bacon with a highly biased point of view, using overemphasized and unsubstantiated claims, and (as noted by User:Qp10qp) allotting a disproportionate amount of space to the matter thereby giving it undue weight.

3. When I have attempted to edit the paragraphs in question to bring a more neutral point of view, there have been immediate reverts back to the lengthly, biased and disproportionate version (along with continuing personal attacks). Aburesz 01:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I now feel constrained to explain that my reference to WP:OWN was in response to your statement above: "unsubstantiated claims will not slip by my notice." That makes it sound as if you have appointed yourself sole gatekeeper for this article, which isn't appropriate. Obviously it's good if all editors work to ensure that statements in Wikipedia articles, especially controversial statements, are properly sourced, but there's a fine line between doing that and taking over an article completely. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, and I'm also sorry if I've misunderstood you, but that's how your statement sounded to me. --Tkynerd 03:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You did misunderstand me, but it was my fault for not explaining myself. I apologize for not making myself more clear in what I intended.

I meant to say that when someone acts as if they have taken over the article completly, reverting other people's edits that are given in good faith to improve the accuracy of the article, and makes all kinds of unsubstantiated statements trying to convince others of the validity of their view, someone else who has those same sources should see if they are verifiable. I have the same sources that Engleham / Rictor Norton quote from, and those sources certainly do not substantiate their claims. When I wrote "unsubstantiated claims will not slip by my notice" - I meant that I will not be fooled by claims of "documentation" that - upon examination - are not what they are claimed to be, since I happen to have the same resources that enable me to check each claim that is made personally, and not merely take what someone else claims is documented - simply on faith.

For example, the statement in the paragraphs in question that there has been "uncovered new supporting evidence" simply fell apart when I actually went back again to my copy of the Jardine & Stewart book Hostage to Fortune: The Troubled Life of Francis Bacon and saw the utter insignificance of the "catamites" not "Latinities" issue. Someone else not having access to that book might simply believe that there is something definitive and substantial in that book, and therefore it must be important enough to mention in an encyclopedia article on Francis Bacon.

Another example is the quote from Ann Bacon that is conveniently lifted out of context. I went back to my copy of the book edited by James Spedding An Account of the Life and Times of Francis Bacon and looked at the context of that quote. Ann was exasperated that money that was owed to her sons was not being paid back, and she lashed out angrily regarding the one who owed the debts. In the process, she said some things that were meant to be derogatory. There are a number of Ann's other letters that are quoted in that book, and no where is there anything of significance that should belong in an encyclopedia article about Francis Bacon. Aburesz 04:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Some authors, such as Rictor Norton, have tried to link Bacon to homosexuality. [1] However scholars such as Mathews [2] have found no evidence of homosexuality in Bacon's life." Matthews, who was homophobic didn't try to found evidence of homosexuality in Bacon's life : she tried to deny it and to link Bacon to heterosexuality. But if there is evidences of Bacon's homosexuality, as non homophobic authors stated it, there is not even a clue of his heterosexuality. The problem with Mathews is that she says that Bacon was not homosexual because she claims that all the testimonies are not credible. That's her right to state that there could be more reliable testimonies : there would be no discussion -I think, but is it sure ?- if we had a letter in wich Bacon deals with homosexuality. But Mathews claims that the proofs of Bacon's heterosexuality is that all the sources about his homosexuality are not sure : hostile people claim that Bacon was homosexual, so he was heterosexual, for Mathews. It isn't an indisputable point of view. In fact, it's obvious that Mathews had a purpose : to be the "rehabilitator" of Bacon. That's why she must claim -without proof- that Bacon was obviously a heterosexual, because she thinks that homosexuality is the evil -if she thinks what her master Osho thinks and this is for sure the case. Therefore, that's "ludicrous" to say that Bacon was not homosexual because "scholars such as Mathews have found no evidence of homosexuality in Bacon's life." You should write "homophobic rehabilitators such as Mathews..." Candid 10:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you want a quote of the Work of Osho, the man who "blessed" the book of Nieves Matthews, saying that Bacon was obviously not homosexual ? Thereafter, say that she is neutral about homosexuality:

"If you want to be angry, be angry against Jesus Christ. Be angry against all the founders of religions. They all say, "Believe and you will be saved." And I say to you, "Believe and you are drowned." I say to you, "Doubt, because that is something that you have come with. Nature has provided you a method for inquiry. Doubt is a method of inquiry." In ten thousand years of religious history, religions have not contributed anything -- except AIDS, homosexuality, lesbianism, sadism, masochism, wars, discrimination -- all kinds of crimes: killing millions of people, burning living people. They are all based on belief. Science -- which is based on doubt -- has contributed within three hundred years everything from the smallest safety pin to the rocket that reaches to the moon. If you count the blessings that science has showered on you you will be surprised. Your clothes, your glasses, your watches, your health, your medicine, your food -- everything science has improved. Science has only been unsuccessful in improving you, because all the religions are sitting on your neck. I want you to get rid of all the religions and become a scientific seeker. " Osho. Candid 12:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

For Osho and Mathews, homosexuality, that's like wars, discrimination and crime. I'm sorry, but I think that Jardine and Stewart are more neutral than Mathews. Even Rictor Norton, who is a gay-friendly historian of homosexuality is more neutral than Mathews, because he doesn't try to hid the reality : there is several documents about Francis Bacon's """"""alleged"""""" homosexuality. But it is not "alleged" because it's an "absurd theory", like Mathews writes because of his opinions, but because Bacon himself didn't say that he was homosexual. He didn't say that because he wasn't, but because it was dangerous. Candid 16:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Aburesz writes that the "catamites" not Latinies" issue is not "signifiant. But it is, in a way : that's an example of homophobic forgery. There is other examples. It shows that scholars who write that there is "no evidence" of homosexuality are not credible because sometimes, there is hidden evidences. And these scolars like Mathews are in the category of the falsifiers. Nobody can say that there is no censure about homosexuality. Candid 16:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Improvements to the Francis Bacon article

Instead of personal attacks, such calling others "Homophobic bigots", let's get on with the work of improving this article. I would suggest someone deal with restructuring these disproportionate homosexual allegations paragraphs. There should be the freedom to correct what many regard as imbalance in this article.

Wording that is factually inaccurate should be corrected. For example, "A number of contemporary sources allude . . . " is not correct. The only quote from a "contemporary" actually came from a 3 May 1621 private diary entry from one contemporary (yes ONLY one "contemporary") - the self-proclaimed enemy of Francis Bacon in Parliament: Simonds D'Ewes. What is not generally known is that he was also a religious extremist who thought his religion demanded that homosexuals be hunted down and executed. He even preached a public sermon in 1619 calling for their public executions!

The presenting and debating of various minutia that purportedly advance a theory lies within the purview and scope of an author, researcher, or scholar in their own published works. In my opinion, such should not be interjected into a biographical entry in an encyclopedia. Aburesz 22:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that his mother is not a contemporary? Haiduc 00:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ann Bacon was a contemporary who did not "allude to Bacon's alleged propensity for romantic and physical relations with young males". The quote from Ann Bacon was taken out of context. I went back to my copy of the book edited by James Spedding An Account of the Life and Times of Francis Bacon and looked at the context of that quote. Ann was exasperated that money that was owed to her sons was not being paid back, and she lashed out angrily regarding the one who owed the debts. In the process, she said some things that were meant to be derogatory. There are a number of Ann's other letters that are quoted in that book, and no where is there anything of significance that should belong in an encyclopedia article about Francis Bacon. Aburesz 02:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ann Bacon "alludes", that's the good word. She didn't "claim." Candid 11:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia article on Dwight Eisenhower, the former U.S. President's miltary and government careers are described in a fairly well organized manner. There is no mention of his secret relationship with Kay Summersby Morgan. There had been rumors of this during his presidency, however these did not impact on his public life or career. Therefore these are not mentioned in the text of the article. Towards the bottom of the article there is a "See also" section that contains internal links to other Wikipedia articles. One of these links is to the Wikipedia article on Kay Summersby.

Despite recent speculation, Bacon's government career and public life were never affected by any rumors or accusations involving sexuality during his lifetime. I agree with CIreland when he stated on this page: "However, if the accusations were of a scurrilous or political nature, without substance and designed to defame, then obviously it is the impact of the accusations on the life and career of the subject that is of importance; if the impact was negligible then they should be omitted." Aburesz 14:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"Instead of personal attacks, such calling others "Homophobic bigots", let's get on with the work of improving this article."

Yes. And showing up a contributor as dishonest serves no fruitful purpose. As for the suggestion of Bacon's homosexuality, it should be ruthlessly dismissed for the purposes of balance, and those mentioning the growing role it plays in modern interpretations of Bacon's works, and the majority of current scholars who support such nonsense, studiously ignored. Engleham 14:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Why don't they pick on someone else? Look at Henry VIII in those tights, huh? And that bit with chopping off wives heads. If that doesn't show a certain distain for women, what does? Student7 11:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Light faster than sound

While it sounds intuitive now, Bacon was the first to record that light travels faster than sound and, implicit in that statement, that light was propagated (information). I don't have a reference on this or would insert it. In other Wikipedia articles! Student7 12:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Improving the Francis Bacon article

In my opinion, THERE ARE THREE OBVIOUS FACTS:

FACT # 1 - There is a majority consensus that the WP:POV paragraphs trying make a case for Francis Bacon being a homosexual are unsatisfactory as they now stand, and are disproportionate to their significance.

FACT # 2 - There is not a single author, researcher, or scholar who has indicated that there was a public controversy about Bacon involving sexuality during his lifetime. In my opinion, it is the impact of any accusations (or attempts to "allude") on the life and career of a historical figure that determine whether their importance warrants inclusion in an article such as this. Again I repeat - Bacon's government service and public life were not affected by any such attempts.

FACT # 3 - In surveying my library of books about Francis Bacon, it appears that there are several authors who are not neutral and who have tried to reinterpret history according to a non-traditional "homosexual or bisexual agenda" : Rictor Norton, Alan Stewart, Alan Bray, C. R. Forker, Graham L. Hammill, & A. L. Rowse. The vast majority of the Bacon authors and scholars do not even consider such speculation worth mentioning: Virginia M. Fellows, Alfred Dodd, Jerry Weinberger, Jean Overton Fuller, Kendra H. Baker, William Stone Booth, Peter Dawkins, Mrs. Pott Henry, Perez Zagorin, Daphne Du Maurier, F. H Anderson, William Stone Booth, Stephen Gaukroger, Brian Vickers, Alexander B. Grofart, Richard Ramsbotham, R. W. Church, S.A.E. Hickson, Reginald Walter Gibson, Max Patrick, Antonio Perez Ramos, Edward. D. Johnson, P. Rossi, Arthur Cornwall, J.G. Crowther, J. Duchaussoy, and Benjamin Farrington, Kenneth R. Patton, Julian Martin, Antoinette Mann Paterson, Peter Urbach, Sam Schoenbaum, George V. Tudhope, Parker Woodward, Brian Vickers, John Henry, Ross Jackson, Henry Peacham, William Smedley, Karl Hollenbach, Mary Horton, A. Hassell Smith, Karl Wallace, Mather Walker, Nigel B.Cockburn, Walter Ellis, Manly P. Hall, Howard B. White, Charles Whitney, John Michell, Virgil K. Whitaker, Byron Steel, Penn Leary, and B.H.G. Wormald Aburesz 21:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to your point 3 (which I don't think should be labeled "fact"), I'm going to repost something I originally posted above at the beginning of the RfC discussion.

2. It should be kept in mind that heterosexuals have always enjoyed the privilege of having their romantic relationships accepted and documented, while this privilege is extremely new for homosexuals, who have really only enjoyed it for about 10-15 years or so (and it's still in a very precarious position). This has obviously distorted the availability of primary sources and scholarly material on same-sex relationships. This doesn't mean we should change our standards for inclusion of material in Wikipedia (see my next point), but it means we should consider dialing down the contempt when we discuss these issues.

The evaluation of primary and secondary sources for evidence of the homosexual or bisexual orientation of a historical figure is, by definition, "non-traditional," since that kind of research has only existed for about forty years or so (sixty, tops). Dismissing it out of hand for that reason, and insisting on sticking entirely to "traditional" sources, means ignoring modern scholarship and doesn't accord with WP:RS. All sources should be evaluated by the criteria set out on that page.

Finally, references to a "homosexual or bisexual agenda" are at least as WP:POV as anything I have yet seen posted in the article. --Tkynerd 23:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that Wieland Schmied is a biographer of Francis Bacon the scientist ? I make perhaps a mistake, but I think that he is a biographer of the painter : I'm looking on the web. If it is so, are you sure of all you are writing ? 90.3.36.61 23:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are correct. I had ordered a bunch of books about Francis Bacon from Amazon.com recently, and mistakenly included the other Francis Bacon. The book I would especially recommend is by William Smedley, who wrote The Mystery of Francis Bacon. Aburesz 01:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) The "fact" that I was referring to was that the vast majority of the Bacon authors and scholars that I had read had not considered such speculation on Bacon's sexuality worthy of mentioning. When I read what was claimed in this Wikipedia article on Francis Bacon, I immediately ordered quite a number of additional books that I did not yet have, and checked on-line resources to try to discover what the basis for the speculation was. By the way, I found a good resource that provides the text of out of print books on-line: The Questia Online Library "http://www.questia.com".

(2) Regarding expressing my point of view, is that not what a "Talk:Francis Bacon" page for discussing improvements to the Francis Bacon article is intended to be for? How else can this article be improved without discussing each one's point of view? However - the article itself should be neutral. (See WP:NPOV) Aburesz 03:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is that your POV affects how you evaluate sources, which affects the article. You appear to have a POV and to be systematically excluding reliably sourced material from the article that differs from your POV. That violates WP:NPOV. --Tkynerd 15:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If these scholars don't write anything about the fact that contemporaries thought that Bacon was "a pederast" -and that's very possible that others clues were destroyed-, it quite possible that these scholars are not so neutral. neutral people should say : there are clues about Bacon's homosexuality but we can't be absolutely sure that he was homosexual. Point. 195.220.121.25 09:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Aburesz, if you did made important mistake, I suspect you to ignore what these scholars wrote about Bacon. And that's very ironic : Wieland Schmied's Book contains references about homosexuality ; it is not the same Bacon, but you can't be sure that the other scholars don't discuss Bacon's homosexuality. And if some scholars are not interested in Bacon's homosexuality, that's not the proof that he wasn't. Actually, the only possible tiny proof of his heterosexuality is that he get married, but very late and, I quote one of your scholars, Alfred Dodd that was in a political way :

"Bacon had saved himself three years previously from being excommunicated altogether from the public service by his readiness for an engagement with a child of eleven years (Alice Barnham), a commoner. He was now going to open the door to State offices by his marriage to the "handsome wench" of thirteen, according to his bargain with the King and Cecil."

And I don't think the better solution is to avoid the subject. That would be censure. 195.220.121.25 09:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am definitely not for censure, but I am aware of academic standards. Wikipedia policies have attempted to emulate those standards.

Considerations of government offices and alliances are a well-documented historical fact. An example of this was Queen Jadwiga of Poland. She was married at the age of twelve in order to unite Poland with Lithuania in 1385.

In today's more elightened atmosphere (at least in the West), I - along with most people - consider condemnation of other individuals for homosexuality to be abhorrent and not acceptable. I personally consider such contempt for others to be disrespectful of the essential Divinity of every man, woman, and child!

Unfortunately, respect for each one's dignity was sometimes not espoused in the unenlightened 16th and 17th century political and social discourse. Especially during the reign of James I, one of the verbal weapons used by opponents at that time was the accusation of "unnatural vice".

A few isolated sentences in primary or secondary sources that a few authors found to be suggestive is not reason enough to create an imbalanced non-neutral section in this article. As qp10qp pointed out above: "The matter is overemphasized and allotted space disproportionate to the information in the rest of this fairly short article, thereby giving it undue weight." Aburesz 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What you are writing is not unreasonable. The text about homosexuality is perhaps too long : it is possible to put a link to Rictor Norton. But don't write that Bacon's homosexuality is an absurd theory because it isn't. Candid 19:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I remove that : "Bacon's government career and public life were never affected by any rumors or accusations involving sexuality", because it is already said that D'Ewes was not an indisputable source. However, that's right the homosexuality of humanists like Marcus Antonius Muretus or Georg Joachim Rheticus is more documented. Candid 13:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't believe John Aubrey, then remove all Aubrey, even about Bacon's Death.

I have been following the discussion on this page for the last several months. Someone wrote: "Bacon's government career and public life were never affected by any rumors or accusations involving sexuality." I believe that placing speculation about Bacon's sexual preference in the section titled "Career" appears to be out of place. I would submit that merely because an author decides to publish his own theory about someone does not entitle it to be mentioned in the "Career" section of a biographical article. I believe that this paragraph should either be eliminated or moved to another section, possibly "Posthumous reputation". Emery 19:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that this paragraph is not at the right place, but if someone want to move it to "Posthumous reputation." -actually not so posthumous- I think it is all right. But "elimination" would be censure. Candid 20:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Categorization of Bacon

I realize that the issue of Bacon's homosexuality seems to have a lack of general consensus, both here on Wiki AND in the scholarly world -- and that's fine for the moment, seeing as we're all 400 years out from his lifetime. That being said... is it really appropriate to have him placed in the "LGBT" and "Gay Writers" categories? If the issue is in question, the category tag shouldn't be there, should it? Just as he shouldn't have a tag for "Heterosexual Writers" or "Pedarastic Writers," seeing as both of those are in question as well. I'm not a long-term contributor to the Bacon page, so I'm leaving it up to the more regular editors to delete the tags or modify them for now.

And before anyone tries to paint me as "homophobic" for suggesting that the category tags shouldn't be there: I would have ZERO qualms about saying Fracis Bacon was gay -- IF proof was conclusive, as opposed to what seems to be a personal attack from a rival (even if it was in his own diary -- I've written some nasty stuff about people in my own diary that wasn't true, as a measure of cathartic release), a person born shortly before Bacon's death, and commments about his friends by his stepmother. Until such proof is availabe, isn't it wiser and more appropriate to just not have the category tags?

Cheers! 74.134.228.189 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above observations, and have removed those 2 category tags, as well the "English Astrologers" category. No books have portrayed him as an astrologer. Arion 04:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there are severals sources -three- stating that he was gay -it isn't perfect- and none stating that he was heterosexual. That's all. And Nieves Matthews write that he was of course heterosexual write that because she was homophobic -and that is sure-, not because she can prove it. She can't prove it because there isn't any source stating that he was attracted by his wife or that he had mistresses. But there is sources stating that he was attracted by boys. He was homosexual, that's sure, because the heterosexual claims are unsubstantiated, not the homosexual ones.

The statement of Havelock Ellis is very clever. He didn't think that Shakespeare was homosexual. That's my mind too, but he knew that Bacon was homosexual and I agree too : 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.94.86 (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

BE CAREFUL : REMEMBER THAT NIEVES MATTHEWS DENIED BACON'S HOMOSEXUALITY BECAUSE SHE WAS STRONGLY HOMOPHOBIC. IT'S NOT VALUABLE. HOMOPHOBIC PEOPLE ARE VOLUNTARILY BLIND AND DISHONEST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.94.86 (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

SHE WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF OSHO, WHO SAID TO HER TO CLAIM WITHOUT PROOF THAT BACON WAS HETEROSEXUAL. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW WHO IS OSHO. SEE THE TALK DISCUSSION ABOUT HIM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.94.86 (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge material from Idols of the mind

I suggest that the short, unwikified article 'Idols of the mind' be merged into the Francis Bacon article. The information in the 'Idols' article is interesting and would be a valuable part of the Bacon article, and the Baocn article is not be made an unwieldly size by its inclusion. In spite of the usefulness of its material, the 'Idols' page will probably never be developed into a significant stand alone article. Anarchia 06:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this would be a good addition. However we need a reference source for this. Arion 17:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I reckon. Do it.

Lin 11:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy importance rating

According to the importance assessment criteria fo philosophy, an article is of high importance when: "The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding philosophy." I contend that understanding Francis Bacon is not vital for understanding philosophy. I, therefore, propose that the article be rated 'mid' importance for philosophy.Anarchia 07:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I contend that understanding Francis Bacon is vital for understanding philosophy. Therefore the rating should be "high importance". Arion 17:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

you may contend whatever you want, in the end, bacon is somewhere in low-mid in importance given a brief analysis of the contents of philosophy textbooks and syllabi, where he is quite rare. if you can provide evidence of the centrality of his work to the field, please share it. --Buridan 14:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy considers him important enough to have his own chapter.--Straw Cat 20:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

On the three "modern" inventions

In Bacon's work Novum Organum, he cites three world-changing inventions in the West, but does not seem to be aware that they all hail from China.

This sentence, referring to gunpowder, the compass, and printing, should be moderated, since western movable-type printing, as invented by Gutenberg, is unrelated to Chinese printing. Ergo, printing did not "hail" from China but was completely independent. --Vlmastra 00:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence, but now that I look at it, the whole section seems out of place. Yes, it's an interesting quote, but not entirely relevant for a short biography. That's a lot of material for only one small point. In addition, that is a suspiciously large amount of quotation in proportion to the amount of original material. In summary, I find the section to be non-essential. Does anyone agree? --Vlmastra 01:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the section should stay. However I have renamed it to properly reflect what is actually being quoted. I have added the correct reference for the quote, and removed the second superfluous unsourced paragraph. I can not find any actual Francis Bacon quote that would show that Bacon did not know about what actually origianted in China. Therefore I have removed "in the West, but does not seem to be aware that they all hail from China." Arion 02:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality discussion

I was surprised to see the "Sexuality" section I had created, so arbitrarily removed. I will not just revert that edit, instead I will bring the text here so that if anyone has substantive disagreements with the material we can work them out before it is re-added to the article. The old version was simply slanted and incorrect to boot, lumping discussions of his sexuality into the posthumous section, despite the fact that allusions and accusations raged well before there was anything posthumous about the man.

Sexuality Bacon is widely acknowledged to have had romantic attachments to other males, and is today considered to have had homosexual tastes. Among the many modern authors acknowledging this aspect of his life are A .L. Rowse, Rictor Norton, , Alan Stewart, , Louis Crompton, and Joseph Cady. Nieves Mathews is among the few modern writers to take an opposing view, claiming that the sources are not conclusive: (1) a quote from the private diary of Simonds D'Ewes (Bacon's enemy in Parliament, but considered to be a responsible and scrupulous lawyer), (2) a quote from Brief Lives by John Aubrey (written after Bacon's passing): he "was a pederast" and "had ganimeds and favourites", (3) and a note by Ann Bacon in which she expressed disapproval of the friends Francis and Anthony were associating with (since one was a "Papist" and money was owned to her sons: "that bloody Percy [who Bacon kept] as a coach companion and bed companion."). Coaches were one of the few private spaces at the time, thus the term "coach companion" is a clear reference to sexual doings.

Haiduc 03:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a substantive disagreement with the use of factually incorrect statements such as "allusions and accusations raged well before there was anything posthumous about the man". There was no public controversy about Bacon involving sexuality during his lifetime - and Bacon's government service and public life were not affected by D'Ewes 3 May 1621 private diary entry. In my opinion, there is no justifiable reason for creating an entire new section that over-emphasizes the theory of several authors who are not neutral and who have tried to reinterpret history. Emery 07:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you're not wright. To write that there was "no public controversy about Bacon involving sexuality during his lifetime" is wrong. There was no trial, but there was a controversy :

"It was thought by some, that hee should have been tried at the barre of justice for it", wrote d'Ewes.

Don't you think your statements are not correct ? It is, because there was a controversy, that's the good word. D'Ewes wouldn't write if it wasn't so. It was Haiduc's wright to mention it, but he was censured. And really, it is enough with these people who censure historical evidences when they're not comfortable with it. It should be possible to write that all historical evidences and clues are in the way of Bacon's homosexuality, not of Bacon's heterosexuality. But is there a honest man to admit that here ? I don't think so.

Anyway, that would be correct to say that there was a controversy during his lifetime and the section "posthumous reputation" is not correct. And think about that : what Aubrey is not at all posthumous, because he collected informations thank to older people, who were contemporaries of Bacon. With d'Ewes, we have at last two different evidences. And if all the letter of Bacon's mother didn't deal with his sexuality, there is a paragraph about it. It isn't honest to hidd this fact because it was not Ann Bacon's only preoccupation ; it is a part of his preoccupations. She alludes that his son had homosexual infatuations thirty years before d'Ewes and a lot of year before John Aubrey. I don't know how it is possible to say the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.94.86 (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Candid 19:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

SOMETHING MUST BE DONE AND WILL BE DONE. THIS ARTICLE DOESN'T SAY ALL THE TRUTH ABOUT BACON'S HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A CONTROVERSY DURING HIS LIFETIME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.94.86 (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Early life

Hey you blokes! Look, in this early section you're saying "His mother, Ann Cooke Bacon, was the second wife of Sir Nicholas. She was a member of the Reformed or Puritan Church, and a daughter of Sir Anthony Cooke. Her sister married William Cecil, Lord Burghley, the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth I."

I think that you're losing your grip on the subject here. Second sentence in this example is not related to the subject properly. I wonder if you'd consider saying, "She was a daughter of Sir Anthony Cooke and a member of the Reformed Puritan Church." —putting the birth first and the church membership second as in a natural order in this case.

Then why not say that, "His maternal uncle was, by marriage, William Cecil..." or if that is going to look a bit ugly you might try, "His (maternal) aunt married William Cecil..." because we really are only interested in Francis—are we not? You're just gilding the lily, are you not?

Going back to the first sentence—you could go, "His mother, Ann Cook Bacon, was Sir Nicholas's second wife." Then I'm thinking that this is Americanisms creeping in here and she wasn't Ann Cook Bacon before she was married. She was Ann Cook, right? So we now have "His mother, Ann Cook, was Sir Nicholas's second wife." —and everybody is happy—especially Francis Bacon who would have been turning in his grave at the English you are concocting in this article.

If you'll give me those fixes I'll think about going through the whole thing and making any other suggestions—for your consideration. Cheers.

Lin 11:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions for clarity in the article's language. I have made the changes. Emery 06:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)