Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

The question is the argument

At this writing, the first sentence says

The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him.

No offense intended to whoever wrote that, but that sounds really bad. A question is not an argument; a question is a question. The question asks whether someone other than WS of SuA wrote the works.

I'm going to speculate that the intent here is that the only people who ask the question are the ones who make the argument that someone else wrote the works. That may be so; I don't know enough about the topic to say. But I'm afraid that doesn't save the sentence; it still looks really really bad.

Possible fixes include:

1. Change to The Shakespeare authorship question asks whether...
2. Move the article to some phrase that can be more cleanly repeated in the first sentence
3. Don't repeat the article title (at least, verbatim) in the first sentence at all

Option 3 is a little unusual but not unprecedented, especially for titles that are more descriptions of something than a standard name for that thing. Just off the top of my head, could be something like

A minority of scholars of the works attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon has proposed that someone else wrote the works attributed to him.

Not great, needs work, but I'm just trying to explain what I mean, not proposing actual text. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please search the archives; this question has been brought up more than once, and it is the main reason why the word "argument" is linked to an explanation. And WP style favors putting the title on the first sentence. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Very often in featured articles, questions have been hashed over many times, and I appreciate that. I'm coming to the article with new eyes, and letting you know that, to my eyes, it is still a problem. By the way, I don't see what you mean by "argument" being linked to an explanation, but in any case I'm sure you'll agree that links are not a substitute for clear writing.

As for the style, yes, in most cases, the title is repeated in the first sentence, but there are exceptions. WP:BEGIN says

However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text.

This case seems at least arguably an instance of "merely descriptive". --Trovatore (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw that the link was gone, and traced it back to an anonymous edit on 20 May 2014 and restored it. I don't agree that it "sounds really bad". It succinctly defines the term. And the term is not merely descriptive; other authorship terms exist that refer to attribution studies. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Does it define the term? It seems to me that the "authorship question", at least in principle, is about whether someone else wrote the works, not an argument that someone else did. (Or, perhaps, it's the question of who wrote the works, with WS of SuA being one possible answer.)

I don't actually see how the argument link helps; the first sentence of that article says that ... an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade .... But a question is not typically used to persuade; it is typically used to inquire. --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The term "Shakespeare authorship question" is not a question; it is a synecdoche for all the arguments against William Shakespeare being the author of the Shakespeare canon. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that's very clear to a naive reader. If this is the intent, then maybe it would be better to move the article to alternative Shakespeare authorship hypotheses or some such? --Trovatore (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I am going cycling now; I look forward to reading response(s) in a few hours. --Trovatore (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

As Tom says, we hashed this out after a long discussion several years ago. Yes, it helps, Trovatore, that you come to this with fresh eyes, and you are welcome to present your view from your own perspective. But—and you admit you "don't know enough about the topic"—what does not help is your charging in like gangbusters and changing the first sentence of a Featured Article while it is being so prominently displayed. We really need to wait for some responses to accumulate on the talk page. "It sounds really bad"? It sounds really bad to you. Maybe others will join in, agreeing with you, and adding their own reasons, and some change will be made that will, after all, be better. But this is too fast, much too fast, just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The link to argument to me does adequately account for this use of the term. Yes, it is a less than common use, which is why the link was there (as Tom says, someone removed it and no one restored it); but, as I recall, after I read all the, er, arguments, for and against, the first time around, I did come over to the point of view that this first sentence works, and it was better than any alternatives proposed. Agreed, you have the right to say your say and be heard. But, sheesh, a little patience, please? This is not a first stab at a new article that somebody just cobbled together yesterday. (I hope you enjoyed your ride.) --Alan W (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I thought my change was fairly mild — said basically the same thing, but in a way that made more sense according to usual English semantics — and I did invite a quick revert in the edit summary. So it doesn't seem to me like a radical over-bold edit.

As I explain elsewhere, my problem is not with "argument" in the sense of "thesis"; that's the way I read it anyway. It's the only available meaning. So the link really doesn't help at all (note that even if it did, it's bad practice to write text that is clear only if you follow the link, especially when the link is a common word that readers think they understand). --Trovatore (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Some reading for a rainy day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_17#Copyediting_the_lead_.28details.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_25#.22Question.22_and_.22argument.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_29#Unlinking_.22argument.22_in_the_introduction Tom Reedy (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions Trovatore but "is the argument that" is best. As explained above, SAQ is standard jargon so changing the title of the article is out of the question. Also, the reliable sources tell us that there is no question—that would be like portraying intelligent design as questioning evolution when in fact it is nonsense. Many people question whether the CIA blew up the twin towers (but there is no "question" according to RS), while those more interested in literature present arguments that Shakespeare did not do it. Note that "argument" does not mean flame war—that is why it is linked. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, well if it's genuinely a term of art, of course that's different. However it still gives the reader a problem, because ordinarily one is entitled to expect that something called a "question" is in fact a question, and while a question may be argumentative, it cannot ordinarily be an "argument" in and of itself.

(By the way, I always understood "argument" here as meaning "thesis with reasons"; that's the only available meaning, really, because of the way the sentence continues. But a question is not a thesis.)

So if this is indeed a standard term, then how about helping the intelligent and well-educated but naive reader out here? An explanatory footnote perhaps? Not for the "argument" part, but for the "question" part. --Trovatore (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 

Oh, and may I also ask, what is the specific objection to "asks whether"? It seems to fulfill all the functions of the existing text, without giving the reader the problem I alluded to. I don't see this proposed solution mentioned in the links --Trovatore (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work like that. Please present an argument for why the established text should be changed, and obtain consensus for your desired text. The current "is the argument" has been in the article for several years. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely; changes need to be justified. I think I have presented an argument, but let me recap:

• The current text gives the reader a problem, because a "question" is not ordinarily an "argument" (even in the sense of "thesis").
• Saying that the question "asks whether" rather than "is the argument that" removes that problem.

Now, ball's in your court. Do you disagree with either of those points? Which one, and why? Or do you agree with them, but think that the proposed text has some other problem that is just as bad or worse? --Trovatore (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I presented my arguments above at 00:23, 24 April 2017. Perfection would be great so readers who are unfamiliar with the encyclopedic meaning of "argument" would not suffer a problem. However, perfection ain't easy—it is always possible to niggle about wording. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, as I've explained more than once, the meaning of "argument" is not the issue. I was always assuming it was the meaning from the link. I think it's still problematic.

Can you say more specifically why you object to "asks whether"? I read your comments of 00:23 and I still don't see it. My best guess is that you think "asks whether" gives too much credence to the hypothesis, is that correct? But I don't see that. Even when the answer is completely known, it does not stop someone from asking the question.

To take an extreme example, let's examine "the question of the value of 2+2". For any common context, we all agree on the answer, but it does not make the "question" into an "argument". The parallel "argument" text would be something like "the question of the value of 2+2 is the argument that 2+2 is something other than 4". I think you can see that that is just very awkward English, and would be even if there were a notable group that asserted that 2+2 is something other than 4. --Trovatore (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It is commonly called the "Shakespeare Authorship Question", but it really is an argument, or a group of arguments. I see that more clearly now. For me, the Cambridge Dictionary defines both the relevant terms the way they are used here:

Question
question noun (PROBLEM)

a matter to be dealt with or discussed, or a problem to be solved:
[example] The question is, are they telling the truth?

You could substitute: "The question is, did the Earl of Oxford write the plays attributed to Shakespeare?"

Argument

argument noun (REASONS)

the reasons for your opinion about the truth of something or an explanation of why you believe something should be done:
[example] A good argument can be made for providing health insurance for all children.

You could substitute: "A good argument can be made that the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays."

As Tom puts it, "argument" here is a synecdoche for a collection of arguments, since this is not only about the Earl of Oxford's putative authorship.

After reading the present discussion, I can see better than ever that this "question" really is more an argument than a question. It doesn't question whether.... It presents an argument that so and so wrote the plays.

The more I think about it, the better what is written now works for me. --Alan W (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe you've thought about it too long, then :-). What about the person reading it for the first time? Anything that can be done to help that person out? That person may not be aware that "Shakespeare authorship question" is a term of art.

On another note, do the RSs really use "Shakespeare authorship question" in such a way that it (grammatically) refers to a thesis rather than a question? I defer to you on the weight of the RSs, as I am no expert and perhaps you are. But at least one RS that really does that would be nice. Example sentences that would demonstrate this:

Those who assert the Shakespeare authorship question claim....

The Shakespeare authorship question asserts that....

If you believe the Shakespeare authorship question, then you must also believe....

These are just examples; maybe there's some less awkward text that would be equally convincing. Can you find one? I'd really like to see even one. --Trovatore (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I leave that to others. I am not one of the experts in this area. About the person reading this for the first time, well, perhaps a footnote would help. I don't recall if that was discussed in the past, though of course it could be reconsidered. I certainly am always in favor of making things easier for the nonspecialist. As for thinking about it too long, well, though I'm no expert in most of the RSs (not those most germane to this discussion, anyway), I did reread the entire text of this article quite a few times over the years in the course of my editorial work here. I did not hesitate to make alterations to help the general reader. Others didn't always agree with me, but I tried; so it's not as if I would be content with leaving in overly technical or specialized language. On the other hand, I don't think we should dumb it down. After all that careful reading of the entire article, "question" and "argument", as used here, more than ever do seem right in their places, as I've said. Regarding those other nonspecialist readers ("other", because I certainly do not count myself among the real SAQ specialists), I am hoping that we get some of those to weigh in here. I see that 260 Wikipedians are "watching" this page. It would be nice to get some more input, given the interest in the topic. Whew, getting very late in this part of the world. Good night. --Alan W (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I don't want to dumb it down, not at all! I just want to write it so that it makes sense in (ordinary educated high-register formal) English, or failing that, at least explains why it doesn't. --Trovatore (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Shakespeare is now regarded as difficult to read because much of the language is 'outdated' and there is even a commissioned project, I think by Methuen, to have the works 'translated' /paraphrased into English younger generations can feel comfortable with. Well, by all means, let's dumb him down, and dumb down the secondary language as well, so that, when children read Shakespeare or come across the use of the word 'argument' they can understand everything instantly, even if this means they'll never understand Shakespeare, nor be enchanted by his strange, allusive style. That you had to stop in your reading, and look up 'argument' is one good reason for retaining it: the dumbing down of language means no one stops to mull over a word when doing so enriches one's mastery of the language, whereas altering it to a more familiar idiom only impoverishes the lexicon.Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, maybe you missed it. I don't know how many times I have to say this. I have no problem with "argument" in the sense of "thesis with reasons". That's what I was assuming was meant. --Trovatore (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Your overture reads:'A question is not an argument; a question is a question.' (2) 'the meaning of "argument" is not the issue. I was always assuming it was the meaning from the link. I think it's still problematic.' I don't want to be hectoring, pal, and apologize if my remarks above appear so. The remarkable thing about this article is that it was driven to Fa by several editors who are hair-splitters to a man, and therefore the odds were that it would be bogged down. To the contrary, and somewhat miraculously, we always managed to iron out our differences. People who can comb through this with a fine eye for small issues are always welcome. Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a couple of degrees in English lit, even taught it as a TA at university and at college level for a time after graduation, and I have no problem reading, but apparently I am too thick to understand what the problem is. The term "Shakespeare Authorship Question" is a well-known phrase (hence the title of the article); the phrase gets 39,000 hits on Goggle; the definition is succinct and accurate; the page is FA status and has been FA of the day twice; and while I, like Nishidani, am always up for better and more accurate prose, I cannot see how these suggestions are an improvement. Given the number of readers this page reaches (600 hits a day average), it would be impossible to tweak the language to suit every theoretical naive first-time reader (if such a thing exists). Tom Reedy (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Back to the original assertion, that "A question is not an argument; a question is a question."

This is demonstrably not so, as anyone can learn by Googling such terms as "the race question", "the refugee question", "the Jewish question", etc.

Looking at the uses for the word "question", the definition for "research question" is helpful: "A research question is an interrogative statement that manifests the objective or line of scholarly or scientific inquiry designed to addresses a specific gap in knowledge. Research questions are expressed in a language that is appropriate for the academic community that has the greatest interest in answers that would address said gap. These interrogative statements serve as launching points for the academic pursuit of new knowledge by directing and delimiting an investigation of a topic, a set of studies, or an entire program of research." In this case, the so-called "gap" to be investigated, the Shakespeare authorship question, does not really exist in the eyes of professional Shakespeareans, except in the terms of attribution studies. So the idea that someone else wrote the works of Shakespeare while he acted as a front has to be made by argument. Those collective arguments make up what is commonly called the Shakespeare authorship question. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Responding to this: "On another note, do the RSs really use "Shakespeare authorship question" in such a way that it (grammatically) refers to a thesis rather than a question? I defer to you on the weight of the RSs, as I am no expert and perhaps you are. But at least one RS that really does that would be nice." https://books.google.com/books?id=W8KtHtT3jNYC&q=authorship+question#v=snippet&q=%22authorship%20question%22&f=false You can repeat that search with any of the sources used in this article. Helpful links to most of them are provided in the references section.

As far as I'm concerned, this topic has been exhausted. The article has had the same title since its inception 15 years ago. While we have seen several arguments about using the term "argument" in the lede, no one until now has found fault with the phrase "Shakespeare authorship question", and I feel confident that the issue can rest for another 15 years, by which time I'm sure I'll be beyond caring. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's focus on one bit from the above: "a research question is an interrogative statement". An argument (in the sense under discussion; that is, a set of statements intended to establish a thesis) is not an interrogative statement. It's in the indicative mood. A question does not assert anything; it asks.

Your examples don't really work. It makes no sense to say "the race question is an argument (attempt to establish a thesis)". You can say, if you like, that people who use the phrase "the race question" are making an argument (attempting to establish a thesis), but that is a different thing.

In any case, I will not insist much longer. I find it frustrating that I cannot get my point, which I feel I have expressed clearly and convincingly, across, and that people still seem able to read what I have written and think the issue is how I'm interpreting "argument". I am a mathematician; the meaning of "argument" under discussion is very natural to me, and I never even considered that it could mean "debate" here.

So you don't have to listen to me much longer, but the problem is still going to be there unless it is addressed. It is really there and will not go away. Let me take one more shot at restating it:

The "Shakespeare authorship question", in its natural reading, is the question of who wrote Shakespeare's works, or perhaps whether Shakespeare wrote them. It is not an assertion that Shakespeare did not write them. It may be that everyone who asks the question is in fact arguing that Shakespeare did not write them, but that is a different thing. --Trovatore (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this view: "The "Shakespeare authorship question", in its natural reading, is the question of who wrote Shakespeare's works, or perhaps whether Shakespeare wrote them. It is not an assertion that Shakespeare did not write them. It may be that everyone who asks the question is in fact arguing that Shakespeare did not write them, but that is a different thing." For a neutral statement, one could write: "The 'Shakespeare Authorship Question' concerns divergent opinion, past and present, as to the identity of the person, or, as some would have it, persons, responsible for the writings traditionally attributed, since the publication of the First Folio, to one by the name of "William Shakespeare," who, also according to tradition, was born in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, England in the 16th century." Proximity1 (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC) proximity1

Trovatore, you feel you cannot get your point across. I feel I cannot get mine across. Nishidani and Tom Reedy have already defended what now one might call the "established" point of view, which is mine, and so much more ably than I can, that I will add just this. You wrote: "A question does not assert anything; it asks." In one definition, however, a "question" is a kind of "asssertion": "a subject or aspect in dispute or open for discussion" Merriam-Webster definition "b" of question. It asserts the existence of a controversy. My background and qualifications are not that different from Tom's. So perhaps we see this question over an article about a question through English-teacher-colored glasses. I would suggest that you are seeing it through mathematician-colored glasses. This is why I was hoping that dozens more Wikipedians from different backgrounds would weigh in here. (Credit to Tom, though: in a sense they have, as he says. Thousands have read the article, at least the lead, and no one questioned "question"; as for "argument", yes, that was challenged, but we hashed that out pretty thoroughly, and I would still stand by what I agreed to at that time.) --Alan W (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

So you have "a subject or aspect in dispute or open for discussion". Fine. Let's go with that. That is still not an assertion. You are finding a sort of implied assertion here, namely that the subject is "open for discussion". But an implied assertion is still not an assertion.

Note that even the implied assertion is not that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the works, but merely that the topic is in dispute. But the current text says that the question is an argument that someone else wrote the works, not an argument that the matter is in dispute.

Come on, this is just logic and grammar. It's a category error to say that a question is an argument. That's quite independent of the facts of the case and how thoroughly the heterodox view may have been debunked.

As for "challenging 'question'", I don't have a problem with "question", provided that it is talked about in the way one talks about questions. My proposal to write that the question "asks whether" the works were written by someone else, I thought, fairly neatly solved the issue; it wasn't the only possible solution, but I thought it worked. No one has explained to me what the objection to that was. You objected to it basically on procedural grounds; you thought my edit was over-bold. OK, maybe it was over-bold. But what is the objection to the proposal itself? --Trovatore (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion, and my feeling is that "The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that..." is correct usage. I don't really like to simplify sentence structure and vocabulary too far, because it's hard to know when to stop, but I suppose it's possible that this is a usage that many readers will find hard to parse, from lack of familiarity. If we were to agree that that's the case (and I'm not yet convinced) I think the easiest way around it would be to change the first sentence so it no longer includes the phrase "Shakespeare authorship question". Per WP:BEGIN, that's acceptable in certain cases. I don't think this is one of them, but I think that's the argument that would have to be made. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a specific objection to "[t]he Shakespeare authorship question asks whether"? --Trovatore (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do. That switches from one meaning of "question" to another, and it's not the same meaning as in the title of the article, so it would be an undesirable change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "switches meaning"? I'm not saying, of course, that the "question" is a particular sentence in the interrogative mood with a question mark at the end. I think this is a fairly idiomatic way of describing questions in the sense of "issues being discussed". --Trovatore (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Rather than repeat some of the long discussion above, I'll just say that Alan W's last comment covers the same ground I would cover. I should add, in the context of that comment, that my academic background is in mathematics, and my professional background is in computing, so perhaps I qualify as a non-English-specialist commenter (though I have published a very small amount of paid writing). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Alan W's last remark does not address the point, as far as I can see. In fact you are the first one in the whole discussion to have directly addressed the "asks whether" proposal. --Trovatore (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

One more proposal. How about "[t]he Shakespeare authorship question is the issue of whether..."? I don't like it as well as "asks whether", because it seems less elegant to me, but it does fix the category error, and I hope it addresses Mike Christie's complaint about changing meaning. Mike, do you agree that it addresses that complaint? (If not, I may have misunderstood you.) --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I said everything that needs to be said in response to this proposal at 00:23, 24 April 2017 above. It is possible to get too emotionally attached to an argument, and that may cause an editor to fail to grasp the replies that are given. Plenty of people have seen this discussion and many more saw the archived discussions—only a single editor wants a change. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I have understood the replies; I just don't agree with them. Realistically, sure, I'm not going to keep tilting at windmills here. But I am still correct. A question is not an argument, and even if it has implied assertions in its presuppositions, that does not make it formally an assertion in and of itself.

The remaining possibility is that "Shakespeare authorship question" is a term of art that does not refer to a question, but rather to an argument. However, looking at the sources provided by Tom, none of them appear to use it that way, or at least not in a way that could not also be reasonably read as referring to a question.

Now as to your response of 00:23, 24 April, it appears that your point is that all alternative hypotheses have been so firmly refuted that it is no longer possible to ask the "question" in good faith. But even if that is true, it does not make it formally an argument. --Trovatore (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder, would it help at all to think about "Shakespeare Authorship Question" as a proper noun? --Xover (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if you make it a proper noun, how does that make it an argument, in the sense of a collection of assertions intended to advance a thesis? I asked for RSs for that, and Tom responded with this link: https://books.google.com/books?id=W8KtHtT3jNYC&q=authorship+question#v=snippet&q=%22authorship%20question%22&f=false. I looked at a number of the hits, certainly not all of them (they're all from a book called Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?), and I do not see any that clearly support that characterization. For example, on page 164, we see:

As badly as Freud, then sixty-five, wanted to resolve the authorship question, he just wasn't sure.

So here the text is talking about the question as something that one resolves, not a thesis that one proves.

Some of the hits are a little more friendly to Tom's view. Here's one, page 213:

One of the first to recognize the extent to which the Shakespeare authorship question was fueled by the Higher Criticism was...

OK, that's a little closer; "questions" are not normally "fueled". But then again, neither are theses. I submit that this snippet can be read to mean "question" in the sense of "controversy". Maybe even "ginned-up controversy"; doesn't matter — a controversy is not a thesis. --Trovatore (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I meant in the sense of "There is an argument that the moon cannot be made of cheese as it would melt in the sun. We have named this argument Bob. Thus, Bob is the argument that the moon cannot be made of cheese in our universe. Most scientist do not consider Bob to be valid." Or, by extension, "There is an argument that Shakespeare cannot have written the plays. This argument is called 'the SAQ'. Thus, the SAQ is the argument that Shakespeare cannot have written the plays."

The reliable sources mostly avoid this formulation because the phrasing is really awkward to parse; but as an encyclopaedia article we really don't have that luxury. We must both use the generally accepted name for it, and work a brief summary explanation of it into the first sentence. And it really doesn't help that its adherents expend a lot of energy on semantics: a "theory" would put it on equal footing with mainstream scholarship; a "controversy" would elevate it to the status of genuine scientific disagreement; a "problem" likewise suggests a genuine, albeit unsolved, scientific issue. They land on "question", then, because like fringe movements of all stripes, notably antivaxxers, they are "Just asking questions™" whose dismissal is taken as proof of the weakness of mainstream scholarship's case, their fear of engaging in open debate, conspiratorial intent, or active suppression of dissent.

I dislike the current phrasing in the lead, but I do not find it unclear, as a practical matter, and I really can't see any good alternatives. Specifically, any phrasing that suggests that the "Shakespeare Authorship Question" is an actual, literal, question in the colloquial sense ("… asks whether …", e.g.) grates on my eyes even worse than the status quo. But, hey, what do I know? I have degrees in neither English, Literature, Mathematics, nor Logic; and any belief in my proficiency with language must raise suspicions that the believer is either mad, drunk, or high on coke (at least two of which may be literally true here). :) --Xover (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I hereby award you an honorary degree in English and Logic for "Bob is the argument that the moon cannot be made of cheese". That is a good explanation.

I also hereby declare that this discussion has exhausted all likelihood of a productive outcome. Per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:DEADHORSE, there is no need to respond further. Johnuniq (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless the snippets from the RS that was pointed to me do not appear to support the claim that this Bob is an argument, in the sense of a collection of assertions meant to establish a thesis.

Now, as for the avoid-false-equivalences motivation, I'm afraid I think that's not just wrong, but generally bad policy. There is no need to start refuting something at the same time you're trying to explain what it is. The article makes completely clear what the mainstream view is, very quickly, and says why. That is the correct approach, not trying to deny that it is a question in the first place. --Trovatore (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If you fail to grasp a quite straight-forward distinction in English usage that several other competent readers tell you exists, then questioning their arguments, or making an argument out of their questions will likely lead nowhere, as indeed this questionable argument has. That's it. Keep argufying by all means, but one is not obliged to enter the echo-chamber.Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, then, by all means, don't. However I have not failed to understand any distinction in English usage. It's the existing text that makes a category error. You still seem to think I have not understood this usage of "argument", but that is not so; that's the sense I always had in mind. --Trovatore (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Reading this, I feel I have to drop by just to say, Trovatore is correct and the opening sentence doesn't mesh. Indeed, the very fact that its writer felt obliged to link "argument" should be indicative enough that he/she knew it wasn't really the right word. The right word would stand up by itself without needing that kind of prop. 2.25.149.9 (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is "politicworm.com" denied a place here in the "External Links" list?

Why is "politicworm.com" denied a place here in the "External Links" list?

"PoliticWorm.com" is a Shakespeare Authorship Question site-- no different from any of the various others already in the list. I added it. It has been removed without comment. Why? Proximity1 (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)proximity1

The external link added was:

• Politicworm — A dedicated Authorship Question site edited by the researcher Stephanie Hopkins Hughes; she favors the Oxfordian view. "Essays on the Authorship Question, the history of the London commercial Stage, and plays by Shakespeare and other writers" and much more

There are a couple of issues. First, the text is far too promotional. Second, there are lots of websites commenting on the SAQ and in accordance with the external link guidelines, it is necessary to select a small number which have particular information that is useful yet which would be too detailed to be included in an article at Wikipedia. Is there a reason, based on the guidelines, that the proposed website should be added while not listing all the other such websites? Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

See No. 2 and No. 11. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I would be ashamed to offer such flimsy excuses (Try : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dog_ate_my_homework)  for what appears to be so blatant an example of a double-standard.  

 This: ..."Shakespeare's biography, particularly his humble origins and obscure life, seemed incompatible with his poetic eminence and his reputation for genius,"... 

appears to be a recent revision and it reeks of the insecurity which rightly attaches to this matter of Shakspere's education.

The excuses offered are "all over the map." E.g.

"First, the text is far too promotional." What, precisely, was "far too promotional" about the entry? You didn't bother to support that assertion by citing what you meant.

"Second, there are lots of websites"..."it is necessary to select a small number which have particular information that is useful yet which would be"... The passive-voice to the rescue-- "mistakes were made," "it was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it," etc.

As for "See No. 2 and No. 11. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)"

 No. 2 reads : "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting."

 As you well know, in fact, there is absolutely nothing in contemporary documented evidence to support today's Stratfordian scholars' echo-chamber of assertions that Shakspere "probably", "seems to have," "in all likelihood," attended the Stratford primary school of his day.  There is zero evidence in the historical record for this suggestion--always couched in carefully-crafted speculative terms. See, passim, T.W. Baldwin, (1944, University of Illinois).  Thus, all such sites fall afoul of this rule's prohibition, for they all peddle "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" about Shakspere's supposed education,  Yet they're allowed.

Proximity1 (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC) proximity1

Please see WP:TP for how-to information about formatting replies and WP:CIVIL for hints on what content in a comment might elicit a helpful response. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

'Stephanie Hopkins Hughes, is an artist, writer and editor (who lives in Nyack, New York),' like a million other people. To fish out of the vast ocean of conspiracy theories just her, or any other speculative blogger, for special mention can have no other end than promotional, which is disallowed. This article is compiled from sources mostly written by people with doctorates in the topic, or experienced writers who sum up that research. To get a doctorate you are grilled by a panel, often with scholars adopting an adversarial role, to test your mastery of language, scholarship, historical and textual methodologies. It is noticeable that the number of pumpkin heads pressing this tired, utterly exhausted nonsense have almost never endured and come through this cautionary process. But, they read enough to get the interrogatory method, which they apply to standard scholarship (which already uses it inframurally), but never to their own thought processes. Their own work is basically a plagiarizing titivation of things said and repeated for a century, a spin nmachine of washed-out opinions. Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh God. Another one.

Here's something else for you to read. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

These pseudo-polite, pseudo-replies ignore the salient point raised:

 there is _zero_ documentary evidence from contemporary sources which supports the hypothesis that Wm. Shakspere attended school--at all, anywhere, at any time. Yet sites which claim this are accepted for External Links.  Editors here are blatantly enforcing a double-standard. When challenged, they throw up smoke-screen pseudo-arguments devoid of merit.  This, by the way, is exemplary of the methodology of the professoriate

of Stratfordian proponents. A doctorate degree is not and has not been a signal feature of the people behind sites listed as External Links nor does it necessarily bear on the merits of reasoning in this particular matter. Since you've presumed to impute my motives, erroneously denouncing them as crassly commercial or "promotional"--as though your adherents aren't promoting just as well their views at External Links-- I'll express my candid thoughts on yours. It appears that people here are actually afraid of the cogency of the material at the site, Politicworm.

Proximity1 (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC) proximity1

Okay. You've said what you came to say. Read WP:NOTFORUM. Roger, over and out.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And you've ignored it and failed to offer any respectable reasoning. End of argument? Only because your view's dominance means you needn't listen and respond adequately. That's going to change eventually. Then I'll have said what I came to say.

Proximity1 —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Someone hasn't read the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

RE : the Read WP:NOTFORUM. 

Please note the following users' notes from Wikipedia's guides:

  "If you have a question, concern or comment related to improving a Wikipedia article, you can put a note on that article's talk page."

  Other help and discussion locations     

I want... Where to go

...help using Wikipedia Help desk ...to find my way around Wikipedia Department directory ...specific facts (e.g. Who was the first pope?) Reference desk ...constructive criticism from others for a specific article Peer review ...help resolving a specific article edit dispute or making a user conduct dispute complaint Requests for comment ...to comment on a specific article ----> Article's talk page

Proximity1 (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

On neutrality and bias

(Note: from the "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard":  ..."you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proximity1 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC) 

Specifically, as examples of undue bias, I cite the following (lettered, A, B, etc.)

(A) Paragraph #1

 In the very first paragraph of the present article about "The Shakespeare Authorship Question, this page disparages the "question" itself, describing the entirety of alternatives to William Shakespeare as author as being, in the opinions of 

"all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians," "a fringe belief."

As an invitation to a novice reader to simply dismiss the topic right then and there, I could not imagine a more clearly non-neutral view.  Why would someone be moved to continue reading after such an opening paragraph?  

---

 (B)   In the page's "External Links," eight links are presented.  Each and every one of them is by, from, for and about the Stratfordian view of the Authorship Question.  A recent addition of a link to a site presenting one of the alternative views here was promptly deleted.

 How is this page doing on the "Neutrality" score-board?

Proximity1 (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

How is it doing in terms of neutrality? Quite well: we neutrally describe what mainstream academia has to say on the subject. We don't create artificial balance by giving unnecessary prominence to a position that received almost universal rejection from qualified academics. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Quite well--says Ian. But can he find anyone authentically (not a "ringer") from the non-Stratfordian POV who'd agree with his opinion?

Question: Did a partisan of the Stratfordian viewpoint write or amend as-now-stands the opening paragraph?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Proximity1 (talk • contribs)

Indent your posts with colons and sign them with four tildes. What adherents of a fringe position think doesn't matter -- we stick with mainstream academia. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Ian, "Fringe position" circumstances apply, per the cited page, in an article about a mainstream"  idea.  That is not the case here. See below.  Your edits are hostile and unsupported by Wikipedia policy.  Proximity1 (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

  "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream"  idea.  The "Shakespeare Authorship Question," by its very character, cannot be about "a mainstream idea-- yet.Proximity1 (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Indent your posts using colons. The article is about mainstream academia's perception of the idea. Your accusations of hostility fail WP:Assume good faith, one of the founding principles of this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm disputing the the neutrality of the present article as it shows, in my opinion, clear and undue bias favoring a partisan view by using terms ("Fringe ideas") which seem to have for their intent to pre-emptorily dismiss the entire premise of the page itself as unworthy of serious consideration at all, and, as supposed support for that opinion, that the majority view means that a minority's opinion is ipso facto not deserving of presentation on fair and equal terms--even where the page topic itself is devoted to describing the majority/minority difference of opinion. Proximity1 (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

New comments go at the bottom. Read WP:FRINGE. If mainstream academia rejects an idea, such as geocentrism, young earth creationism, or non-"Stratfordian" authorship, then Wikipedia does not pretend the two ideas are equal. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ian; the article as it stands fully complies with NPOV. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

So do I have this right: neither of you (i.e. Mike C. and Ian T.) would object to a partisan Stratfordian drafting the presentation of the case, opinions and arguments of any and all of those who dispute the Stratfordian point of view for them and in place of them? Is that correct? Proximity1 (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Quit using spaces to indent, use colons. And it's not a good idea to use strawman arguments to try to make others out as using strawman arguments.

The article neutrally presents mainstream academia's assessment of the subject. By your admission, this idea is not accepted by mainstream academia, so there's no reason for the article to pretend that it receives more than fringe acceptance. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

In fact, the language of paragraph one of the article simply dismisses the entire pertinence of the page itself. It does not merely avoid some "pretense" of the degree of popular support, rather, it pressupposes that the extent of popular support--which it makes no effort to gage or estimate (when it comes to alternatives to William Shaksper)--is of no importance whatsoever since these views, described pre-emptorily as "fringe" before they are even expounded, aren't worthy of anyone's consideration. That is prior bias, that is the epitome of a non-neutral presentation of a controversial topic. That the topic is controversial is a given. In that, we can all agree. The point of the discussion here on the Talk-Page is this: Given that the topic is controversial, how and what does and should "neutrality" apply in the page's drafting and presentation. Your argument seems to be simple: this controversial issue deserves nothing at all in neutral treatment because it happens not to have "mainstream academia's" imprimitur. Under such a principle, we could readily eliminate all controversial pages which do not square with orthodox scholarship of the moment--and, of course, restore them as soon as the winds shift. But, in either case, the underlying facts of the matter remain unchanged: whether or not "mainstream academics" have it right or wrong, the Shakespeare Authorship Question remains an issue of historical fact, not just some consensus of popular opinion. Proximity1 (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you twisting my words because you can't honestly address the actual points or work within the site's policies and guidelines or because you just can't understand that Wikipedia articles summarize mainstream academic views on subjects? Do you not understand that Wikipedia determines matters of history by citing professionally published sources by scholars who happened to be trained to study and assess these facts? Do you not understand that the introductory paragraph is a summary of the rest of the article, which cites the sources for statements in the lede? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

'Controversial'. The topic, Shakespeare's identity, is not 'controversial'. The topic is hammered away at by a fringe lunatic bunch of controversialists, who raise questions that were long analysed, dismissed and buried ages ago, and no one listens to the hack mill's Wiederholungszwang anymore, and haven't for some decades. By 'no one' I mean competent readers and scholars of Shakespeare and his period, period.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Shaksper's identification as author of the literary work attributed to the title-page name "William Shake-speare" is, yes, as a simple matter of historical fact, past and present, "controversial." Thus, the article is entitled "Shakespeare Authorship Question." The premise is disparaged in the article's lede--as though written by someone who would just as soon discourage those who find this article from actually reading it. Proximity1 (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This talk page has 29 huge archives which have explored every angle, objection, fringe lunatic thesis, etc., that the de Verean et al., fantasists have come up with. What you are doing is rehashing bits and pieces of things since settled (and reverting back into the article a dopey website that looks clearly promotional since the author appears to use airhead clichés from the 19th century) by collegial discussion. I'd suggest you read the archives through from first to last before coming back. If you have, then, something fresh to say, then by all means return here.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Did a partisan of the Stratfordian viewpoint write or amend as-now-stands the opening paragraph? Proximity1 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This is from the archive:

"There are significant problems with this article, but the editors who hold a biased and unfavorable view of the subject have managed to have their position prevail. These editors have misconstrued what a fringe belief is in this area. They have mischaracterized the debate. Just because they have gotten away with it for so long is no reason it should continue."

I agree with that. "Just because they have gotten away with it for so long is no reason it should continue." Proximity1 (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: "Discussion of minority views" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Final_decision) "5) While all articles must be neutral, the nature of an article is often relevant to how extensively non-majority views should be discussed. For example, a minority or fringe view about a given subject might properly receive little weight in the main article on the subject but, if the view is notable, may receive greater attention in an article on the minority or fringe view itself. Even in the latter article, however, the degree of scholarly acceptance of the non-majority view should not be overstated. Passed 13 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)."

(cited) The foregoing has not been respected here. Proximity1 (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You're confusing attention with validity. Our articles on Young earth creationism and Geocentrism do not pretend that there's any validity to those ideas at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think any further responses to Proximity1 on this talk page are needed unless they post something that might (judging by the talk page history) actually gain consensus. There is no reason to continue such an unproductive discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That was quick. And bizarre. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest Additions re: Authorship

Unified field, and the anonymous editor who added material: This is going to have to be reverted. This is a Featured Article, and everything in it was added after much debate and careful consideration over many years. This new material is inserted without integration into the rest of the article, using sources that are debatable, and has other issues. Please bring up these changes on the Talk Page first before adding anything. One example: I see a personal blog as one of the sources (maybe more, but I haven't checked all): not acceptable as a reliable source. --Alan W (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

See? I didn't even have to do the reverting myself. I knew that this was completely out of tune with the rest of the article and that someone far more knowledgeable in this area than I would soon object. If you are serious about what you are trying to add, please do discuss it all on this talk page before proceeding. After thinking it over some more, I'm not even sure that the subject is entirely the same. No one doubts that Shakespeare collaborated with others on at least some of his plays. Determining who his collaborators were and who wrote what portions of the plays is not the same subject of inquiry as the "Shakespeare authorship question"—which I won't take the trouble to explain because it's already explained on the article page. --Alan W (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm just gonna park this in case he ever decides to get off my talkpage and bring his questions here. William Shakespeare's collaborations Tom Reedy (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. Just as I thought (but I didn't recall if it already existed), what Unified field seems to want to add material to is properly not this article but that one. --Alan W (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship

Scholarship has moved significantly over the past 20 years and that the view presented on wikipedia does not reflect the mainstream. alot of space is devoted to he devere and bacon authorship theories in particular are on the decline while scholarly and linguistic theories connecting marlowe are on the ascent. I footnote some 2017 studies. I would say the article is particularly biased in implying that computer linguistic studies reinforce the hypothesis that shakespeare wrote everything himself. I believe they suggest the opposite.

3) everything I wrote is meticulously footnoted and documented and presented in a fair and neutral manner.

4) if you delete my post in its entirety, you deny the wikipedia community an important resource, namely a summation of all Shakespeare works in chronological order and present the arguments relevant to each text. the chronological pattern is very important, because it highlights the earliest works are thought to be collaborations with Kyd, the next several tragedies are strongly attributed to Marlowe, then Shakespeare starts writing more on his own, and then as his business matures he delegates more to Middleton and Fletcher.

please restore my comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unified field (talk • contribs) 21:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Please take this to the SAQ talkpage. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈ 2a) some other aspects of the existing article which troubles me: it is written as if people are binary. pro-stratfordian or anti-stratfordian. that mindset made sense 20 years ago, but many scholars today are assuming multiple hands worked on each play, trying to parse out which phrases were edited by which co-author.

another thing which troubles me; the article seems more interested in advocacy than unencumbered analysis. so, for example, the article takes the standard argument that shakespeare lacked the education or background to write these works and attempts to turn it on its head, maintaining his fallability shows he was a likely candidate. i dont buy this argument for a minute, because the author of these plays had a level of erudition far from what could be obtained with a grammar school education. but mostly the article is written in a style of someone trying to defend a view at all costs rather than in a manner which suggests intellectual honesty.

I am sympathetic because it sounds like wikipedia is getting barraged with edits which overwhelm the editors. but may I humbly suggest you are getting so many edits because the article as written does not adequately cover the material, does not reflect recent scholarship, and is not open enough to divergent viewpoints.

also, I was not attempting to espouse anything new and radical. merely to summarize what I believe be to the scholarly consensus in a concise chronological chart format which does not presently exist. perhaps you wish to have separate columns presenting arguments for and against shakesperian authorship of each play. other readers are free to annotate this chart if I missed relevant arguments.

but simply deleting the chart (and other edits) cannot be the right answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unified field (talk • contribs) 00:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you understand what "Please take this to the SAQ talkpage" means? Tom Reedy (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

12:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)~ The condescending tone from Tom Reedy (in response to me and others on this talk page) seems inappropriate. I am a reader laboring hard in good faith to make Wikipedia better for all. I take your point that Shakespeare Authorship is technically different than collaboration. However, the contention is Shakespeare was largely an actor and businessman whose collaborative efforts were relatively minor in many plays. After the initial feedback from AW, I worked hard to integrate the article with meticulous documentation. These range from scholarly papers and published books to highly respected newspapers and periodicals. The current article has clear biases as noted above. My chart was merely a summation of current consensus and arguments. Surely a useful tool, not available elsewhere to my knowledge. if the chart is misplaced in SAQ, I am happy to relocate it or have you do so. If other Wikipedia readers disagree, they should be free to annotate as I previously suggested.

As Alan pointed out above, this page is a featured article, and as such is considered to be among the best Wikipedia articles. Such articles demand conformity with Wikipedia's editing standards, which includes reliable sourcing as determined by Wikipedia guidelines. Hardly any of the sources you used met those standards, and the ones that did were used to support original research. In any case, references to a blog promoting the fringe belief that Shakespeare was a front for Christopher Marlowe are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia.

In addition, as you should now know given that I posted it on your user talk page, this page has been the topic of an arbitration decision which requires that all edits meet certain standards at the peril of discretionary standards. I suggest you familiarize yourself with those standards and the history of this page before you make any more edits. Complaining about the "tone" of other editors will not advance your cause.

As to your edits, if they belonged anywhere, it would be on the William Shakespeare's collaborations page. You seem to have misunderstood the difference between the Shakespeare authorship question, which is a fringe belief that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the Shakespeare canon, with the issue of collaboration, which is a valid scholarly inquiry into how much of Shakespeare's works were collaborations with other writers. But given the deficiencies, some of which I have pointed out, I doubt your edits belong on that page, at least not without extensive revision to conform to Wikipedia standards.

I hope this helps. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Shakespeare and the Anti-Machiavel of 1576

Parallel passages in Shakespeare, Francis Bacon, and the Anti-Machiavel of Innocent Gentillet - antimachiavel.com

Bacon: Dramatic poesy, which has the theatre for its world, would be of excellent use if well directed. For the stage is capable of no small influence both of discipline and of corruption. Now of corruptions in this kind we have enough; but the discipline has in our times been plainly neglected. And though in modern states play-acting is esteemed but as a toy, except when it is too satirical and biting; yet among the ancients it was used as a means of educating men’s minds to virtue.

Gentillet: After Solon had seen Thespis’ first edition and action of a tragedy, and meeting with him before the play, he asked if he was not ashamed to publish such feigned fables under so noble, yet a counterfeit personage. Thespis answered that it was no disgrace upon a stage, merrily and in sport, to say and do anything. Then Solon, striking hard upon the earth with his staff, replied thus: “Yea but shortly, we that now like and embrace this play, shall find it practiced in our contracts and common affairs.” This man of deep understanding saw that public discipline and reformation of manners, attempted once in sport and jest, would soon quail; and corruption, at the beginning passing in play, would fall and end in earnest. ————————————----------------------

Bacon: If a man look sharply and attentively, he shall see Fortune; for though she is blind, she is not invisible.

Fortune is painted blind, with a muffler afore her eyes, to signify to you that Fortune is blind; and she is painted also with a wheel, to signify to you, which is the moral of it, that she is turning, and inconstant, and mutability, and variation; and her foot, look you, is fixed upon a spherical stone, which rolls, and rolls, and rolls. In good truth, the poet makes a most excellent description of it: Fortune is an excellent moral. Henry V

Gentillet: By this description of Machiavelli is evidently seen that he thinks what the poets wrote for fables concerning fortune is the very truth. For the pagan poets have written that fortune is a goddess who gives good and evil things to whom she will. And to denote that she does this inconsiderately and without judgment, they wrap her head in a cloth, lest with her eyes she sees and knows to whom she gives; so that she never knows unto whom she does good or evil. Moreover, they describe her standing upright upon a bowl, to denote her inconstancy, turning and tossing from side to side.

---

Bacon: Things will have their first or second agitation. If they be not tossed upon the arguments of counsel, they will be tossed upon the waves of fortune. ​ ​ There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat, And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures.

​ Julius Caesar

Gentillet: Fortune may be compared to a great flood which nothing can resist, when it overflows its banks with great inundations. But when it remains in its ordinary course, or when it overflows not without measure, the force thereof may easily be resisted by levies, ditches, ramps, and other like obstacles. So fortune is sometimes so unmeasurable in violence that no virtue can resist her, yet virtue may afterward repair the evils which that overflowing violence of fortune has brought. It may also very well resist fortune which is moderate and not too violent, as the forces thereof shall not hurt.

---

Bacon: Constancy is the foundation on which virtues rest.

Gentillet: I will then presuppose that constancy is a quality which ordinarily accompanies all other virtues; it is, as it were, of their substance and nature. ​ Two Gentlemen of Verona: O Heaven, were man but constant, here were perfect… ​ Measure for Measure: It is virtuous to be constant in any undertaking.

—————————————————

​I can add colours to the chameleon, Change shapes with Proteus for advantages, And set the murderous Machiavel to school.

Henry VI, Part III

Gentillet: Machiavelli then was not anything deceived, when thinking to lead a prince unto a sovereignty of wickedness, he furnishes him with inconstancy and mutability as the winds. For as soon as the prince shall clothe himself with Proteus’ garments, and has no hold nor certitude of his word, nor in his actions, men may well say that his malady is incurable, and that in all vices he has taken the nature of the chameleon. At the hands of such a prince who is inconstant, variable in his word, mutable in actions and commands, there is nothing to be hoped for but evil, disorder, and confusion. ​

---

​Bacon: It is much true which was anciently spoken: A place showeth the man, and it showeth some to the better, and some to the worse.

Gentillet: And we see but too much by experience that the old proverb is true, honors change manners. ​

---

​Bacon: Prosperity discovers vice, adversity discovers virtue.

Gentillet: Adversity also is a true touchstone to prove who are feigned or true friends, for when a man feels labyrinths of troubles fall on him, dissembling friends depart from him, and those who are good abide with him, as said the poet Euripides: Adversity the best and certain’st friends doth get, prosperity both good and evil alike doth fit. ​ Sweet are the uses of adversity, Which like the toad, ugly and venomous, Wears yet a precious jewel in his head; And this our life, exempt from public haunt, Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks, Sermons in stones, and good in every thing.

As You Like It ​ Bacon: God has, in fact, written two books, not just one. Of course, we are all familiar with the first book he wrote, namely Scripture. But he has written a second book called creation.

---

​Bacon: Base natures, if they find themselves once suspected, will never be true.

​Gentillet: For the best fortress that is, is not to be thought evil by subjects; and if a prince is once thought so, there is no fortress that can save him.

---

Bacon: The reverence of a man's self is, next religion, the chiefest bridle of all vices.

Gentillet: Behold then the consequence of that most wicked and detestable doctrine of that wicked atheist; which is to bring all people to a spite and a mockery of God and his religion, and of all holy things, and to let go the bridle to all vices and villainies. ​----------------------------------------

Bacon: For the laws of Lycurgus, Solon, Minos, and others of ancient time, they are not the worse because grammar scholars speak of them.

Gentillet: So is there great need of some Lycurgus or Solon to make those laws, men’s wits are so wild, and their spirits so marvelously plentiful and fertile to bring forth contentions and differences, and so easily to dissent from each other.

---

Romeo and Juliet: Justice but murders, pardoning those that kill.

Gentillet: For a prince ought well to consider when, how, to whom, and why he pardons a fault, because it is not clemency but cruelty when a prince may do justice and does it not, as Saint Louis said. ​--------------------------------------------------

Bacon: Fresh justice is sweetest… Laws are made to guard the rights of the people, not to feed the lawyers.

​Gentillet: And as we see that the greed of wicked magistrates is cause of the length of law cases, because they desire that the parties who plead before them should serve their turn as a cow for milk, it follows that the poor people are pillaged and eaten to the bones by those horseleeches. Also contrary, when the magistrate hates greed, he will dispatch and hasten justice to parties, and not hold them long in law, neither pillage and spoil them; a thing bringing great comfort and help to the people.

---

Bacon: Anger is a kind of baseness, as it appears well in the weakness of whose subjects in whom it reigns.

Gentillet: This vice of cruelty, proceeding from the weakness of those who cannot command their choler and passions of vengeance, and suffer themselves to be governed by them, never happened in a generous and valiant heart, but rather always in cowardly and fearful hearts.

---

​Bacon: Revenge is a kind of wild justice, which the more a man's nature runs to, the more ought law to weed it out.

​Gentillet: And if it were lawful for everyone to use vengeance, that would be to introduce a confusion and disorder into the commonwealth, and to enterprise upon the right which belongs to the magistrate, unto whom God has given the sword, to do right to everyone and to punish those who are faulty, according to their merits.

---

Bacon: Public revenges are for the most part fortunate; as that for the death of Caesar; for the death of Pertinax; for the death of Henry the Third of France; and many more.

Gentillet: Moreover, he exercised part of his cruelties in the revenge of the good emperor Pertinax, which was a lawful cause; yet withal he had in himself many goodly and laudable virtues, as we have in other places rehearsed.

---

Bacon: He conquers twice, who restrains himself in victory.

Gentillet: ​The clemency of a prince is the cause of the increase of his domination. Hereupon we read a memorable history of Romulus, who was so clement, soft, and gentle towards the people he vanquished and subjugated, that not only many individuals but the whole multitude of people submitted themselves voluntarily and unconstrainedly under his obedience. The same virtue was also the cause that Julius Caesar vanquished the Gauls; for he was so soft and gracious to them, and so easy to pardon, and used them every way so well, far from oppression, that many of that nation voluntarily joined themselves unto him, and by them he vanquished the others. When Alexander the Great made great conquests in Asia, most commonly the citizens of all great cities met him to present him with the keys of the towns; for he dealt with them in such clemency and kindness, without in any way altering their estates, that they liked better to be his than their own.

---

Bacon: A civil war is like the heat of a fever; but a foreign war is like the heat of exercise, and serveth to keep the body in health.

Gentillet: Therefore a foreign war seems not to be very damaging, but something necessary to occupy and exercise his subjects; but domestic and civil wars must be shunned and extinguished with all our power, for they are things against the right of nature, to make war against the people of their own country, as he that does it against his own entrails.” ​The prince also ought to consider, that by civil wars he more weakens himself and his subjects in one year, than by a foreign war he can do in thirty; civil wars also are without comparison more ruinous and dangerous than foreign wars are. ​-------------------------------------------------

​ Bacon: There is as much difference between the counsel that a friend giveth, and that a man giveth himself, as there is between the counsel of a friend and of a flatterer. For there is no such flatterer as is a man's self.

Gentillet: And above all, men ought well to engrave in princes’ minds that notable answer that Phocion made unto the king Antipater, who had required something of him which was not reasonable. “I would, sir, do for you service all that is possible for me, but you cannot have me both for a friend and a flatterer.” As if he would say that they be two things far different, to be a friend and to be a flatterer, as in truth they are. ​

---

Bacon: The coward calls himself a cautious man; and the miser says, he is frugal.

​Gentillet: And it helps to this persuasion that the flatterer always takes for the subject of his praises those vices which are in alliance and neighborhood with their virtues. For if the prince is cruel and violent, he will persuade him that he is magnanimous and generous, and such a one as will not put up with an injury. If the prince is prodigal, he will make him believe that he is liberal and magnificent, that he maintains an estate truly royal, and one that well recompenses his servants. If the prince is overgone in lubricities and lusts, he will say he is of a humane and manly nature, of a jovial and merry complexion, and of no saturnine complexion or condition. If the prince is covetous and an eater of his subjects, he will say he is worthy to be a great prince as he is, because he knows well how to make himself well obeyed. Briefly, the flatterer adorns his language in such sort that he will always praise the prince’s vice by the resemblance of some virtue near thereunto. For most vices have a likeness with some virtue.

---

​

Bacon: Avoid not only the fault, but the suspicion. Whosoever is found variable, and changeth manifestly without manifest cause, giveth suspicion of corruption. Therefore always when thou changest thine opinion or course, profess it plainly, and declare it, together with the reasons that move thee to change; and do not think to steal it.

Gentillet: But as Livy says, it ordinarily comes that such people have spirits and faith as mutable as their fortune, they used the matter otherwise than what they promised the king... This mutability then of manners, which is seen in many natures of men, is the cause that is so hard for a prince to know how to elect good men for his counsel, and that in that point it is very uneasy to teach a prince how to behave himself therein.

---

​Bacon: And, certainly those degenerate arts and shifts, whereby many counsellors and governors gain both favour with their masters and estimation with the vulgar, deserve no better name than fiddling; being things rather pleasing for the time, and graceful to themselves only, than tending to the weal and advancement of the state which they serve.

Gentillet: First, there are those our ancient Frenchmen called janglers, which signifies as much as a scoffer, a trifler, a man full of words, or as we call them, long tongues, who by their jangling and babbling in rhyme or in prose give themselves to please great men, in praising and exalting them exceedingly, and rather for their vices than for their virtues. ​ ​

---

Hamlet: He wants not buzzers to infest his ears without pestilent speeches of his father's death.

Bacon: When the prince is one who lends an easy and credulous ear without discernment to whisperers and informers, there breathes as it were from the king himself a pestilent air, which corrupts and infects all his servants. Some probe the fears and jealousies of the prince, and increase them with false tales...

Gentillet: A marmoset, according to the language of our elders, is as much to say a reporter, murmurer, whisperer of tales behind one’s back in princes’ and great men’s ears, which are false, or else not to be reiterated or reported... These people are worse, and far more perilous than plain railers, scoffers, jesters, or janglers; for carrying the countenance of good servants and friends, they make the prince believe that they serve him as spies, to mark and seek out the designs, evil purposes, and carriages of his secret enemies, so that he may not unawares be surprised by them, and that no evil may come unto him. And because, according to Comines, princes are almost all suspicious for doubts and fears that are put into their heads by advisers, they easily believe marmosets and reporters.

---

Bacon: He of whom many are afraid, ought himself to fear many... He that injures one, threatens many.

Gentillet: Moreover, cruelty is always hated by everyone; for although it be not practiced upon all individuals, but upon some only, yet those upon whom it is not exercised cease not to fear when they see it executed upon their parents, friends, allies, and neighbors. But the fear of pain and punishment engenders hatred; for one can never love that whereof he fears to receive evil, and especially when there is a fear of life, loss of goods, and honors, which are the things we hold most precious.

Bacon: Everyone wishes that to be destroyed which he fears.

Merchant of Venice: Hates any man the thing he would not kill? ​ Antony and Cleopatra: In time we hate that which we often fear.

Gentillet: And of that which we hate, we by the same means desire the loss and entire ruin, and search out, procure, and advance it with all our power. ​

---

Bacon: In place there is license to do good and evil; whereof the latter is a curse: for in evil the best condition is not to will; the second not to can. But power to do good is the true and lawful end of aspiring. For good thoughts (though God accept them) yet towards men are little better than good dreams, except they be put in act; and that cannot be without power and place, as the vantage and commanding ground. Merit and good works is the end of man's motion; and conscience of the same is the accomplishment of man's rest.

Gentillet: True it is that a man must distinguish the virtue, and what is good, from vice and the evil which resembles it. For ambition is a vice which comes very near the desire of good reputation, which good men ought to have. If then a man travails and takes pains to come to some estate and greatness by all lawful and unlawful means, and uses it fiercely and to his own commodity, rather than to the profit of the commonwealth, we confess that our religion teaches us to fly and despise such honors. But when a man maintains himself by all honest and lawful means in a good reputation, although by such means he aspires to some estate and dignity whereof he feels himself capable to use it well, and to serve God and the commonwealth therein, we say that by our Christian religion there is not forbidden us such an affectation of honor, and that we may lawfully say we ought to seek and pursue such honor. ​----------------------------------------

A beastly ambition, which the gods grant thee t' attain to! If thou wert the lion, the fox would beguile thee; if thou wert the lamb, the fox would eat three: if thou wert the fox, the lion would suspect thee, when peradventure thou wert accused by the ass: if thou wert the ass, thy dulness would torment thee, and still thou livedst but as a breakfast to the wolf: if thou wert the wolf, thy greediness would afflict thee, and oft thou shouldst hazard thy life for thy dinner: wert thou the unicorn, pride and wrath would confound thee and make thine own self the conquest of thy fury: wert thou a bear, thou wouldst be killed by the horse: wert thou a horse, thou wouldst be seized by the leopard: wert thou a leopard, thou wert german to the lion and the spots of thy kindred were jurors on thy life: all thy safety were remotion and thy defence absence. What beast couldst thou be, that were not subject to a beast? and what a beast art thou already, that seest not thy loss in transformation!

Timon of Athens

​Gentillet: Machiavelli has not yet handled a discourse more worthy of his sufficiency than this. For he teaches by this maxim the manner to be a beast, and especially how a prince should in all his behavior use himself like a beast. Think you, I pray, that to teach how being a man, you may imitate a beast, is a small matter? I know well that our Machiavellians will say that herein is hidden a secret of philosophy, and that Machiavelli means that a prince should be as subtle as a fox, and violent like a lion; not that he must go with four feet, or that he must dwell in the deserts of Arabia, or in holes in the woods, or commit other such like actions as the fox and lion do. I am content to agree to them this moral sense, and that their master meant here to declare some singular and memorable doctrine; let us now come to examine it. He says then, when a prince cannot fight like a man, that is, by reason, he ought to fight like a beast, that is, to use force and subtlety. To this I answer that a prince in his quarrel has either reason or right on his side, or else he has them not. If not, he ought not to fight against any man, for each war ought to have its foundation upon reason, as elsewhere we have showed. If the prince has reason on his side, and his opponent refuses to come to reason, then the prince may justly constrain him by force of arms. And this is not called fighting like a beast, or a lion, but as a man using reason; who employs his own corporal force, and the force of his horses, of his armies and walls, and of all other things offensive and defensive, to serve for instruments and means to execute what reason commands and ordains. ​

---

Now remains That we find out the cause of this effect, Or, rather say, the cause of this defect, For this effect defective comes by cause, Thus it remains, and the remainder thus Perpend.

                           Hamlet

Bacon: The end of our Foundation is the knowledge of Causes, and secret motion of Causes, and secret motions of things; and the enlarging of the bounds of Human Empire, to the effecting of all things possible.

Man is the helper and interpreter of nature. He can only act and understand in so far as by working upon her or observing her he has come to perceive her order. Beyond this he has neither knowledge nor power. For there is no strength that can break the causal chain: Nature cannot be conquered but by obeying her. Accordingly those twin goals, human science and human power, come in the end to one. To be ignorant of causes is to be frustrated in action.

Gentillet: And first I oppose against him almost all of the ancient philosophers, who have maintained that nothing happens, nor is done, without some efficient cause, although unknown to us. True it is that they make a distinction of causes, for they say that God is the first cause, which holds in action all other inferior causes (which they call second causes), and makes them work their effects. And although often in this distinction of causes they attribute some things to second causes which they should attribute to the first alone, yet notwithstanding they refer all things to God mediately or immediately. Very true it is that sometimes they use that name of fortune, applying themselves to the manner of speech used among the people; but there never was philosopher so beastly that ever thought her to be any goddess. But when the ancient philosophers say anything comes by fortune, or by adventure, or contingency, they mean that the efficient cause of such a thing is unknown. For that is their doctrine and manner of speech, to say that a thing happens or chances by fortune, and contingently, when they know not the cause thereof.

---

Bacon: There are and can be only two ways of searching into and discovering truth. The one flies from the senses and particulars to the most general axioms, and from these principles, the truth of which it takes for settled and immovable, proceeds to judgment and middle axioms. And this way is now in fashion. The other derives axioms from the senses and particulars, rising by a gradual and unbroken ascent, so that it arrives at the most general axioms last of all. This is the true way, but as yet untried.

Gentillet: Aristotle and other philosophers teach us, and experience confirms, that there are two ways to come unto the knowledge of things. The one, when from the causes and maxims, men come to knowledge of the effects and consequences. The other, when contrary, by the effects and consequences we come to know the causes and maxims... The first of these ways is proper and peculiar unto the mathematicians, who teach the truth of their theorems and problems by their demonstrations drawn from maxims, which are common sentences allowed of themselves for true by the common sense and judgment of all men. The second way belongs to other sciences, as to natural philosophy, moral philosophy, physic, law, policy, and other sciences, whereof the knowledge proceeds more commonly by a resolute order of effects to their causes, and from particulars to general maxims, than by the first way; although it is certain that sometimes they also help themselves both with the one and the other way.

---

​Bacon: So likewise in the person of Solomon the king, we see the gift or endowment of wisdom and learning, both in Solomon’s petition and in God’s assent thereunto, preferred before all other terrene and temporal felicity. By virtue of which grant or donative of God Solomon became enabled not only to write those excellent parables or aphorisms concerning divine and moral philosophy, but also to compile a natural history of all verdure, from the cedar upon the mountain to the moss upon the wall (which is but a rudiment between putrefaction and an herb), and also of all things that breathe or move. Nay, the same Solomon the king, although he excelled in the glory of treasure and magnificent buildings, of shipping and navigation, of service and attendance, of fame and renown, and the like, yet he maketh no claim to any of those glories, but only to the glory of inquisition of truth; for so he saith expressly, “The glory of God is to conceal a thing, but the glory of the king is to find it out;” as if, according to the innocent play of children, the Divine Majesty took delight to hide His works, to the end to have them found out; and as if kings could not obtain a greater honour than to be God’s playfellows in that game; considering the great commandment of wits and means, whereby nothing needeth to be hidden from them.

Gentillet: Solomon was a king most wise, and a great philosopher; for he asked wisdom from God, who gave it in such abundance that besides being ignorant of nothing a prince should know to govern his subjects well, he also knew the natures of plants and living creatures, and was so cunning in all kinds of philosophy that his knowledge was admired through all the world. His prudence and wisdom made him so respected by all the great kings, his neighbors, that they esteemed themselves happy to do him pleasure and have his amity. By this means he maintained his kingdom in so high and happy a peace, that in his time his subjects made no more account of silver than of stones, they had such store. And as for himself, he held so magnificent an estate, that we read not of any king or emperor that did the like. ​​

---

Bacon: Men leave their riches either to their kindred, or to the public; and moderate portions prosper best in both. A great state left to an heir, is as a lure to all the birds of prey round about to seize on him, if he be not the better stablished in years and judgment.

Gentillet: When a prince has the fame to be a great treasurer, does he not give his neighbor occasion to seek means to enterprise upon him to obtain those treasures? Why is it that the Venetians, who if they wanted might be the greatest treasurers in the world, have made a law among them to have no treasure in their commonwealth other than of arms? It is because they know well (as they are wise) that if they heap up treasures of money, they shall but prepare a bait to draw their neighbors on to make war upon them. But wars come too soon, and under the pretext of more occasions than we would, therefore we need no baits to draw them upon us. It is not then best for a prince to be reputed a man full of treasures and silver, as Machiavelli thinks; for money of itself cannot but serve us for a bait to attract and draw upon us those who are hungry and desirous of it.

For it is neither good nor profitable that a prince treasures up heaps of riches; for it serves for a bait to draw unto him enemies, or to engender quarrels and divisions after him; and we often see that princes’ great treasures are causes of more evil than good. ​

---

​Bacon: Mr. Bettenham used to say, that riches were like muck: when it lay upon an heap, it gave a stench, and ill odour; but when it was spread upon the ground, then it was the cause of much fruit.

Bacon: Of great riches there is no real use, except it be in the distribution; the rest is but conceit.

Gentillet: Briefly, it is neither good nor profitable for a prince to heap up great treasures and riches enclosed in one place. And what then? must a sovereign prince be poor? No, but contrary, he has need to be rich and very opulent, for otherwise he shall be feeble and weak, and cannot make head against his enemies; but his riches and treasures must be in the purses and houses of his subjects. ​ ​ -------------------------------------------- Reports of fashions in proud Italy Whose manners still our tardy-apish nation Limps after in base imitation. Where the world doth thrust forth a vanity- So be it new, there’s no respect how vile- That is not quickly buzzed into his ears? Then all too late comes counsel to be heard, Where will doth mutiny with wit’s regard.

Richard II

Gentillet: For besides the examples we read in histories, we know it by experience, seeing at this day all France fashioned after the manners, conditions, and vices of foreigners that govern it, and who have the principal charges and estates. And not only many Frenchmen are such beasts to conform themselves to strangers’ complexions, but also to gaggle their language and disdain the French tongue as a thing too common and vulgar... And this is because they would not advance any other but men of their own nation, and certain bastardly and degenerate Frenchmen, who are fashioned both to their humor and their fashions, and who may serve them as slaves and most vile ministers of their treacheries, cruelties, rapines, and other vices. ​

---

Bacon: ​ But it must be remembered all this while, that the precepts which we have set down are of that kind which may be counted and called Bonæ Artes. As for evil arts, if a man would set down for himself that principle of Machiavel, “That a man seek not to attain virtue itself, but the appearance only thereof; because the credit of virtue is a help, but the use of it is cumber”: or that other of his principles, “That he presuppose that men are not fitly to be wrought otherwise but by fear; and therefore that he seek to have every man obnoxious, low, and in straits,” which the Italians call seminar spine, to sow thorns: or that other principle, contained in the verse which Cicero citeth, Cadant amici, dummodo inimici intercidant, as the triumvirs, which sold every one to other the lives of their friends for the deaths of their enemies: or that other protestation of L. Catilina, to set on fire and trouble states, to the end to fish in droumy waters, and to unwrap their fortunes, Ego si quid in fortunis meis excitatum sit incendium, id non aqua sed ruina restinguam: or that other principle of Lysander, “That children are to be deceived with comfits, and men with oaths": and the like evil and corrupt positions, whereof (as in all things) there are more in number than of the good: certainly with these dispensations from the laws of charity and integrity, the pressing of a man’s fortune may be more hasty and compendious. But it is in life as it is in ways, the shortest way is commonly the foulest, and surely the fairer way is not much about.

Gentillet: But in the end it will produce and bring forth some great disorder and confusion, as has sometimes been seen for like actions, for reasons well enough known to wise people. As for peace, these people never like it, for they always fish in troubled water, gathering riches and heaps of the treasures of the realm while it is in trouble and confusion. They always have in their mouths the good maxims of their Machiavelli, to impeach and hinder a good peace.

We should not then see France to be governed and ruled by strangers, as it is; we should not feel the calamities and troubles of civil wars and dissentions, which they enterprise to maintain their greatness and magnitude, and to fish in troubled water.

---

​ Bacon: Lastly, weigh that quick and acute reply which he made when he gave so large gifts to his friends and servants, and was asked what he did reserve for himself, and he answered, ‘Hope.’

Gentillet: When Alexander the Great departed from Macedonia to go to the conquest of Asia, he had all the captains of his army appear before him, and distributed to them almost all the revenue of his kingdom, leaving himself almost nothing. One of the captains, named Perdicas, said to him: “What then will you keep for yourself?” “Even hope,” answered Alexander.

---

​Bacon: For matter of policy, weigh that significant division, so much in all ages embraced, that he made between his two friends Hephaestion and Craterus, when he said, ‘that the one loved Alexander, and the other loved the king’; describing the principal difference of princes’ best servants, that some in affection love their person, and others in duty love their crown.

Gentillet: Hereof we read a very remarkable example above others in Alexander the Great, king of Macedon. When he depated from his country to pass into Asia, to make war upon that great dominator Darius, he had with him first in his love among others, Craterus and Hephaestion, two gentlemen, his best friends and servants. Yet they were far different from each other, for Craterus was of a hard and sharp wit, severe, stoic, and melancholic, who altogether gave himself unto affairs of counsel, and indeed was one of the king’s chief counsellors. But Hephaestion was a young gentleman, well complexioned and conditioned in his manners and behavior, of a good and quick wit, yet free of all care but to content and please the king in his sports and pastimes. They called Craterus the king’s friend, and Hephaestion the friend of Alexander, as one that gave himself to maintain the person of his prince in mirths and pastimes, which were good for the maintenance of his health. ​-----------------------------------------------

Bacon: When Periander, being consulted how to preserve a tyranny newly usurped, bid the messenger report what he saw; and going into the garden, cropped all the tallest flowers; he thus used as strong an hieroglyphic as if he had drawn it upon paper. ​ Gentillet: Machiavelli, meaning to show that his purpose tends and aims only to instruct a prince in all sorts of tyranny, gives him here a precept which Thrasibulus the Milesian gave to Periander, a tyrant of Corinth, and Tarquin the Proud gave to his son Sextus. Periander, having tyrannously obtained the crown of Corinth where he had no right, fearing some conspiracy against him, sent a messenger to ask advice of his great friend Thrasibulus, so to be assured master and lord of Corinth. Thrasibulus made him no answer by mouth; but commanding the messenger to follow him, he went into a field full of ripe corn, and taking the highest and most eminent ears there, he bruised them between his hands and wished the messenger to return to Periander, saying no more unto him. As soon as Periander heard of bruising the most ancient ears of corn, he presently conceived the meaning thereof; to wit, to overthrow and remove all the great men of Corinth who suffered any loss and were grieved at the change of the state; as indeed he did.

---

​Bacon: So in the fable that Achilles was brought up under Chiron the Centaur, who was part a man and part a beast: expounded ingeniously but corruptly by Machiavel, that it belongeth to the education and discipline of princes to know as well how to play the part of the lion in violence and the fox in guile, as of the man in virtue and justice.

Gentillet: But should we call this beastliness or malice, what Machiavelli says of Chiron? Or has he read that Chiron was both a man and a beast? Who has told him that he was delivered to Achilles to teach him that goodly knowledge to be both a man and a beast? Xenophon says that Chiron was Jupiter’s brother (so great a man he makes him), full of great knowledge and of all virtue, generosity, piety, and justice. Nay he says further, that Asclepius, Nestor, Amphiaraus, Peleus, Telamon, Theseus, Ulysses, Castor, Pollux, Aeneas, Achilles, and almost all great persons who the Greeks place among their gods, learned the virtues whereby they have obtained immortal praise and the reputation to be gods, from him. He says also that Chiron was not in the time of Achilles, but long before; but because Achilles was instructed and nourished in his discipline, virtue, and manner of life, men say he was Achilles’ instructor. True it is that the poets have called him a centaur, because he took great pleasure in riding horses and in hunting, which are exercise well befitting a prince. But although he loved horses, and the exercise of knighthood, yet was he never esteemed to hold anything of a beast, but rather of the divinity, as being endowed with all excellent virtues, which bring men near God and take them farthest from beasts. And therefore the beastly malice of Machiavelli is seen, in perversely abusing the example of that valiant and generous prince Achilles, to persuade a prince not to stick to govern himself after the imitation of beasts; this is false and devised, for Chiron rather held of divinity, than of a beast, neither was Achilles instructed but in all heroic virtues. And we do not read that he ever used any foxlike subtlety or unlawful policy, or any other thing unworthy of a magnanimous prince, well nourished and instructed in all high and royal virtues. ​

---

​Bacon: Fabius Maximus being resolved to draw the war in length, still waited upon Hannibal’s progress, to curb him; and for that purpose, he encamped upon the high grounds. But Terentius his colleague fought with Hannibal, and was in great peril of overthrow. But then Fabius came down the high grounds, and got the day. Whereupon Hannibal said, That he did ever think, that that same cloud that hanged upon the hills, would at one time or other, give a tempest.

Gentillet: Seeing this, the Roman Senate sent against Hannibal Fabius Maximus, who was not so forward (and it may be not so hardy) as Flaminius or Sempronius were; but he was more wise and careful, as he showed himself. On his arrival he did not set upon Hannibal, who desired no other thing, but began to coast him far off, seeking always advantageous places. And when Hannibal approached him, then would he show him a countenance fully determined to fight, yet always seeking places of advantage. But Hannibal, who was not so rash as to join with his enemy to his own disadvantage, made a show to recoil and fly, to draw him after him. Fabius followed him, but upon coasts and hills, seeking always not the shortest way, but that way which was most for his advantage. Hannibal saw him always upon some hill or coast near him, as it were a cloud over his head; so that after Hannibal had many times essayed to draw Fabius into a place fit for himself, and where he might give battle for his own good, and yet could not thereunto draw him, said: “I see well now that the Romans also have gotten a Hannibal; and I fear that this cloud, which approaching us, still hovers upon those hills, will one of these mornings pour out some shower on our heads.” Briefly, the prudence and wisdom of Fabius brought more fear and gave more ado unto Hannibal than all the Roman forces, which yet were not small.

---

Bacon: But men must know, that in this theatre of man's life it is reserved only for God and angels to be lookers on.

Gentillet: And as for what he says, that the Christian religion promises not paradise but to idle and contemplative people, he shows well that he never knew what the Christian religion meant; for it commands us to travail and not to be idle, and every man loyally to exercise his vocation. Very true it is, that among Christians there must be some contemplatives, that is to say, studious people who give themselves to holy letters in order to teach others. But we do not find by the documents of that religion that there is allowed any idle contemplation of dreamers, who do nothing but imagine dreams and toys in their brains; but a contemplative life of laboring studious people is only approved, who give themselves to letters to teach others. For after they have accomplished their studies, they ought to put in use and action that which they know, bringing into an active life that which they have learned by their study in their contemplative life. ​ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:5800:811:0:E2B9:82C4:E1D1 (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This article has been challenged for lacking a neutral point of view

{subst:NPOVN-notice}}