Talk:Francis Bacon/Archive 1

message: jan 22 1561
His birthday is given as January 22, 1561 (not 21) in Wikipdia for January 22.
:I don't know who added the unsigned comment above, but I just found the same thing myself - in fact every non-Wikipedia source I can find says January 22, so I've changed it. Andrewa 14:16, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthday

message: I don't understand the following sentence:
:The House of Commons duly information on state necessities, assented to a double subsidy and appointed a committee to draw up the requisite articles.
The phrase "duly information on state necessities" doesn't seem to be grammatical. If "duly" is an adverb, there should be a verb in the clause, and it should probably be set off by commas (e.g., "duly informed on state necessities"). If the whole expression (including "The House of Commons") is a committee title, something still seems wrong (at least to my American eyes). I don't know the history, so I can't fix it. Could someone look at this? -- Jeff Q 09:01, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Language in 1593 subsidy text?

message: If Francis Bacon "has become best known as an advocate and defender of the scientific revolution", shouldn't there be something more in this very lengthy article about his contributions, rather than just this tiny statement? If I knew them myself, I'd add some text, but I'm in learning mode on this topic. ☺ -- Jeff Q 09:21, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! I spent so much time reading about Bacon's life, I forgot there was another paragraph (well, sentence, really) at the top that had a link to the Baconian method. I grudgingly concede that this serves the purpose I was after. ☺ -- Jeff Q 09:27, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Best known for scientific revolution?

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

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

message: I removed the following links, mainly because they have little to do with the actual person Francis Bacon.
# Bacon's "Secret Society":  The Ephrata Connection
# Bacon's hidden life and works
# Painting by Barbara Gaffney showing Bacon as the Imperator of the Rosicrucian Order
PRiis 20:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Rosicrucian links

message: Possibly, and possibly not. It is a legitimate question, but any discussion here should largely move a reader to read the more rounded discussion at Shakespearean authorship.
Recently an anon author has twice introduced a paragaph  to discuss the question which has a number of problems.
#) Firstly it is too POV in favour of Bacon being a likely author when there are several other candidates.
#) It uses weasel words such as 'Some have theorised', rather than attributing the theory to known authors.
#) It contains statements of fact that are incorrect. The phrase the first word of the manuscript of The Tempest (Boteswaine) has Francis Bacon's name around the B contains at least three errors. There is no known manuscript of The Tempest, the statement should refer to the printed text of the first folio edition. 'Boteswaine' is not the first word of The Tempest, it is the first spoken word. Bacon's name is not written around the initial capital 'B', at least not in clear text as is implied. It is possible to say that the name is encoded in a complex cipher involving the letter near the opening capital B. See http://home.att.net/~tleary/bote.htm which looks like a more credible source and includes a scan of the First Folio text.
#) It pushes a link to sirbacon.org, when this is far from the most useful web site on the question. A more balanced collection of links is presented in Shakespearean authorship article.
It looks like there is a fair amount of dispute on the Shakespearean authorship page, but I don't think we need that POV war to spill over here. -- Solipsist 22:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Bacon write Shakespeare's plays? 

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

message: As a history of science undergrad, I've long understood Bacon to be gay.  A quick trawl of the web turned up this, which references some pretty clear documents, assuming they're real - http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/baconfra.htm  I know I first read of it in an academic text about him, though - I'll have a look for it asap, because if his homosexuality is as clear as I casually understood it to be, it's kinda dishonest not to mention it in the article. Athenemiranda 09:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't and it is not clear as some claim - But suggest that, if their is documentary evidence of allegations, this should be mentioned.
In a time when politics was as ruthless as it is today and rumors could destroy reputations, one must tread very carefully when labeling someone's sexuality. If there's any question it seems to me that something like this is more appropriate for People Magazine, not an encyclopedia. What's the point? The diaries could have been written by those who wanted to bring Bacon down, or maybe not. Either way, it's hearsay and doesn't belong in a respected source of information. Sage1225  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sage1225 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexual

message: There is no mention in the article King James Bible that Francis Bacon was on the committee which did the final editing.  Because the statement in the FB article goes even further, stating he was the sole final editor, I have removed it pending the provision of some documented evidence.  --Blainster 19:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1611 editions of this Bible were printed under the same guidance and in the same manner as were the Shakespeare plays, and the ornaments for the various pages were drawn in pen and ink and on wood by artists engaged by Bacon who worked under his supervision. Everyone of the ornaments concealed some Rosicrucian emblem and occasionally a Masonic emblem or some initials that would reveal Bacon's name or the name of the Rosicrucians. Such ornaments were put not only in the Christian Bible that Bacon had rewritten but in the Shakespeare plays, and in some of Bacon's own books, and a few other books that were typically Rosicrucinan in spirit. That alone leave me to believe that he was either a major editor of the King James Bible. And that is fair grounds for a section similar to the Bacon and Shakespeare section. I request someone please rewrite it or I will in the near future.--Davin Bacon 19:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a widely held hypothesis.  If you wish to add something, make sure it is well documented. --Blainster 00:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: King James Bible editor

message: Other than identifying Bacon as a freemason at the beginning of the article their is no other mention of his connection with the mystical 'secret societies'.
Numerous sources suggest that he was a high initiate or indeed even the founder of the Order of Rosicrucianism, so I think this at least deserves mention in the article.
Can somebody implement some information regarding Bacon's relationship and influence within these societies?
Panentheon 15:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
:The writers of the article on the Rosicrucians clearly hold Bacon's involvement to be speculative at best, so unless you can produce authoritative sources detailing his involvement, I would be inclined otherwise Athenemiranda 15:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like the claim about being a homosexual: "He's one of us!"
A Rosicrucian AND a homosexual! Good heavens! Hmmm. Its interesting. No-one knows who founded Rosicrucianism. Dee is another candidate. They were contemporaries. The Rosies didn't 'go public' until the Rosicrucian Manifestos which are attributed to Johannes Valentin Andreae who was German. Who knows? ThePeg 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry

message: Supposedly Bacon is the first person in history to record the phenomenon of triboluminescence in Advancement of Learning while he chopped a block of sugar at night. However I cannot find the refrence. Does anyone know where it is in this book? --Deglr6328 20:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it! It was in Novum Organum  where he states: "It is well known that all sugar, whether candied or plain, if it be hard, will sparkle when broken or scraped in the dark.".--Deglr6328 07:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Triboluminescence

message: Replaced 
Francis Bacon's death had a considerable element of irony.
with
The cause of Bacon's death is notoriously comic.
Irony is the (usually comic) occurrence of something unexpected, given the situation. Stuffing a chicken with snow and subsequently catching pneumonia, whilst amusing, is not ironic. Soobrickay 00:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it Ironic don't you think - As comic as it is, could it be argued that this is ironic; he was trying to prevent death and illness from food poisoning, and died whilst attempting this. Y control 23:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pneumonia is a virus, so he could not have got it from being cold, I think the article should be reworded to state that the experiment had nothing to with his death. unless of course he contracted the pneumonia from the chicken. --Davin Bacon 22:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to be pedantic, but pneumonia is an inflammatory disease of the lungs, whereby they become filled with fluid, not necessarily a result of infectious agents. As well as bacterial and viral causes, it can be caused by damage to the lungs. There's quite a comprehensive wikipedia article on this.~~DJ 24 Sep 2006 
===Not at all funny===
Bacon's death wasn't ironic, and wasn't comic either.  Bigturtle 20:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Bacon's death wasn't ironic, and wasn't comic either.  Bigturtle 20:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In an article about a philosopher of scientific method (perhaps the greatest), you're quite right to be sceptical. Presumably we can rule out bird flu? However, as Hume pointed out, science can never have the certainty of mathematics, being based on observation; for example the fact that B has always been observed to follow A does not provide certainty that B will always follow A; it is merely persuasive. As Bacon was also a lawyer, he would probably say that the circumstantial evidence strongly points to the snow, his immediately feeling ill, the cold damp bed that Hobbes and Aubrey reported, and his death soon after, not being entirely unrelated, whatever virus or whatever he had caught. They may have been unrelated, but the circumstances of his death (which were certainly bizarre enough) were sufficient to make him in contemporary people's eyes a martyr to the experimental method. I've added Aubrey's account so people can judge for themselves. --Straw Cat 21:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not at all funny

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

message: Substituted at 21:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

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

message: Heads up, folks. This article has been listed on Slashdot. --CoderGnome 05:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Link please? Mikker (...) 10:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask, and you shall receive: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/10/1919216 CoderGnome 22:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slashdot linkage 

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

message: This page is missing a lot of his works that can be found here. I will work on these in the future, but not now. --Rajah 02:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't even a reference to The New Atlantis in this article! <KF> 19:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Works

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

message: There appears to be nothing on the main page (or indeed on this Talkpage) about the theory that Francis Bacon was the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth and Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester (along with Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex).  Whilst this may be a purely romantic notion on the SirBacon website, there is reasonably documented evidence that Elizabeth visited Nicholas Bacon's house at Gorhambury at least twice  and was entertained by the 8 or 9 year old Francis .  It was here, surely, that he would have earned the title "little Lord Keeper", not at Cambridge when he was 12, as it says in the 3rd para of "Early life": "At Cambridge he first met the Queen, who was impressed by his precocious intellect, and was accustomed to call him "the young Lord Keeper."" Can anyone provide other sources for the early meetings of Bacon and the queen, which may (or may not?!) shed light on their genetic links? 195.217.52.130 18:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the very title of a "Sir Bacon" website expresses why not better than any of us could! Bacon seems to attract the paraliterate. -Wetman 19:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parentage

message: I found the following link to be useful for wikipedia users.  I put the links up a couple of weeks ago but somebody took them down claiming they were redundant and that they were a conflict of interest - I'm pretty sure they're neither though.  The books are in PDF format and I found them to be way easier to read than the Project Gutenberg, HTML, or plain text links that are already here.  I just think it’d be a better option for people.  I’ve found them quite useful.  Should I put them up on the site?  Or would somebody else like to?
http://www.magellanfreebooks.com/Books/Bacon-Essays.html
Jay ryann 20:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replied at User talk:Jay ryann expressing some concerns about the appropriateness (and possible conflict of interest) of these Magellan links, at least as they have been added so far (redundant, without bibliographic information, etc.).  Wareh 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have also replied at User talk: Jay ryann with clarification.  I still think that it is the format that counts here and the PDF version is better for the average reader than the plain-text files of Gutenberg et al.  (Not to say that Project Gutenberg isn't a tremendously valuable resource - because they are.)  Jay ryann 20:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link to Bacon's Essays 

message: This paragraph seems to me a little curious:
"In 1603 Bacon analyzed his own mental character and establishes his goals, which were threefold: discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Knowing that a prestigious post would aid him toward these ends, in 1580 he applied, through his uncle..."
as it seems to imply that he  was aware of these goals 23 years prior to actually establishing them.
85.225.8.121 12:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your analyses and have removed the offending sentence.  If anyone has an objection please raise it here with a supporting citation for the verbage. Wjhonson 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious paragraph 

message: I tagged this as requiring cleanup -- outdated EB language. General article quality is poor -- needs rewriting with ref to sources such as ODNB -- { Markku Peltonen, ‘Bacon, Francis, Viscount St Alban (1561–1626)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, May 2006 accessed 17 April 2007 } 
Another problem is that he has LGBT categs, but no info on this is mentioned in article.  --mervyn 10:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be because a massive amount of text was removed by a vandal. I've now restored the material, so maybe the refs you are after are in the restored text? Carcharoth 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EB cleanup

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

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

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

message: I realize that the issue of Bacon's homosexuality seems to have a lack of general consensus, both here on Wiki AND in the scholarly world -- and that's fine for the moment, seeing as we're all 400 years out from his lifetime. That being said... is it really appropriate to have him placed in the "LGBT" and "Gay Writers" categories? If the issue is in question, the category tag shouldn't be there, should it? Just as he shouldn't have a tag for "Heterosexual Writers" or "Pedarastic Writers," seeing as both of those are in question as well. I'm not a long-term contributor to the Bacon page, so I'm leaving  it up to the more regular editors to delete the tags or modify them for now.
And before anyone tries to paint me as "homophobic" for suggesting that the category tags shouldn't be there: I would have ZERO qualms about saying Fracis Bacon was gay -- IF proof was conclusive, as opposed to what seems to be a personal attack from a rival (even if it was in his own diary -- I've written some nasty stuff about people in my own diary that wasn't true, as a measure of cathartic release), a person born shortly before Bacon's death, and commments about his friends by his stepmother. Until such proof is availabe, isn't it wiser and more appropriate to just not have the category tags?
Cheers! 74.134.228.189 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above observations, and have removed those 2 category tags, as well the "English Astrologers" category. No books have portrayed him as an astrologer. Arion 04:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization of Bacon 

message: I suggest that the short, unwikified article 'Idols of the mind' be merged into the Francis Bacon article. The information in the 'Idols' article is interesting and would be a valuable part of the Bacon article, and the Baocn article is not be made an unwieldly size by its inclusion. In spite of the usefulness of its material, the 'Idols' page will probably never be developed into a significant stand alone article. Anarchia 06:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this would be a good addition. However we need a reference source for this. Arion 17:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge material from [[Idols of the mind]]

message: According to the importance assessment criteria fo philosophy, an article is of high importance when: "The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding philosophy." I contend that understanding Francis Bacon is not vital for understanding philosophy. I, therefore, propose that the article be rated 'mid' importance for philosophy.Anarchia 07:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I contend that understanding Francis Bacon is vital for understanding philosophy. Therefore the rating should be "high importance". Arion 17:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: :In Bacon's work Novum Organum, he cites three world-changing inventions in the West, but does not seem to be aware that they all hail from China.
This sentence, referring to gunpowder, the compass, and printing, should be moderated, since western movable-type printing, as invented by Gutenberg, is unrelated to Chinese printing. Ergo, printing did not "hail" from China but was completely independent. --Vlmastra 00:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the sentence, but now that I look at it, the whole section seems out of place. Yes, it's an interesting quote, but not entirely relevant for a short biography. That's a lot of material for only one small point. In addition, that is a suspiciously large amount of quotation in proportion to the amount of original material. In summary, I find the section to be non-essential. Does anyone agree? --Vlmastra 01:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Francis Bacon#On the three "modern" inventions|On the three "modern" inventions]] 

message: Hey you blokes! 
Look, in this early section you're saying "His mother, Ann Cooke Bacon, was the second wife of Sir Nicholas. She was a member of the Reformed or Puritan Church, and a daughter of Sir Anthony Cooke. Her sister married William Cecil, Lord Burghley, the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth I." 
I think that you're losing your grip on the subject here. Second sentence in this example is not related to the subject properly. I wonder if you'd consider saying, "She was a daughter of Sir Anthony Cooke and a member of the Reformed Puritan Church." —putting the birth first and the church membership second as in a natural order in this case. 
Then why not say that, "His maternal uncle was, by marriage, William Cecil..." or if that is going to look a bit ugly you might try, "His (maternal) aunt married William Cecil..." because we really are only interested in Francis—are we not? You're just gilding the lily, are you not? 
Going back to the first sentence—you could go, "His mother, Ann Cook Bacon, was Sir Nicholas's second wife." Then I'm thinking that this is Americanisms creeping in here and she wasn't Ann Cook Bacon before she was married. She was Ann Cook, right? So we now have "His mother, Ann Cook, was Sir Nicholas's second wife." —and everybody is happy—especially Francis Bacon who would have been turning in his grave at the English you are concocting in this article. 
If you'll give me those fixes I'll think about going through the whole thing and making any other suggestions—for your consideration. Cheers. 
Lin 11:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your suggestions for clarity in the article's language. I have made the changes. Emery 06:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Dick, I appreciate your confidence in my suggestions. Lin 07:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early life 

message: I've added an archive link and request that editors familiar with the article please archive any old talk threads that are no longer active or otherwise obsolete. The length of this page is way too long and thus hard for some users to access. Benjiboi 23:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please archive obsolete talk discussion 

message: I propose changing the title of the section that was previously awkwardly named "Posthumous reputation", then nebulously named "Others". I propose "Later views on Bacon" Sujata Kapila 21:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like an excellent way to add clarity to the article. What do the other editors think? Emery 06:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged it, plus another small section, into the Works section, which perhaps could be retitled Works and Influence or somesuch.PiCo 11:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Later views on Bacon

message: I deleted areference to Michael H. Hart, to the effect that Hart had listed Bacon as one of the most influential persons of all time (or some such) in a book he (Hart) has written. First, just how notable is Hart? Not very I think. But far more, Hart has an entry in Wiki, and he seems to be a thoroughly obnoxious human being, a white supremacist and racist. Let's not give people like this publicity! PiCo 15:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done PiCo! It's about time that obnoxious hate speech is put down and not given publicity! Artemis 18:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael H. Hart 

message: :As Haiduc has previously noted, a standard practice in conflict resolution is to start, not by trying to resolve the principal conflict, but by identifying and building on what common ground there is. The common ground here among all the editors who have expressed their opinions on the homosexuality speculation is that there should be some inclusion of that theory:
::Several authors, such as A .L. Rowse, A .L. Rowse, Homosexuals in History, New York: Carroll & Garf, 1977. page 44 Rictor Norton, Rictor Norton, "Sir Francis Bacon", The Great Queens of History, updated 8 Jan. 2000 http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/baconfra.htm and Alan Stewart, Jardine, Lisa; Stewart, Alan Hostage To Fortune: The Troubled Life of Francis Bacon Hill & Wang, 1999. page 148 speculate that he had homosexual inclinations. Nieves Mathews, author of Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination, Mathews, Nieves Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination, Yale University Press, 1996 argues that the sources are questionable and not conclusive. Historian Edmund Wilson described one of the sources as a compilation of "gossip". Edmund Wilson, Foreward to the 1962 edition of Brief Lives published by the University of Michigan Press. Wilson wrote of Aubrey: "He loved to compile gossip about famous men. . . He sometimes mixed anecdotes about different people." 
:So let us start with this agreed upon foundation, and discuss on this page what expansion upon this theme there should be, if any. -- Arion (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proceeding with improvement

message: No one seems to be hearing anyone any longer, and very ugly charges are flying. Can we catch our breaths for a moment, and return to the work at hand?
I would be interested in knowing, from those who are familiar with the literature on Bacon, of the works written and published in the last, say, thirty years or so, ever since it has been allowed to study and publish on the topic of homosexuality, how many have accepted his alleged love for his servants, how many have avoided the topic, and how many have tried to "defend" him from the allegations? Haiduc (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The falcon and the falconer