Bacon on the Web

This will be a work in progress where I will try to point out and comment on things that have come to my attention (as time permits). As a general observation, I would say you have to do your own fact-checking, even of encyclopedia articles, online. They are not always written by unbiased experts who have a scrupulous regard for factual accuracy, it would seem. Some even seem to treat Francis Bacon as if he were fair game for jokes and humor (like Genius.com, “Popular Francis Bacon Songs”). Categories: Positively Noted, Courses on Bacon, Caveats, “Starter” Resources, Better Biographies of Bacon.

Positively Noted

The new edition of Baconiana, vol. 2, no. 1 (Nov. 8, 2024), is available to read and download for free from the educational not-for-profit Francis Bacon Society. It is 211 pages, plus an additional supplement by Eric Roberts called “Visible Remains.” Go to the Francis Bacon Society website, Baconiana, then drop down and click on 2007 – present. It includes my book review of Maria Jose Falcon y Tella’s book, The Law in Cervantes and Shakespeare” (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2021), https://francisbaconsociety.co.uk/.

The Francis Bacon Society has a new online bookstore! There readers may purchase the 2024 reprinted Francis Bacon Society Edition of N. B. Cockburn, The Bacon Shakespeare Question: The Baconian Theory Made Sane (1998), with a biography of the author by the Society (Sally Gibbins, Principal) and foreword by me. At last, this book is back in print! Readers will find a selection of other books to drool over there as well.

New website, “Spearshaker Productions.” https://www.spearshakerproductions.com/. Their stated goal is to produce a drama about the life of Sir Francis Bacon.

New video by talented Australian actor Jono Freeman: Jono33, “Folio Feelz: Examining our love and worship of le text des texes de Shakespeare.” 10/26/23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlrqjQCGlVM&ab_channel=JonoFreeman33.

Kate Cassidy, “The Shakespeare Authorship Question: Unraveling the Mystery: Who wrote the Plays, and Why?” Shorthand, https://the-power-paradox.shorthandstories.com/the-shakespeare-authorship-question-unravelling-the-mystery/index.html. Kate is the author of The Secret Work of an Age, available from https://www.the-secret-work.com/author.html/ or Amazon.

“Francis Bacon,” Theosophy Wiki, last updated Oct. 23, 2023, https://theosophy.wiki/en/Francis_Bacon. Bacon was admitted to Gray’s Inn in 1576; however, he was in France from 1576-1579. In 1579, he began his legal studies at Gray’s Inn. I am grateful to them for mentioning my book.

Key Baconian websites: The Francis Bacon Research Trust (Peter Dawkins, founder and principal), https://www.fbrt.org.uk/ (essays listed under “Resources”), the Francis Bacon Society website, https://francisbaconsociety.co.uk/ and Francis Bacon’s New Advancement of Learning, https://sirbacon.org/sirbacon-org. The Shakespearean Authorship Trust page on Bacon (“Sir Francis Bacon, Baron Verulam, Viscount St. Alban,” under “About the Question, Candidates,” https://shakespeareanauthorshiptrust.org/bacon.

Quotations pages: For quotations by and about Bacon, look especially for the videos of “A Phoenix” on Youtube, collected at SirBacon.org (Oct. and Nov., 2022, https://sirbacon.org/quotes-about-francis-bacon/ and see Sidebar, that page, “Recent Articles.”). I like “Sir Francis Bacon,” TODAYINSCI (Today in Science History), https://todayinsci.com/B/Bacon_Francis/BaconFrancis-Quotations.htm. (However, I do not agree with the opinion of a source they mention, Robert G. Ingersoll in his 1891 lecture, “Lord Bacon Did Not Write Shakespeare’s Works.” Ingersoll’s view of Bacon as a scheming politician, etc., has been ably countered by Nieves Matthews in her book, Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996)).

Karen Attar, librarian, “Books and buildings, if not big data, the Durning-Lawrence Library,” Talking Humanities, Feb. 4, 2022, https://talkinghumanities.blogs.sas.ac.uk/2022/02/04/books-and-buildings-if-not-big-data-the-durning-lawrence-library/.

“Castalian Spring,” “Blogging Bacon–Essaying Bacon, Initiative Essays on Bacon’s Essays,” on Medium.com. Why blog Bacon’s Essays, or Counsels, Civil and Moral. Says Castalian Spring: “Bacon’s essays are everywhere rightly admired as a classic of renaissance literature but rarely critically examined as works of condensed philosophical counsel. These little blogs aim to get beyond the beauty of the prose, to provide the first full philosophical survey of Bacon’s classic of “cultura animi” (the cultivation of the self”), as well as their civil and moral wisdom, breaking down the ornate language and applying the ideas to contemporary affairs.” https://medium.com/essaying-bacon.

SirBacon.org celebrated twenty five years in October, 2022! https://sirbacon.org/sirbacon-org. Be sure to check their “What’s New” page.

Matthew Sharpe, “Looking for truth in the Facebook age? Seek out views you aren’t going to ‘like.'” The Conversation. March 12, 2018. https://theconversation.com/looking-for-truth-in-the-facebook-age-seek-out-views-you-arent-going-to-like-91659 (see sub-heading, “What’s Francis Bacon to Facebook?).

The article “Shakespeare Authorship Question,” http://shakespeareauthorshipquestion.org/ (https not available), says it is “Wikipedia-based” and conforms to “Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they pertain to alternative theory and minority view articles.” It is undated. It is not specific to the Baconian theory, but does name and contain links to the main Baconian websites SirBacon.org, the Francis Bacon Society, and the Francis Bacon Research Trust. When next updated, perhaps it could be expanded to include additional candidates and resources, now that collaboration among playwrights has become more accepted, based on stylistic evidence. Perhaps in the future it might add recent books on Bacon-Shakespeare authorship, such as those by Barry R. Clarke (2019), Peter Dawkins (the latest are 2004, 2020), N. B. Cockburn (2024 reprint), Brian McClinton (2008), and myself (2018) to its bibliography (see “Resources,” below, and “Bibliographies,” this website).“Sir Francis Bacon, Baron Verulam, Viscount St. Alban, 1561-1626,” Shakespearean Authorship Trust (undated), https://shakespeareanauthorshiptrust.org/bacon.

Courses on Bacon

Dr. Joshua Sipper, “Novum Organum by Sir Francis Bacon,” https://study.com/academy/lesson/novum-organum-by-sir-francis-bacon-summary-analysis.html.

Caveats

There seem to be a lot of listings in this category. Sometimes it seems as if the voice of the truth will always be muffled by propaganda which does not stand up to critical analysis. Researchers are urged to take the time and trouble to verify statements presented as facts.

Stanford Global Shakespeare Encyclopedia (“SGSE”). On Jan. 20, 2023, I made the following observations before the site went back under development, its current status. Prior to that time, although the site had articles up on Francis Bacon and the Bacon Shakespeare Question, it did not yet have a finished introduction on its “About Us” page. Yet, it already included seventy-one articles by David Kathman, an independent scholar who wrote the pro-Stratfordian article on Shakespeare authorship concerns for The Cambridge Guide to the Worlds of Shakespeare, vol 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019) (in which he erroneously wrote that Francis Bacon left no books or manuscripts in his Will). He was, until recently, listed as a member of Oxfraud (Oxfraud.com and Oxfraud Facebook group), a “Stratfordian” group which has stated in its Twitter profile that it has a goal of stamping out opposition to its core belief that William Shaxpere of Stratford was Shakespeare, rather than that Shakespeare was a pseudonym. Their name would lead one to believe that their main focus for antipathy is Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. As Brian Vickers has observed, many people do not have a particular knowledge of Francis Bacon’s life or works. Before people rule out Bacon as author, should they not spend some time learning more about him and his works, keeping an open mind? This link contains a description of the SGSE website’s conception, in 2018 by Haiyan Lee of Stanford on the Ohio State University website: https://u.osu.edu/mclc/2018/05/07/stanford-global-shakespeare-encyclopedia/. I remember when our family bought our set of Encyclopedia Britannica back in 1992. As purchasers, we were entitled to free research articles. I ordered their research packet on the Shakespeare authorship question. They sent me a collection of fair-minded, well-researched articles. The question was treated as a legitimate question. No one was claiming that people who were interested in the question were “viciously” attacking the reputation of William Shaxpere of Stratford to whom Shakespeare authorship has been traditionally attributed, despite the lack of evidence (no books or papers left in his Will, etc., etc.). These, then, were my impressions, as to several articles in the SGSE, pertaining in some way to Bacon and Shakespeare authorship, before the site went “under development” and was no longer accessible. We shall have to see once the site is up and running whether any of the following observations still apply:

  • David Colclough, “Bacon, Francis.” One might wonder why Bacon is given an entry in a Shakespeare encyclopedia if the topic of Bacon’s authorship of Shakespeare is not going to be addressed in the article (Well, they did add a brief reference to Bacon’s mentioning a Shakespeare play during his participation in Essex’s trial.). Bacon’s years in France are usually given as 1576-1579 (the article says 1575-76). How was Bacon a “client” of Buckingham’s? Rather, my impression is that the elder statesman Bacon tried to guide and improve the young, corrupt “favorite” of King James. For his troubles, he was “rewarded” by becoming the scapegoat of James and Buckingham in his politically-motivated removal from office as Lord Chancellor in 1621. But Bacon did not languish in self-pity. No, he made the last years of his life productive, in terms of his writing and publication.
  • David Kathman, “Authorship Question.” The treatment, including the “Further Reading” section, seems underdeveloped and one-sided, as of 2/8/23. Let us see if these articles have been revisited when the SGSE comes out of development. As of 2/8/23, Further Reading” contained no books newer than James Shapiro’s 2010 book, Contested Will (New York: Simon and Schuster, reprinted in 2017 without change). Kathman actually refers to his and Terry Ross’s “Shakespeare Authorship Page” online which does not appear to have been updated in some time.
  • David Kathman, “Baconian Theory,” https://shakespeare-encyclopedia-stage.stanford.edu/entry/baconian-theory. Why is “William Shakspere of Stratford” not also treated as a theory, albeit one which has come to be accepted without much further inquiry by many? The scientific method we are taught in grade school teaches us that any theory may be revisited when new evidence comes to light. The “Further Reading” section here still contains only two books, one by H. N. Gibson (1962) and one by John Michell (1996). British barrister N. B. Cockburn’s book, The Bacon Shakespeare Question: The Baconian Theory Made Sane (now reprinted in The Francis Bacon Society Edition, 2004), strives, and succeeds, I think, in presenting the authorship question and the Baconian “theory” in an extremely objective and fair-minded light.
  • David Kathman, “Northumberland Manuscript,” https://shakespeare-encyclopedia.stanford.edu/entry/northumberland-manuscript. The entire article is still only six lines long. There is a see also to the “authorship question.” There is no mention of Bacon’s essay, “Of Tribute, or, giving that which is due” (see Brian Vickers, ed. Francis Bacon: The Greatest Works (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, p.b.), “Note on the Text” front matter; 22-51), a copy of which was first found in the Northumberland Manuscript. There is no “further reading” section. Not a single reference is mentioned for “Baconian” sources on the Northumberland Manuscript, such as those collected at SirBacon.org, including: a recent paper and video by “A. Phoenix,” Nov. and Dec., 2022, available from https://sirbacon.org/a-phoenix/; “The NorthumberlandManuscript,” https://sirbacon.org/links/northumberland.html; https://sirbacon.org/NMANUSCR.HTM; and Peter Dawkins, “The Northumberland Manuscript,” Francis Bacon Research Trust, https://www.fbrt.org.uk/essays/. For more resources, do a search in the search bar on the home page of SirBacon.org.
  • It should be remembered that even “Stratfordian” Shakespeare scholar James Shapiro in his 2010 book Contested Will referred readers on the Baconian question to two resources in particular: Brian McClinton, The Shakespeare Conspiracies: A 400-Year Web of Myth and Deceit and SirBacon.org which collects many resources in one place, including Baconiana, the journal of the Francis Bacon Society, digital and indexed. Kathman was, and still may be, a member of the Oxfraud group on Facebook (associated with Oxfraud.com) whose purpose seems to be to quash nonconforming opinions in as harsh and belittling a way as possible, without open-minded consideration (For the record, I have never been a member of their Facebook group, although I have posted there with information on Francis Bacon.).
  • Kathman was wrong in saying Bacon bequeathed no books or manuscripts in his Will, in his chapter in the Cambridge Worlds of Shakespeare (To read Bacon’s Will, see James Spedding, et al, The Works of Francis Bacon …, 14 vols. (London, Longmans ed., 1857-1874), 14: 539-546, 539 (2d sentence of 2d par.), 540, 541, 542. It can be read at HathiTrust.org.) Those who know Shakespeare well may not necessarily know Bacon or his writings well; for people do not read Bacon’s writings as they did in past times, as Brian Vickers has observed. Vickers is the author of Francis Bacon: The Major Works and many studies on Bacon and Shakespeare; he is a former chair of the Oxford Francis Bacon Project.

Philip K. Hall, “In defense of the Upstart Crow,” Ars Notoria, Humane Socialism (6 Feb. 2022), last accessed 8-19-2024), https://arsnotoria.com/2022/02/06/in-defence-of-the-upstart-crow/ This is an opinion piece in which the author erroneously states that Francis Bacon’s piece, “The Interpretation of Nature,” from the Novum Organum, is a poem. It is not a poem. It is a work of prose. Is it not unfair to compare a work of prose to a poem as Hall does. Several poetry websites online also wrongly call “The Interpretation of Nature” a poem. https://hellopoetry.com/poem/66613/the-interpretation-of-nature/, https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-interpretation-of-nature-and/ and https://poetandpoem.com/Sir-Francis-Bacon/The-Interpretation-of-Nature-and. Hall claimed Bacon writes like an academic rather than a poet; however, the poet Percy Bysshe Shelly acknowledged that “Lord Bacon was a poet.” Even Bacon’s works of philosophy are full of metaphors.

As a general observation, Bacon tends to be more fairly treated in writings where opinions are backed up with facts. Did Bacon write poetry? Yes. Did he write a letter to a friend, John Davies, asking him to be “good to concealed poets?” Yes. (See Francis Bacon to John Davies, March 28, 1603, Spedding 10:65, discussed in N. B. Cockburn, The Bacon Shakespeare Question: The Baconian Theory Made Sane (reprinted, 2024), pp. 14-15). On references to Bacon as a poet, see my paper, “Reports of the Death of the Case for Francis Bacon’s Authorship of Shakespeare Have Been Greatly Exaggerated,” SirBacon.org, August 3, 2022, pp. 8-11, https://sirbacon.org/reports-of-the-death-of-the-case-for-francis-bacons-authorship-of-shakespeare-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/).

“Francis Bacon: British Author, Philosopher, and Statesman,” Britannica. Written by Kathleen Marguerite Lea, Peter Michael Urbach, Anthony M. Quinton, and Baron Quinton. Last updated 11/9/24. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Francis-Bacon-Viscount-Saint-Alban. Yes, he was the second son of the second marriage of Sir Nicholas Bacon, not his second son period (his father’s other three sons and three daughters by his first marriage). It claims to be fact-checked, but I did not find the tone to be as objective as one might hope. There is no mention whatsoever of the case for Bacon as Shakespeare in this article (although it is mentioned in the (unfairly disparaging) article on Delia Salter Bacon, the first person to propose reading Shakespeare as literature). And yet, the Britannica‘s article, “Edward de Vere, 17th earl of Oxford: English poet and dramatist” (currently undated), actually presents a case for Oxford as Shakespeare (What does it mean to state that Oxford became, in the 20th century the “strongest candidate proposed” for Shakespeare authorship? In whose opinion? They say, “Evidence exists that Oxford was known during his lifetime to have written some plays, though there are no known examples extant.” The next logical question would be: what, then, is the evidence? Is it not lame to state that “evidence exists” without giving us some clue as to what it is? Where is any independent evaluation of the pros and cons of the argument that he could have written the works of Shakespeare–other than mentioning the fact that he died in 1604, too early to perform the revision of plays that we see in the First Folio? The Shakespeare plays are full of law. Was the Earl of Oxford a lawyer? Well, no ….. Where is any mention of Alan Nelson’s book, Monstrous Adversary, which explains why the Earl of Oxford makes an unlikely Shakespeare? Who except for Oxfordians has ever cared about Oxford’s poetry? In contrast, Bacon wrote fine court masques of which examples survive, and, in his biographer Spedding’s opinion, Bacon had the “fine phrensy of a poet.”

In my opinion, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy‘s article on Bacon is a better article, in terms of discussing Bacon’s philosophy (although it disappointingly links to David Simpson’s biased IEP article, to be discussed). Although the Britannica article on Bacon mentions Nieves Matthews’ book, Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), it does not seem likely that the authors/editors of this article have read it or taken it to heart; for their portrayal of Bacon is more negative than necessary, in my opinion. The words “poet,” “poetry,” or “masque” do not appear in the article. Also, the section of the article listing Bacon’s legal works is incomplete. On that topic, see Daniel R. Coquillette’s book, Francis Bacon in its Jurists series (Stanford and Edinburgh, 1992). Bacon was a true Renaissance man. As James Shapiro has noted in his book, Contested Will, the only kind of writing Bacon did not try his hand at was play-writing.

Heitman, Danny. “Francis Bacon, Montaigne’s Rival,” Humanities. Spring 2022, vol 43, no 2, https://www.neh.gov/article/francis-bacon-montaignes-rival. (I moved my review to https://christinagwaldman.com/2023/08/22/review-of-danny-heitman-francis-bacon-montaignes-rival-humanities-spring-2022-vol-43-no-2/).

“Francis Bacon,” Britannica Kids, undated, https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/Francis-Bacon/273048. Perhaps in response to my Sept. 15, 2024 email to Britannica Kids, the accuracy of this article has been improved. It now correctly says that Francis Bacon was the second son of Sir Nicholas and his second wife Anne Cooke, not his second son, period (Nicholas Bacon had three sons and three daughters with his first wife, Jane Fearnly; see https://luminarium.org/encyclopedia/nicholasbacon.htm). The correct publication date of Bacon’s science fiction novel, New Atlantis, is now given (1626, not 1610).” They have taken out any reference to the year that Bacon entered Parliament (1581, not 1584, according to https://historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/bacon-sir-francis-1561-1626). They have taken out any reference to the term “reader.” [The term has evolved since it was used in the 16th century at the Inns of Court. Then, a Reader gave a reading. If he gave a second reading, he was called a Double Reader. Francis Bacon had given two readings on The Statute of Uses, so he was a Double Reader. Nowadays, of course, the term refers to a lecturer at a British institution of higher learning. (See Francis Bacon’s Hidden Hand, p. 110. As to Bacon’s Novum Organum (Latin for “new tool or method”), as the book–published under the title Francisci de Verulamio, summi Angliae cancellarij instauratio magna (1620)–is called. It was a complete book. However, by the term instauratio magna, Bacon envisioned a six-part project which he never completed. Instauratio Magna is translated: “great renewal.” I would say, it would be like a return of a golden age (of learning). See Coquillette, Francis Bacon, 77-78, 81, 90-91, 2-3, 293. This can certainly be confusing. Here’s a page on “this book” from the Milestones of Science Books website, https://www.milestone-books.de/pages/books/002277/francis-bacon/instauratio-magna-novum-organum?soldItem=true. The Novum Organum is considered part 2, but it was published before part 1, the de Augmentis (1623) which was, however, an expanded Latin version of book 2 of The Advancement of Learning, in English (1605). This article on Bacon’s “Great Instauration” by the Francis Bacon Research Trust may be helpful: https://www.fbrt.org.uk/hermes/great-instauration/.

“Francis Bacon: Facts for Kids,” Safe Wikipedia for Kids,” last edited one month ago (accessed Nov. 10, 2024). https://wiki.kidzsearch.com/wiki/Francis_Bacon: It contains factual inaccuracies which remain unchanged from my last review, Sept. 15, 2024 (“last revised 9 months ago”). Also, it portrays Bacon in an unfairly negative light. For example, the article says: “His first job was as a lawyer. He later became a member of Parliament.” Actually, he did not get his first legal brief until 1594 (“Chudleigh’s Case”), but he entered Parliament in 1581, representing Bossing in Cornwall. He was sent overseas attached to the embassy of Sir Amias Paulet from 1576 to 1579. He had official duties; I would say that was his first job. Have the editors of this article not read Nieves Matthews, Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996). As to how long Bacon was in the Tower, the above article says: “for a while.” Yet, the very source they footnote, Luminarium, says, “He was sentenced to a fine of £40,000, remitted by the king, to be committed to the Tower during the king’s pleasure (which was that he should be released in a few days), and to be incapable of holding office or sitting in parliament.” He was only in the Tower four days, and his $50,000 fine was remitted. There is strong evidence that Bacon was the victim of a political plot engineered by his enemies which would defect attention from the King’s own scandals. Read Nieves Matthews, Francis Bacon,The History of a Character Assassination; James Spedding, Evenings With a Reviewer, 2 vols (London, 1881); Alfred Dodd, The Martyrdom of Francis Bacon (New York: Rider, 1946) (reviewed by me: “Review: The Martyrdom of Francis Bacon, by Alfred Dodd,” SirBacon.org, August 24, 2021, https://sirbacon.org/christina-g-waldman-reviews-alfred-dodds-book-the-martyrdom-of-francis-bacon/); “Was Bacon Guilty of Bribery or was he Politically Framed?” Excerpts from Edward Johnson, ‘Francis Bacon versus Lord MacAulay,'” https://sirbacon.org/baconbriberyreview.htm. I have written to the editors at https://www.kidzsearch.com/contactus.html on Sept. 15, 2024. One might be forgiven for expecting a historical biographical encyclopedia article for children to be written with special care so as to be factually accurate and free from bias.

Wikipedia: We expect an encyclopedia article to meet certain standards, that it will provide sufficiently complete, objective, unbiased, and factually accurate content. Do Wikipedia articles meet those criteria? Granted, some Wikipedia articles are probably more reliable than other Wikipedia articles. However, on biographies, Wikipedia has been seen to fall short in the past. It has been sued because of its defamatory biographies of living persons. On a subject as controversial as Shakespeare authorship, there is every reason to read critically, for editors are only human, and we must all strive to be objective. I urge authors/editors of encyclopedia articles to please check every fact in several reputable sources and strive to keep personal or official bias and propaganda out of the writing. These Wikipedia articles could be better:

  • “Francis Bacon,” last edited Nov. 9, 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon. The article focuses on Bacon as philosopher and statesman. They have made one change I suggested here. The article says Bacon produced “The Masque of Flowers” (citing Christine Adams, ‘Francis Bacon’s Wedding Gift of A Garden of a Glorious and Strange Beauty for the Earl and Countess of Somerset’, Garden History, 36:1 (Spring 2008), p. 45). However, Bacon wrote at least six masques which were performed at Gray’s Inn and at court. The article subjectively says, “To console him for these disappointments …,” Essex gave Bacon Twickenham Park (under “Final Years of the Queen’s Reign,” fn 31, “Bunten, Alice Chambers. Twickenham Park and Old Richmond Palace and Francis Bacon: Lord Verulam’s Connection with The, 1580–1608. R. Banks. p. 19.” This book was published in 1912. You will see it says nothing about “console.” You can read it for yourself at HathiTrust, https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/011590102.). The word “console” makes Bacon sound like a wounded child. The truth was, for Bacon, having an official position meant having a livelihood, a necessary means to economic survival. Perhaps this gift of land from Essex was intended in part as compensation for professional services Bacon rendered to Essex. At st, it helped a friend in financial need.
  • The Wikipedia article, “Masque,” last edited Oct. 23, 2024, mentions Bacon, stating that he paid for “The Masque of Flowers” (citing only Martin Butler, The Stuart Court Masque and Political Culture (Cambridge, 2008), pp. 8, 77, 214). It does not say that he was an important contriver of masques, which he was, apparently. See: “Masque,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masque; Bacon’s essay, “Of Masques and Triumphs”; Peter Dawkins, “Baconian Poetry,” Francis Bacon Research Trust (“FBRT”), https://www.fbrt.org.uk/shakespeare/baconian-poetry/ (poetry and masques); Brian Vickers, intro., in Vickers, Francis Bacon: The Major Works (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002 [1996], xxiv-xxx.
  • “Shakespeare authorship question,” last edited Oct. 31, 2024. This article clearly favors the Stratfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. It presents the case for Bacon as if it existed only in the past tense. It does link to a separate Wikipedia article, “Baconian Theory of Shakespeare Authorship.” The footnotes for this section are ## 231 – 243. The latest reference is 2005. The article does not reference the websites FBRT.org, SirBacon.org, or the FrancisBaconSociety,co.uk. It does not reference N. B. Cockburn, The Bacon Shakespeare Question (London: The Francis Bacon Society, 2024, repr. 1998); Brian McClinton, The Shakespeare Conspiracies, 2d ed. (Belfast: Shanway Press, 2008); Barry R. Clarke, Francis Bacon’s Contribution to Shakespeare (New York: Routledge, 2019); Christina G. Waldman, Francis Bacon’s Hidden Hand in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice: A Study of Law, Rhetoric, and Authorship (New York: Algora Publishing, 2018), Peter Dawkins, The Shakespeare Enigma (London: Polair, 2004), or others which can be found in bibliographies at the named websites. Some improvements have been made since I first started “Bacon on the Web.” Its bibliography now includes an external link to the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition, providing an indirect reference, at least, to Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? Exposing an Industry in Denial, ed. John M. Shahan and Alexander Waugh (2016; first published by Tamarac FL: Llumina Press, 2013), the Coalition’s response to Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells’ Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). Mentions of David Kathman and Terry Ross’s out-of-date “Shakespeare Authorship Page” (“last retrieved Dec. 17, 2010,” says the present Wikipedia article) have increased from six to seven. Now, instead of incorrectly stating that Nathaniel Holmes, author of the two-volume Baconian work, The Authorship of Shakespeare (New York: Hurd & Houghton, 1866), was a Kentucky judge (no: St. Louis), the article simply leaves out the fact that he was a judge at all. Now, after a brief period of stating that Bacon wrote no poetry at all, the article has returned to incorrectly reporting that the only poetry Bacon wrote under his own name were his translations of the Psalms. Not so: he wrote the poem, “The Life of Man,” and he tells us he wrote a sonnet for Queen Elizabeth. His biographer and editor James Spedding wrote that Bacon possessed the “fine phrenzy of a poet,” using Shakespeare’s phrase. The poet Percy Shelley recognized Bacon a poet, not just based on this one poem or his translations of Psalms made when he was recovering from an illness, but based on his other writings as well (See Percy Bysshe Shelley, A Defense of Poetry (1821), p. 10; Yasmin Solomonescu, “Percy Shelley’s Revolutionary Periods,” ELH 83, no 4 (2016), 1105-1133, 1105-06, 1108 (quoting Shelley’s letter to John and Maria Gisbourne, 10 July 1818, in The Letters of Percy Bysshe Shelley, 2 vol., ed. Frederick L. Jones, Oxford: Clarendon Press (1964), 12:20, JSTOR, 26173906.
  • “Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship,” Wikipedia, last edited Oct. 27, 2024. Tom Reedy, a member of the Oxfraud Facebook page (Oxfraud’s Twitter profile claims its goal is to stamp out all opposition to its core belief that William Shaxpere of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare works) contributed to the editing on May 28, 2023 (We see Reedy editing Shakespeare authorship here as well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AShakespeare_authorship_question%2FArchive_30 (page last edited Oct. 5, 2021, accessed 8-28-24). Shakespeare’s plays are mentioned but not his sonnets. The article is slanted against the Baconian theory. The reference section includes links to the Francis Bacon Society (but it is not a recent link; it is a link to the Wayback Machine that says “coming soon”! What more needs to be said? Bias.) and SirBacon.org, but not to the Francis Bacon Research Trust. It leaves out modern authors Brian McClinton, Peter Dawkins, N. B. Cockburn, Barry R. Clarke, and myself, let alone older writers which one can find in the SirBacon bibliographies. It was good, however, to see lawyer Penn Leary’s book, The Second Cryptographic Shakespeare (1990), listed (read it for free at SirBacon.org). It does, at least, mention Bacon in connection with masques. It calls Bacon’s Promus a “waste book” (an account book in bookkeeping) instead of a “commonplace book,” which it is. In fact, under the Wikipedia article, “Commonplace Books,” Bacon’s Promus is given as an example of a “commonplace book” (one in which an author or public speaker might jot down things he wished to remember, in an organized fashion, to use in his writing). Suggested alternative: “Sir Francis Bacon, Baron Verulam, Viscount St. Alban, 1561-1626,” Shakespearean Authorship Trust (undated), https://shakespeareanauthorshiptrust.org/bacon.
  • It would be a good classroom exercise in critical thinking to take some of these articles apart, analyzing them sentence by sentence, source by source, fact-checking them, but that would still not account for omissions. Wikipedia would do better to stick to the facts and not interject so much of the editors’ opinion into the text. Can these articles be trusted to be objective? There are better sources. They incorporated some of my suggestions at one point, but I do not see major improvement. It is as if they think it is all a joke. See references below and in the bibliographies at this website.
  • “Francis Bacon Bibliography,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon_bibliography, last edited Nov. 6, 2023. It is apparently a copy of information to be found at “Works by Francis Bacon at Project Gutenberg,” https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/296. It does not say whether the dates are “when written” or “when published.” I do not see that any changes were made from when it was “last edited.”
  • “Author: Francis Bacon,” https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Francis_Bacon, as of Nov. 1, 2023. It does not cite to modern editions. Not much effort was put into compiling this list.
  • “Works by Francis Bacon,” ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_by_Francis_Bacon, last edited Nov. 6, 2024. Oddly, under “Bibliography,” it still lists only one work, Benjamin Farrington’s Philosophy of Francis Bacon and gives Project Gutenberg as one of two external links, the other being to LibriVox (public domain audiobooks). This article seems to have been a low priority for them, according to their “talk” section for this article. HathiTrust is a good internet source for reading Bacon’s writings online.
  • Suggested online alternatives to Wikipedia bibliographies on Francis Bacon:
  • “Bibliography,” SirBacon.org, https://sirbacon.org/francis-bacon-the-bibliographies/.
  • Klein, “Francis Bacon,” bibliography, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (“SEP“), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/#Bib.
  • Francis Bacon Research Trust, Resources (books, videos, essays, works of art, links), https://www.fbrt.org.uk/
  • Baconiana, vol 2, no. 1 (Nov. 8, 2024) includes a bibliography of recent Baconian books, https://francisbaconsociety.co.uk/baconiana-journals/baconiana-journals-2007-present/
  • My bibliographies on Bacon-Shakespeare authorship are a work-in-progress, at this website.

David Simpson, “Francis Bacon,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/francis-bacon/. Undated, last accessed Nov. 10, 2024. Discussed at “Bibliography–Commentary,” this website, https://christinagwaldman.com/bibliography-baconshakespeare-commentary/. As he does in his Oxford Bibliographies online entry on “Francis Bacon – Philosopher,” (“last reviewed Oct. 17, 2022),” he cites the unreliable historian (without mentioning Nieves Matthews, Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996] MacAulay as if he were an authoritative critic on Bacon (claiming MacAulay “borrow[ed] a phrase from Bacon’s own letters” in calling him “a most dishonest man.” Simpson opines, without explanation, that it was a “virtual certainty” that Bacon was not Shakespeare. “Virtual” is an interesting word, as one of its meanings is “being in essence or effect, but not in fact.” In emails responding to mine to him, he denied that he took sides, but rather, cited “both his avid defenders and his staunch critics (yes, including Macaulay).” He stated that his overall opinion of Bacon was “highly favorable” (David Simpson to me, Oct. 28, 2020). In an earlier email to me, in response to my statement that, “I write as a courtesy to let you know that I do take issue with your stating it is a “virtual certainty” that Francis Bacon did not contribute to the authorship or editing of the works of Shakespeare. https://christinagwaldman.com/selected-bibliography-a-work-in-progress/,” he responded: “You’ve distorted my claim. I said that “it’s a virtual certainty that Bacon did not write the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare.” I said nothing about whether Bacon may have edited, revised, added to, or in some other way contributed to those works. If you have evidence that he did, then by all means publish it. And if your arguments and evidence are able to convince the scholarly community, then that is good for you and good for Lord Bacon. At that point, I’ll be happy to revise my statement. For now, I’ll let it stand.” (David Simpson to me, Oct. 14, 2020). On Macaulay, Brian Vickers wrote that MacAulay’s “notorious essay in the Edinburgh Review for July 1837 had a considerable influence, with its sarcastic distortions of both Bacon’s life and philosophy, but its failings are now generally appreciated (although Spedding’s masterly Evenings with a Reviewer … is not as well known as it should be) ….” (Brian Vickers, Francis Bacon and Renaissance Prose (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), p. 256, 256-257, 259, 305; Nieves Matthews, Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), pp. 17, 19-33, et al.

As to the article, “Francis Bacon,” at the Academic Kids website (undated): it states Francis was the “youngest of five sons of Sir Nicholas Bacon” (under “Early Life”). A reference to the daughters of Sir Nicholas might also have been welcome, in this enlightened age. Sir Nicholas was a Protestant, not a Puritan; there is a difference. Also, there is documented evidence (not just biographers believe, as the article states) that Bacon was tutored at home in his early years by his mother, a learned Latin and Greek scholar who had translated from Latin into English an important Protestant work, John Jewel’s Apology for the Church of England (1562, translation 1564), and then by John Walsall (see, e.g., Brian Vickers, intro. to his Francis Bacon: The Major Works (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 35). The article states: “To support himself, he [Bacon] took up his residence in law at Gray’s Inn in 1579.” (right above the heading, “Career.” That makes it sound like he was working as a lawyer in 1579, when in reality he was just beginning his study of law at Gray’s Inn. Although he was admitted to Gray’s Inn in 1576, he did not begin his studies then because the Queen sent him to France from 1576 to 1579 as part of Sir Amias Paulet’s diplomatic mission. Bacon would not be admitted to the bar as an utter barrister, able to practice law, until 1582. It usually took seven years; it took Bacon only five. The article states as an established fact–without documentation–that Bacon first met the Queen when he was thirteen–when the Queen visited him at Cambridge, it says. In fact, there are reports that the Queen visited the home of Nicholas and Anne Bacon at Gorhambury several times when Francis was growing up. Sir Nicholas was the Queen’s Lord Keeper. (See “Francis, The Queen, and Leicester,” https://sirbacon.org/francisqueenleicester.htm. Also: “When Francis was about 5 years old the Queen asked him his age. He answered with much discretion, being but a Boy, that he was two years younger than Her Majesty’s happy Reign: with which answer the Queen was much taken.” (“Chronology Related to Francis Bacon’s Life, https://sirbacon.org/links/chronos.html). Another source says the Queen herself gave him an examination in Latin before judging him qualified to begin attending Cambridge University, at age twelve (“The Rise and Fall of Sir Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor and Viscount St. Albans,” first published March 23, 1968, Look and Learn, no. 323, posted online July 10, 2013, https://www.lookandlearn.com/blog/25664/the-rise-and-fall-of-sir-francis-bacon-lord-chancellor-and-viscount-st-albans/ (last accessed Sept. 9, 2024). It does not provide source references, however. Source references are always a plus. The list of just a few of Bacon’s works strikes me as rather haphazardly done. For example, it does not include the important 1605 Advancement of Learning. It would be easy enough to provide some bibliographical references, including one to (the standard) James Spedding’s 14-volume edition of Bacon’s Works (London: Longmans ed. 1857-74). One would hope that a careful editor would take the time and trouble to completely fact-check this article and make sure every fact could be substantiated and that it was devoid of bias. I clicked on the “Contact Us” button on the “Academic Kids” page. It takes you to this message: “Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name, running “Contact Us” together into “contactus.” It does not appear they want to make it easy to contact them.***

Dubious attempts by feminists and others, led by Carolyn Merchant beginning with her book, The Death of Nature, first published in 1982, to discredit Bacon by uncritically, negatively associating him with the “domination of nature” are prevalent. Are young scientists being uncritically taught Merchant’s openly-expressed dislike of Bacon? As just two examples, see David Fideler, “Restoring the Soul of the World,” 2013, https://www.thesouloftheworld.com/the-new-experiment-putting-nature-on-the-rack/ and https://www.sarthaks.com/664067/how-do-carolyn-merchant-and-francis-bacon-differ-in-their-views. See, e.g., my essay, “Francis Bacon, Shakespeare, and the ‘Secrets of Nature’: Violence, Violins, and–One-Day–Vindication?” pdf, May 21, 2021); Jill Line, “Following the Footsteps of Nature,” 1995, 6/2020, Francis Bacon Research Trust (under Resources), https://www.fbrt.org.uk/essays/. Here is Paul Krause, “The Death of Ecofeminism,” Crisis Magazine, Jan. 24, 2023, https://www.crisismagazine.com/opinion/the-death-cult-of-eco-feminism?mc_cid=67d6710298 (does not mention Bacon whom the eco-feminists have blamed for problems in the modern world due to scientific progress).

11-9-24. “Intriguing mysteries: who wrote Shakespeare’s plays?” Readers Digest UK website. The link did not work, so I removed my entry on it.

10-11-22: See my blogpost, “The Oxfraudian “Prima Facie Case” for Shakespeare: ‘Hoist with its Own Petard’?”

11-19-22, revised 11-10-24. The Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable (“SAR”) page on Bacon. I have emailed the SAR of factual errors in their short bio of Bacon. They made some, but not all, of my suggested changes and told me not to bother them about it again, calling my remaining criticisms trivial. They responded that they had asked Peter Dawkins to weigh in, and he had not had a problem with their page. However, just for comparison, here is Dawkins’ well-documented essay, “The Life of Francis Bacon,” available in pdf from FBRT.org, Resources. The facts matter; accuracy matters; the truth matters. If there is conflicting information, it should be duly noted, even in a brief biography. That seems to be the only way we will ever be able to establish a solid foundation upon which to build.

  • The SAR article says Bacon was awarded a law degree at Gray’s Inn in 1582. However, the Inns of Court were not identical to law schools. They did not award law degrees. In 1582, Bacon was admitted to practice as an utter barrister in 1582, when the older, more experienced members of the Inn had deemed him ready; it was a mentoring system. He had begun his studies in 1579, but it was exceptional to be admitted in such a short time. The Biography.com article (to which the SAR article refers readers) on Francis Bacon also gets this wrong. Normally, one was an “inner barrister” for seven years before one was ready to become an “utter barrister.” Bacon was made Bencher at Gray’s Inn in 1586, the first to become a Bencher without having first been a Reader. He became a Reader in 1588 with his first reading on the Statute of Uses, followed by a second reading in 1600 (making him a “double Reader”). However, being a “Reader” at Gray’s Inn was not the same as being a “Reader” or lecturer at a British college today; the term has evolved. It meant he had given one “Reading,” which was a special event. See my book, FBHH, 109-111 and sources cited therein, including J. H. Baker and Margaret McGlynn, as well as “Francis Bacon,” Gray’s Inn, https://www.graysinn.org.uk/the-inn/history/members/biographies/francis-bacon/; Daniel R. Coquillette, “Chronology of Bacon’s Career,” Francis Bacon (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992), appendix 1; and Brian Vickers, ed., “Principle Events in Bacon’s Life,” The History of the Reign of Henry the Seventh (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), xxxvi.
  • The SAR article erroneously states that Bacon began his career as a member of Parliament in 1584; in fact, he began in 1581, according to “Bacon, Francis (1561-1626),” History of Parliament, https://historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/bacon-francis-1561-1626 (first paragraph under “Biography”).
  • The article states that he traveled extensively in Europe. I would like to know their source for that information. What is well documented is that he went to France with the embassy of Sir Amias Paulet, in Queen Elizabeth’s service, and was overseas from 1576 to 1579.
  • He did not just “serve on Queen Elizabeth and King James’ councils”; he held a special position as Counsellor Extraordinaire under both rulers. Queen Elizabeth had created the position just for him. It was an unpaid position under Queen Elizabeth; a paid one under James.
  • The Roundtable article also states that The Advancement of Learning and New Atlantis were Bacon’s “best known” works. His Essays are well known. Gutenberg.org ranks his Essays, Wisdom of the Ancients, and New Atlantis as his most popular works. I am curious as to the source of the SAR’s information.
  • As to the SAR article’s mere mention of the Manes Verulamiani, for more information see “The Manes Verulamiani,” https://sirbacon.org/the-manes-verulamiana/, https://sirbacon.org/Parker/ManesVerulamiani.html, and Jono Freeman’s video, “The Missing Elegies to Shakespeare,” available from https://sirbacon.org/jono-freeman/.
  • As to the contents of the Northumberland Manuscript, for more information see “The NorthumberlandManuscript,” https://sirbacon.org/links/northumberland.html and sources cited therein; https://sirbacon.org/NMANUSCR.HTM, and Peter Dawkins, “The Northumberland Manuscript,” available from https://www.fbrt.org.uk/essays/. I strongly disagree with their characterization of the Northumberland Manuscript as being merely “22 sheets of notes.” The Northumberland Manuscript is a folder which, according to the inventory it listed on its cover, contained manuscripts written under the names of Bacon and Shakespeare. The names of Bacon and Shakespeare are written together several times on the cover. A plausible explanation is that manuscripts were taken out of the folder as they were to be published. Printers did not keep old manuscripts, as a rule. Sometimes one finds them being used as padding, extra pages, inside the covers of books from the period, by book binders (since paper was expensive), “binder’s waste.” In 1988, a play fragment analogous to Shakespeare’s The First Part of Henry the Fourth was found in such binder’s waste inside a 1586 copy of Homer’s Odyssey in Greek-Latin. In a 1992 report, Maureen Ward-Gandy, a highly respected British forensic analyst, gave her opinion that this play fragment was written by Francis Bacon, in his own handwriting. This report was first published in my book, Francis Bacon’s Hidden Hand in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, in appendix 4. It may also now be read at the SirBacon.org website. See my blogpost, “Shakespeare Play Fragment Found–Said to be in Francis Bacon’s Own Handwriting,” last revised Sept. 25, 2020, this website.). For a more careful biography, see Peter Dawkins, founder and principal of the Francis Bacon Research Trust, eter Dawkins, “Baconian History,” Francis Bacon Research Trust, https://www.fbrt.org.uk/bacon/baconian-history/.
  • The SAR article links to the Biography.com (Heart Digital Media, last updated Aug. 9, 2023) article on Bacon, but that article has its own problems. It contains so many errors, it would be laughable if it were not so lamentable. It does not list “philosophy” under his “industry” categories. It has Gray’s Inn teaching Aristotle instead of Cambridge. The Great Saturation? Dates are wrong on publications. Come on, people! The site says, please contact us if you see errors. I have done so and have received no response.

11-19-22: The Oxfraud.com page on Francis Bacon as Shakespeare: The Oxfraud.com page on Francis Bacon, “Mmmm! Bacon!” is a cleverly written opinion flawed by omissions and factual inaccuracies (You will find it under “Categories,” “Better Candidates,” undated, https://oxfraud.com/index.php/BC-Bacon). It does not cite sources. It leaves out the important biographical information that Bacon, after several years as a student at Cambridge University, spent three years “in France,” studying and serving in Queen Elizabeth’s diplomatic service from 1576-1579, only then returning to study law at Gray’s Inn after his father, Sir Nicholas Bacon,’s death. In France, Bacon was involved with the Pleiade, a group of French classical poets led by Pierre de Ronsard. Brian Vickers wrote that Bacon’s years in France had not been adequately studied. I have pointed the problems with this page out to the “Oxfraudians” in a discussion on their Oxfraud group Facebook page on 2/28/22, but they have not made changes.

  • The article paints Bacon’s life story in an unfairly negative light, ignoring contrary evidence, such as Nieves Matthews’ 1998 book, Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination (Yale University Press). It does not take the arguments in favor of Bacon’s contribution to Shakespeare authorship seriously; in fact, it does not really discuss them at all, instead focusing on Delia Bacon’s failures (of note, she was probably the first to suggest reading the Shakespeare plays as literature in her 1857 book), Mark Twain (who was no slouch in the intellectual department, writing Is Shakespeare Dead? (1909)), and ciphers (focusing on Dr. Orville Owen’s cipher wheel). However, the evidence in favor of Bacon’s authorship of Shakespeare goes far beyond Delia, ciphers, or even Twain’s arguments.
  • The information on the Oxfraud.com Bacon page in question is largely based on opinions insufficiently supported (in my opinion) by facts. Nor does it cite to sources telling where those interested in hearing both sides of the argument can learn more, as James Shapiro, although a professed “Stratfordian,” does in his book, Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? which was reprinted, without change, despite valid criticisms of it, in 2017 (first published by Simon & Schuster in 2010). For further reading on Bacon and Shakespeare authorship, Shapiro directs readers to the website, “Francis Bacon’s New Advancement of Learning,” https://sirbacon.org/ and Brian McClinton’s book, The Shakespeare Conspiracies: Untangling a 400-Year Web of Myth and Deceit, 2d ed. (Belfast: Shanway Press, 2008). McClinton states in his book that he is endeavoring to continue the work begun by N. B. Cockburn, author of the 740-page The Bacon Shakespeare Question: The Baconian Theory Made Sane (The Francis Bacon Edition, 2024 [1998]).
  • In sum, the Oxfraud.com Bacon page in question treats a great and good man disrespectfully. It does not take the argument for Bacon’s contribution to Shakespeare seriously, but rather, presents it as dead, and a joke. It does not address UK forensic handwriting expert Maureen Ward-Gandy’s 1992 Report, “Elizabethan Era Writing Comparison for Identification of ‘Common Authorship,'” first published in my book, Francis Bacon’s Hidden Hand New York: Algora Publishing, 2018), appendix 4 (pp. 247-274), now online at What’s New, SirBacon.org, Oct. 11, 2022, https://sirbacon.org/whats-new-on-sirbacon-org/.

“Starter” Resources

For more, see “Bibliographies,” this website, and the bibliographies at SirBacon.org and the Francis Bacon Society.

Clarke, Barry R. Francis Bacon’s Contribution to Shakespeare: A New Attribution Method (New York: Routledge, 2019).

Cockburn, N. B. The Bacon Shakespeare Question: The Baconian Theory Made Sane. The Francis Bacon Edition (London: The Francis Bacon Society, 2024. First published by the author, 1998).

Dawkins, Peter. On Second-Seeing Shakespeare. e-book, 2020. Peter Dawkins, https://www.peterdawkins.com/publications/.

—The Shakespeare Enigma (London: Polair Publishing, 2004). For a complete list of Peter’s publications and videos, see the FBRT website.

Crowell, Samuel [pseud., former college instructor]. William Forty-Hands: Disintegration and Reinvention of the Shakespeare Canon. Charleston WV: Nine-Banded Books, 2016/.

Matthews, Nieves. Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.

McClinton, Brian. The Shakespeare Conspiracies: Untangling a 400-Year Web of Myth and Deceit, 2d ed. Belfast: Shanway Press, 2008. First pub. 2007 by Aubane Historical Society.

Waldman, Christina G. Waldman. Francis Bacon’s Hidden Hand in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice: A Study of Law, Rhetoric, and Authorship. New York: Algora Publishing, 2018.

Murtha, Ryan. Murtha explores parallel passages in works by Bacon, Shakespeare, and other writers of seventeenth century literature for which authorship remains uncertain in his introduction to [Innocent Gentillet], Anti-Machiavel: A Discourse Upon the Means of Well Governing, edited by Ryan Murtha, translated by Simon Patericke (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2018) (reviewed by me, Modern Language Review 115, no 3 (July, 2020)), more fully set forth in Ryan Murtha, The Precious Gem of Hidden Literature (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2022). He claims to be the first to find and publish many of these parallels.

Francis Bacon Society members have been researching and publishing their findings in their journal, Baconiana, since 1886, available from https://francisbaconsociety.co.uk/ and https://sirbacon.org/baconiana-collection/. The Francis Bacon Society also has a YouTube video channel with much good content, including videos by actor Jono Freeman (“JonoFreeman33,” https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU6OOFE4_Jg3cl7EvOVGyyg, Peter Dawkins, and Simon M. Miles.

SirBacon.org, https://sirbacon.org/francis-bacon. Over 1000 pages of content indexed by Google and extensive bibliographies.

As Francis Bacon eloquently wrote, “It is hard to remember all, ungrateful to pass by any.” If we care about the truth, we cannot afford to ignore good evidence. Are there sometimes truths which it does little or no good to reveal? Perhaps. But if people have a right to know what really happened in history, or at least, to trust those who have been given the task of reporting it to do so accurately, then we expect those trusted writers to follow ethical standards in their presentations.

Better Biographies of Bacon

Updated 11-18-2024.

Back to Top