As a general observation, I would say you have to do your own fact-checking, even of encyclopedia articles, online. Read critically. Is it fact or opinion? If opinion, is it supported with reasons, examples, documentation? Is there evidence of bias?
Positively Noted
Bacon 400: Celebrations and events honoring the life of Francis Bacon are ongoing this year in the UK in this, the 400th year since his death (officially). https://francisbaconsociety.co.uk/the-society/bacon-400-events/; https://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/news/trinity-celebrates-francis-bacon-englands-greatest-renaissance-thinker
* * *
A Phoenix is a prolific Shakespeare research team. Their papers may be read at Academia.edu or SirBacon.org. I confess, I have not had time to read most of them. Research is ongoing.https://independent.academia.edu/APhoenix1; https://sirbacon.org/the-a-phoenix-pdf-library-of-works/
Matthew Sharpe, professor at Australian Catholic University, “Francis Bacon’s Essays explore the darker side of human nature. 400 years later, they still instruct and unnerve.” The Conversation, Aug. 5, 2025, https://theconversation.com/francis-bacons-essays-explore-the-darker-side-of-human-nature-400-years-on-they-still-instruct-and-unnerve-259051; “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.
Spearshaker Productions. https://www.spearshakerproductions.com/. Their stated goal is to produce a drama about the life of Sir Francis Bacon. Watch actor Jono Freeman‘s Bacon-Shakespeare videos at Jono Freeman33, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU6OOFE4_Jg3cl7EvOVGyyg.
“Francis Bacon,” Theosophy Wiki, last updated Dec. 31, 2025, https://theosophy.wiki/en/Francis_Bacon.
Key Baconian websites: SirBacon.org (“Francis Bacon’s New Advancement of Learning”), https://sirbacon.org/sirbacon-org; 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/, Francis Bacon Research Trust, Peter Dawkins, Principal, https://www.fbrt.org.uk/.
Quotations pages: A Phoenix, Youtube, collected at SirBacon.org (Oct. and Nov., 2022, https://sirbacon.org/quotes-about-francis-bacon/; “Sir Francis Bacon,” TODAYINSCI (Today in Science History), https://todayinsci.com/B/Bacon_Francis/BaconFrancis-Quotations.htm (however, as to Robert G. Ingersoll’s 1891 lecture, “Lord Bacon Did Not Write Shakespeare’s Works,” which the site mentions, 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] (hereinafter, “Matthews.”)
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. The site is a virtual library; there is so much information there.
“Shakespeare Authorship Question” (undated), http://shakespeareauthorshipquestion.org/ (https not available). This article says it is “Wikipedia-based” and conforms to “Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they pertain to alternative theory and minority view articles.” It is not specific to the Baconian theory, but does name and contain links to main Baconian websites SirBacon.org (although it does not give the current link for the Francis Bacon Society. 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. Its bibliography could be expanded to include recent books 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.
“Sir Francis Bacon, Baron Verulam, Viscount St. Alban, 1561-1626,” Shakespearean Authorship Trust (undated), https://shakespeareanauthorshiptrust.org/bacon.
William H. Young, “Modern vs Western Thought: The Return of Bacon’s Idols,” Dec. 21, 2017, https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/modern_vs._western_thought_the_return_of_bacons_idols. “In its rejection of reason, logic, and rationality and turn to thinking based on feeling and subjectivism, Modern thought suffers many of the biases and disorders of human nature in reaching conclusions that Sir Francis Bacon long ago called ‘idols.’ In the Seventeenth Century, Bacon initiated not only the Scientific Method and Revolution, but the Western objective and philosophic worldview of man, nature, and, the secular state …. This article summarizes Bacon’s “idols” and compares them to the disorders and biases in some contemporary examples of Modern thought.”
Courses on Bacon
Dr. Joshua Sipper. Video. “Sir Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum: Overview and the Four Idols.” Study.com. https://study.com/academy/lesson/novum-organum-by-sir-francis-bacon-summary-analysis.html. (provided without evaluation)
Caveats
There seem to be a lot of listings in this category. Sometimes, when it comes to Francis Bacon, it seems as if the voice of the truth will always be muffled by biased propaganda which does not stand up to critical analysis. Researchers are urged to take the time and trouble to verify statements presented as facts.
Philip K. Hall, “In defense of the Upstart Crow,” Ars Notoria, Humane Socialism (former version 6 Feb. 2022), updated 17 Oct. 2025, https://arsnotoria.com/2025/10/17/in-defence-of-the-upstart-crow/. Hall still erroneously states that Francis Bacon’s piece, “The Interpretation of Nature,” from the Novum Organum, which he compares to Venus and Adonis, is a poem. It is not a poem. It is a work of prose. It is unfair to judge Bacon’s poetic style by comparing these two pieces. Enough said. Several poetry websites online also wrongly call “The Interpretation of Nature” a poem. The poet Percy Bysshe Shelly acknowledged that “Lord Bacon was a poet.” Even Bacon’s works of philosophy are full of metaphors. 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 my blogpost, “So Desiring You to be Good to Concealed Poets,” Aug. 27, 2025, this website. 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/).
Encyclopedia Britannica (EB). “Francis Bacon: British Author, Philosopher, and Statesman.” Undated. Last date I saw was May 11, 2026. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Francis-Bacon-Viscount-Saint-Alban. They had made some of the changes I suggested to them. I wrote to them again in early June, 2026, suggesting they have a new article written, in honor of “Bacon 400.” There are misleading statements, and the articles portrays Bacon in an unduly negative light. light. There are too many problems to list them all here. For example, the article (still) says Bacon borrowed books from the library of Charles Cotton (born 1630; Bacon died 1626). No, it was Robert Cotton Bacon borrowed from (see F. Bacon, History of Henry VII, ed. Brian Vickers [Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998], xiii). The article says Bacon was “cold-hearted, cringed to the powerful, and took bribes, and then had the impudence to say he had not been influenced by them.” Yet, those who had offered gifts to his staff, as was the “almost respectable” custom of the time (J. H. Baker, Introduction to English Legal History (London: Reed Elsevier, 2002), p. 112), were disgruntled because Bacon decided their cases against them. In defense of Bacon, see Brian Vickers, ed., Henry VII, xi-xii, Nieves Matthews’ Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination (Yale University Press, 1996), the whole book, esp. ch 33, “The Sterile Philosopher,” 414-425; James Spedding’s Evenings With a Reviewer, 2 vols (rebuttal of Thomas Babington MacAulay’s 1837 influential defamatory essay on Bacon); William Hepworth Dixon, Personal History of Lord Bacon, chs 12, 13, 14; and. Alfred Dodd, The Martyrdom of Francis Bacon. The EB article states Bacon wrote little about education. Yet he authored the 2-vol The Advancement of Learning (1605)! In this 400th year since Bacon’s death, surely we could have an article that was accurate and unbiased from a company as respected as Encyclopedia Britannica. For Matthews’ assessment of Quentin and Urbach, see Matthews, History of a Character Assassination, pp. 403, 419, 423, 442 [Anthony Quinton]) and 414 [Peter Michael Urbach]. We need more like Urbach and less like Quinton!
—-“Edward de Vere, 17th earl of Oxford, English poet and dramatist.” I no longer see a date. Previously it was last edited 4/8/26, last accessed 6/2/26. This EB article presents a case for Oxford as “the strongest candidate proposed” for Shakespeare! Who says? The article says, “Evidence exists that Oxford was known during his lifetime to have written some plays, though there are no known examples extant.” Then what is the evidence? Where is independent evaluation or referral to sources evaluating the pros and cons of Oxford as Shakespeare? The Shakespeare plays are full of law. Was the Earl of Oxford a lawyer? Well, no, though he was admitted to Gray’s Inn. It is discussed in Alan Nelson’s book, Monstrous Adversary, which explains why the Earl of Oxford makes an unlikely Shakespeare? Oxford wrote poetry under his own name, but who besides Oxfordians are interested in it? The article on Bacon mentions Shakespeare authorship only briefly under “References and edit history.” Bacon wrote fine court masques of which examples survive, and, in his biographer Spedding’s opinion, Bacon had the “fine phrensy of a poet.” Shakespeare used the word “frenzy” 13 times; search “frenzy” at www.opensourceshakespeare.org. As (Stratfordian) James Shapiro observed in Contested Will (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010), the only kind of writing Bacon did not try his hand at was play-writing (p. 90)–under his own name, at least, I would add. See Nieves Matthews, Francis Bacon: History of a Character Assassination: 414-425 on the poetry in his philosophical writings.
Heitman, Danny. “Francis Bacon, Montaigne’s Rival,” Humanities. Spring 2022, vol 43, no 2, https://www.neh.gov/article/francis-bacon-montaignes-rival. See my review, 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, copyright 2025), https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/Francis-Bacon/273048. The article is disappointing. 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. We wouldn’t want to leave out the daughters.) The correct publication date of Bacon’s science fiction novel, New Atlantis, is now given (1626, not 1610).” The article currently says Bacon began his career in the House of Commons in the “early 1580’s.” Bacon entered Parliament in 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 would give a reading; it was an event. If he gave a second reading, he was called a Double Reader. Francis Bacon’s first reading was “On Advowsons”; his second, 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”), published as part of Francisci de Verulamio, summi Angliae cancellarij instauratio magna (1620), 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 to a golden age (of learning). See Coquillette, Francis Bacon, 77-78, 81, 90-91, 2-3, 293. This can 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), 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/. Hardly any mention is made of Bacon’s influential Essays, his first published work (1597, 1612, 1625). Bacon sought advancement in his career like any other person who needed to work for a living and thought he had something to offer.
“Francis Bacon: Facts for Kids,” Safe Wikipedia for Kids,” last edited by Admin March 2026. https://wiki.kidzsearch.com/wiki/Francis_Bacon: Not recommended: negatively biased, containing factual inaccuracies, vague. E.g., they say his “first job was as a lawyer.” What did they have in mind here, specifically? He did not get his first brief as a lawyer until 1594, though he was admitted to the bar in 1582. It is sad they they present the life of a great and wise man in such a negative light without care to get the facts right. 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 ….” 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 Matthews, 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.
“Francis Bacon,” Academic Kids (undated). Not recommended. Children doing reports for school will probably be drawn to such articles, but this one does not seem to have been written for children. Yes, Francis was the “youngest of five sons of Sir Nicholas Bacon,” but he was the second son by Nicholas’s second wife, Anne Cook. Sir Nicholas also had daughters–a fact worth mentioning in today’s enlightened times. Sir Nicholas was a Protestant, but not a Puritan. Why does this matter? Nicholas Bacon’s motto in matters of religion was “Mediocra firma”: the middle way is best. He advocated for religious tolerance, whereas the Puritans wanted to stamp out traces of Roman Catholicism in the Anglican church. William Rawley, Bacon’s chaplain, in his Life of Bacon, said Bacon was born at “York House or York Place.” 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.” To clarify, in 1579, he was just beginning his study of law at Gray’s Inn. The History of Parliament website article on Bacon says his first representation in Parliament was in 1581, not 1584. Bacon was admitted to the bar as an utter barrister, able to practice law, in 1582. Bacon entered Cambridge at age twelve, not thirteen. Without support, the article states that Bacon first met the Queen when he was thirteen when the Queen visited him at Cambridge. To the contrary, 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).
Wikipedia: We expect an encyclopedia article to meet certain standards, that it will provide sufficiently complete, objective, unbiased, and factually accurate content. Do all Wikipedia articles meet those criteria? Granted, some Wikipedia articles are probably more reliable than others. However, on biographies, Wikipedia has fallen short in the past. It has been sued because of its defamatory biographies of living persons. On subjects as controversial as Francis Bacon and Shakespeare authorship, there is every reason to read critically.
“Francis Bacon,” last updated 8-24-2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon. The article focuses on Bacon as philosopher and statesman. 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). Bacon wrote at least six masques which were performed at Gray’s Inn and at court. The editors might consider that Essex did owe Bacon, that Bacon had performed valuable services for him, as yet unpaid, in giving him a piece of land. Wikipedia writes: “To console him for these disappointments,” but the source cited, Alice Chambers Bunten, does not use the word “console.” HathiTrust, https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/011590102.).
To be clear, Bacon began his Gray’s Inn study of law in 1579. For a reliable authority on Bacon’s law reforms, see Coquillette, Francis Bacon, ch 2, pp. 70-76 (not Wikipedia which cites a 1961 article in New Scientist !) Bacon instigated the hiring of court reporters in Chancery. He is largely responsible for the passage of important new insurance legislation in England, called after him, “The Francis Bacon Act. “There is some contemporary evidence that” he is responsible for the equity of redemption in foreclosure law; at least, that “the change in practice occurred during his Chancellorship (1617-1621).” See J. H. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History, 3d ed. (London: Butterworths, 1990), pp. 127; 355-356, at 356 n 88. His work on Slade’s Case was important in the development of modern contract law; on Slade’s Case, see Baker, pp. 54, 161, 227, 388, 392-393, 395-397, 407-408, 415, 416, 420, 450. In Francis Bacon’s Hidden Hand (FBHH), I wrote, “One of Bacon’s practical reforms was the “confession of judgment,” an efficiency measure which Lord Coke, finding it “too novel,” would not allow” in a 1613 case (FBHH, p. 48). In The Merchant of Venice, Antonio says, “Let me have judgment and the Jew his will.” Merchant, IV, 1, 84 (1864 Globe ed., OpensourceShakespeare.com). “There is evidence that it was during Bacon’s Chancellorship that legal title began to pass to a mortgagor.” (p. 49). As Prof. Coquillette wrote, Bacon’s description of what a law report should entail is still considered valuable today (p. 253). An important resource is Barbara Shapiro, “Francis Bacon and the Mid-Seventeenth Century Movement for Law Reform,” The American Journal of Legal History 24, no 4 (Oct. 1980), pp. 331-362, at 353. For “Francis Bacon, Reformer” in FBHH, see pp. 47-49.
The Wikipedia article, “Masque,” 17 June 2026 version (British style), mentions Bacon once, stating only 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masque). Bacon was an important contriver of masques. See 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,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question, 15 August 2026 version (British style). This article clearly favors the Stratfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. It links to a separate Wikipedia article, “Baconian Theory of Shakespeare Authorship.” Harold Love’s suggestion that Shakespeare picked up all the law he needed from drinking with lawyers is ludicrous (fn 129). The article does not reference modern Baconian resources. The 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”) have increased from six to seven. Now, instead of incorrectly stating that Nathaniel Holmes, a graduate of Harvard Law School and author The Authorship of Shakespeare, 2 vols (New York: Hurd & Houghton, 1866), was a Kentucky judge, the article leaves out the fact that he had ever been a judge at all (in St. Louis), not to mention he served as a law professor at Harvard Law School and, before that, at St. Louis University. Previously, the article erroneously stated Bacon wrote no poetry at all. Now it incorrectly states “His only attributed verse consists of seven metrical psalters, following Sternhold and Hopkins,” citing “Halliday, 1957”[238]. That is not true. 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 a phrase Shakespeare used 13 times in his plays. The poet Shelley recognized Bacon as a poet (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. He wrote in a letter to his friend John Davies, “So desiring you to be good to concealed poets ….”
“Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship, 1 August 2026 version (British style). Tom Reedy, a member of the Oxfraud Facebook page, contributed to the editing. 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. So much for open-mindedness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AShakespeare_authorship_question%2FArchive_30. Shakespeare’s plays are mentioned but not his sonnets. The article is slanted against the Baconian theory. The link to the Francis Bacon Society is old. There is no link to the Francis Bacon Research Trust. The article 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 extensive SirBacon bibliographies. The latest Penn Leary publication is The Complete Cryptographic Shakespeare . It calls Bacon’s Promus a “waste book” (an account book in bookkeeping) instead of the “commonplace book” it is. See the Wikipedia article, “Commonplace Books.” A commonplace book is 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).
“Francis Bacon Bibliography,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon_bibliography, 7 Oct. 2025 version (British style). Some dates given are publication dates, but some are dates when composed, such as the “Gray’s Inn Christmas Revels,” for which Bacon wrote speeches for some of the speakers, which were not published until 1688. See https://www.graysinn.org.uk/latest-library-display-a-comedy-of-errors-and-revels-at-grays-inn/. 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, their 7 Oct. 2025. It does not cite to modern editions. Not much effort has been put into this.
“Works by Francis Bacon,” ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_by_Francis_Bacon, 23 May 2026 version.
David Simpson, “Francis Bacon,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/francis-bacon/. Undated, last accessed 5-22-26 (apparently not revised since it was posted; the latest dated work in the bibliography is 1996 and leaves much out; see my work-in-progress bibliographies, https://christinagwaldman.com/more-by-the-author/). As he does in his Oxford Bibliographies online entry on “Francis Bacon – Philosopher,” (“last reviewed Oct. 17, 2022),” he cites the unreliable historian 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 with 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; Matthews, pp. 17, 19-33, et al.
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 Cult of Ecofeminism,” Crisis Magazine, Jan. 24, 2023, https://www.crisismagazine.com/opinion/the-death-cult-of-eco-feminism?mc_cid=67d6710298 (note he does not mention Bacon whom the eco-feminists have blamed for problems in the modern world due to scientific progress).
“Francis Bacon” (1561-1625), Geniuses, 8-25-26, https://geniuses.club/genius/francis-bacon. The article contains inaccuracies. It does not document its source material or give its author’s name. It is difficult to read without paragraph spacing.
Stanford Global Shakespeare Encyclopedia (“SGSE”): What is going on with this? Apparently, it has not been released yet. https://english.stanford.edu/people/patricia-parker. For some time, this website does not seem to have been available to the general public. On Jan. 20, 2023, I made the following observations before the site became unavailable to me. 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/. This is all I know at the moment.
—-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.
Oxfraud Purported “Prima Facie Case (PFC).” I have written two responses to the old PFC: “The Oxfraudian “Prima Facie Case” for Shakespeare: ‘Hoist with its Own Petard’?” (revised Oct. 20, 2022) and “Evaluating the Oxfraud “Prima Facie Case …” June 3, 2025, https://sirbacon.org/evaluating-the-oxfraud-prima-facie-case-for-shaxperes-authorship-of-shakespeare/. Their new page is https://new.oxfraud.com/intro/pfctext9.html.
Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable (“SAR”) page on Bacon: orig. posted 11-19-22, revised 11-10-24, currently undated. The SAR has made some changes I suggested, after which they told me not to contact them again, that Peter Dawkins (FBRT.org) had “okayed” their article and that the changes I sought were inconsequential. The article no longer refers readers to “Francis Bacon, Biography,” GreatThinkers.org, https://thegreatthinkers.org/bacon/biography/. What are the SAR bio’s sources? It is true that the Inns of Court were not like modern law schools. One did not obtain a law degree from an Inn of Court. And, being a “Reader” at Gray’s Inn was not the same thing as being a “Reader” or lecturer at a British college today. The term has evolved. It meant he had given a “Reading,” which was a special event held during a school vacation. See chapter six, “A Law Professor by Any Other Name,” in my book, FBHH, pp. 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/; Coquillette, “Chronology of Bacon’s Career,” Francis Bacon, app 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. It appears Bacon began his career in Parliament 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. Okay, Pierre Amboise’s biography states this; see Peter Dawkins’ essay, “The Bacon Brothers and Italy,” https://www.fbrt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Bacon_Brothers_and_Italy.pdf. He served on James’ privy council, not Elizabeth’s. As for which are his best known works, that might be debatable. I would not reduce a description of the “Northumberland Manuscript” to “22 sheets of notes.” See A Phoenix, “The Northumberland Manuscript” (Nov. 2022), SirBacon.org, https://sirbacon.org/downloads/aphoenix/NORTHUMBERLAND%20MANUSCRIPT.pdf. For further reading, the SAR article still links to the Biography.com (Heart Digital Media, last updated Aug. 9, 2023) article on Bacon, but that article has its own problems. Bacon’s new scientific method was in contrast to Aristotle’s, not a continuation of it, and Bacon did not study Aristotle at Gray’s Inn, but at Cambridge. “The Great Saturation?” They must mean the Great Instauration, Magna Instauratio. New Atlantis was not published until 1627, posthumously, along with the Sylva Sylvarum, both unfinished; Apophthegmes was first in 1625, reprinted 1626. Source: Coquillette, Francis Bacon, app 2, “Chronology …” with reference to Spedding’s Works of Francis Bacon (London: Longmans, 1857-74) and R.W. Gibson, Francis Bacon: A Bibliography of his Works … (Oxford, 1950). I wrote to Biography.com about its errors and received no reply.
The Oxfraud.com page on Francis Bacon as Shakespeare: The Oxfraud.com page on Francis Bacon, “Mmmm! Bacon!” is still up from 2013. It is a cleverly written opinion flawed by omissions and factual inaccuracies. https://oxfraud.com/index.php/BC-Bacon). It does not cite sources. It leaves out three years of Bacon’s life spent in France, 1576-79. I pointed out the problems in a discussion on the Oxfraud group Facebook page on 2/28/22, but those responsible have not made changes. The article paints Bacon’s life story in an unfairly negative light, ignoring contrary evidence. 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 (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 (depicting Dr. Orville Owen’s cipher wheel as a joke). It does not cite sources or tell where people can hear opposing views, as James Shapiro, although a professed “Stratfordian,” does in his book, Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?–directing readers to “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). In sum, the Oxfraud.com Bacon page treats a great and good man disrespectfully and Bacon’s contribution to Shakespeare as 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/, although I have made the Oxfraudians aware of it.