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).

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

Special Baconiana edition in honor of the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s First Folio, Francis Bacon Society, 11/8/23. Access at https://francisbaconsociety.co.uk/.

New video by talented Australian actor Jono Freeman: Jono33, “Folio Feelz: Examining our love and worship of le text des texes de Shakespeare.” ca 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. With lovely visuals, Kate, author of The Secret Work of an Age, presents her own perspective and beliefs as a Baconian and an explanation of the connection between Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucian movement–something I have never fully understood.

The Secret Work of an Age by K. J. Cassidy is now available in paperback from https://www.the-secret-work.com/author.html/ or directly from 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 study of the law at Gray’s Inn.

The Francis Bacon Research Trust (Peter Dawkins, founder and principal), https://www.fbrt.org.uk/ (essays listed under “Resources”) is a classic “Baconian” site, as are the Francis Bacon Society website (its journal is Baconiana), https://francisbaconsociety.co.uk/ and Francis Bacon’s New Advancement of Learning, https://sirbacon.org/sirbacon-org. The Shakespearean Authorship Trust page on Bacon provides key points of evidence with a link to a “history of the case” (“Sir Francis Bacon, Baron Verulam, Viscount St. Alban,” under “About the Question, Candidates,” https://shakespeareanauthorshiptrust.org/bacon.

Quotations pages: There are many Bacon quotation pages on the internet, for Bacon said so many wise and memorable things. 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.”). Another favorite quotation page of mine is “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 link to (under “See also”), 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. Castalian Spring has been prolifically blogging Bacon’s Essays, or Counsels, Civil and Moral. Why? Because: “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 (especially at sub-heading, “What’s Francis Bacon to Facebook?).

The article “Shakespeare Authorship Question,” http://shakespeareauthorshipquestion.org/, 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 (2004, 2020), N. B. Cockburn (1998), 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.

***

As to my book, “Francis Bacon’s Hidden Hand,” on social media

Press release, Buffalo, June 13, 2019, “Francis Bacon Makes Comeback as Shakespeare Authorship Candidate,” https://www.prlog.org/12774706-francis-bacon-makes-comeback-as-shakespeare-authorship-candidate.html.

On September 11, 2018, Prof. Mark Brittingham of Southern Illinois University (SIU) School of Law, Carbondale, Illinois, my alma mater, presented a copy of Francis Bacon’s Hidden Hand to Prof. Doug Lind, head librarian of the SIU Law Library.https://www.facebook.com/SalukiLaw/posts/10156621214099371.

https://www.facebook.com/ChristinaGWaldmanAuthor/.

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 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 seems to have a mission of demolishing, with ridicule, the concept that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, made any contribution to the writing of the Shakespeare works. I have engaged in conversations with him and other “Oxfraudians” on Facebook in the past year or so when I was sharing information on Francis Bacon’s contribution to Shakespeare authorship.

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 will 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 (Limpsfield Chart, Surrey, UK, 1998), strives, and succeeds, I think, in presenting the authorship question and the Baconian “theory” in an extremely objective and fair-minded light. It is difficult to find this book, but it is a book that the British Library website has stated it will print it on demand.
  • 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.
  • Facts are facts, regardless of what a person believes to be true, no matter how many people believe otherwise or how great their reputation is. When reading critically in a given source, one should ask: are statements of opinion backed up with supporting facts? Are things “always” true? Do “all scholars” believe the same thing? How could that be, and how could anyone know for sure? One sign of an educated person is that he/she/they has been taught to think for himself. Stanford University published Daniel R. Coquillette’s 1992 book, Francis Bacon, “the first modern book to describe Francis Bacon’s jurisprudence.” Stanford has a good reputation generally. So, I think there is still some room for improvement in this website’s treatment of Bacon, Shakespeare, and the authorship question.
  • 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 online 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, author of Francis Bacon: The Major Works and many studies on Bacon as well as on Shakespeare, has observed. Vickers 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 11/19/2023), https://arsnotoria.com/2022/02/06/in-defence-of-the-upstart-crow/ 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. It is unfair to compare a work of prose to a poem (Hall suggests Venus and Adonis) to see “which is the better poem.” 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 philosophy is full of metaphor.

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 late British barrister, N. B. Cockburn, The Bacon Shakespeare Question: The Baconian Theory Made Sane (Surrey, 1998), 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/).

Lea, Kathleen Marguerite and Anthony M. Quinton, Baron Quinton, Peter Michael Urbach, et al. “Francis Bacon: British Author, Philosopher, and Statesman,” Britannica. Updated April 5, 2024 (prior update, Oct. 11, 2023). https://www.britannica.com/biography/Francis-Bacon-Viscount-Saint-Alban. Unlike the Britannica Kids online article, it does get it right that he was the second son of the second marriage of Sir Nicholas Bacon, not his second son period (without mentioning, however, 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 to find in an encyclopedia article. There is no mention whatsoever of the Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship in this article (although it is mentioned in the unfairly disparaging article on Delia Salter Bacon–who once beat Edgar Allan Poe in a short-story-writing contest and was the first to propose reading Shakespeare as literature–which follows it online). For balance, one might expect to find at least some mention in the article of studies on Baconian authorship of Shakespeare. One does find Shakespeare authorship mentioned in the contemporaneous April 8, 2024 article on the Earl of Oxford (putative Shakespeare authorship being his only real claim to fame, perhaps). In my opinion, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy‘s article on Bacon is better, in terms of discussing Bacon’s philosophy (although it is disappointing that it links to David Simpson’s biased IEP article, to be discussed). Although the 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, Daniel R. Coquillette’s book, Francis Bacon in its Jurists series (Stanford and Edinburgh, 1992) might well be consulted as to Bacon’s legal legacy. 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. Interesting.

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. As of my April 15, 2024 reading, it still incorrectly says that Francis Bacon was the second son of Sir Nicholas Bacon. Correction: he was the second son of Sir Nicholas and his second wife Anne Cooke. Nicholas Bacon had three sons and three daughters with his first wife, Jane Fearnly. https://luminarium.org/encyclopedia/nicholasbacon.htm. The article contains other inaccuracies. For example, it says “He published the New Atlantis in 1610.” No. The unfinished New Atlantis was published posthumously in the year of his death, 1626. Bacon entered Parliament in 1581, not 1584. See https://historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/bacon-sir-francis-1561-1626. The term “Reader” 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 means a lecturer at a British institution of higher learning. (See my book, Francis Bacon’s Hidden Hand in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice: A Study of Law, Rhetoric, and Authorship (New York: Algora Publishing, 2018), p. 110, and sources cited therein). Bacon’s Novum Organum, published in 1620, was not incomplete, as the article states. It was the Instauratio Magna that Bacon did not complete before his death, although he published parts of it; the published parts included the Novum Organum. There would have been no need for Bacon to have published it in incomoplete form, as he was still alive in 1620. Factual accuracy does matter in an encyclopedia article, particularly one intended for young students. I wish that authors/editors of encyclopedia articles would check every fact in several reputable sources, as we were taught to do in elementary school, and strive to keep personal or official bias and propaganda out.

Now we find in Encyclopedia Britannica, that “Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford” was an “English poet and dramatist” worthy of note (“written and fact-checked by the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, April 8, 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edward-de-Vere-17th-earl-of-Oxford. 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 mention of 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?

“Francis Bacon: Facts for Kids,” Safe Wikipedia for Kids,” last revised “four months ago” (Dec. 2023), from Sept. 15, 2023, from August 8, 2021. https://wiki.kidzsearch.com/wiki/Francis_Bacon: It cannot be recommended. This is an encyclopedia article on Bacon which still leaves out important biographical information and emphasizes the negative, presenting Bacon in a false, defamatory light. Have the editors of this article never 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.” The Luminarium source they footnote 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.” It is easy enough to find out from reputable sources that he was only in the Tower four days, and his $50,000 fine was remitted. Why would anyone want to make children dislike a great and good man? One must consider, when reading articles online, whether the author might have an agenda or bias, or whether he/she/they are truly being objective? The internet is a powerful resource. It should be used with integrity.

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 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996); 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.

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 others, thank goodness. However, on biographies, Wikipedia has been seen to fall short in the past. Wikipedia has been sued because of its defamatory biographies of living persons. On a subject as controversial as Shakespeare authorship, there is every reason to be suspicious that some Wikipedia editors may be more concerned with promoting their private agendas than with promoting the truth. In terms of Bacon on Wikipedia, I have found:

  • “Francis Bacon,” last edited April 14, 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon. The article focuses on Bacon as philosopher and statesman. It still does not mention, however, that he wrote at least six masques which were performed at Gray’s Inn and at court. The tone is not as objective as it could be. Objectivity leads to factual accuracy. It encourages one to dig deeper and not be content with apparent assumptions. For example, the article says, “To console him for these disappointments,” Essex gave Bacon Twickenham Park (under “Final Years of the Queen’s Reign”). 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 from Essex was intended in part as compensation for professional services Bacon did render to Essex, for which Essex could not afford to pay him.
  • Nor does the Wikipedia article, “Masque,” mention Bacon, although he was an important contriver of masques. See “Masque,” last revised Oct. 8, 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masque. One of Bacon’s essays is entitled, “Of Masques and Triumphs.” See Peter Dawkins, “Baconian Poetry,” Francis Bacon Research Trust (“FBRT”), https://www.fbrt.org.uk/shakespeare/baconian-poetry/ (poetry and masques). On Bacon and masques, see also Brian Vickers, intro., in Vickers, Francis Bacon: The Major Works (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002 [1996], xxiv-xxx.
  • “Shakespeare authorship question,” last revised April 10, 2024. While this article clearly favors the Stratfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, some improvements have been made since I first wrote about this article here. Its bibliography now includes an external link to the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition where one could find mention of Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? Exposing an Industry in Denial, edited by 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). David Kathman and Terry Ross’s out-of-date “Shakespeare Authorship Page” has six mentions (“retrieved Dec. 2010”). Now, instead of mentioning that Nathaniel Holmes, author of the two-volume Baconian work, The Authorship of Shakespeare (New York: Hurd & Houghton, 1866), was a St. Louis judge, not a Kentucky judge, the article simply omits mentioning that he was a judge at all. Now, instead of incorrectly reporting that the only poetry Bacon wrote under his own name were his translations of the Psalms, the articles does not mention that Bacon was a poet at all. He wrote the poem, “The Life of Man.” 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. Suggested alternative: “Shakespeare Authorship Question – Wikipedia based” (undated), http://shakespeareauthorshipquestion.org/.
  • “Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship,” Wikipedia, last revised March 13, 2024. Tom Reedy, an “Oxfraudian” (a “Stratfordian” group) contributed to the editing on May 28, 2023. Shakespeare’s plays are mentioned but not his sonnets. The article is slanted against the Baconian theory. Brian McClinton, Peter Dawkins (with his website, the Francis Bacon Research Trust, “FBRT”), N. B. Cockburn, are among the Baconian writers excluded from the bibliography, although it was good to see lawyer Penn Leary’s book, The Second Cryptographic Shakespeare (1990), listed (it is available to read online for free from SirBacon.org). I caution readers to look for information on this topic from more reliable sources. It does, at least, mention Bacon in connection with masques. As for encyclopedia treatments online, here is a 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, 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. There are better sources. See references below and in the bibliographies at this website.
  • “Francis Bacon Bibliography,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon_bibliography, last edited Sept. 23, 2023. It gives publication dates, linking to “Works by Francis Bacon at Project Gutenberg,” https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/296.
  • “Author: Francis Bacon,” https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Francis_Bacon, as of Nov. 1, 2023.
  • “Works by Francis Bacon,” ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_by_Francis_Bacon, as of Feb. 9, 2024. Oddly, under “Bibliography,” it still lists only one work, Benjamin Farrington’s Philosophy of Francis Bacon. 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/.
  • The Oxford Francis Bacon, published and planned volumes, http://www.oxfordfrancisbacon.com.
  • Klein, “Francis Bacon,” bibliography, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (“SEP“), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/#Bib.
  • Bibliographies, this website (“In Chief,” “In Broad Context,” and “Commentary”)

David Simpson, “Francis Bacon,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/francis-bacon/. Discussed at “Bibliography–Commentary,” this website, https://christinagwaldman.com/bibliography-baconshakespeare-commentary/. It does not appear to ever be changed or updated. As he does in his Oxford Bibliographies online entry on “Francis Bacon – Philosopher,” he cites the unreliable historian MacAulay as an authoritative critic on Bacon. 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.

“Francis Bacon (1561-1626)” Biography.com, A & E Television Networks, Jan. 14, 2015, last updated June 5, 2020, https://www.biography.com/scholar/francis-bacon (contains inaccurate information. I have written to them suggesting changes, as they say at their website that they strive for accuracy. As of March 3, 2023, I have received no response from them.).

* * *

The article, “Francis Bacon,” at the Academic Kids website (undated), is disappointing. I consider it to be factually inaccurate in many particulars. It lacks source references documenting its statements. A history should be fact-based. For example, 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). In another instance, the Academic Kids article states, unclearly, “To support himself, he [Bacon] took up his residence in law at Gray’s Inn in 1579.” 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. A student usually spent seven years as an “inner barrister,” but Bacon progressed to utter barrister in just five.

The article reports–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.

“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, but it does not provide a reference. (“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 Nov. 15, 2022). History should be based on facts and reliable.

***

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).

***

In “Intriguing mysteries: who wrote Shakespeare’s plays?” (no date or author by-line, but written after Sept. 8, 2022, the date of Queen Elizabeth II’s death), https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/culture/books/meet-the-author/intriguing-mysteries-who-wrote-shakespeares-plays: Bacon is given only nine words and is grouped, with Marlowe, as a “failed” candidate for Shakespeare authorship. By what authority is such a claim made, however? None is cited. The article mentions Bacon as a “great scholar, philosopher, and scientist.” He was also, however: a prolific and imaginative author with a lifelong vision: to revolutionize learning for the betterment of humanity. He thought easily in metaphor, loved the theatre, and referred to himself once as a “concealed poet.” He was also a humanitarian whose books revolutionized education, a statesman beloved by his constituents, and a learned counsellor to sovereigns (the title “Counsel Extraordinary” was created for him by Queen Elizabeth. He was the first Queen’s Counsel.). From 1618-1621, he served as Lord Chancellor, the highest legal position in the United Kingdom, second only to King James himself.

10-1-22 (rev. 10-11-22): See my blogpost, “The Oxfraudian “Prima Facie Case” for Shakespeare: ‘Hoist with its Own Petard’?”

11-19-22. The Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable (“SAR”) page on Bacon:

I have informed the SAR of certain factual errors in their short bio of Bacon. They made some, but not all, of the changes I suggested, and told me not to bother them about it again, calling my remaining criticisms trivial. My contention, however, is that the facts do matter. If someone shows you evidence that runs counter to what information you have posted, do you not have a responsibility to acknowledge it and at least report that a discrepancy exists, if you remain unpersuaded?What are we about if it is not a search for truth?

  • The SAR article says Bacon was awarded a law degree at Gray’s Inn in 1582. However, the Inns of Court in 1582 did not award law degrees, so that is an anachronism. It would be better to say he began to study law in 1579 and was admitted to practice as an utter barrister in 1582 when the older, more experienced members of the Inn deemed him ready. There was no 3-year course of study. It was exceptional to be admitted as an utter barrister in only three years. The younger members of the Inn learned from the older, more experienced members who mentored them.The A&E 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. He was 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. All statements of fact should be capable of being documented.
  • 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, without providing a source, that The Advancement of Learning and New Atlantis were Bacon’s most popular works. Based on what? Sales? Gutenberg.org ranks his Essays, Wisdom of the Ancients, and New Atlantis as his most popular works.
  • 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 case for Francis Bacon’s contribution to Shakespeare is ongoing, vibrant and alive. It is not restricted to ciphers or to what Delia Bacon, Mark Twain, Elizabeth Wells Gallup, Dr. Orville Owen, or Ignatius Donnelly wrote so many years ago. May the search for truth continue!

6-9-22 (last revision 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 British barrister N. B. Cockburn, author of The Bacon Shakespeare Question: The Baconian Theory Made Sane (1998) (740 pages)).
  • 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/.

Recent Resources (Selected. For more, see “Bibliographies,” this website, and the bibliographies at SirBacon.org).

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. Limpsfield Chart, Surrey, UK, 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, 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 Francis Bacon (in terms of accuracy and lack of bias) can be found on the internet:

Last updated April 17, 2024.

Back to Top