User talk:Artemis1102
Welcome!
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the simplified ruleset. Of the many ways to get help on Wikipedia, I personally recommend our wiki-boot camp, where you can chat online with fellow Wikipedians willing to help, or see some of the resources on WP:Wc!
Please feel free to ask me any questions you may have, on [[User talk:{{{2}}}|my talk page]] - I'm happy to help.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
[edit]Need help?
[edit]
|
|
How you can help:
[edit]
|
|
Additional tips...
[edit]
|
|
Good luck, and have fun. -- WikiIstari 04:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your bold common sense contributions to the Discussion page for the Francis Bacon article! Please suggest some practical detailed steps as to how to edit true homosexual claims about Francis and return the article to WP:NPOV standards, and then please act upon them. Aburesz 03:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Bad faith : the heterosexual claims are unsubstantiated and there are false, because there isn't the tiniest proof of Bacon's heterosexuality, but indications of his homosexuality. I think you don't want to realize that your old friend "Francis" is gay. I tkink you couldn't have a gay friend.
Nieves Matthews was an homophobic narrow-minded biographer. She didn't know anything about homosexuality like a lot of people. You should read Havelock Ellis, who was a specialist of sexuality, homosexuality and a humanist :
While Shakespeare thus narrowly escapes inclusion in the list of distinguished inverts, there is much better ground for the inclusion of his great contemporary, Francis Bacon. Aubrey in his laboriously compiled _Short Lives_, in which he shows a friendly and admiring attitude toward Bacon, definitely states that he was a pederast. Aubrey was only a careful gleaner of frequently authentic gossip, but a similar statement is made by Sir Simonds D'Ewes in his _Autobiography_. D'Ewes, whose family belonged to the same part of Suffolk as Bacon's sprang from, was not friendly to Bacon, but that fact will not suffice to account for his statement. He was an upright and honorable man of scholarly habits, and, moreover, a trained lawyer, who had many opportunities of obtaining first-hand information, for he had lived in the Chancery office from childhood. He is very precise as to Bacon's homosexual practices with his own servants, both before and after his fall, and even gives the name of a "very effeminate-faced youth" who was his "catamite and bedfellow"; he states, further, that there had been some question of bringing Bacon to trial for sodomy. These allegations may be supported by a letter of Bacon's own mother (printed in Spedding's _Life of Bacon_), reproving him on account of what she had heard concerning his behavior with the young Welshmen in his service whom he made his bedfellows. It is notable that Bacon seems to have been specially attracted to Welshmen (one might even find evidence of this in the life of the Welshman, Henry VII), a people of vivacious temperament unlike his own; this is illustrated by his long and intimate friendship with the mercurial Sir Toby Mathew, his "alter ego," a man of dissipated habits in early life, though we are not told that he was homosexual. Bacon had many friendships with men, but there is no evidence that he was ever in love or cherished any affectionate intimacy with a woman. Women play no part at all in his life. His marriage, which was childless, took place at the mature age of 46; it was effected in a business-like manner, and though he always treated his wife with formal consideration it is probable that he neglected her, and certain that he failed to secure her devotion; it is clear that toward the end of Bacon's life she formed a relationship with her gentleman usher, whom subsequently she married. Bacon's writings, it may be added, equally with his letters, show no evidence of love or attraction to women; in his _Essays_ he is brief and judicial on the subject of Marriage, copious and eloquent on the subject of Friendship, while the essay on Beauty deals exclusively with masculine beauty. —
The theory of heterosexuality is very weak, not homosexuality. Your bold common sense is obviously homophobic. At last, you should admit that you don't like homosexual people, like Nieves Matthews and your friend Aburesz.
LISTEN, EVERYBODY, I didn't realize, but there's even no need to wonder if "coach companion" had a sexual meaning : the meaning of "bed companion" is sexual too : Bacon's mother is not alone to use these words : D'Ewes wrote : "yet would he not relinquish the practice of his most horrible and secret sinne of sodomie, keeping still one Godrick, a verie effeminate faced youth, to bee his catamite and BEDFELLOW." So Nieves Mathews looks clever claiming that it is a "misrepresentation" to state that words such as "bed companion and coach companion" are not evidences of Bacon's homosexuality, because that's not sexual. Now, it is very clear to me that all her argumentation is false : she is just one of these biographers of homosexual personnalities who tries desperately to link them to heterosexuality, because homosexuality is a very bad thing. So it is very not disturbing to quote Mathews in the article : everybody can see that "coach companion" as well as "bed companion" are evidences of sexual activities and deny that, like NM is a perfect example of bad faith. The only thing to do is to read the texts to see that NM is not only weak -no formal proof of Bacon's heterosexuality- but false. The only thing she is able to provide to proove Bacon's heterosexuality is her intimate conviction. I am definitely convinced that all the primary sources in question deal indeed with homosexuality. I am very happy : I now know without possible doubt that NM argumentation is insubstantiated. Is anybody still able to pretend that "bedfellow" had no sexual meaning in mind of Bacon's contemporary ? I guess not. 90.3.151.138 17:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Well done, but it is bad faith and I am in no way disappointed. It is not "bedroom companion" but "bed companion." The quote of d'Ewes clearly shows that "bed companion", even in the context of 17th century England can very well be sexual. Bacon was not a poor guy and it was well possible to him to sleep alone. It's only common sense, unless you claims that "bed companion" and "bedfellow" are not synonyms ; instead of saying generalities about the mind of the century, examine closely the text and you will see that in that case, it is sexual. Anyway, even if it was common to share beds at the time of Bacon, that's perhaps more a proof that sexual activity between men were easier than the contrary. It is completely false too that his life was "never affected by any rumors or accusations involving homosexuality" because, you know, the simple existence of the sermon of 1619 and of the autobiography of d'Ewes is a proof of the contrary. That's common sense too and the simple fact of saying the contrary is bad faith. All the argumentation of people who say that Bacon was not homosexual is like that : they are blind because it is better for their unsubstantiated theories.
Compare the texts :
D'Ewes : he not relinquish the practice of his most horrible & secret sinne of sodomie, keeping still one Godrick, a verie effeminate faced youth, to bee his catamite and bedfellow.
And Ann Bacon, that mention the same sharing the bed of her son, twenty-five years before Godrick : "that bloody Percy" whom Francis kept "yea as a coach companion and a bed companion."
It is the same words, synonyms and it is in a sexual context, I'm sorry. 83.200.58.60 21:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, did you know the tradition that say that Orpheus became homosexual after Eurydice's death ? It's just a wink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.200.58.60 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I know that we are in democracy and that is the right of Artemis to be wrong, but I must say one more time that her argumentation is wrong about the fact that Bacon was not accused of homosexuality during his lifetime. Thereafter, it is another question to say if it true or not. The simple existence of the sermon of 1619 and of the autobiography of d'Ewes is a proof of these accusations. That's common sense and the simple fact of saying the contrary is bad faith. And an important part of the argumentation of people who say that Bacon was not homosexual is based on allegation that terms such as coach companion, bed companion, bedfellow and catamite have no sexual meaning, because of the context of the XVIIth century. I'm sorry, but the evidences says the contrary : Compare the texts : D'Ewes : he not relinquish the practice of his most horrible & secret sinne of sodomie, keeping still one Godrick, a verie effeminate faced youth, to bee his catamite and bedfellow. And Ann Bacon, that mention the same sharing the bed of her son, twenty-five years before Godrick : "that bloody Percy" whom Francis kept "yea as a coach companion and a bed companion." It is the same words, synonyms and it is in a sexual context. I don't care that Artemis, the chaste goddess splept with women without sexual activity and is not a lesbian. That's not one of your habits, but that was a necessity, wasn't it ? For Bacon, it wasn't a necessity, but a taste and a habit. The reaction of Ann Bacon shows it was not common to share his bed -not his bedroom, I'm sorry- with a servant. In 1621, it is always an habit of Francis Bacon to share his bed with a servant and not with his wife. So, the evidences show that it was no so common and anodyne to share his bed with a servant without a real necessity. Do you think Bacon shared his bed with Percy and Godrick because he was delighted by their mind and that he kept them in his bed to discusse philosophical knowledge ? I am not convinced. So : 1. It is not a good idea to claim that Bacon's life was "never affected by accusations involving homosexuality", because we have two evidences that say the contrary, in 1619 and in 1621. It is not ponctual. You can say that it is baseless accusation, even if the testimony of d'Ewes is really precised and detailed, but it is false to say that there was no accusations. 2. If the fact that Bacon shared his bed with servants is mentioned, it is because it caused problems. It seems that Bacon had the habit during his whole life to share his bed with servants rather than with his wife. It wasn't common to sleep with servants and the meaning of the words used in the evidences is clearly sexual in that case. It is probable that other men slept together by necessity in the lower class or ponctually without sexual contacts, but it is clearly not by necessity that Bacon shared his bed with Percy and Godrick. 3. People like Nieves Mathews only prooved that D'Ewes was not the friend of Bacon and that Aubrey was not his exact contemporary. But, first, they didn't proove that what they wrote if false and second, they didn't provide any positive evidence that Bacon was heterosexual, because saying that he was not homosexual, it implies that he couldn't be nothing but heterosexual. That is a pure point of view. It is not a point of view to say that he was homosexual, because it is based on real evidences, not speculations. 4. Thereafter, there's no reason to change this informative article. The evidences are prensented, Nieves Mathews is neutraly quoted, but it is not possible to quote the evidences on which she based her argumentation about Bacon's heterosexuality, because they don't exist. The only thing to do is to mention that she doesn't believe the only existing evidences and it is done. 5. If some people want to balance the article, the only way is to add new parts and new facts in the existing parts. 83.200.58.60 11:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC) And i wouldn't be interested in Bacon's homosexuality if it wasn't prooved. I am really not interested in saying that everybody is gay without being able to proove that. If someone had a real proof that Bacon was not homosexual, it would be very well. But it is really not the case.
I think you have a problem. Personally, I think that On friendship prooves nothing, and I would not search in that text the formal proof that he was homosexual or heterosexual. But there are people who says : "See, it's wonderful, Bacon was a great supporter of nuptial love, so he couldn't be homosexual" -actually, it's far more a convention of the time and the real relations between Bacon and the marriage are more complex than that. Other say that "friendship" is sexual ; personally, I think it is very disputable, but you remark that "love" can be sexual or not and can very well adressed to a man. So, actually, in that text, there's nothing conclusive about Bacon's life.
It seems to me that you should be the daughter of Nieves Matthews of the cousin of Anyta Bryant. See Arion ; his argumentation is interesting even if he is in no way able to proove that Bacon was heterosexual. He claims that he is not homophobic and even that he could be straight, gay or bisexual : he didn't acknowledge. I believe him, but you, you seem a little hysterical with the topic of homosexuality.
You write : "It is a fact that Bacon was not homosexual."
I can very well aswer : "It is a fact that Bacon was homosexual."
You see ? And my words are as valuable as yours because you have no proof that what you say is the absolute truth. Your claims are based on an a priori, that's all : you decided that he was heterosexual. Point. Personally, I think it is a little more complex than that. And your hysterical reaction reveals nothing but your probable hate toward homosexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.88.156 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Limitorder 13:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You are perfectly right. That was not my problem. The problem is that the sentence is to ambiguous, vague and not neutral. "Bacon's government career and public life were never affected by any rumors or accusations involving sexuality." Why not by "these" rumors rather than "any" ; any seems to claim that there was indeed no rumors. A sentence without ambiguity would be : he was never judged for sodomy, that's clear, precise and people can conclude what they want. If every homosexual of the seventeenth century have been judged... And first of all, it is not a good sentence of conclusion because it's partial. It is one of Matthews arguments to claim that he was not homosexual because he wasn't judged. That's why I thought that sentence inadequate for a conclusion.
Yes, Simon d'Ewes was a homophobic man. But I am very astonished to see people thinking that Bacon was not homosexual be so happy to state that he was homophobic and have so the possibility to conclude with relief that no, no, no, Bacon was absolutely not homosexual, that's a calomny. That's very, very, very ambiguous and for the neutrality... And, at last, d'Ewes was perhaps hostile but it does not mean a priori that he made baseless accusations. You know, there is true and false accusations, so d'Ewes may be true or false, that's the same for Aubrey and there is a historian of 1653 stating that there was "reports", you know. That's the proof of their existence.
So, as I said, we have to present the two theories without stating what is the truth and with a neutral conclusion.
Limitorder 20:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
And you don't think you are repeating the same thing over and over yourself : NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!
Limitorder 20:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course. I'm not pretending to have a good level in english. Anyway, "he was never judged for sodomy, that's better and more clear.
And "any of these" or any of all the rumors and accusations", that would make absolutely no difference than just "any" ? I don't want to be wrong.
Limitorder 17:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph must be neutral, presenting the two theories, that's all and it isn't. If you are not homophobic and you claim that you are not, I can do nothing but enjoy that fact and believe you. But you know, I still think that most people claiming that Bacon couldn't be homosexual, do that not because of d'Ewes, but really because of homosexuality ; actually, they think that homosexuality is a bad thing, like d'Ewes, but d'Ewes didn't like Bacon and they do, that's the real difference. D'Ewes was wrong to condemn Bacon for homosexuality, but it is all but sure that he was wrong stating that Bacon was homosexual. It's something that people claiming that Bacon was not homosexual don't want to understand. And, for the god sake, you have not to clame that it is proved that Bacon was not homosexual or even bisexual, and that he was of course a great lover of women. If it was proved, there would be no discussion : does anyone discuss Thomas More heterosexuality or Henry the Eight, or Ludwig XIV, or Carl Friedrich Gauss, or Mozart, or Einstein, when heterosexuality is really proved ?
So, admit at last that you are partial if not homophobic and let the two theories be neutrally presented.
And sorry, but I am still not convinced by the neutrality of "any."
Another proof of your partiality ? It is not "judged", but "wasn't judged." He wasn't judged because of these kind of rumors.
One of the reason of why I thought you are homophobic is that you are always writing that homosexuality is a crime. If it is not homophoby. Anyway, even if it was a crime -and it is not, you agree-, we have to present neutrally the two theories.
Limitorder 22:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand you're shocked by age. But Alice Barnham was 14. Obviously it is a girl and it was a common thing. But Bacon married with a child, he was 45. So, it is unpleasant, but age is not the problem : Bacon could have sexual relation with his wife or with younger boys : it is always children. But I think that in the seventeenth century, people of 14 or 15 are not really considered as children. That Godrick, that was not a child and he was not raped by Bacon. So, don't be so passionnated and be careful of misrepresentations. Nobody is claiming that Bacon was a pedophile, thanks God.
Limitorder 16:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Or, if the problem is really age and only age, don't mention that he was married, because his wife was younger than the boys in question. Your argumentation is not correct and your anger a little bit selective.
Limitorder 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
If Bacon slept with a boy of 15 years, he was a pederast, not a pedophile. Even d'Ewes is not writing that Bacon was a child abuser. You exaggerate in order to claim that Bacon was not homosexual. D'Ewes doesn't care of so-called rape of children of 15 years. I think it is perhaps the contrary : for him, Godrick could very well be a demoniac character. Nobody is talking of pedophilia, or rape of children. It is misrepresentation. You are inventing a lot of things. And be quiet.
Limitorder 17:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
9 or 10 years, it is not 15.
Limitorder 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
My only problem is to present neutrally the two unconclusive theories, that's all and I will do it. There's nothing in these theories stating that Bacon was a pedophile, with girls or with boys. Anyway, I think that a girl of 14 or 15 is certainly able to be pregnant. That's false problems.
Limitorder 17:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I have perfectly understand. You have not to be so arrogant. Simply, it is not interesting and prove absolutely nothing on any point. You are inventing a lot of baseless problems : we couldn't present the theories about Bacon's homosexuality because of your strange and victorian argumentation on homosexuality, pederasty and age ? None of the theories is presenting him as a pedophile, that's one of your fantasy and weird inventions such as rape of children ; there have never been any allusion about that. Anyway, I am not presenting Bacon as a criminal in the new neutral presentation of the two theories, you can be sure. Nobody have never mentioned that bizarre argumentation but you.
Limitorder 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Be quiet, it is bad for your earth. If asserting that scholars thinking that Bacon was homosexual write that he was actually a pedophile is not unneutral and scandalous, so...