Bacon’s essay about Great Place derives from his lifetime of experience as a courtier. He visited Elizabeth’s court with his father, the Lord Keeper, in his youth and attended upon her in his own right from at least age 18 when he returned from France. MEN in great place are thrice servants: servants of the sovereign or state; servants of fame; and servants of business. So as they have no freedom; neither in their persons, nor in . Summary Of Of Great Places By Francis Bacon. Francis Bacon's Essay Of Love Sir Francis Bacon was a famous English essayist, lawyer, philosopher and statesman who had a major influence on the philosophy of science. In his time Bacon wrote sixty different essays. He devoted himself to . “Of Great Place” by Bacon was composed during his experience as a courtier. He visited Elizabeth’s court with his father, the Lord Keeper, in his youth and attended upon her in his own right from at least age 18 when he returned from France. Artwork page for ‘Portrait of Isabel Rawsthorne’, Francis Bacon, This is one of the many paintings Bacon made of his friend, the artist Isabel Rawsthorne. He preferred to base such works on photographs of the subject rather than work from goodessay.pwte knowledge of the sitter was also essential. ‘What I want to do is to distort the thing far beyond the appearance, but in the.
September Remember the essays you had to write in high school? Topic sentence, introductory paragraph, supporting paragraphs, conclusion. The conclusion being, say, that Ahab in Moby Dick was a Christ-like figure. So I'm going to try to give the other side of the story: Or at least, how I write one. Mods The most obvious difference between real essays and the things one has to write in school is that real essays are not exclusively about English literature.
Certainly schools should teach students how to write. But due to a series of historical accidents the teaching of writing has gotten mixed together with the study of literature. And so all over the country students are writing not about how a baseball team with a small budget might compete with the Yankees, or the role of color in fashion, or what constitutes a good dessert, but about symbolism in Dickens.
With the result that writing is made to seem boring and pointless. Who cares about symbolism in Dickens? Dickens himself would be more interested in an essay about color or baseball. How did things get this way? To answer that we have to go back almost a thousand years.
Around , Europe at last began to catch its breath after centuries of chaos, and once they had the luxury of curiosity they rediscovered what we call "the classics. These earlier civilizations were so much more sophisticated that for the next several centuries the main work of European scholars, in almost every field, was to assimilate what they knew.
During this period the study of ancient texts acquired great prestige. It seemed the essence of what scholars did. As European scholarship gained momentum it became less and less important; by someone who wanted to learn about science could find better teachers than Aristotle in his own era.
In the 19th century the study of ancient texts was still the backbone of the curriculum. The time was then ripe for the question: The answer, of course, is that the original raison d'etre of classical scholarship was a kind of intellectual archaeology that does not need to be done in the case of contemporary authors. But for obvious reasons no one wanted to give that answer. The archaeological work being mostly done, it implied that those studying the classics were, if not wasting their time, at least working on problems of minor importance.
And so began the study of modern literature. There was a good deal of resistance at first.
The first courses in English literature seem to have been offered by the newer colleges, particularly American ones. But Harvard didn't have a professor of English literature until , and Oxford not till Oxford had a chair of Chinese before it had one of English.
This idea along with the PhD, the department, and indeed the whole concept of the modern university was imported from Germany in the late 19th century. Beginning at Johns Hopkins in , the new model spread rapidly.
Writing was one of the casualties. Colleges had long taught English composition. But how do you do research on composition? The professors who taught math could be required to do original math, the professors who taught history could be required to write scholarly articles about history, but what about the professors who taught rhetoric or composition? What should they do research on? The closest thing seemed to be English literature.
This had two drawbacks: High schools imitate universities. The seeds of our miserable high school experiences were sown in , when the National Education Association "formally recommended that literature and composition be unified in the high school course. It's no wonder if this seems to the student a pointless exercise, because we're now three steps removed from real work: No Defense The other big difference between a real essay and the things they make you write in school is that a real essay doesn't take a position and then defend it.
That principle, like the idea that we ought to be writing about literature, turns out to be another intellectual hangover of long forgotten origins. It's often mistakenly believed that medieval universities were mostly seminaries. In fact they were more law schools. And at least in our tradition lawyers are advocates, trained to take either side of an argument and make as good a case for it as they can.
Whether cause or effect, this spirit pervaded early universities. The study of rhetoric, the art of arguing persuasively, was a third of the undergraduate curriculum.
This is at least nominally preserved in our present-day thesis defense: Defending a position may be a necessary evil in a legal dispute, but it's not the best way to get at the truth, as I think lawyers would be the first to admit.
It's not just that you miss subtleties this way. The real problem is that you can't change the question. And yet this principle is built into the very structure of the things they teach you to write in high school. The topic sentence is your thesis, chosen in advance, the supporting paragraphs the blows you strike in the conflict, and the conclusion-- uh, what is the conclusion?
I was never sure about that in high school. It seemed as if we were just supposed to restate what we said in the first paragraph, but in different enough words that no one could tell. But when you understand the origins of this sort of "essay," you can see where the conclusion comes from.
It's the concluding remarks to the jury. Good writing should be convincing, certainly, but it should be convincing because you got the right answers, not because you did a good job of arguing. When I give a draft of an essay to friends, there are two things I want to know: The boring bits can usually be fixed by cutting.
But I don't try to fix the unconvincing bits by arguing more cleverly. I need to talk the matter over. At the very least I must have explained something badly.
In that case, in the course of the conversation I'll be forced to come up a with a clearer explanation, which I can just incorporate in the essay.
Portrait of Isabel Rawsthorne
More often than not I have to change what I was saying as well. But the aim is never to be convincing per se. As the reader gets smarter, convincing and true become identical, so if I can convince smart readers I must be near the truth. The sort of writing that attempts to persuade may be a valid or at least inevitable form, but it's historically inaccurate to call it an essay. An essay is something else. Trying To understand what a real essay is, we have to reach back into history again, though this time not so far.
To Michel de Montaigne, who in published a book of what he called "essais. Essayer is the French verb meaning "to try" and an essai is an attempt.
An essay is something you write to try to figure something out. You don't know yet. And so you can't begin with a thesis, because you don't have one, and may never have one. An essay doesn't begin with a statement, but with a question. In a real essay, you don't take a position and defend it. You notice a door that's ajar, and you open it and walk in to see what's inside.
If all you want to do is figure things out, why do you need to write anything, though? Why not just sit and think? Well, there precisely is Montaigne's great discovery. Expressing ideas helps to form them. Indeed, helps is far too weak a word.
Most of what ends up in my essays I only thought of when I sat down to write them. That's why I write them. In the things you write in school you are, in theory, merely explaining yourself to the reader. In a real essay you're writing for yourself. You're thinking out loud. Just as inviting people over forces you to clean up your apartment, writing something that other people will read forces you to think well.
So it does matter to have an audience. The things I've written just for myself are no good. They tend to peter out. When I run into difficulties, I find I conclude with a few vague questions and then drift off to get a cup of tea. Many published essays peter out in the same way. Particularly the sort written by the staff writers of newsmagazines. Outside writers tend to supply editorials of the defend-a-position variety, which make a beeline toward a rousing and foreordained conclusion.
But the staff writers feel obliged to write something "balanced. Abortion, for or against?