Though historical scholarship in technical writing has been sparse, what is available on Francis Bacon has tended to focus on Bacon's influence in directing scientific discourse toward the use of plain prose. This article shows that in many ways, Bacon's theory of rhetoric for specialized, knowledge-seeking fields directly conflicts with that of those who support plain prose for these fields. In addition, the rhetorical method Bacon utilized in presenting the theory has subverted the effect of much of his theory. Consequently, it is not surprising that Bacon's actual theory differs both from what was transferred to the Royal Society and from posterity's interpretation of it.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ZappanJ.Francis Bacon and the Rhetoric of Science, College Composition and Communication, 26, p. 244, 1975.
2.
MorrisX., Principles of Scientific and Technical Writing, McGraw Hill, New York, p. 21, 1966.
3.
KinneavyJ., A Theory of Discourse, Norton, New York, p. 169, 1980.
4.
ParadisJ., Bacon, Linnaeus, and Lavoisier: Early Language Reform in the Sciences, in New Essays in Technical and Scientific Communication: Research, Theory, Practice, AndersonP. V.BrockmanR. J., and MillerC. R. (eds.), Baywood Publishing Co., Inc., Farmingdale, New York, 1983.
5.
StephensJ., Style as Therapy in Renaissance Science, in New Essays in Technical and Scientific Communication: Research, Theory, Practice, AndersonP. V.BrockmanR. J., and MillerC. R. (eds.), Baywood Publishing Co., Inc., Farmingdale, New York, 1983.
6.
HalloranM. and WhitburnM., Ciceronian Rhetoric and the Rise of Science: The Plain Style Reconsidered, in The Rhetorical Tradition and Modern Writing, MLA, pp. 58–72, 1982.
7.
SpeddingJ.EllisR., and HeathD. (eds.), Parasceve, in The Works of Francis Bacon, Brown and Taggard, 15 Vol., 1860–1864, Vol. 8, p. 360 (all quotations from Bacon's works are from this edition).
8.
FrankP., Contemporary Science and the Contemporary World View, in Science and Language, BorkA. (ed.), D. C. Heath, New York, p. 7, 1966.
9.
StephensJ., Francis Bacon and the Style of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, p. 123, 1975.
10.
VickersB., Francis Bacon and Renaissance Prose, The Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Chapters 5–6, 1968.
11.
AdolphR., The Rise of Modern Prose Style, MIT Press, Boston, Massachusetts, p. 55, 1968.
12.
SpratT., History of the Royal Society, CopeJ. and JonesH. (eds.), Washington, University Press, St. Louis, Missouri, p. 113, 1958.
13.
CullersJ., On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, p. 86, 1982.
14.
JohnsonB., The Critical Difference: Essays in the Contemporary Rhetoric of Reading, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland, p. 5, 1980.
15.
HesseM., Francis Bacon's Philosophy of Science, in Essential Articles for the Study of Francis Bacon, VickersX. (ed.), Archon Books, p. 138, 1968.
16.
Descriptions and Instructions in Medieval Times: Lessons to be Learnt from Geoffrey Chaucer's Scientific Instruction Manual, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 12:2, pp. 243–256, 1982.
17.
I Nam But a Lewd Compilator: Chaucer's “Treatise on the Astrolabe” as Translation, Neupilologische Mitteilungen, 84, pp. 192–200, 1983.
18.
The Effects of Culture on Prose Handling: Preparing for an Influx of Foreign Students in Technical Writing Courses, The Technical Writing Teacher, 10:2, pp. 232–241, 1983.
19.
Theoretical and Empirical Considerations for Designing Openings of Technical and Business Reports, Journal of Business Communication, 20, pp. 41–54, 1983.
20.
Style in Technical Writing: Foundations for Pedagogy, Indirections, forthcoming.
