addeth (he says) that people affirmed that such Maygames had been fitter in the spring (when sports were used amongst the Romans to Flora) and not in the autumn when people were seriously employed to fetch in the fruits of the earth. But by his leave, these expressions flow from critics, and fly far above the capacities of countrymen." Here Fuller seems to have been deceived by his own learning, and to have for gotten that the May-game was an incident of spring in England as well as at Rome. The incongruity of May-games (ludi florales means no more) in harvest time, must have been intelligible enough to any Englishman. XIV. The only remaining additions or corrections which I find in Bacon's hand occur in the trial of the Earl of Essex for treason in February 1600-1. They are few and slight, but sufficient to shew that he had read that part of the history with care. As it stands in Hearne's edition, in which these corrections are introduced, it may be regarded as having in a manner received his sanction. 1. Camden had represented Bacon himself (p. 853.) as saying at the trial (in answer to Essex's assertion that the violence of Cobham, Cecil, and Raleigh had driven him to take up arms in necessary self-defence) that Cobham, Cecil, and Raleigh were such sincere honest men, and had such large estates (adeo sincere probos esse, et ab opibus instructos), that they would never overthrow their estates and hopes by committing such a crime. For the words adeo sincere probos, &c. Bacon substitutes (Faust. F. ix. fo. 82.) tales esse et animo et fortunis: 'were of such a condition both in mind and in fortunes, that they would never' &c. Which agrees with the summary of the argument as given in the Declaration of Treasons. "Then it was shewed how improbable it was, considering that my Lord Cobham and Sir Walter Raleigh were men whose estates were better settled and established than to overthrow their fortunes by such a crime." 2. In the next sentence Camden had represented him as observing that the fictions put forward by Essex of a plot against his life, fell to the ground by reason of their inconsistency and variety-inasmuch as Essex, not keeping to one story, cried out at one time that he was to have been murdered in his bed, at another in a boat, at another by the Jesuits; and likewise by the vanity of them (necnon e vanitate), since he exclaimed that the kingdom of England was to have been sold to the Spaniard. For necnon e vanitate, cum exclamaret c. Bacon substitutes Quinetiam subinde exclamaret &c. (nay and he cried out presently after &c.) His argument, as represented both in the contemporary reports of the trial and in the Declaration, was not that the story about the kingdom being to be sold to the Spaniard was so vain a fiction as to shake the credit of the whole plea (the vanity of it was proved by other evidence), but that it was irrelevant to the point in question, which was the taking up arms in self-defence against private enemies. 3. Camden had represented him as adding, that it was a familiar thing to traitors (proditoribus) to strike at princes not directly but through the sides of their ministers. For proditoribus Bacon substitutes defectionem et rebellionem tentantibus: 'attempters of revolt and rebellion.' 4. In the next sentence, Camden had represented him as taxing Essex with deep dissimulation, as if he had put on the mask of piety; and likening him to Pisistratus of Athens, who had gashed his body, &c. (Essexium profunde dissimulationis arguit, quasi pietatis larvam induerat: et Pisistrato Atheniensi assimilat, qui corpus &c.) For this Bacon substitutes Esserii factum profunda dissimulationis arguit, quale fuit illud Pisistrati Atheniensis, qui corpus &c. He taxes the action of Essex with deep dissimulation; comparing it to that of Pisistratus,' &c. There is nothing about the "mask of piety" either in the report or in the Declaration. Such an imputation would indeed have been quite from the purpose; for Pisistratus's object was not to gain a reputation for piety, but to make people think that he was in danger of his life. The report of the trial says, "I cannot resemble your proceedings more rightly than to one Pisistratus," &c. And in the Declaration, the substance of the argument is thus given, "It was said ... that this action of his resembled the action of Pisistratus of Athens, that proceeded so far in this kind of fiction and dissimulation, as he lanced his own body, &c." 5. At a later stage of the trial, Essex argued that if he had meant anything else than his own defence against private persons, he would not have gone forth with so small a force and so slightly armed. To which (Camden had added, p. 856.) Bacon replied, "This was cunningly done of you, who placed all your hope in the citizens' arms, expecting them to arm both yourself and your party and to take arms in your behalf; imitating herein the Duke of Guise, &c. (vafre hoc a te factum, qui in civium armis spem totam defixisti, ut te tuosque armarent et pro te arma caperent; imitatus in hoc Guisium, qui Lutetiam &c.) For this Bacon substitutes (in accordance, as before, with the contemporary reports and with the Declaration) "Cui Baconus: at in hoc imitatus es recens exemplum Guisi, qui Lutetiam non ita pridem cum pauculis ingressus, cives nihilominus ad arma ita concitavit ut Regem urbe exturbaret." 'But in this you imitated the recent example of the Duke of Guise, who, no long time since, though he entered Paris with a small company, yet he roused the citizens to take up arms, in such sort that the King was obliged to fly the city.' The words in italic are inserted in Bacon's hand. In Hearne's edition nihilominus is inserted after Lutetiam; which is wrong. When I examined the volume in the Bodleian Library into which these corrections have been transcribed, I neglected to observe whether the same mistake occurs there. But as that volume was printed after Camden's death, and the corrections may all have been made from the Cotton MS., we are so far without evidence that they had received Camden's own sanction. That they were derived from a fair copy in which they had been incorporated under his superintendence, seems to me improbable, considering the nature of the errors into which the transcriber has fallen (see above, pp. 50, 52, 59.); all of which materially injure the sense and construction. VOL. XII. |