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 profunda dissimulationis arguit, quasi pietatis larvam induerat: et Pisistrato Atheniensi assimilat, qui corpus &c.) For this Bacon substitutes Essexii 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. |