Francis Bacon and his secret society - Grand Lodge of Colorado

138 FRANCIS BACON
But lie,
apparently, intentionally and ingeniously confuses Ids
story, in the same manner of which examples will be given in
the chapter on " Feigned Histories j" in the same way, too, as
the accounts of the origin of Freemasonry are garbled and
mixed up, in order to puzzle the uninitiated reader.
He remembers (be says in the Apologia) an answer of bis " in
a matter which had some affinity with my Lord of Essex's cause,
which, though it grew from me, went after about in others' names. 1
For her Majesty, being mightily incensed with that book which
was dedicated to my Lord (being a story of tbe first year of Kiug
Henry IV.), thinking it a seditious prelude to put into the
people's heads boldness and faction, said she had a good
opinion there was treason in it, and asked Die if I could not find
any places in it that might be drawn within case of treason
whereunto I answered, for treason surely found I none, but for
felony very many. And when her Majesty hastily asked me
wherein? I told her the author had committed very apparent
theft, for he had taken most of the sentences of Cornelius
Tacitus and translated them into English, and put them into his
text."
Tbis we see is of the play; but the story continues: " Another
time, when the Queen would not be persuaded tbat it was his
writing whose name was to it, but that it had some more mischievous
author, and said, with great indignation, that she
would have him racked to produce his author, I replied, Nay,
'
Madame, he is a doctor [Bacon, therefore, had now turned the
argument on to Br. Hayward's pamphlet] ; never rack his person,
rack his stile; let him have pens, ink, and paper, and help of
books, and be enjoined to continue the story where it leaves off,
and I will undertake, by collecting the stiles, to judge whether
he were the author or no.' " It should be observed tbat Bacon
does not propose to " collect " or collate the style of the pamphlet
with that of the play, which would be the obvious thing
to do if the author of the obnoxious play and the author of the
equally obnoxious pamphlet were supposed to be in collusion.
l Docs this enigmatical sentence mean that the play in question was his,
although it passed under the name of another ?