In a second letter he writes: "I thought good to remember your good Lordship and to request you as I touched in my last that if my Lord Treasurer be absent your Lordship would forbear to fall into my business with her Majesty lest it mought receive some foil before the time when it should be resolutely dealt in." Only Burghley was found to support Essex's advocacy, and on the whole this was not to be wondered at. Such an appointment, to say the least, would have been an experiment. Possibly Essex was the stumbling-block, but it may be that the real objection on the part of the Queen and her advisers was that Bacon was known to be so amorous of certain learned arts, so much given over to invention, that the consensus of opinion was that he was thereby unfitted to hold an important office of the State. Or it may be that he was discredited by his suspected or known association with certain printers. There was some reason of which no explanation can now be traced. It has been suggested that in 1591 there was a crisis in Bacon's life. That is evident from the letter to Burghley written in that year. John Harrington's translation of "Orlando Furioso" was published about this time. The manuscript, which is in a perfect condition, is in the British Museum, and has been marked in Bacon's handwriting throughout. The pagination and the printer's signature are placed at the commencement of the stanzas to be printed on each page, and there are instructions to the printer at the end which are not in his hand. There are good grounds for attributing the notes at the end of each chapter to Bacon. It is very improbable that Sir John Harrington had the classical knowledge which the writer of these notes must have possessed. There is a letter written by him to Sir Amias Pawlett, dated January, 1606-7. He is relating an interview with King James, and says: "Then he (the king) enquyrede muche of lernynge and showede me his owne in such sorte as made me remember my examiner at Cambridge aforetyme. He soughte muche to knowe my advances in philosophie and utterede profounde sentences of Aristotle and such lyke wryters, whiche I had never reade and which some are bolde enoughe to saye others do not understand." It would be difficult to mention any classical author with whose works the writer of these notes was not familiar, or to believe that "Epigrams both Pleasant and Serious" (1615) came from the pen of that writer.