ADVERTISEMENT.

ADVERTISEMENT.THE following Observations having met with a more favourable reception than so hasty an Essay had any title to claim, I have endeavoured to render them less imperfect by a revisal, and by adding such new remarks as a more attentive examination of a very copious subject has suggested.In the discussion of any other question, I should have treated the gentlemen whose arguments I have endeavoured to confute, with that ceremonious respect to which Literature is entitled from all her sons. “A commentator (as the most judicious critick of the present age has observed) should be grave;” but the cause of Rowley, and the mode in which it has been supported, are “too risible for any common power of face.”January 31, 1782.CURSORY OBSERVATIONSON THEP O E M SATTRIBUTED TOTHOMAS ROWLEY.NEVERsurely was the course marked out by our great Satirist—And write about it, Goddess, and about it—more strictly followed, than in the compositions which the presentRowleiomaniahas produced. Mercy upon us! Two octavo volumes and a huge quarto, to prove the forgeries of an attorney’s clerk at Bristol in 1769, the productions of a priest in the fifteenth century!——Fortunate Chatterton! What the warmest wishes of the admirers of the greatest Genius that England ever produced have not yet effected, a magnificent and accurate edition of his works, with notes and engravings, the product of thy fertile brain has now obtained.—It is almost needless to say, that I allude to two new publications by Mr. Bryant, and the Dean of Exeter; in themodesttitle of one of which,the authenticityof the poems attributed to Thomas Rowley is said to beascertained; the other gentleman indeed does not go so far—he onlyconsiders and defends their antiquity.—Many persons, no doubt, will be deterred bythe size of these worksfrom reading them. It is not, however, so great as they may imagine; for Mr. Bryant’s book is in fact only a moderate octavo, though by dextrous management it has been divided into two volumes, to furnish an excuse (as it should seem) for demanding an uncommon price. Bulky, however, as these works are, I have just perused them, and entreat the indulgence of those who think the discussion of a much controverted literary point worth attention, while I lay before them some observations on this inexhaustible subject.And, first, I beg leave to lay it down as a fixed principle, that the authenticity or spuriousness of the poems attributed to Rowley cannot be decided by any person who has not atastefor English poetry, and a moderate, at least, if not a critical, knowledge of the compositions of most of our poets from the time of Chaucer to that of Pope. Such a one alone is, in my opinion, a competent judge of this matter; and were a jury of twelve such persons empaneled to try the question, I have not the smallest doubt what would be their almost instantaneous decision. Without this critical knowledge and taste, all the Saxon literature that can beemployed on this subject (though these learned gentlemen should pour out waggon instead of cart-loads of it,) will only puzzle and perplex, instead of illustrating, the point in dispute. Whether they are furnished with any portion of this critical taste, I shall now examine. But that I may not bewilder either my readers or myself, I will confine my observation to these four points. 1. The verification of the poems attributed to Rowley. 2. The imitations of modern authours that are found in them. 3. The anachronisms with which they abound. 4. The hand-writing of the Mss.—the parchments, &c.I. It is very obvious, that the first and principal objection to the antiquity of these poems is the smoothness of the versification. A series of more than three thousand lines, however disfigured by old spelling, flowing for the most part as smoothly as any of Pope’s—is a difficult matter to be got over. Accordingly the learned Mythologist, Mr. Bryant, has laboured hard to prove, either, that other poets of the fifteenth century have written as smoothly, or, if you will not allow him this, that Rowley was a prodigy, and wrote better than all his contemporaries; and that this is not at all incredible, it happening very frequently. And how, think you, gentle reader, he proves his first point? He produces some verses from Spenser, written about the year 1571; some from Sir John Cheke, written in 1553; and others from Sir H. Lea,master of the Armoury to queen Elizabeth. These having not the smallest relation to the present question, I shall take no notice of them. He then cites some verses of blind Harry, (who knows not blind Harry?) written in the time of King Edward IV.; and some fromthe Pilgrimage of the Soul, printed by Caxton in 1483. I will not encumber my page by transcribing them; and will only observe, that they do not at all prove the point for which they are adduced, being by no means harmonious. But were these few verses ever so smooth, they would not serve to decide the matter in controversy. The question is not, whether in Chaucer, or any other ancient English poet, we can find adozenlines as smooth as“Wincing she was, as is a jolly colt,“Long as a mast, and upright as a bolt—”but whether we can findthree thousandlines as smooth as these; containing the same rythm, the very collocation and combination of words used in the eighteenth century.Let us bring this matter to a very fair test. Any quotation from particular parts of old poetry is liable to suspicion, and may be thought to be selected by the advocates on one side as remarkably harmonious, or by those on the other as uncommonly rugged and uncouth. I will therefore transcribe the first four lines of as many ancient poems as are now lying before me; and I request that they may be comparedwith the opening ofthe Battle of Hastings, No1, the piece which happens to stand first in the new quarto edition of Chatterton’s works.Divested of its old spelling, which is only calculated to mislead the reader, and to assist the intended imposition, it begins thus:“O Christ, it is a grief for me to tell“How many a noble earl and val’rous knight“In fighting for king Harold nobly fell,“All slain in Hastings’ field, in bloody fight.”Or, as Chatterton himself acknowledged this to be a forgery, perhaps it will be more proper to quote the beginning ofthe Battle of Hastings, No2, which he asserted to be a genuine, ancient composition:“O Truth! immortal daughter of the skies,“Too little known to writers of these days,“Teach me, fair saint, thy passing worth to prize,“To blame a friend, and give a foeman praise.”The first four lines ofthe Vision of Pierce Plowman, by William (or Robert) Langland, who flourished about the year 1350, are as follows: [I quote from the edition printed in 1561.]“In a summer season, when set was the sunne,“I shope me into shroubs, as I a shepe were,“In habit as an hermet, unholye of werkes,“Went wide in the werlde, wonders to here.”Chaucer, who died in 1400, opens thus: [Tyrwhitt’s edit. 1775.]“Whanne that April with his shoures sote“The droughte of March hath perced to the rote,“And bathed every veine in swiche licour,“Of whiche vertue engendred is the flour—.”TheConfessio Amantisof Gower, who died in 1402, begins thus: [Berthelette’s edit. 1532.]“I maye not stretche uppe to the heven“Myn honde, ne set al in even“This worlde, whiche ever is in balaunce,“It stant not in my suffisaunce——.”Of Occleve’s translation of Egidiusde Regimine principum, not having it before me, I cannot transcribe the first lines. But here are the first that Mr. Warton has quoted from that poet, and he probably did not choose the worst. I should add, that Occleve wrote in the reign of King Henry V., about the year 1420:“Aristotle, most famous philosofre,“His epistles to Alisaunder sent,“Whos sentence is wel bet then golde in cofre,“And more holsum, grounded in trewe entent——.”The following is the first stanza ofthe Letter of Cupide, written by the same authour, and printed in Thynne’s edition of Chaucer, 1561:“Cupide, unto whose commaundement“The gentill kinrede of goddes on hie“And people infernall ben obedient,“And al mortal folke serven busely,“Of the goddesse sonne Cythera onely,“To al tho that to our deite“Ben subjectes, hertely greting sende we.”Of John Lydgate’sHistorie of Troye, which was finished about the year 1420, this is the beginning: [edit. 1555.]“O myghty Mars, that with thy sterne lyght“In armys hast the power and the myght,“And named arte from easte tyl occident“The myghty lorde, the god armipotent,“That with the shininge of thy stremes rede“By influence dost the brydell lede“Of chivalrie, as soveraygne and patron—.”The Hystorie of King Boccus and Sydracke, &c. printed in 1510, and written by Hugh Campeden in the reign of Henry VI. i.e. some time between the year 1423 and 1461, begins thus:“Men may finde in olde bookes,“Who soo yat in them lookes,“That men may mooche here,“And yerefore yff yat yee wolle lere——.”Of Thomas Chestre’s poems, entitledSir Launfale, written about the same time, these are the first lines:“Ledouzty Artours dawes“That held Engelond in good lawe,“Ther fell a wondyr cas“Of a ley that was ysette——.”The first lines that I have met with of Hardynge’sChronicle of England unto the reigne of king Edward the Fourth, in verse, [composed about the year 1470, and printed in 1543, 4to] are as follows:“Truly I heard Robert Ireliffeè say,“Clarke of the Greené Cloth, and that to the houshold“Came every daye, forth most part alway,“Ten thousand folke, by his messes told—.”The following is the only specimen that I have seen ofThe Ordinal, a poem written by Thomas Norton, a native of Bristol, in the reign of King Edward IV.“Wherefore he would set up inhigth“That bridge, for a wonderful sight,“With pinnacles guilt, shinynge as goulde,“A glorious thing for men to behoulde.”The poem onHawking, Hunting, and Armoury, written by Julian Barnes in the reign of the same monarch, (about 1481,) begins thus:“My dere sones, where ye fare, by frith, or by fell,“Take good hede in this tyme, how Tristram woll tell,“How many maner bestes of venery there were,“Listenes now to our dame, and ye shullen here.”The only extract that I have met with from William of Naffyngton’sTreatise on the Trinitie, translated from John of Waldenby, about the year 1480, runs thus:“I warne you first at the begynnynge,“That I will make no vaine carpynge,“Of dedes of armes, ne of amours,“As does Mynstrellis and Gestours——.”I cannot adhere to the method that I have in general observed, by quoting the first lines ofthe Moral Proverbes of Christyneof Pyse, translated in metre by earl Rivers, and printed by Caxton in the seventeenth year of Edward IV. (1478), not having a copy of that scarce book. However, as this is the era of the pretended Rowley, I cannot forbear to transcribe the last stanza of that poem, as I find it cited in an account of this accomplished nobleman’s works:“Of these sayynges Christyne was the aucturesse,“Which in makyn had such intelligence,“That thereof she was mireur and maistresse;“Her werkes testifie thexperience;“In Frensh languaige was written this sentence;“And thus englished doth hit reherse“Antoin Widevylle therle Ryvers.”The first stanza ofthe Holy Lyfe of Saynt Werburge, written by Henry Bradshaw, about the year 1500, and printed in 1521, is this:“When Phebus had ronne his cours in sagittari,“And Capricorne entred a sygne retrograt,“Amyddes Decembre, the ayre colde and frosty,“And pale Lucyna the erthe dyd illuminat,“I rose up shortly fro my cubycle preparat,“Aboute mydnyght, and cast in myne intent“How I myght spende the tyme convenyent.”Stephen Hawes’s celebrated poem, entitledthe Passetyme of pleasure, or the Historie of Graunde Amour and La bell Pucell, &c. (written about the year 1506, and printed by Wynkyn de Worde in 1517,) being now before me, I am enabled to transcribe the first lines:“When Phebus entred was in Geminy,“Shinyng above, in his fayre golden sphere,“And horned Dyane, then but one degre“In the crabbe had entred, fayre and cleare——.”A*This very rare poem escaped the researches of the learned and ingenious Mr. Warton, who doubted whether it had ever been printed. See hisHist. of Eng. Poetry, vol. II. p. 211.Of theExample of VirtueA*, written by the same authour, and printed by Wynkyn de Worde in 1530, this is the first stanza:“In September, in fallynge of the lefe,“Whan Phebus made his inclynacyon,“And all the whete gadred was in the shefe,“By radyaunt hete and operacyon,“When the vyrgyn had full dominacyon,“And Dyane entred was one degre“Into the sygne of Gemyne——”The first piece of Skelton, most of whose poems were written between 1509 and 1529, begins thus:“Arrestyngemy sight towarde the zodiake“The signes xii for to beholde a farre,“When Mars retrogaunt reversed his backe,“Lorde of the yere in his orbicular——.”The reader has now before him specimens of ancient poetry, during a period of near two hundred years; that is, for a century before the pretended Thomas Rowley is said to have written, and for near a century afterwards. They are for the most part taken from the commencement ofthe works of the several authours; so that there can be no suspicion of their having been selected, on account of their uncouthness, to prove a particular point. I know not whether I flatter myself; but by making these short extracts, I imagine that I have thrown more light upon the subject now under consideration, than if I had transcribed twenty pages of Junius, and as many of Skinner’sEtymologicon, or Doomsday-book. Poetical readers may now decide the question for themselves; and I believe they will very speedily determine, that the lines which have been quoted from Chatterton’s poems were not written at any one of the eras abovementioned, and will be clearly of opinion with Mr. Walpole, (whose unpublished pamphlet on this subject, printed at Strawberry Hill, shows him to be as amiable as he is lively and ingenious,) that this wonderful youth has indeed “copied ancient language, but ancient style he has never been able to imitate:” not for want of genius, for he was perhaps the second poetical genius that England has produced, but because he attempted something too arduous for human abilities to perform. My objection is not to single words, to lines or half-lines of these compositions (for here the advocates for their authenticity always shift their ground, and plead, that any particular exceptionable word or passage was the interpolation of Chatterton); but it is to their whole structure, style, and rythm. Many of the stones which this ingenious boy employed in his building, it must be acknowledged, are as old asthose at Stone-henge; but the beautiful fabrick that he has raised is tied together by modern cement, and is covered with a stucco of no older date than that of Mess. Wyat and Adams.To be more particular: In what poet of the time of Edward IV., or for a century afterwards, will the Dean of Exeter find what we frequently meet with in theBattle of Hastings, No1, and No2, at the conclusion of speeches—“Thus he;”—“Thus Leofwine;”—“He said; and as,” &c? In none I am confident. This latter is a form of expression in heroick poetry, that Pope has frequently made use of in his Homer (from whence Chatterton undoubtedly copied it), and was sometimes employed by Dryden and Cowley; but I believe it will not be easy to trace it to Harrington or Spenser; most assuredly it cannot be traced up to the fifteenth century.——In what English poem of that age will he find similies dressed in the modern garb with which Chatterton has clothed them throughout these pieces?—“As whena flight of cranes, &c.—Soprone,” &c.—“As whena drove of wolves, &c.Sofought,” &c. &c.—If the reverend Antiquarian can find this kind of phraseology in any one poet of the time of King Edward IV., or even for fifty years afterwards, I will acknowledge the antiquity of every line contained in his quarto volume. Most assuredly neither he nor his colleague can produce any such instance. Even in the latter end of thesixteenthcentury, (a large bound from 1460,) poetical comparisons, of the kind here alluded to, weregenerallyexpressed either thus—“Look howthe crown that Ariadne wore, &c.So,” &c. “Look howa comet at the first appearing, &c.Sodid the blazing of my blush,” &c. “Look howthe world’s poor people are amazed, &c.So,” &c.—Or thus: “Even asan empty eagle sharpe by fast, &c.—Even so,” &c.—“Like asa taper burning in the darke, &c.So,” &c.—Such is the general style of the latter end of the sixteenth century; though sometimes (but very rarely) the form that Chatterton has used was also employed by Spenser and others. In the preceding century, if I am not much mistaken, it was wholly unknown.But I have perhaps dwelled too long on this point. Every poetical reader will find instances of modern phraseology in almost every page of these spurious productions. I will only add, before I quit the subject of style, that it is observable, that throughout these poems we never finda noun in the plural numberjoined with a verb in the singular; an offence against grammar which every ancient poet, from the time of Chaucer to that of Shakespeare, has frequently committed, and from which Rowley, if such a poet had existed, would certainly not have been exempted.With respect to the stanza that Chatterton has employed in his two poems on theBattle of Hastings,Mr.Bryant and the Dean of Exeter seem to think that they stand on sure ground, and confidently quote Gascoigne, to prove that such a stanza was known to our old English poets. “The greatestpart of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (says the latter gentleman, p. 30), and his Legend of Good Women, are in the decasyllabick couplet; butin generalLidgate’s, Occleve’s,Rowley’s, Spenser’s, and a great part of Chaucer’s poetry, is written in stanzas ofseven,eight, orninedecasyllabick lines;to which Rowleygenerallyadds a tenth, and closes it with anAlexandrine.All these may be ranked under the title ofRithme Royal; of which Gascoigne, in hisInstructions for English verse, has given the following description: “Rithme Royal is a verse of ten syllables, andsevensuch verses make a staffe, whereof the first and third do answer acrosse in the terminations and rime; the second, fourth, and fifth, do likewise answer eche other in terminations; and the two last combine and shut up the sentence: this hath been called Rithme Royal, and surely it is a royal kind of verse, serving best for grave discourses.” I leave it to the reverend Antiquarian to reconcile the contradictory assertions with which the passage I have now quoted sets out; and shall only observe, that we have here a great parade of authority, but nothing like a proof of the existence of such a stanza as Chatterton has used, in the time of K. Edward IV.; and at last the Commentator is obliged to have recourse to this flimzy kind of reasoning: “The different number of lines contained in the stanza makes no material alteration in the structure of this verse, the stanza always concluding with a couplet: in that of six lines, the four first rime alternately; in that of nine, whereinSpenser has composed his Fairy Queen, the sixth line rimes to the final couplet, and the seventh to the fifth:Rowley having added another line to the stanza, the eighth rimes with the sixth.”—The upshot of the whole is, that Rowley himself, or rather Chatterton, is at last the only authority to show that such a stanza was employed at the time mentioned. And it is just with this kind of circular proof that we are amused, when any very singular fact is mentioned in Chatterton’s verses: “This fact, say the learned Commentators, is also minutely described by Rowley in theYellow Roll, which wonderfully confirms the authenticity of these poems;” i.e. one forgery of Chatterton in prose, wonderfully supports and authenticates another forgery of his in rhyme.—To prevent the Dean from giving himself any farther trouble in searching for authorities to prove that the stanza of theBattle of Hastings(consisting of two quatrains rhyming alternately, and a couplet,) was known to our early writers, I beg leave to inform him, that it was not used till near three centuries after the time of the supposed Rowley; having been, if I remember right, first employed by Prior, who considered it as an improvement on that of Spenser.II. The second point that I proposed to consider is, the imitations of Pope’s Homer, Shakspeare, Dryden, Rowe, &c. with which these pieces abound. And here the cautious conduct of Chatterton’s new commentator is very remarkable. All the similies that poor Chatterton borrowedfrom Pope’s or Chapman’s Homer, to embellish hisBattle of Hastings, are exhibited boldly; but then “they were all clearly copied from the original of the Grecian Bard,” in whom we are taught, that Rowley was better read than any other man, during the preceding or subsequent century: but in the tragedy ofElla, and other pieces, where we in almost every page meet with lines and half-lines of Shakspeare, Dryden, &c. the reverend Antiquarian is less liberal of his illustrations. Indeed when the fraud is so manifest as not to be concealed, the passage is produced. Thus inEllawe meet“My love is dead,“Gone to her death-bed,“All under the willow tree——”and here we are told, “the burthen of this roundelay very much resembles that in Hamlet:”“And will he not come again?“And will he not come again?“No, no, he is dead;“Go to thy death-bed,“He never will come again.”But when we meet—“Why thou art all that pointelle can bewreen”—evidently from Rowe—“Is she not more than painting can express?”—the editor is very prudently silent.So also in theBattle of Hastingswe find“In agonies and pain he then did lie,“While life and death strove for the mastery——”clearly from Shakspeare:“That Death and Nature do contend about them,“Whether they live or die.”So also inElla:“Fen-vapours blast thy every manly power!”taken from the same author:“As wickeddewas e’er my mother brushed“With raven’s feather from unwholesomefen,“Light on you both!”   [Tempest.]“Yefen-suck’d fogs, drawn by the powerful sun,“To fall andblast&c.”   [King Lear.]Thus again inElla:“O thou, whate’er thy name, or Zabalus or Queede,“Come steel my sable spright, for fremde and doleful deed—”from theDunciad:“O thou, whatever title please thine ear,“Dean, Drapier, &c.”But in all these, and twenty other places, not a word is said by the editor.—I am ashamed of taking up the time of my readers in discussing such points as these. Such plain and direct imitationsas Chatterton’s, could scarcely impose on a boy of fifteen at Westminster School.In theBattle of Hastingswe meet“His noble soul came rushing from the wound—”B*It is observable, that this is the last line of the translation of the Æneid.from Dryden’s Virgil—“And the disdainful soul came rushing through the wound—B*”and in Sir Charles Bawdin,“And tears began to flow;”1Dryden’s very words inAlexander’s Feast. But it was hardly possible, says the learned Commentator, for these thoughts to be expressed in any other words.Indeed! I suppose five or six different modes of expressing the latter thought will occur to every reader.Can it be believed, that every one of the lines I have now quoted, this gentleman maintains to have been written by a poet of the fifteenth century (for all that Chatterton ever did, according to his system, was supplying lacunæ, if there were any in the Mss., or modernizing a few antiquated phrases)? He argues indeed very rightly, that thewholeof these poems must have been written byoneperson. “Two poets, (he observes, p. 81,) so distant in their æra [as Rowley and Chatterton], so different from each other intheir age and disposition, could not have united their labours [hemeans, their labours could not unite or coalesce] in the same poem to any effect, without such apparent difference in their style, language, and sentiments, as would have defeated Chatterton’s intent of imposing his works on the public, as the original and entire composition of Rowley.”—Most readers, I suppose, will more readily agree with his premises than his conclusion. Every part of these poems was undoubtedlywritttenby one person; but that person was not Rowley, but Chatterton.What reason have we to doubt, that he who imitated all the English poets with whom he was acquainted, likewise borrowed his Homerick images from the versions of Chapman and Pope; in the latter of which he found these allusions dressed out in all the splendid ornaments of the eighteenth century?In the new commentary, indeed, on theBattle of Hastings, we are told again and again, that many of the similies which the poet has copied from Homer, contain circumstances that are found in the Greek, but omitted in Mr. Pope’s translation. “Here therefore we have a certain proof that the authour of these poems could read Homer in the originalC*.” But the youngest gownsman atOxford or Cambridge will inform the reverend critick, that this is anon sequitur; for the poetmight have had the assistance ofothertranslations, besides those of Pope; the English prose version from that of Madame Dacier, the translations by Chapman and by Hobbes. Nor yet will it follow from his havingoccasionallyconsultedtheseversions, that he wasnot at all indebted to Pope; as this gentleman endeavours to persuade us in p. 82. and 106. He availed himself, without doubt, of them all. Whenever the Commentator can show a single thought in these imitations of the Grecian Bard, that is found in the original, and not inanyof those translations, I will readily acknowledge thatthe Battle of Hastings, and all the other pieces contained in his quarto volume, were written by Rowley, or Turgot, or Alfred the Great, or Merlin, or whatever other existent or non-existent ancient he or Mr. Bryant shall choose to ascribe them to. Most assuredly no such instance can be pointed out.C*To show how very weak and inconclusive the arguments of Chatterton’s new Editor are on this head, I shall cite but one passage, from which the reader may form ajudgment of all the other illustrations with which he has decorated theBattle of Hastings:——“Siere de Broque an arrowe longe lettflie,Intending Herewaldus to have sleyne;Itmiss’d, but hytte Edardus on the eye,And at his pole came out with horrid payne.”So Homer (says the Commen­tator):———ὀϊστὸν ἀπὸ νευρῆφιν ἴαλλενἝκτορος ἀντικρὺ, βαλέειν δὲ ἑ ἵετο θυμός‧Καὶ τοῦ μέν ῥ’ ἀφάμαρθ’ ὁ δ’ ἀμύμονα ΓοργυθίωναΥἱὸν ἐῢν Πριάμοιο, κατὰ στῆθος βάλεν ἰῷ.Il.Θ.v. 300.“He said, and twang’d the string, the weaponflies“AtHector’s breast, and sings along the skies;“Hemiss’dthe mark, but pierc’d Gorgythio’s heart.”Pope, B. viii. v. 365.“The imitation here seems to be very apparent, but it is the imitation of Homer, and not of Pope; both Homer and Rowley express the intention of the archer, which is dropped by the translator of the Greek poet.” Chatterton’sPoems, quarto, p. 83. Edit. Milles.To my apprehension, the intention of the archer is very clearly expressed in Pope’s lines; but it is unnecessary to contest that point, for lo! thus has old Chapman translated the same passage:“This said, another arrow forth from his stiffe string he sent“At Hector,whom he long’d to wound; but still amisse it went;“His shaft smit faire Gorgy­thion.”Of such reasoning is the new Commentary on Chatterton’s poems composed.I do not however rest the matter here. What are we to conclude, if in Chatterton’s imitations of Homer, we discover some circumstances that exist in Pope’s translation, of which but very faint traces appear in the original Greek? Such, I believe, may be found. It is observable, that in all the similies we meet with many of the very rhymes that Pope has used. Will this Commentator contend, that the learned Rowley not only understood Homer, at a time when his contemporaries had scarcely heard of his name, but also foresaw in the reign of Edward IV. those additionalgraces with which Mr. Pope would embellish him three hundred years afterwards?III. The Anachronisms come next under our consideration. Of these also the modern-antique compositions which we are now examining, afford a very plentiful supply; and not a little has been the labour of the reverend Commentator to do away their force. The first that I have happened to light upon is in the tragedy ofElla, p. 212:“She said, as her white hands white hosen were knitting.“What pleasure it is to be married!”It is certain that the art of knitting stockings was unknown in the time of king Edward IV., the era of the pretended Rowley. This difficulty, therefore, was by all means to be gotten over. And whom of all men, think you, courteous reader, this sagacious editor has chosen as an authority to ascertain the high antiquity of this practice? No other than our great poet Shakspeare; who was born in 1564, and died in 1616. Poor Shakspeare, who gave to all the countries in the world, and to all preceding eras, the customs of his own age and country, he is the authour that is chosen for this purpose! “If this Scotch art (says the Commentator) was so far advanced in a foreign country in the beginning of the sixteenth century, can there be a doubt of its being known in England half a century earlier? At least the art of knitting,and weaving bone-lace, wasmore ancientthan queen Elizabeth’s time; for Shakspeare speaks ofoldandanticksongs, which“The spinsters and theknittersin the sun,“And the free maids thatweave their thread with bone,“Did use to chaunt.”Twelfth Night, Act II. Sc. 4.It might be sufficientto observe, that the old songs which were chaunted by the spinsters and knitters of Shakspeare’s days, do not very clearly ascertain the antiquity of theoperationon which they were employed; for I apprehend, though the art of knitting had not been invented till 1564, when the poet was born, the practisers of it might yet the very next day after it was known, sing ballads that were written a hundred years before.—In order, however, to give some colour to the forced inference that the commentator has endeavoured to extract from this passage, he has misquoted it; for Shakspeare does not say, as he has been represented, that the spinsters of old timediduse to chaunt these songs: his words are,“O fellow, come, the song we had last night;“Mark it, Cesario, it is old and plain:“The spinsters and the knitters in the sun,“And the free maids that weave their thread with bones,“Douse to chaunt it.”These lines, it must be acknowledged, prove that the art wasasold as the time of Shakspeare,but not one hourmoreancient; nor would they answer the Commentator’s purpose, even if they had been uttered by Portia inJulius Cæsar, by the Egyptian queen inAntony and Cleopatra, or by Nestor inTroilusandCressida; for, as I have already observed, our great poet gave to all preceding times the customs of his own age.—If the learned editor should hereafter have occasion to prove, thatDickandHobwere common names at Rome, and that it was an usual practice of the populace there, two thousand years ago, to throw up their caps in the air, when they were merry, or wished to do honour to their leaders, I recommend the play ofCoriolanusto his notice, where he will find proofs to this purpose, all equally satisfactory with that which he has produced fromTwelfth Night, to show the antiquity of the art of knitting stockings in England.Many of the poems and prose works attributed to Rowley, exhibitanachronismssimilar to that now mentioned. Bristol is called a city, though it was not one till long after the death of king Edward IV. Cannynge is spoken of as possessing aCabinetof coins and other curiositiesD*, a centuryat least before any Englishman ever thought of forming such a collection.Drawings, in the modern and technical sense of delineations on paper or vellum, with chalks or Indian ink, are mentioned a hundred and fifty years before the word was ever used with that signification.Manuscriptsare noticed as rarities, with the idea at present annexed to them; and eagerly sought after and purchased by Rowley, at a time when printed books were not known, and when all the literature of the times was to be found in manuscripts alone. All these anachronismsdecisivelyprove the spuriousness of these compositions. Other anachronisms may be traced in the poems before us, but they are of less weight, being more properly poetical deviations fromcostume. However I will briefly mention them. Tilts and tournaments are mentioned at a period when they were unknown.God and my Rightisthe word used by duke William inthe Battle of Hastings, though it was first used by king Richard I. after the victory at Grizors; and hatchments and armorial bearings, which were first seen at the time of the Croisades, are introduced in other places with equal impropriety.D*Chatterton in his description of Cannynge’s love of the arts, &c. seems often to have had Mr. Walpole in his eye; which was very natural, that gentleman being probably the first person who was at once a man of literature and rank, of whose character he had any knowledge.—Thus,Mr. W. having a very curious collection of pictures, prints, &c. Cannynge too must be furnished with a cabinet of coins and other rarities; and there being a private printing-press at Strawberry-Hill, (the only one perhaps in England,) the Bristol Mayor must likewise have one. It is in one of his letters that has not yet been printed, that Chatterton mentions his having read an account in the Rowley Mss. of Cannynge’s intention to set up aprinting-pressat Westbury! This merchant died in 1474; during the greater part of his life printing was unknown; and even at the time of his death there was but one printing-press in this kingdom, namely, that set up by Caxton, in the Almonry of Westminster Abbey, about the year 1471.One of Chatterton’s earliest fictions was an ode or short poem of two or three stanzas inalternate rhyme, on the death of that monarch, which he sent to Mr. Walpole, informing him at the same time, that it had been found at Bristol with many other ancient poems. This, however, either C. or his friends thought proper afterwards to suppress. It is not, I believe, generally known, that this is the era which was originally fixed upon by this wonderful youth for his forgeries, though afterwards, as appears from Mr. Walpole’s pamphlet already mentioned, having been informed that no such metres as he exhibited as ancient, were known in the age of Richard I., he thought proper to shift the era of his productions. It is remarkable, that one line yet remains in these poems, evidently written on the first idea:“Richard of lion’s heart to fightisgone.”“It is very improbable, as the same gentleman observes, that Rowley, writing in the reign of Henry VI., or Edward IV., as is now pretended, or in that of Henry IV., as was assigned by the credulous, before they had digested their system, should incidentally, in a poem on anothersubject, say,nowis Richard &c.” Chatterton, having stored his mind with images and customs suited to the times he meant originally for the era of his fictitious ancient, introduced them as well as he could in subsequent compositions. One other singular circumstance, which I learn from the same very respectable authority, I cannot omit mentioning.E*This fraud having been detected, we hear no more of it; but in the room of it has been substitutedA List of skyllde Payncterrs and Carvellers, which is now said to have been found along with the other Mss. and to be in the possession of Mr. Barret, of Bristol.Among the Mss. that Chatterton pretended to have discovered in the celebrated chest at Bristol was a painter’s billE*, of which, like the rest, he produced only a copy. Great was the triumph of his advocates. Here was an undoubted relick of antiquity! And so indeed it was; for it was faithfully copied from the first volume of theAnecdotes of Painting, printed some years before; and had been originally transcribed by Vertue from some old parchments in the church of St. Mary Redcliffe at Bristol (a person, by the by, who was indefatigable in the pursuit of every thing that related to our ancient poets, and who certainly at the same time would have discovered some traces of the pretended Rowley, if any of his poetry had been lodged in that repository). Can there be a doubt, that he who was convicted of having forged this paper, andowned that he wrote the firstBattle of Hastings, and theAccount of the ceremonies observed at the opening of the Old Bridge, was the authour of all the rest also? Were he charged in a court of justice with having forged various notes, and clear evidence given of the fact, corroborated by the additional testimony of his having on a former occasion fabricated a Will of a very ancient date, would a jury hesitate to find him guilty, because two purblind old women should be brought into court, and swear that the Will urged against him had such an ancient appearance, the hand-writing and language by which the bequests were made was so old, and the parchment so yellow, that they could not but believe it to be a genuine deed of a preceding century?—But I have insensibly wandered from the subject of Anachronisms. So much, however, has been already said by others on this point, that I will now hasten to the last matter which I meant to consider,viz.the Mss. themselves, which are said to have contained these wonderful curiosities.IV. And on this head we are told by Mr. B. that the hand-writing, indeed, is not that of any particular age, but that it is very difficult to know precisely the era of a Ms., especially when of great antiquity; that our kings wrote very different hands, and many of them such, that it is impossible to distinguish one from the other; and that the diminutive size of the parchmentson which these poems were written,F*At the bottom of each sheet of old deeds (of which there were many in the Bristol chest) there is usually a blank space of about four or five inches in breadth. C. therefore found these slips of discoloured parchment at hand.(of which, I think, the largest that these Commentators talk of is eight inches and a half long, and four and a half broadF*,) was owing to the great scarcity of parchment in former times, on which account the lines often appear in continuation, without regard to the termination of the verse.Most of these assertions are meregratis dicta, without any foundation in truth. I am not very well acquainted with the ancient Mss. of the fourteenth or fifteenth century: but I have now before me a very fair Ms. of the latter end of the sixteenth century, in which the characters are as regular and uniform as possible. If twenty Mss. were produced to me, some of that era, and others of eras prior and subsequent to it, I would undertake to point out the hand-writing of the age of queen Elizabeth, which is that of the Ms. I speak of, from all the rest; and I make no doubt that persons who are conversant with the hand-writing of preceding centuries, could with equal precision ascertain the age of more ancient Mss. than any that I am possessed of. But the truth is, (as any one may see, who accurately examines thefac simileexhibited originally by Mr. Tyrwhitt in his edition of these poems, and now again by theDean of Exeter in the new edition of them,) that Chatterton could not, accurately and for any continuance, copy the hand-writing of the fifteenth century; nor do the Mss. that he produced exhibit the hand-writing ofanycentury whatever. He had a turn for drawing and emblazoning; and he found, without doubt, some ancient deeds in his father’s old chest. These he copied to the best of his power; but the hand-writing usually found in deeds is very different from the current hand-writing of the same age, and from that employed in transcribing poems. To copy even these deeds to any great extent, would have been dangerous, and have subjected him to detection. Hence it was, that he never produced any parchment so large as a leaf of common folio.—What we are told of the great scarcity of parchment formerly, is too ridiculous to be answered. Who has not seen the various beautiful Mss. of the works of Gower and Chaucer, in several publick and private libraries, on parchment and on vellum, a small part of any one of which would have been sufficient to contain all the poems of Rowley, in the manner in which they are pretended to have been written?—But any speculation on this point is but waste of time. If such a man as Rowley had existed, who could troul off whole verses of Shakspeare, Dryden, and Pope, in the middle of the fifteenth century, he would have had half the parchment in the kingdom at his command; statues would have been erected tohim as the greatest prodigy that the world had ever seen; and in a few years afterwards, when printing came to be practised, the presses of Caxton and Wynkyn de Worde would have groaned with his productions.Much stress is laid upon Chatterton’s having been seen frequently writing, with old crumpled parchments before him. No doubt of the fact. How else could he have imitated old hands inanymanner, or have been able to form even the few pretended originals that he did produce? But to whom did he ever show these old Mss. when he was transcribing them? To whom did he ever say—“Such and such characters denote such letters, and the verse that I now show you in this old parchment is of this import?” Whom did he call upon, knowing in ancient hands, (and such undoubtedly he might have found,) to establish, by the testimony of his own eyes, the antiquity, not of one, but of all these Mss? If an ingenuous youth (as Mr. W. justly observes), “enamoured of poetry, had really found a large quantity of old poems, what would he have done? Produced them cautiously, and one by one, studied them, and copied their style, and exhibited sometimes a genuine, and sometimes a fictitious piece? or blazed the discovery abroad, and called in every lover of poetry and antiquity to participation of the treasure? The characters of imposture are on every part of the story; and were it true, it would still remain one of those improbable wonders, which we have no reason for believing.”What has been said already concerning forged compositions, cannot be too often repeated. If these Mss. or any part of them exist, why are they not deposited in the British Museum, or some publick library, for the examination of the curious? Till they are produced, we have a right to use the language that Voltaire tells us was used to the Abbé Nodot. “Show us your Ms. of Petronius, which you say was found at Belgrade, or consent that nobody shall believe you. It is as false that you have the genuine satire of Petronius in your hands, as it is false that that ancient satire was the work of a consul, and a picture of Nero’s conduct. Desist from attempting to deceive the learned; you can only deceive the vulgar.”Beside the marks of forgery already pointed out, these poems bear yet another badge of fraud, which has not, I believe, been noticed by any critick. Chatterton’s verses have been shown to be too smooth and harmonious to be genuine compositions of antiquity: they are liable at the same time to the very opposite objection; they are too old for the era to which they are ascribed. This sounds like a paradox; yet it will be found to be true. The versification is too modern; the language often too ancient. It is not the language of any particular period of antiquity, but oftwo entirecenturies.—This is easily accounted for. Chatterton had no other means of writing old language, but by applying to glossaries and dictionaries, and thesecomprise all the antiquated words of preceding times; many provincial words used perhaps by a northern poet, and entirely unknown to a southern inhabitant; many words also, used in a singular sense by our ancient bards, and perhaps by them only once. Chatterton drawing his stores from such a copious source, his verses must necessarily contain words of various and widely-distant periods. It is highly probable, for this reason, that many of his lines would not have been understood by one who lived in the fifteenth century.—That the diction of these poems is often too obsolete for the era to which they are allottedG*, appears clearly from hence; many of them are much more difficult to a reader of this day, without a glossary, than any one of the metrical compositions of the age of Edward IV. Let any person, who is not veryprofoundly skilled in the language of our elder poets, read a few pages of any of the poems of the age of that king, from whence I have already given short extracts, without any glossary or assistance whatsoever; he will doubtless meet sometimes with words he does not understand, but he will find much fewer difficulties of this kind, than while he is perusing the poems attributed to Rowley. The language of the latter, without a perpetual comment, would in most places be unintelligible to a common reader. He might, indeed, from the context,guessat something like the meaning; but the lines, I am confident, will be found, on examination, to contain twenty times more obsolete and obscure words than any one poem of the age of king Edward IV, now extant.G*Mr. Bryant seems to have been aware of this objection, and thus endeavours to obviate it. “Indeed in some places the language seems more obsolete than could be expected for the time of king Edward the Fourth; and the reason is, that some of the poems, however new modelled, were prior to that æra. ForRowley himself[i.e. Chatterton] tells us that he borrowed from Turgot; and we have reason to think thathelikewise copied from Chedder.” This same Chedder, he acquaints us in a note, was “a poet mentioned intheMss., [that is, in Chatterton’s Mss., for I believe his name is not to be found elsewhere.] who is supposed to have flourished about the year 1330. He is said [by Chatterton] to have had somemaumeriesat thecomitatingthe city.”Observations, p. 553. I wonder the learned commentator did not likewise inform us, from the sameunquestionable authority, what wightMaistreChedder copied.Before I conclude, I cannot omit to take notice of two or three particulars on which the Dean of Exeter and Mr. Bryant much rely. The former, in his Dissertation onElla, says, “Whatever claim might have been made in favour of Chatterton as the author [ofthe Battle of Hastings], founded either on his own unsupported and improbable assertion, or on the supposed possibility of his writing these two poems, assisted by Mr. Pope’s translation [of Homer], no plea of this kind can be urged with regard to any other poem in the collection, and least of all to the dramatick works, or the tragedy ofElla; which required not only anelevation of poetic genius far superior to that possessed by Chatterton, but also such moral and mental qualifications as never entered into any part of his character or conduct, and which could not possibly be acquired by a youth of his age and inexperience.” “Where (we are triumphantly asked) could he learn the nice rules of the Interlude, by the introduction of a chorus, and the application of their songs to the moral and virtuous object of the performance?”—Where?—from Mr. Mason’sElfridaandCaractacus, in which he found a perfect model of the Greek drama, and which doubtless he had read. ButElla“inculcates the precepts of morality;” and Chatterton, it is urged, was idle and dissolute, and therefore could not have been the authour of it. Has then the reverend editor never heard of instances of the purest system of morality being powerfully enforced from the pulpit by those who in their own lives have not been always found to adhere rigidly to the rules that they laid down for the conduct of others? Perhaps not; but I suppose many instances of this kind will occur to every reader. The world would be pure indeed, if speculative and practical morality were one and the same thing. “That knowledge of times, of men, and manners,” without which, it is said,Ellacould not have been written, I find no difficulty in believing to have been possessed by this very extraordinary youth. Did henot, when he came to London, instead of being dazzled and confounded by the various new objects that surrounded him, become in a short time, by that almost intuitive faculty which accompanies genius, so well acquainted with all the reigning topicks of discourse, with the manners and different pursuits of various classes of men, with the state of parties, &c. as to pour out from the press a multitude of compositions on almost every subject that could exercise the pen of the oldest and most experienced writerH*? He who could do this, could composethe tragedy ofEllaI†: (a name, by the by, that he probably found in Dr. Percy’sReliques of Ancient Poetry, Vol. I. p. xxiv.)

THE following Observations having met with a more favourable reception than so hasty an Essay had any title to claim, I have endeavoured to render them less imperfect by a revisal, and by adding such new remarks as a more attentive examination of a very copious subject has suggested.

In the discussion of any other question, I should have treated the gentlemen whose arguments I have endeavoured to confute, with that ceremonious respect to which Literature is entitled from all her sons. “A commentator (as the most judicious critick of the present age has observed) should be grave;” but the cause of Rowley, and the mode in which it has been supported, are “too risible for any common power of face.”

January 31, 1782.

NEVERsurely was the course marked out by our great Satirist—And write about it, Goddess, and about it—more strictly followed, than in the compositions which the presentRowleiomaniahas produced. Mercy upon us! Two octavo volumes and a huge quarto, to prove the forgeries of an attorney’s clerk at Bristol in 1769, the productions of a priest in the fifteenth century!——Fortunate Chatterton! What the warmest wishes of the admirers of the greatest Genius that England ever produced have not yet effected, a magnificent and accurate edition of his works, with notes and engravings, the product of thy fertile brain has now obtained.—It is almost needless to say, that I allude to two new publications by Mr. Bryant, and the Dean of Exeter; in themodesttitle of one of which,the authenticityof the poems attributed to Thomas Rowley is said to beascertained; the other gentleman indeed does not go so far—he onlyconsiders and defends their antiquity.—Many persons, no doubt, will be deterred bythe size of these worksfrom reading them. It is not, however, so great as they may imagine; for Mr. Bryant’s book is in fact only a moderate octavo, though by dextrous management it has been divided into two volumes, to furnish an excuse (as it should seem) for demanding an uncommon price. Bulky, however, as these works are, I have just perused them, and entreat the indulgence of those who think the discussion of a much controverted literary point worth attention, while I lay before them some observations on this inexhaustible subject.

And, first, I beg leave to lay it down as a fixed principle, that the authenticity or spuriousness of the poems attributed to Rowley cannot be decided by any person who has not atastefor English poetry, and a moderate, at least, if not a critical, knowledge of the compositions of most of our poets from the time of Chaucer to that of Pope. Such a one alone is, in my opinion, a competent judge of this matter; and were a jury of twelve such persons empaneled to try the question, I have not the smallest doubt what would be their almost instantaneous decision. Without this critical knowledge and taste, all the Saxon literature that can beemployed on this subject (though these learned gentlemen should pour out waggon instead of cart-loads of it,) will only puzzle and perplex, instead of illustrating, the point in dispute. Whether they are furnished with any portion of this critical taste, I shall now examine. But that I may not bewilder either my readers or myself, I will confine my observation to these four points. 1. The verification of the poems attributed to Rowley. 2. The imitations of modern authours that are found in them. 3. The anachronisms with which they abound. 4. The hand-writing of the Mss.—the parchments, &c.

I. It is very obvious, that the first and principal objection to the antiquity of these poems is the smoothness of the versification. A series of more than three thousand lines, however disfigured by old spelling, flowing for the most part as smoothly as any of Pope’s—is a difficult matter to be got over. Accordingly the learned Mythologist, Mr. Bryant, has laboured hard to prove, either, that other poets of the fifteenth century have written as smoothly, or, if you will not allow him this, that Rowley was a prodigy, and wrote better than all his contemporaries; and that this is not at all incredible, it happening very frequently. And how, think you, gentle reader, he proves his first point? He produces some verses from Spenser, written about the year 1571; some from Sir John Cheke, written in 1553; and others from Sir H. Lea,master of the Armoury to queen Elizabeth. These having not the smallest relation to the present question, I shall take no notice of them. He then cites some verses of blind Harry, (who knows not blind Harry?) written in the time of King Edward IV.; and some fromthe Pilgrimage of the Soul, printed by Caxton in 1483. I will not encumber my page by transcribing them; and will only observe, that they do not at all prove the point for which they are adduced, being by no means harmonious. But were these few verses ever so smooth, they would not serve to decide the matter in controversy. The question is not, whether in Chaucer, or any other ancient English poet, we can find adozenlines as smooth as

“Wincing she was, as is a jolly colt,“Long as a mast, and upright as a bolt—”

“Wincing she was, as is a jolly colt,

“Long as a mast, and upright as a bolt—”

but whether we can findthree thousandlines as smooth as these; containing the same rythm, the very collocation and combination of words used in the eighteenth century.

Let us bring this matter to a very fair test. Any quotation from particular parts of old poetry is liable to suspicion, and may be thought to be selected by the advocates on one side as remarkably harmonious, or by those on the other as uncommonly rugged and uncouth. I will therefore transcribe the first four lines of as many ancient poems as are now lying before me; and I request that they may be comparedwith the opening ofthe Battle of Hastings, No1, the piece which happens to stand first in the new quarto edition of Chatterton’s works.

Divested of its old spelling, which is only calculated to mislead the reader, and to assist the intended imposition, it begins thus:

“O Christ, it is a grief for me to tell“How many a noble earl and val’rous knight“In fighting for king Harold nobly fell,“All slain in Hastings’ field, in bloody fight.”

“O Christ, it is a grief for me to tell

“How many a noble earl and val’rous knight

“In fighting for king Harold nobly fell,

“All slain in Hastings’ field, in bloody fight.”

Or, as Chatterton himself acknowledged this to be a forgery, perhaps it will be more proper to quote the beginning ofthe Battle of Hastings, No2, which he asserted to be a genuine, ancient composition:

“O Truth! immortal daughter of the skies,“Too little known to writers of these days,“Teach me, fair saint, thy passing worth to prize,“To blame a friend, and give a foeman praise.”

“O Truth! immortal daughter of the skies,

“Too little known to writers of these days,

“Teach me, fair saint, thy passing worth to prize,

“To blame a friend, and give a foeman praise.”

The first four lines ofthe Vision of Pierce Plowman, by William (or Robert) Langland, who flourished about the year 1350, are as follows: [I quote from the edition printed in 1561.]

“In a summer season, when set was the sunne,“I shope me into shroubs, as I a shepe were,“In habit as an hermet, unholye of werkes,“Went wide in the werlde, wonders to here.”

“In a summer season, when set was the sunne,

“I shope me into shroubs, as I a shepe were,

“In habit as an hermet, unholye of werkes,

“Went wide in the werlde, wonders to here.”

Chaucer, who died in 1400, opens thus: [Tyrwhitt’s edit. 1775.]

“Whanne that April with his shoures sote“The droughte of March hath perced to the rote,“And bathed every veine in swiche licour,“Of whiche vertue engendred is the flour—.”

“Whanne that April with his shoures sote

“The droughte of March hath perced to the rote,

“And bathed every veine in swiche licour,

“Of whiche vertue engendred is the flour—.”

TheConfessio Amantisof Gower, who died in 1402, begins thus: [Berthelette’s edit. 1532.]

“I maye not stretche uppe to the heven“Myn honde, ne set al in even“This worlde, whiche ever is in balaunce,“It stant not in my suffisaunce——.”

“I maye not stretche uppe to the heven

“Myn honde, ne set al in even

“This worlde, whiche ever is in balaunce,

“It stant not in my suffisaunce——.”

Of Occleve’s translation of Egidiusde Regimine principum, not having it before me, I cannot transcribe the first lines. But here are the first that Mr. Warton has quoted from that poet, and he probably did not choose the worst. I should add, that Occleve wrote in the reign of King Henry V., about the year 1420:

“Aristotle, most famous philosofre,“His epistles to Alisaunder sent,“Whos sentence is wel bet then golde in cofre,“And more holsum, grounded in trewe entent——.”

“Aristotle, most famous philosofre,

“His epistles to Alisaunder sent,

“Whos sentence is wel bet then golde in cofre,

“And more holsum, grounded in trewe entent——.”

The following is the first stanza ofthe Letter of Cupide, written by the same authour, and printed in Thynne’s edition of Chaucer, 1561:

“Cupide, unto whose commaundement“The gentill kinrede of goddes on hie“And people infernall ben obedient,“And al mortal folke serven busely,“Of the goddesse sonne Cythera onely,“To al tho that to our deite“Ben subjectes, hertely greting sende we.”

“Cupide, unto whose commaundement

“The gentill kinrede of goddes on hie

“And people infernall ben obedient,

“And al mortal folke serven busely,

“Of the goddesse sonne Cythera onely,

“To al tho that to our deite

“Ben subjectes, hertely greting sende we.”

Of John Lydgate’sHistorie of Troye, which was finished about the year 1420, this is the beginning: [edit. 1555.]

“O myghty Mars, that with thy sterne lyght“In armys hast the power and the myght,“And named arte from easte tyl occident“The myghty lorde, the god armipotent,“That with the shininge of thy stremes rede“By influence dost the brydell lede“Of chivalrie, as soveraygne and patron—.”

“O myghty Mars, that with thy sterne lyght

“In armys hast the power and the myght,

“And named arte from easte tyl occident

“The myghty lorde, the god armipotent,

“That with the shininge of thy stremes rede

“By influence dost the brydell lede

“Of chivalrie, as soveraygne and patron—.”

The Hystorie of King Boccus and Sydracke, &c. printed in 1510, and written by Hugh Campeden in the reign of Henry VI. i.e. some time between the year 1423 and 1461, begins thus:

“Men may finde in olde bookes,“Who soo yat in them lookes,“That men may mooche here,“And yerefore yff yat yee wolle lere——.”

“Men may finde in olde bookes,

“Who soo yat in them lookes,

“That men may mooche here,

“And yerefore yff yat yee wolle lere——.”

Of Thomas Chestre’s poems, entitledSir Launfale, written about the same time, these are the first lines:

“Ledouzty Artours dawes“That held Engelond in good lawe,“Ther fell a wondyr cas“Of a ley that was ysette——.”

“Ledouzty Artours dawes

“That held Engelond in good lawe,

“Ther fell a wondyr cas

“Of a ley that was ysette——.”

The first lines that I have met with of Hardynge’sChronicle of England unto the reigne of king Edward the Fourth, in verse, [composed about the year 1470, and printed in 1543, 4to] are as follows:

“Truly I heard Robert Ireliffeè say,“Clarke of the Greené Cloth, and that to the houshold“Came every daye, forth most part alway,“Ten thousand folke, by his messes told—.”

“Truly I heard Robert Ireliffeè say,

“Clarke of the Greené Cloth, and that to the houshold

“Came every daye, forth most part alway,

“Ten thousand folke, by his messes told—.”

The following is the only specimen that I have seen ofThe Ordinal, a poem written by Thomas Norton, a native of Bristol, in the reign of King Edward IV.

“Wherefore he would set up inhigth“That bridge, for a wonderful sight,“With pinnacles guilt, shinynge as goulde,“A glorious thing for men to behoulde.”

“Wherefore he would set up inhigth

“That bridge, for a wonderful sight,

“With pinnacles guilt, shinynge as goulde,

“A glorious thing for men to behoulde.”

The poem onHawking, Hunting, and Armoury, written by Julian Barnes in the reign of the same monarch, (about 1481,) begins thus:

“My dere sones, where ye fare, by frith, or by fell,“Take good hede in this tyme, how Tristram woll tell,“How many maner bestes of venery there were,“Listenes now to our dame, and ye shullen here.”

“My dere sones, where ye fare, by frith, or by fell,

“Take good hede in this tyme, how Tristram woll tell,

“How many maner bestes of venery there were,

“Listenes now to our dame, and ye shullen here.”

The only extract that I have met with from William of Naffyngton’sTreatise on the Trinitie, translated from John of Waldenby, about the year 1480, runs thus:

“I warne you first at the begynnynge,“That I will make no vaine carpynge,“Of dedes of armes, ne of amours,“As does Mynstrellis and Gestours——.”

“I warne you first at the begynnynge,

“That I will make no vaine carpynge,

“Of dedes of armes, ne of amours,

“As does Mynstrellis and Gestours——.”

I cannot adhere to the method that I have in general observed, by quoting the first lines ofthe Moral Proverbes of Christyneof Pyse, translated in metre by earl Rivers, and printed by Caxton in the seventeenth year of Edward IV. (1478), not having a copy of that scarce book. However, as this is the era of the pretended Rowley, I cannot forbear to transcribe the last stanza of that poem, as I find it cited in an account of this accomplished nobleman’s works:

“Of these sayynges Christyne was the aucturesse,“Which in makyn had such intelligence,“That thereof she was mireur and maistresse;“Her werkes testifie thexperience;“In Frensh languaige was written this sentence;“And thus englished doth hit reherse“Antoin Widevylle therle Ryvers.”

“Of these sayynges Christyne was the aucturesse,

“Which in makyn had such intelligence,

“That thereof she was mireur and maistresse;

“Her werkes testifie thexperience;

“In Frensh languaige was written this sentence;

“And thus englished doth hit reherse

“Antoin Widevylle therle Ryvers.”

The first stanza ofthe Holy Lyfe of Saynt Werburge, written by Henry Bradshaw, about the year 1500, and printed in 1521, is this:

“When Phebus had ronne his cours in sagittari,“And Capricorne entred a sygne retrograt,“Amyddes Decembre, the ayre colde and frosty,“And pale Lucyna the erthe dyd illuminat,“I rose up shortly fro my cubycle preparat,“Aboute mydnyght, and cast in myne intent“How I myght spende the tyme convenyent.”

“When Phebus had ronne his cours in sagittari,

“And Capricorne entred a sygne retrograt,

“Amyddes Decembre, the ayre colde and frosty,

“And pale Lucyna the erthe dyd illuminat,

“I rose up shortly fro my cubycle preparat,

“Aboute mydnyght, and cast in myne intent

“How I myght spende the tyme convenyent.”

Stephen Hawes’s celebrated poem, entitledthe Passetyme of pleasure, or the Historie of Graunde Amour and La bell Pucell, &c. (written about the year 1506, and printed by Wynkyn de Worde in 1517,) being now before me, I am enabled to transcribe the first lines:

“When Phebus entred was in Geminy,“Shinyng above, in his fayre golden sphere,“And horned Dyane, then but one degre“In the crabbe had entred, fayre and cleare——.”

“When Phebus entred was in Geminy,

“Shinyng above, in his fayre golden sphere,

“And horned Dyane, then but one degre

“In the crabbe had entred, fayre and cleare——.”

Of theExample of VirtueA*, written by the same authour, and printed by Wynkyn de Worde in 1530, this is the first stanza:

“In September, in fallynge of the lefe,“Whan Phebus made his inclynacyon,“And all the whete gadred was in the shefe,“By radyaunt hete and operacyon,“When the vyrgyn had full dominacyon,“And Dyane entred was one degre“Into the sygne of Gemyne——”

“In September, in fallynge of the lefe,

“Whan Phebus made his inclynacyon,

“And all the whete gadred was in the shefe,

“By radyaunt hete and operacyon,

“When the vyrgyn had full dominacyon,

“And Dyane entred was one degre

“Into the sygne of Gemyne——”

The first piece of Skelton, most of whose poems were written between 1509 and 1529, begins thus:

“Arrestyngemy sight towarde the zodiake“The signes xii for to beholde a farre,“When Mars retrogaunt reversed his backe,“Lorde of the yere in his orbicular——.”

“Arrestyngemy sight towarde the zodiake

“The signes xii for to beholde a farre,

“When Mars retrogaunt reversed his backe,

“Lorde of the yere in his orbicular——.”

The reader has now before him specimens of ancient poetry, during a period of near two hundred years; that is, for a century before the pretended Thomas Rowley is said to have written, and for near a century afterwards. They are for the most part taken from the commencement ofthe works of the several authours; so that there can be no suspicion of their having been selected, on account of their uncouthness, to prove a particular point. I know not whether I flatter myself; but by making these short extracts, I imagine that I have thrown more light upon the subject now under consideration, than if I had transcribed twenty pages of Junius, and as many of Skinner’sEtymologicon, or Doomsday-book. Poetical readers may now decide the question for themselves; and I believe they will very speedily determine, that the lines which have been quoted from Chatterton’s poems were not written at any one of the eras abovementioned, and will be clearly of opinion with Mr. Walpole, (whose unpublished pamphlet on this subject, printed at Strawberry Hill, shows him to be as amiable as he is lively and ingenious,) that this wonderful youth has indeed “copied ancient language, but ancient style he has never been able to imitate:” not for want of genius, for he was perhaps the second poetical genius that England has produced, but because he attempted something too arduous for human abilities to perform. My objection is not to single words, to lines or half-lines of these compositions (for here the advocates for their authenticity always shift their ground, and plead, that any particular exceptionable word or passage was the interpolation of Chatterton); but it is to their whole structure, style, and rythm. Many of the stones which this ingenious boy employed in his building, it must be acknowledged, are as old asthose at Stone-henge; but the beautiful fabrick that he has raised is tied together by modern cement, and is covered with a stucco of no older date than that of Mess. Wyat and Adams.

To be more particular: In what poet of the time of Edward IV., or for a century afterwards, will the Dean of Exeter find what we frequently meet with in theBattle of Hastings, No1, and No2, at the conclusion of speeches—“Thus he;”—“Thus Leofwine;”—“He said; and as,” &c? In none I am confident. This latter is a form of expression in heroick poetry, that Pope has frequently made use of in his Homer (from whence Chatterton undoubtedly copied it), and was sometimes employed by Dryden and Cowley; but I believe it will not be easy to trace it to Harrington or Spenser; most assuredly it cannot be traced up to the fifteenth century.——In what English poem of that age will he find similies dressed in the modern garb with which Chatterton has clothed them throughout these pieces?—“As whena flight of cranes, &c.—Soprone,” &c.—“As whena drove of wolves, &c.Sofought,” &c. &c.—If the reverend Antiquarian can find this kind of phraseology in any one poet of the time of King Edward IV., or even for fifty years afterwards, I will acknowledge the antiquity of every line contained in his quarto volume. Most assuredly neither he nor his colleague can produce any such instance. Even in the latter end of thesixteenthcentury, (a large bound from 1460,) poetical comparisons, of the kind here alluded to, weregenerallyexpressed either thus—“Look howthe crown that Ariadne wore, &c.So,” &c. “Look howa comet at the first appearing, &c.Sodid the blazing of my blush,” &c. “Look howthe world’s poor people are amazed, &c.So,” &c.—Or thus: “Even asan empty eagle sharpe by fast, &c.—Even so,” &c.—“Like asa taper burning in the darke, &c.So,” &c.—Such is the general style of the latter end of the sixteenth century; though sometimes (but very rarely) the form that Chatterton has used was also employed by Spenser and others. In the preceding century, if I am not much mistaken, it was wholly unknown.

But I have perhaps dwelled too long on this point. Every poetical reader will find instances of modern phraseology in almost every page of these spurious productions. I will only add, before I quit the subject of style, that it is observable, that throughout these poems we never finda noun in the plural numberjoined with a verb in the singular; an offence against grammar which every ancient poet, from the time of Chaucer to that of Shakespeare, has frequently committed, and from which Rowley, if such a poet had existed, would certainly not have been exempted.

With respect to the stanza that Chatterton has employed in his two poems on theBattle of Hastings,Mr.Bryant and the Dean of Exeter seem to think that they stand on sure ground, and confidently quote Gascoigne, to prove that such a stanza was known to our old English poets. “The greatestpart of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (says the latter gentleman, p. 30), and his Legend of Good Women, are in the decasyllabick couplet; butin generalLidgate’s, Occleve’s,Rowley’s, Spenser’s, and a great part of Chaucer’s poetry, is written in stanzas ofseven,eight, orninedecasyllabick lines;to which Rowleygenerallyadds a tenth, and closes it with anAlexandrine.All these may be ranked under the title ofRithme Royal; of which Gascoigne, in hisInstructions for English verse, has given the following description: “Rithme Royal is a verse of ten syllables, andsevensuch verses make a staffe, whereof the first and third do answer acrosse in the terminations and rime; the second, fourth, and fifth, do likewise answer eche other in terminations; and the two last combine and shut up the sentence: this hath been called Rithme Royal, and surely it is a royal kind of verse, serving best for grave discourses.” I leave it to the reverend Antiquarian to reconcile the contradictory assertions with which the passage I have now quoted sets out; and shall only observe, that we have here a great parade of authority, but nothing like a proof of the existence of such a stanza as Chatterton has used, in the time of K. Edward IV.; and at last the Commentator is obliged to have recourse to this flimzy kind of reasoning: “The different number of lines contained in the stanza makes no material alteration in the structure of this verse, the stanza always concluding with a couplet: in that of six lines, the four first rime alternately; in that of nine, whereinSpenser has composed his Fairy Queen, the sixth line rimes to the final couplet, and the seventh to the fifth:Rowley having added another line to the stanza, the eighth rimes with the sixth.”—The upshot of the whole is, that Rowley himself, or rather Chatterton, is at last the only authority to show that such a stanza was employed at the time mentioned. And it is just with this kind of circular proof that we are amused, when any very singular fact is mentioned in Chatterton’s verses: “This fact, say the learned Commentators, is also minutely described by Rowley in theYellow Roll, which wonderfully confirms the authenticity of these poems;” i.e. one forgery of Chatterton in prose, wonderfully supports and authenticates another forgery of his in rhyme.—To prevent the Dean from giving himself any farther trouble in searching for authorities to prove that the stanza of theBattle of Hastings(consisting of two quatrains rhyming alternately, and a couplet,) was known to our early writers, I beg leave to inform him, that it was not used till near three centuries after the time of the supposed Rowley; having been, if I remember right, first employed by Prior, who considered it as an improvement on that of Spenser.

II. The second point that I proposed to consider is, the imitations of Pope’s Homer, Shakspeare, Dryden, Rowe, &c. with which these pieces abound. And here the cautious conduct of Chatterton’s new commentator is very remarkable. All the similies that poor Chatterton borrowedfrom Pope’s or Chapman’s Homer, to embellish hisBattle of Hastings, are exhibited boldly; but then “they were all clearly copied from the original of the Grecian Bard,” in whom we are taught, that Rowley was better read than any other man, during the preceding or subsequent century: but in the tragedy ofElla, and other pieces, where we in almost every page meet with lines and half-lines of Shakspeare, Dryden, &c. the reverend Antiquarian is less liberal of his illustrations. Indeed when the fraud is so manifest as not to be concealed, the passage is produced. Thus inEllawe meet

“My love is dead,“Gone to her death-bed,“All under the willow tree——”

“My love is dead,

“Gone to her death-bed,

“All under the willow tree——”

and here we are told, “the burthen of this roundelay very much resembles that in Hamlet:”

“And will he not come again?“And will he not come again?“No, no, he is dead;“Go to thy death-bed,“He never will come again.”

“And will he not come again?

“And will he not come again?

“No, no, he is dead;

“Go to thy death-bed,

“He never will come again.”

But when we meet—“Why thou art all that pointelle can bewreen”—evidently from Rowe—“Is she not more than painting can express?”—the editor is very prudently silent.

So also in theBattle of Hastingswe find

“In agonies and pain he then did lie,“While life and death strove for the mastery——”

“In agonies and pain he then did lie,

“While life and death strove for the mastery——”

clearly from Shakspeare:

“That Death and Nature do contend about them,“Whether they live or die.”

“That Death and Nature do contend about them,

“Whether they live or die.”

So also inElla:

“Fen-vapours blast thy every manly power!”

“Fen-vapours blast thy every manly power!”

taken from the same author:

“As wickeddewas e’er my mother brushed“With raven’s feather from unwholesomefen,“Light on you both!”   [Tempest.]

“As wickeddewas e’er my mother brushed

“With raven’s feather from unwholesomefen,

“Light on you both!”   [Tempest.]

“Yefen-suck’d fogs, drawn by the powerful sun,“To fall andblast&c.”   [King Lear.]

“Yefen-suck’d fogs, drawn by the powerful sun,

“To fall andblast&c.”   [King Lear.]

Thus again inElla:

“O thou, whate’er thy name, or Zabalus or Queede,“Come steel my sable spright, for fremde and doleful deed—”

“O thou, whate’er thy name, or Zabalus or Queede,

“Come steel my sable spright, for fremde and doleful deed—”

from theDunciad:

“O thou, whatever title please thine ear,“Dean, Drapier, &c.”

“O thou, whatever title please thine ear,

“Dean, Drapier, &c.”

But in all these, and twenty other places, not a word is said by the editor.—I am ashamed of taking up the time of my readers in discussing such points as these. Such plain and direct imitationsas Chatterton’s, could scarcely impose on a boy of fifteen at Westminster School.

In theBattle of Hastingswe meet

“His noble soul came rushing from the wound—”

“His noble soul came rushing from the wound—”

from Dryden’s Virgil—

“And the disdainful soul came rushing through the wound—B*”

“And the disdainful soul came rushing through the wound—B*”

and in Sir Charles Bawdin,

“And tears began to flow;”1

“And tears began to flow;”1

Dryden’s very words inAlexander’s Feast. But it was hardly possible, says the learned Commentator, for these thoughts to be expressed in any other words.Indeed! I suppose five or six different modes of expressing the latter thought will occur to every reader.

Can it be believed, that every one of the lines I have now quoted, this gentleman maintains to have been written by a poet of the fifteenth century (for all that Chatterton ever did, according to his system, was supplying lacunæ, if there were any in the Mss., or modernizing a few antiquated phrases)? He argues indeed very rightly, that thewholeof these poems must have been written byoneperson. “Two poets, (he observes, p. 81,) so distant in their æra [as Rowley and Chatterton], so different from each other intheir age and disposition, could not have united their labours [hemeans, their labours could not unite or coalesce] in the same poem to any effect, without such apparent difference in their style, language, and sentiments, as would have defeated Chatterton’s intent of imposing his works on the public, as the original and entire composition of Rowley.”—Most readers, I suppose, will more readily agree with his premises than his conclusion. Every part of these poems was undoubtedlywritttenby one person; but that person was not Rowley, but Chatterton.

What reason have we to doubt, that he who imitated all the English poets with whom he was acquainted, likewise borrowed his Homerick images from the versions of Chapman and Pope; in the latter of which he found these allusions dressed out in all the splendid ornaments of the eighteenth century?

In the new commentary, indeed, on theBattle of Hastings, we are told again and again, that many of the similies which the poet has copied from Homer, contain circumstances that are found in the Greek, but omitted in Mr. Pope’s translation. “Here therefore we have a certain proof that the authour of these poems could read Homer in the originalC*.” But the youngest gownsman atOxford or Cambridge will inform the reverend critick, that this is anon sequitur; for the poetmight have had the assistance ofothertranslations, besides those of Pope; the English prose version from that of Madame Dacier, the translations by Chapman and by Hobbes. Nor yet will it follow from his havingoccasionallyconsultedtheseversions, that he wasnot at all indebted to Pope; as this gentleman endeavours to persuade us in p. 82. and 106. He availed himself, without doubt, of them all. Whenever the Commentator can show a single thought in these imitations of the Grecian Bard, that is found in the original, and not inanyof those translations, I will readily acknowledge thatthe Battle of Hastings, and all the other pieces contained in his quarto volume, were written by Rowley, or Turgot, or Alfred the Great, or Merlin, or whatever other existent or non-existent ancient he or Mr. Bryant shall choose to ascribe them to. Most assuredly no such instance can be pointed out.

C*To show how very weak and inconclusive the arguments of Chatterton’s new Editor are on this head, I shall cite but one passage, from which the reader may form ajudgment of all the other illustrations with which he has decorated theBattle of Hastings:——“Siere de Broque an arrowe longe lettflie,Intending Herewaldus to have sleyne;Itmiss’d, but hytte Edardus on the eye,And at his pole came out with horrid payne.”So Homer (says the Commen­tator):———ὀϊστὸν ἀπὸ νευρῆφιν ἴαλλενἝκτορος ἀντικρὺ, βαλέειν δὲ ἑ ἵετο θυμός‧Καὶ τοῦ μέν ῥ’ ἀφάμαρθ’ ὁ δ’ ἀμύμονα ΓοργυθίωναΥἱὸν ἐῢν Πριάμοιο, κατὰ στῆθος βάλεν ἰῷ.Il.Θ.v. 300.“He said, and twang’d the string, the weaponflies“AtHector’s breast, and sings along the skies;“Hemiss’dthe mark, but pierc’d Gorgythio’s heart.”Pope, B. viii. v. 365.“The imitation here seems to be very apparent, but it is the imitation of Homer, and not of Pope; both Homer and Rowley express the intention of the archer, which is dropped by the translator of the Greek poet.” Chatterton’sPoems, quarto, p. 83. Edit. Milles.To my apprehension, the intention of the archer is very clearly expressed in Pope’s lines; but it is unnecessary to contest that point, for lo! thus has old Chapman translated the same passage:“This said, another arrow forth from his stiffe string he sent“At Hector,whom he long’d to wound; but still amisse it went;“His shaft smit faire Gorgy­thion.”Of such reasoning is the new Commentary on Chatterton’s poems composed.

C*To show how very weak and inconclusive the arguments of Chatterton’s new Editor are on this head, I shall cite but one passage, from which the reader may form ajudgment of all the other illustrations with which he has decorated theBattle of Hastings:

——“Siere de Broque an arrowe longe lettflie,Intending Herewaldus to have sleyne;Itmiss’d, but hytte Edardus on the eye,And at his pole came out with horrid payne.”

——“Siere de Broque an arrowe longe lettflie,

Intending Herewaldus to have sleyne;

Itmiss’d, but hytte Edardus on the eye,

And at his pole came out with horrid payne.”

So Homer (says the Commen­tator):

———ὀϊστὸν ἀπὸ νευρῆφιν ἴαλλενἝκτορος ἀντικρὺ, βαλέειν δὲ ἑ ἵετο θυμός‧Καὶ τοῦ μέν ῥ’ ἀφάμαρθ’ ὁ δ’ ἀμύμονα ΓοργυθίωναΥἱὸν ἐῢν Πριάμοιο, κατὰ στῆθος βάλεν ἰῷ.

———ὀϊστὸν ἀπὸ νευρῆφιν ἴαλλεν

Ἕκτορος ἀντικρὺ, βαλέειν δὲ ἑ ἵετο θυμός‧

Καὶ τοῦ μέν ῥ’ ἀφάμαρθ’ ὁ δ’ ἀμύμονα Γοργυθίωνα

Υἱὸν ἐῢν Πριάμοιο, κατὰ στῆθος βάλεν ἰῷ.

Il.Θ.v. 300.

“He said, and twang’d the string, the weaponflies“AtHector’s breast, and sings along the skies;“Hemiss’dthe mark, but pierc’d Gorgythio’s heart.”

“He said, and twang’d the string, the weaponflies

“AtHector’s breast, and sings along the skies;

“Hemiss’dthe mark, but pierc’d Gorgythio’s heart.”

Pope, B. viii. v. 365.

“The imitation here seems to be very apparent, but it is the imitation of Homer, and not of Pope; both Homer and Rowley express the intention of the archer, which is dropped by the translator of the Greek poet.” Chatterton’sPoems, quarto, p. 83. Edit. Milles.

To my apprehension, the intention of the archer is very clearly expressed in Pope’s lines; but it is unnecessary to contest that point, for lo! thus has old Chapman translated the same passage:

“This said, another arrow forth from his stiffe string he sent“At Hector,whom he long’d to wound; but still amisse it went;“His shaft smit faire Gorgy­thion.”

“This said, another arrow forth from his stiffe string he sent

“At Hector,whom he long’d to wound; but still amisse it went;

“His shaft smit faire Gorgy­thion.”

Of such reasoning is the new Commentary on Chatterton’s poems composed.

I do not however rest the matter here. What are we to conclude, if in Chatterton’s imitations of Homer, we discover some circumstances that exist in Pope’s translation, of which but very faint traces appear in the original Greek? Such, I believe, may be found. It is observable, that in all the similies we meet with many of the very rhymes that Pope has used. Will this Commentator contend, that the learned Rowley not only understood Homer, at a time when his contemporaries had scarcely heard of his name, but also foresaw in the reign of Edward IV. those additionalgraces with which Mr. Pope would embellish him three hundred years afterwards?

III. The Anachronisms come next under our consideration. Of these also the modern-antique compositions which we are now examining, afford a very plentiful supply; and not a little has been the labour of the reverend Commentator to do away their force. The first that I have happened to light upon is in the tragedy ofElla, p. 212:

“She said, as her white hands white hosen were knitting.“What pleasure it is to be married!”

“She said, as her white hands white hosen were knitting.

“What pleasure it is to be married!”

It is certain that the art of knitting stockings was unknown in the time of king Edward IV., the era of the pretended Rowley. This difficulty, therefore, was by all means to be gotten over. And whom of all men, think you, courteous reader, this sagacious editor has chosen as an authority to ascertain the high antiquity of this practice? No other than our great poet Shakspeare; who was born in 1564, and died in 1616. Poor Shakspeare, who gave to all the countries in the world, and to all preceding eras, the customs of his own age and country, he is the authour that is chosen for this purpose! “If this Scotch art (says the Commentator) was so far advanced in a foreign country in the beginning of the sixteenth century, can there be a doubt of its being known in England half a century earlier? At least the art of knitting,and weaving bone-lace, wasmore ancientthan queen Elizabeth’s time; for Shakspeare speaks ofoldandanticksongs, which

“The spinsters and theknittersin the sun,“And the free maids thatweave their thread with bone,“Did use to chaunt.”

“The spinsters and theknittersin the sun,

“And the free maids thatweave their thread with bone,

“Did use to chaunt.”

Twelfth Night, Act II. Sc. 4.

It might be sufficientto observe, that the old songs which were chaunted by the spinsters and knitters of Shakspeare’s days, do not very clearly ascertain the antiquity of theoperationon which they were employed; for I apprehend, though the art of knitting had not been invented till 1564, when the poet was born, the practisers of it might yet the very next day after it was known, sing ballads that were written a hundred years before.—In order, however, to give some colour to the forced inference that the commentator has endeavoured to extract from this passage, he has misquoted it; for Shakspeare does not say, as he has been represented, that the spinsters of old timediduse to chaunt these songs: his words are,

“O fellow, come, the song we had last night;“Mark it, Cesario, it is old and plain:“The spinsters and the knitters in the sun,“And the free maids that weave their thread with bones,“Douse to chaunt it.”

“O fellow, come, the song we had last night;

“Mark it, Cesario, it is old and plain:

“The spinsters and the knitters in the sun,

“And the free maids that weave their thread with bones,

“Douse to chaunt it.”

These lines, it must be acknowledged, prove that the art wasasold as the time of Shakspeare,but not one hourmoreancient; nor would they answer the Commentator’s purpose, even if they had been uttered by Portia inJulius Cæsar, by the Egyptian queen inAntony and Cleopatra, or by Nestor inTroilusandCressida; for, as I have already observed, our great poet gave to all preceding times the customs of his own age.—If the learned editor should hereafter have occasion to prove, thatDickandHobwere common names at Rome, and that it was an usual practice of the populace there, two thousand years ago, to throw up their caps in the air, when they were merry, or wished to do honour to their leaders, I recommend the play ofCoriolanusto his notice, where he will find proofs to this purpose, all equally satisfactory with that which he has produced fromTwelfth Night, to show the antiquity of the art of knitting stockings in England.

Many of the poems and prose works attributed to Rowley, exhibitanachronismssimilar to that now mentioned. Bristol is called a city, though it was not one till long after the death of king Edward IV. Cannynge is spoken of as possessing aCabinetof coins and other curiositiesD*, a centuryat least before any Englishman ever thought of forming such a collection.Drawings, in the modern and technical sense of delineations on paper or vellum, with chalks or Indian ink, are mentioned a hundred and fifty years before the word was ever used with that signification.Manuscriptsare noticed as rarities, with the idea at present annexed to them; and eagerly sought after and purchased by Rowley, at a time when printed books were not known, and when all the literature of the times was to be found in manuscripts alone. All these anachronismsdecisivelyprove the spuriousness of these compositions. Other anachronisms may be traced in the poems before us, but they are of less weight, being more properly poetical deviations fromcostume. However I will briefly mention them. Tilts and tournaments are mentioned at a period when they were unknown.God and my Rightisthe word used by duke William inthe Battle of Hastings, though it was first used by king Richard I. after the victory at Grizors; and hatchments and armorial bearings, which were first seen at the time of the Croisades, are introduced in other places with equal impropriety.

D*Chatterton in his description of Cannynge’s love of the arts, &c. seems often to have had Mr. Walpole in his eye; which was very natural, that gentleman being probably the first person who was at once a man of literature and rank, of whose character he had any knowledge.—Thus,Mr. W. having a very curious collection of pictures, prints, &c. Cannynge too must be furnished with a cabinet of coins and other rarities; and there being a private printing-press at Strawberry-Hill, (the only one perhaps in England,) the Bristol Mayor must likewise have one. It is in one of his letters that has not yet been printed, that Chatterton mentions his having read an account in the Rowley Mss. of Cannynge’s intention to set up aprinting-pressat Westbury! This merchant died in 1474; during the greater part of his life printing was unknown; and even at the time of his death there was but one printing-press in this kingdom, namely, that set up by Caxton, in the Almonry of Westminster Abbey, about the year 1471.

One of Chatterton’s earliest fictions was an ode or short poem of two or three stanzas inalternate rhyme, on the death of that monarch, which he sent to Mr. Walpole, informing him at the same time, that it had been found at Bristol with many other ancient poems. This, however, either C. or his friends thought proper afterwards to suppress. It is not, I believe, generally known, that this is the era which was originally fixed upon by this wonderful youth for his forgeries, though afterwards, as appears from Mr. Walpole’s pamphlet already mentioned, having been informed that no such metres as he exhibited as ancient, were known in the age of Richard I., he thought proper to shift the era of his productions. It is remarkable, that one line yet remains in these poems, evidently written on the first idea:

“Richard of lion’s heart to fightisgone.”

“Richard of lion’s heart to fightisgone.”

“It is very improbable, as the same gentleman observes, that Rowley, writing in the reign of Henry VI., or Edward IV., as is now pretended, or in that of Henry IV., as was assigned by the credulous, before they had digested their system, should incidentally, in a poem on anothersubject, say,nowis Richard &c.” Chatterton, having stored his mind with images and customs suited to the times he meant originally for the era of his fictitious ancient, introduced them as well as he could in subsequent compositions. One other singular circumstance, which I learn from the same very respectable authority, I cannot omit mentioning.E*This fraud having been detected, we hear no more of it; but in the room of it has been substitutedA List of skyllde Payncterrs and Carvellers, which is now said to have been found along with the other Mss. and to be in the possession of Mr. Barret, of Bristol.Among the Mss. that Chatterton pretended to have discovered in the celebrated chest at Bristol was a painter’s billE*, of which, like the rest, he produced only a copy. Great was the triumph of his advocates. Here was an undoubted relick of antiquity! And so indeed it was; for it was faithfully copied from the first volume of theAnecdotes of Painting, printed some years before; and had been originally transcribed by Vertue from some old parchments in the church of St. Mary Redcliffe at Bristol (a person, by the by, who was indefatigable in the pursuit of every thing that related to our ancient poets, and who certainly at the same time would have discovered some traces of the pretended Rowley, if any of his poetry had been lodged in that repository). Can there be a doubt, that he who was convicted of having forged this paper, andowned that he wrote the firstBattle of Hastings, and theAccount of the ceremonies observed at the opening of the Old Bridge, was the authour of all the rest also? Were he charged in a court of justice with having forged various notes, and clear evidence given of the fact, corroborated by the additional testimony of his having on a former occasion fabricated a Will of a very ancient date, would a jury hesitate to find him guilty, because two purblind old women should be brought into court, and swear that the Will urged against him had such an ancient appearance, the hand-writing and language by which the bequests were made was so old, and the parchment so yellow, that they could not but believe it to be a genuine deed of a preceding century?—But I have insensibly wandered from the subject of Anachronisms. So much, however, has been already said by others on this point, that I will now hasten to the last matter which I meant to consider,viz.the Mss. themselves, which are said to have contained these wonderful curiosities.

IV. And on this head we are told by Mr. B. that the hand-writing, indeed, is not that of any particular age, but that it is very difficult to know precisely the era of a Ms., especially when of great antiquity; that our kings wrote very different hands, and many of them such, that it is impossible to distinguish one from the other; and that the diminutive size of the parchmentson which these poems were written,F*At the bottom of each sheet of old deeds (of which there were many in the Bristol chest) there is usually a blank space of about four or five inches in breadth. C. therefore found these slips of discoloured parchment at hand.(of which, I think, the largest that these Commentators talk of is eight inches and a half long, and four and a half broadF*,) was owing to the great scarcity of parchment in former times, on which account the lines often appear in continuation, without regard to the termination of the verse.

Most of these assertions are meregratis dicta, without any foundation in truth. I am not very well acquainted with the ancient Mss. of the fourteenth or fifteenth century: but I have now before me a very fair Ms. of the latter end of the sixteenth century, in which the characters are as regular and uniform as possible. If twenty Mss. were produced to me, some of that era, and others of eras prior and subsequent to it, I would undertake to point out the hand-writing of the age of queen Elizabeth, which is that of the Ms. I speak of, from all the rest; and I make no doubt that persons who are conversant with the hand-writing of preceding centuries, could with equal precision ascertain the age of more ancient Mss. than any that I am possessed of. But the truth is, (as any one may see, who accurately examines thefac simileexhibited originally by Mr. Tyrwhitt in his edition of these poems, and now again by theDean of Exeter in the new edition of them,) that Chatterton could not, accurately and for any continuance, copy the hand-writing of the fifteenth century; nor do the Mss. that he produced exhibit the hand-writing ofanycentury whatever. He had a turn for drawing and emblazoning; and he found, without doubt, some ancient deeds in his father’s old chest. These he copied to the best of his power; but the hand-writing usually found in deeds is very different from the current hand-writing of the same age, and from that employed in transcribing poems. To copy even these deeds to any great extent, would have been dangerous, and have subjected him to detection. Hence it was, that he never produced any parchment so large as a leaf of common folio.—What we are told of the great scarcity of parchment formerly, is too ridiculous to be answered. Who has not seen the various beautiful Mss. of the works of Gower and Chaucer, in several publick and private libraries, on parchment and on vellum, a small part of any one of which would have been sufficient to contain all the poems of Rowley, in the manner in which they are pretended to have been written?—But any speculation on this point is but waste of time. If such a man as Rowley had existed, who could troul off whole verses of Shakspeare, Dryden, and Pope, in the middle of the fifteenth century, he would have had half the parchment in the kingdom at his command; statues would have been erected tohim as the greatest prodigy that the world had ever seen; and in a few years afterwards, when printing came to be practised, the presses of Caxton and Wynkyn de Worde would have groaned with his productions.

Much stress is laid upon Chatterton’s having been seen frequently writing, with old crumpled parchments before him. No doubt of the fact. How else could he have imitated old hands inanymanner, or have been able to form even the few pretended originals that he did produce? But to whom did he ever show these old Mss. when he was transcribing them? To whom did he ever say—“Such and such characters denote such letters, and the verse that I now show you in this old parchment is of this import?” Whom did he call upon, knowing in ancient hands, (and such undoubtedly he might have found,) to establish, by the testimony of his own eyes, the antiquity, not of one, but of all these Mss? If an ingenuous youth (as Mr. W. justly observes), “enamoured of poetry, had really found a large quantity of old poems, what would he have done? Produced them cautiously, and one by one, studied them, and copied their style, and exhibited sometimes a genuine, and sometimes a fictitious piece? or blazed the discovery abroad, and called in every lover of poetry and antiquity to participation of the treasure? The characters of imposture are on every part of the story; and were it true, it would still remain one of those improbable wonders, which we have no reason for believing.”

What has been said already concerning forged compositions, cannot be too often repeated. If these Mss. or any part of them exist, why are they not deposited in the British Museum, or some publick library, for the examination of the curious? Till they are produced, we have a right to use the language that Voltaire tells us was used to the Abbé Nodot. “Show us your Ms. of Petronius, which you say was found at Belgrade, or consent that nobody shall believe you. It is as false that you have the genuine satire of Petronius in your hands, as it is false that that ancient satire was the work of a consul, and a picture of Nero’s conduct. Desist from attempting to deceive the learned; you can only deceive the vulgar.”

Beside the marks of forgery already pointed out, these poems bear yet another badge of fraud, which has not, I believe, been noticed by any critick. Chatterton’s verses have been shown to be too smooth and harmonious to be genuine compositions of antiquity: they are liable at the same time to the very opposite objection; they are too old for the era to which they are ascribed. This sounds like a paradox; yet it will be found to be true. The versification is too modern; the language often too ancient. It is not the language of any particular period of antiquity, but oftwo entirecenturies.—This is easily accounted for. Chatterton had no other means of writing old language, but by applying to glossaries and dictionaries, and thesecomprise all the antiquated words of preceding times; many provincial words used perhaps by a northern poet, and entirely unknown to a southern inhabitant; many words also, used in a singular sense by our ancient bards, and perhaps by them only once. Chatterton drawing his stores from such a copious source, his verses must necessarily contain words of various and widely-distant periods. It is highly probable, for this reason, that many of his lines would not have been understood by one who lived in the fifteenth century.—That the diction of these poems is often too obsolete for the era to which they are allottedG*, appears clearly from hence; many of them are much more difficult to a reader of this day, without a glossary, than any one of the metrical compositions of the age of Edward IV. Let any person, who is not veryprofoundly skilled in the language of our elder poets, read a few pages of any of the poems of the age of that king, from whence I have already given short extracts, without any glossary or assistance whatsoever; he will doubtless meet sometimes with words he does not understand, but he will find much fewer difficulties of this kind, than while he is perusing the poems attributed to Rowley. The language of the latter, without a perpetual comment, would in most places be unintelligible to a common reader. He might, indeed, from the context,guessat something like the meaning; but the lines, I am confident, will be found, on examination, to contain twenty times more obsolete and obscure words than any one poem of the age of king Edward IV, now extant.

G*Mr. Bryant seems to have been aware of this objection, and thus endeavours to obviate it. “Indeed in some places the language seems more obsolete than could be expected for the time of king Edward the Fourth; and the reason is, that some of the poems, however new modelled, were prior to that æra. ForRowley himself[i.e. Chatterton] tells us that he borrowed from Turgot; and we have reason to think thathelikewise copied from Chedder.” This same Chedder, he acquaints us in a note, was “a poet mentioned intheMss., [that is, in Chatterton’s Mss., for I believe his name is not to be found elsewhere.] who is supposed to have flourished about the year 1330. He is said [by Chatterton] to have had somemaumeriesat thecomitatingthe city.”Observations, p. 553. I wonder the learned commentator did not likewise inform us, from the sameunquestionable authority, what wightMaistreChedder copied.

Before I conclude, I cannot omit to take notice of two or three particulars on which the Dean of Exeter and Mr. Bryant much rely. The former, in his Dissertation onElla, says, “Whatever claim might have been made in favour of Chatterton as the author [ofthe Battle of Hastings], founded either on his own unsupported and improbable assertion, or on the supposed possibility of his writing these two poems, assisted by Mr. Pope’s translation [of Homer], no plea of this kind can be urged with regard to any other poem in the collection, and least of all to the dramatick works, or the tragedy ofElla; which required not only anelevation of poetic genius far superior to that possessed by Chatterton, but also such moral and mental qualifications as never entered into any part of his character or conduct, and which could not possibly be acquired by a youth of his age and inexperience.” “Where (we are triumphantly asked) could he learn the nice rules of the Interlude, by the introduction of a chorus, and the application of their songs to the moral and virtuous object of the performance?”—Where?—from Mr. Mason’sElfridaandCaractacus, in which he found a perfect model of the Greek drama, and which doubtless he had read. ButElla“inculcates the precepts of morality;” and Chatterton, it is urged, was idle and dissolute, and therefore could not have been the authour of it. Has then the reverend editor never heard of instances of the purest system of morality being powerfully enforced from the pulpit by those who in their own lives have not been always found to adhere rigidly to the rules that they laid down for the conduct of others? Perhaps not; but I suppose many instances of this kind will occur to every reader. The world would be pure indeed, if speculative and practical morality were one and the same thing. “That knowledge of times, of men, and manners,” without which, it is said,Ellacould not have been written, I find no difficulty in believing to have been possessed by this very extraordinary youth. Did henot, when he came to London, instead of being dazzled and confounded by the various new objects that surrounded him, become in a short time, by that almost intuitive faculty which accompanies genius, so well acquainted with all the reigning topicks of discourse, with the manners and different pursuits of various classes of men, with the state of parties, &c. as to pour out from the press a multitude of compositions on almost every subject that could exercise the pen of the oldest and most experienced writerH*? He who could do this, could composethe tragedy ofEllaI†: (a name, by the by, that he probably found in Dr. Percy’sReliques of Ancient Poetry, Vol. I. p. xxiv.)

Back to IndexNext