H*The following notices, which Mr. Walpole has preserved, are too curious to be omitted. They will give the reader a full idea of the professed authorship of Chatterton. In a list of pieces written by him, but never published, are the following:5. “To Lord North.A Letter signed theModerator, and dated May 26, 1770, beginning thus: “My Lord—It gives me a painful pleasure, &c.—This (says Mr. W.) is an encomium on administration for rejecting the Lord Mayor Beckford’s Remonstrance.6.A Letter to Lord Mayor Beckford, signedProbus, dated May 26, 1770.—This is a violent abuse of Government for rejecting the Remonstrance, and begins thus: “When the endeavours of a spirited people to free themselves from an insupportable slavery”——. On the back of this essay, which is directed to Chatterton’s friend, Cary, is this indorsement:“Accepted by Bingley—set for and thrown out ofThe North Briton, 21 June, on account of the Lord Mayor’s death.Lost by his death on this Essay1 11 6Gained in Elegies2 2 0———–in Essays3 3 0Am glad he is dead by3 13 6”I†Chatterton wrote also “aMonksTragedy,” which, if his forgeries had met with a more favourable reception than they did, he would doubtless have produced as an ancient composition. With the ardour of true genius, he wandered to the untrodden paths of the little Isle of Man for a subject, and aspiredpetere inde coronam,Unde prius nulli velarint tempora Musæ.Almost every part of the Dissertation on this tragedy is as open to observation as that now mentioned. It is not true, as is asserted, (p. 175.) that therythmical tales, before calledtragedies, first assumed a regular dramatick form in the time of king Edward IV. These melancholy tales went under the name of tragedies for above a century afterwards. Many of the pieces of Drayton were calledtragediesin the time of Queen Elizabeth, though he is not known to have ever written a single drama. But without staying to point out all the mistakes of the reverend critick on this subject, I recommend to those readers who wish to form a decided opinion on these poems, the same test for the tragedy ofEllathat I have already suggested for theBattle of Hastings. If they are not furnished with any of our dramatick pieces in the original editions, let them only cast their eyes on those ancient interludes which take up the greater part of Mr. Hawkins’s first volume ofThe Origin of the English Drama(the earliest of them composed in 1512); and I believe they will not hesitate to pronounceEllaa modern composition. The dramas which are yet extant (if they can deserve that name), composed between the years 1540 and 1570, are such wretched stuff, that nothing but antiquarian curiosity can endure to read a page of them. Yet the period I speak of is near a century after the era of the pretended Rowley.The argument of Mr. B. on this subject is too curious to be omitted: “I am sensible (says he, in hisObservations, p. 166,) that the plays mentioned above [the Chester Mysteries] seem to have been confined to religious subjects.—But though the monks of the times confined themselves to these subjects, it does not follow that people of more learning and genius were limited in the same manner. As plays certainly existed, the plan might sometimes be varied; and the transition from sacred history to profane, was very natural and easy. Many generous attempts may have been made towards the improvement of the rude drama, and the introduction of compositions on a better model: but the ignorance of the monks, and the depraved taste of the times, may have prevented such writings being either countenanced or preserved. It may be said, that we have no examples of any compositions of this sort. But this is begging the question;while we have the plays ofÆllaandGodwinbefore us.K*In the same manner argues the learned pewterer of Bristol, Mr. George Catcott. These poems are certainly genuine, “for Rowley himself mentions them in theYellow Roll.” See his letter in the Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. XLVIII. p. 348.The former is particularly transmitted to us asRowley’sK*.” I believe no reader will be at a loss to determine, who it is that in this casebegs the question. Here we have another remarkable instance of that kind of circular proof of which I have already taken notice.In the multitude of topicks agitated by these commentators, I had almost forgot one, much relied upon by the last-mentioned gentleman. It is the name ofWiddeville, which, we are informed, (p. 317.) is written in all the old chroniclesWoodville; and the question is triumphantly asked, “how could Chatterton, in hisMemoirs of Cannynge, [Miscell.p. 119.] vary from all these chronicles?—Where could he have found the name ofWiddevilleexcept in one of those manuscripts to which we are so much beholden?” If the learned commentator’s book should arrive at a second edition, I recommend it to him to cancel this page (as well as a former, in which he appears not to have known that “happymanbe his dole!” is a common expression in Shakspeare, and for his ignorance of which he is forced to make an awkward apology in his Appendix); and beg leave to inform him, that Chatterton found the name ofWiddevilleina very modern, though now scarce, book,L*See the first volume of that entertaining work, p. 67; art.AntonyWidwille,Earl Rivers.theCatalogue of the Royal and Noble Authors of EnglandL*, by Mr. Walpole, every one of whose works most assuredly Chatterton had read.The names of the combatants inthe Battle of Hastings, an enumeration of which takes up one third of this commentator’s work, and which, he tells us, are only to be found in Doomsday-book and other ancient records that Chatterton could not have seen, have been already shown by others to be almost all mentioned in Fox’sBook of Martyrs, and theChroniclesof Holinshed and Stowe. And what difficulty is there in supposing that the names not mentioned in any printed work (if any such there are) were found in the old deeds that he undoubtedly examined, and which were more likely to furnish him with a catalogue of names than any other ancient muniment whatsoever? It is highly probable also, that in the same chest which contained these deeds, he found some old Diary of events relating to Bristol, written by a mayor or alderman of the fifteenth century, that furnished him with some account of Rowley and Cannynge, and with those circumstances which the commentators say are onlyto tracedin William de Wircester. The practice of keeping diaries was at that time very general, and continued to be much in use to the middle of the last century. This, it must be owned, isa mere hypothesis, but by no means an improbable one.I cannot dismiss this gentleman without taking notice of a position which he has laid down, and is indeed the basis of almost all the arguments that he has urged to prove the authenticity of the Bristol Mss. It is this; that as every authour must know his own meaning, and as Chatterton has sometimes given wrong interpretations of words that are found in the poems attributed to Rowley, he could not be the authour of those poems.If Chatterton had originally written these poems, in the form in which they now appear, this argument might in a doubtful question have some weight. But although I have as high an opinion of his abilities as perhaps any person whatsoever, and do indeed believe him to have been the greatest genius that England has produced since the days of Shakspeare, I am not ready to acknowledge that he was endued with any miraculous powers. Devoted as he was from his infancy to the study of antiquities, he could not have been so conversant with ancient language, or have had all the words necessary to be used so present to his mind, as to write antiquated poetry of any considerable length, off hand. He, without doubt, wrote his verses in plain English, and afterwards embroidered them with such old words as would suit the sense and metre. With these he furnished himself, sometimes probably from memory, and sometimes from glossaries; and annexed suchinterpretations as he found or made.M*In Chatterton’s poems many words occur, that were undoubtedly coined by him; asmole,dolce,droke,glytted,aluste, &c. All these his new editor has inserted in a very curious performance which he is pleased to call a Glossary,with such interpretations at the context supplied, without even attempting to support them either by analogy or the authority of our ancient writers.When he could not readily find a word that would suit his metre, he invented oneM*.If then his old words afford some sense, and yet are sometimes interpreted wrong, nothing more follows than that his glossaries were imperfect, or his knowledge inaccurate; (still however he might have had a confused, though not complete, idea of their import:) if, as the commentator asserts, the words that he has explained not only suit the places in which they stand, but are often more apposite than he imagined, and have a latent and significant meaning, that never occurred to him, this will only show, that a man’s book is sometimes wiser than himself; a truth of which we have every day so many striking instances, that it was scarcely necessary for this learned antiquarian to have exhibited a new proof of it.Let it be considered too, that the glossary and the text were not always written at the same time; that Chatterton might not always remember the precise sense in which he had used antiquated words; and from a confused recollection, or from the want of the very same books that he had consulted while he was writing his poems, might add sometimes a false, and sometimes animperfect, interpretation.—This is not a mere hypothesis; for in one instance we know that the comment was written at some interval of time after the text. “The glossary of the poem entitledthe Englysh Metamorposis(Mr. Tyrwhitt informs us) was written down by C. extemporally, without the assistance of any book, at the desire and in the presence of Mr. Barrett.”I have here given this objection all the force that it can claim, and more perhaps than it deserves; for I doubt much whether in Chatterton’s whole volume six instances can be pointed out, where he has annexed false interpretations to words that appear when rightly understood to suit the context, and to convey a clear meaning: and these mistakes, if even there are so many as have been mentioned, are very easily accounted for from the causes now assigned.Perhaps it may be urged, that when I talk of the manner in which these poems were composed, I am myself guilty of the fault with which I have charged others, that of assuming the very point in controversy; and the observation would be just, if there were not many collateral and decisive circumstances, by which Chatterton is clearly proved to have written them. All these concurring to show that he forged these pieces, an investigation of themannerin which he forged them, cannot by any fair reasoning be construed into an assumption of the question in dispute.N*So that an authour cannot revise or correct his works without forfeiting his title to them!—According to this doctrine, Garth was the authour of only thefirstcopy ofthe Dispensary, and all the subsequent editions published in his life-time, in every one of which there were material variations, must be attributed to some other hand.Great stress is also laid by this commentator on some variations being found in the copies ofthese poems that were produced by Chatterton at different times; or, to use his own words, “there is often a material variation between the copy and the original, which never could have happened if he had been the author of bothN*. He must have known his own writing, and would not have deviated from his own purpose.”——Thus in one copy ofthe Song to Ella, which C. gave to Mr. Barrett, these lines were found:“Or seest the hatched steed,“Ifrayningo’er the mead.”Being called upon for the original, he the next day produced a parchment, containing the same poem, in which he had writtenyprauncing, instead ofifrayning; but by some artifice he had obscured the Ms. so much, to give it an ancient appearance, that Mr. B. could not make out the word without the use of galls.—What follows from all this, but that C. found on examination that there was no such word asifrayning, and that he substituted another in its place? In the same poem he at one time wrotelocks—burlie—brasting—andkennest; at another,hairs—valiant—bursting—andhearest. Variations of this kind he could have produced without end.—These commentators deceive themselves, and use a language that for a moment may deceive others, by talking of one readingbeing found in thecopy, and another in theoriginal, when in fact all the Mss. that C. produced were equally originals. What he called originals indeed, were probably in general more perfect than what he called copies; because the former were always produced after the other, and were in truth nothing more than second editions of the same piecesO*.O*“Bie,” which he wrote inadvertently in the tragedy ofElla, instead of “mie,” (on which Mr. B. has given us a learned dissertation)——“Biethankes I ever onne you wylle bestowe”——is such a mistake as every man in the hurry of writing is subject to.Byhad probably occurred just before, or was to begin some subsequent line that he was then forming in his mind. Even the slow and laborious Mr. Capel, who was employed near forty years in preparing and printing an edition of Shakspeare, in a Catalogue which he presented to a publick library at Cambridge, and which he probably had revised for many months before he gave it out of his hands, has written “BloodyBloody,” as the title of one of Fletcher’s Plays, instead of “BloodyBrother.”The inequality of the poems which Chatterton owned as his own compositions, when compared with those ascribed to Rowley, has been much insisted upon. But this matter has been greatly exaggerated. Some of the worst lines in Chatterton’sMiscellanieshave been selected by Mr. Bryant to prove the point contended for; but in fact they contain the same even and flowing versification as the others, andin generaldisplay thesomepremature abilitiesP†.—The truth is, thereaders of these pieces are deceived insensibly on this subject. While they are perusing the poems of the fictitious Rowley, they constantly compare them with the poetry of the fifteenth century; and are ready every moment to exclaim, how much he surpasses all his contemporaries. While the verses that Chatterton acknowledged as hisown, are passing under their eyes, they still recollect that they are the productions of a boy of seventeen; and are slow to allow them even that merit which they undoubtedly possess. “They are ingenious, but puerile; flowing, but not sufficiently correct.”——The best way of convincing the antiquarian reader of the merit of these compositions, would be to disfigure them with old spelling; as perhaps the most complete confutation of the advocates for the authenticity of what are called Rowley’s poems would be to exhibit an edition of them in modern orthography.—Let us only apply this very simple test,—“handy-dandy let them change places,” and I believe it would puzzle even the President of the Society of Antiquaries himself to determine, “which is the justice, and which is the thief;” which is the pretended ancient, and which the acknowledged modern.P†The observations on this subject, of the ingenious authour of the accurate account of Chatterton, in a book entituledLove and Madness, are too pertinent to be here omitted. “It may be asked why Chatterton’s own Miscellanies are inferior to Rowley? Let me ask another question:Arethey inferior? Genius, abilities, we may bring into the world with us; these rare ingredients may be mixed up in our compositions by the hand of Nature. But Nature herself cannot create a human being possessed of a complete knowledge of our world almost the moment he is born into it. Is the knowledge of the world which his Miscellanies contain, no proof of his astonishing quickness in seizing every thing he chose? Is it remembered when, and at what age, Chatterton for the first time quitted Bristol, and how few weeks he lived afterwards? Chatterton’s Letters and Miscellanies, and every thing which the warmest advocate for Rowley will not deny to have been Chatterton’s, exhibit an insight into men, manners, and things, for the want of which, in their writings, authors who have died old men, with more opportunities to know the world, (who could have less than Chatterton?) have been thought to make amends by other merits.”—“In London (as the same writer observes) was to be learned that which even genius cannot teach, the knowledge of life. Extemporaneous bread was to be earned more suddenly than even Chatterton could write poems for Rowley; and, in consequence of his employments, as he tells his mother, publick places were to be visited, and mankind to be frequented.”—Hence, after “he left Bristol, we see but one more of Rowley’s poems,The Ballad of Charitie, and that a very short one.”Of this double transformation I subjoin a short specimen; which is not selected on account of any extraordinary spirit in the lines that precede, or uncommon harmony in those that follow, but chosen (agreeably to the rule that has been observed in all the former quotations) merely because theAfrican Ecloguehappens to be thefirstpoetical piece inserted in Chatterton’s acknowledgedMiscellanies.I.CHATTERTONin Masquerade.Narva and Mored: An African Eclogue.[From Chatterton’sMiscellanies, p. 56.]“Recyte the loves of Narva and Mored,“The preeste of Chalmas trypell ydolle sayde.aWarriors.“Hie fro the grounde the youthful heretogsasprunge,“Loude on the concave shelle the launces runge:bmystick.cburning.dused by Chatterton forsoftortender.epanting.“In al the mysterkebmaizes of the daunce“The youths of Bannies brennyngecsandes advaunce;“Whiles the moledvyrgin brokkyngelookes behinde,“And rydes uponne the penyons of the winde;fascends.gbrow, orsummit.hholy.“Astighesfthe mountaines borneg, and measures rounde“The steepie clifftes of Chalmas halliehgrounde.”II.CHATTERTONUnmasked.Eclogue the First.[From Rowley’s Poems, quarto, p. 391.]“When England smoking from her deadly wound,“From her gall’d neck did twitch the chain away,“Seeing her lawful sons fall all around,“(Mighty they fell, ’twas Honour led the fray,)“Then in a dale, by eve’s dark surcoat gray,“Two lonely shepherds did abruptly fly,“(The rustling leaf does their white hearts affray,)“And with the owlet trembled and did cry:“First Robert Neatherd his sore bosom struck,“Then fell upon the ground, and thus he spoke.”If however, after all, a little inferiority should be found in Chatterton’s acknowledged productions, it may be easily accounted for. Enjoin a young poet to write verses on any subject, and after he has finished his exercise, show him how Shakspeare, Dryden, and Pope, have treated the same subject. Let him then write a second copy of verses, still on the same theme. This latter will probably be aCentofrom the works of the authours that he has just perused. The one will have the merit of originality; the other a finer polish and more glowing imagery. This is exactly Chatterton’s case. The verses that he wrote for Rowley areperhapsbetter than his others, because they contain the thoughts of our best poets often in their own words. The versification is equally good in both. Let it be remembered too, that the former were composed at his leisure in a period of near a year and a half; the latter in about four months, and many of them to gain bread for the day that was passing over him.After his arrival inLondon, if his forgeries had met with any success, he would undoubtedly have produced ancient poetry without end; but perceiving that the gentleman in whom he expectedto find at once a dupe and a patron, was too clear-sighted to be deceived by such evident fictions, and that he could earn a livelihood by his talents, without fabricating old Mss. in order to gain a few shillings from Mess. Barrett and Catcott, he deserted his original plan, and we hear little more of Rowley’s verses.With regard to the time in which the poems attributed to this priest were produced, which it is urged was much too short for Chatterton to have been the inventor of them, it is indeed astonishing that this youth should have been able to compose, in about eighteen months, three thousand seven hundred verses, on various subjects; but it would have been still more astonishing, if he had transcribed in that time the same number of lines, written on parchment, in a very ancient hand, in the close and indistinct manner, in which these poems are pretended to have been written,Q*Let those who may be surprised at this assertion, recollect the wonderful inventive faculties of Chatterton, and the various compositions, both in prose and verse, which he produced after his arrival in London, in the short space of four months; not to mention the numerous pieces, which he is known to have written in the same period, and which have not yet been collected—Let them likewise examine any one of the defaced Mss. of the fifteenth century, in the Cotton Library, and see in what time they can transcribe a dozen lines from it.and defaced and obliterated in many placesQ*:—unless he had been endued with the faculty of a celebrated solicitor, who being desired a few yearsago in the House of Lords to read an old deed, excused himself by saying that it wasillegible, informing their lordships at the same time that he would make out a faircopyof it against the next day. Chatterton, I believe, understood better how to make fair copies of illegible parchments, than to read any ancient manuscript whatsoever.It isamusingenough to observe the miserable shifts to which his new editor is forced to have recourse, when he is obliged to run full tilt against matters of fact.—Thus Chatterton, we find, owned that he was the authour of the firstBattle of Hastings; but we are not to believe his declaration, says Mr. Thistlethwaite, whose doctrine on this subject the reverend commentator has adopted. “Chatterton thought himself not sufficiently rewarded by his Bristol patrons, in proportion to what his communications deserved.” He pretended, therefore, “on Mr. Barrett’s repeated solicitations for the original [of the Battle of Hastings], that he himself wrote that poem for a friend; thinking,perhaps, that if he parted with the original poem, he might not be properly rewarded for the loss of it,R*”—As if there was no other way forhim to avoid being deprived of a valuable ancient Ms. but by saying that it was a forgery, and that he wrote it himself!—What, however, did he do immediately afterwards? No doubt, he avoided getting into the same difficulty a second time, and subjecting himself again to thesame importunity from his ungenerous Bristol patrons, by showing them no more of these rarities? Nothing less. The very same day that he acknowledged this forgery, he informed Mr. Barrett that he had another poem, the copy of an original by Rowley; and at aconsiderable interval of time(which indeed was requisite for writing his new piece) he producedanotherBattle of Hastings, much longer than the former; a fair copy from an undoubted original.—He was again, without doubt, pressed by Mr. B. to show the original Ms. of this also; and, according to Mr. Thistlethwaite’s system, he ought again to have asserted thatthispoem likewise was a forgery; and so afterwards of every copy that he produced.—Can any person that considers this transaction for a moment entertain a doubt that all these poems were his own invention?R*Chatterton’s Poems, quarto, edit. Milles, p. 458.It was not without good reason that the editor was solicitous to disprove Chatterton’s frank confession, respecting this poem; for he perceived clearly that the style, the colouring, and images, are nearly the same in this, and the second poem with the same title, and that every reader of any discernment must see at the first glance, that he who wrote the firstBattle of Hastingswas the authour of allthe other poems ascribed to Rowley.—It is observable that Chatterton inthe Battle of Hastings, No2, frequently imitates himself, or repeats the same images a second time. Thus in the first poem with this title we meet——“he dying gryp’d the recer’s limbe;The recer then beganne to flynge and kicke,And toste the erlie farr off to the grounde:The erlie’s squier then a swerde did stickeInto his harte, a dedlie ghastlie wounde;And downe he felle upon the crymson pleine,Upon Chatillion’s soulless corse of claie.”In the secondBattle of Hastingsare these lines:“But as he drewe his bowe devoid of arte,“So it came down upon Troyvillain’s horse;“Deep thro hys hatchments wente the pointed floe;“Now here, now there, with rage bleedinge he rounde doth goe.“Nor does he hede his mastres known commands,“Tyll, growen furiouse by his bloudie wounde,“Erect upon his hynder feete he staundes,“And throwes hys mastre far off to the grounde.”Can any one for a moment doubt that these verses were all written by the same person?——The circumstance of the wounded horse’s falling on his rider, in thefirstof these similies, is taken directly from Dryden’s Virgil, Æn. X. v. 1283.—Chatterton’s new editor has artfully contrasted this passage of Dryden with thesecondsimile, where that circumstance isnotmentioned.Again:—We have the positive testimony of Mr. John Ruddall, a native and inhabitant of Bristol, who was well acquainted with Chatterton, when he was a clerk to Mr. Lambert, thatthe Account of the ceremonies observed at the opening of the Old Bridge, published in Farley’s Journal, Oct. 1. 1768, and said to betaken from an ancient Ms., was a forgery of Chatterton’s, and acknowledged by him to be such. Mr. Ruddall’s account of this transaction is so material, that I will transcribe it from the Dean of Exeter’s new work, which perhaps many of my readers may not have seen:—“Duringthat time, [while C. was clerk to Mr. L.] Chatterton frequently called upon him at his master’s house, and soon after he had printed the account of the bridge in the Bristol paper, told Mr. Ruddall, that he was the author of it; butit occurring to him afterwards, that he might be called upon to produce the original, he brought to him one day a piece of parchment about the size of a half-sheet of fool’s-cap paper: Mr. Ruddall does not think that any thing was written on it when produced by Chatterton, but he saw him write several words, if not lines, in a character which Mr. Ruddall did not understand, which he says was totally unlike English, and as he apprehends was meant by Chatterton to imitate or represent the original from which this account was printed. He cannot determine precisely how much Chatterton wrote in this manner, but says, that the time he spent in that visit did not exceed three quarters of an hour: the size of the parchment, however, (even supposing it to have been filled with writing) will in some measure ascertain the quantity which it contained. He says also, that when Chatterton had written on the parchment, he held it over the candle, to give it the appearance of antiquity, which changed the colour of the ink,S*See the new edition of Chatterton’s poems, quarto, p. 436, 437.and made the parchment appear black and a little contractedS*.”Such is the account of one of Chatterton’s intimate friends. And how is this decisive proof of his abilities to imitate ancient English handwriting, and his exercise of those abilities, evaded? Why truly, we are told, “thecontraction of the parchmentis no discriminating mark of antiquity; theblacknessgiven by smoke appears upon trial to be very different from theyellowtinge which parchment acquires by age; andthe ink does not change its colour, as Mr. Ruddall seems to apprehend.” So, because these arts are not alwayscompletely successfull, and would not deceive a very skilful antiquary, we are to conclude, that Chatterton did not forge a paper which he acknowledged to have forged, and did not in the presence of Mr. Ruddall cover a piece of parchment with ancient characters for the purpose of imposition, though the fact is clearly ascertained by the testimony of that gentleman!—The reverend commentator argues on this occasion much in the same manner, as a well-known versifier of the present century, the facetious Ned Ward (and he too published a quarto volume of poems). Some biographer, in an account of the lives of the English poets, had said that “he was an ingenious writer, considering his low birth and mode of life, he having for some time kept a publick house in the City.” “Never was a greater or more impudent calumny (replied the provoked rhymer); it is very well known to everybody, that my publick house is not in the City, but inMoorfields.”—In the name of common sense, of what consequence is it, whether in factallancient parchments areshrivelled; whether smoke will give ink ayellowappearance or not. It is sufficient, that Chattertonthoughtthis was the case; that he made theattemptin the presence of a credible witness, to whom heacknowledgedthe purpose for which the manœuvre was done. We are asked indeed, why he did not prepare his pretended original before he published the copy. To this another question is the best answer. Why is not fraud always uniform and consistent, and armed at all points? Happily for mankind it scarcely ever is. Perhaps (as Mr. Ruddall’s account seems to state the matter) he did not think at first that he should be called upon for the original: perhaps he was limited in a point of time, and could not fabricate it by the day that the new bridge was opened at Bristol.—But there is no end of such speculations. Facts are clear and incontrovertible. Whatever might have been the cause of his delay, it is not denied that he acknowledged this forgery to his friend Mr. Ruddall; conjuring him at the same time not to reveal the secret imparted to him. If this had been a mere frolick, what need of this earnest injunction of secrecy?—His friend scrupulously kept his word till the year 1779, when, as the Dean of Exeter informs us, “on the prospect of procuring agratuity of ten pounds for Chatterton’s mother, from a gentleman who sought for information concerning her son’s history, he thought so material a benefit to the family would fully justify him for divulging a secret, by which no person living could be a sufferer.”I will not stay to take notice of the impotent attempts that Chatterton’s new commentators have made to overturn the very satisfactory and conclusive reasoning of Mr. Tyrwhitt’s Appendix to the former edition of the fictitious Rowley’s Poems. That most learned and judicious critick wants not the assistance of my feeble pen:Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis——.If he should come into the field himself (as I hope he will), he will soon silence the Anglo-Saxon batteries of his opponents.T*I take this opportunity of acknowledging an error into which I have fallen in a former page (13), where it is said, that no instances are found in these poems of a noun in the plural number being joined to a verb in the singular. On a more careful examination I observe that C. was aware of this mark of antiquity, and that his works exhibit afewexamples of this disregard to grammar. He has however sprinkled them too sparingly. Had these poems been written in the fifteenth century, Priscian’s head would have been broken in almost every page, and I should not have searched for these grammatical inaccuracies in vain.The principal argumentsthat have been urged in support of the antiquity of the poems attributed to Rowley, have now, if I mistake not, been fairly stated and examinedT*. On areview of the whole, I trust the reader will agree with me in opinion, that there is not the smallest reason for believing a single line of them to have been written by any other person than Thomas Chatterton; and that, instead of the towering motto which has been affixed to the new and splendid edition of the works of that most ingenious youth——Renascentur quæ jam cecidere—the words of Claudian would have been more “germane to the matter:”————tolluntur in altum,Ut lapsu graviore ruant.Having, I fear, trespassed too long on the patience of my readers, in the discussion of a question that to many may appear of no great importance, I will only add the following seriousandwell-intended proposal. I do humbly recommend, that a committee of the friends of the reverend antiquarian, Dr. Jeremiah Milles, Dean of Exeter, and the learned mythologist, Jacob Bryant, Esq., may immediately meet;—that they may, as soon as possible, convey the said Dr. M. and Mr. B. together with Mr. George Catcott, pewterer, and Mr. William Barrett, surgeon, of Bristol, and Dr. Glynn of Cambridge, to the room over the north porch of Redcliffe church, and that on the door of the said roomsixpadlocks may be fixed:—that in order to wean these gentlemenby degrees from the delusion under which they labour, and to furnish them with some amusement, they may be supplied with proper instruments to measure the length, breadth, and depth, of the empty chests now in the said room, and thereby to ascertain how many thousand diminutive pieces of parchment, all eight inches and a half by four and a half, might have been contained in those chests; [according to my calculation, 1,464,578;—but I cannot pretend to be exact:] that for the sustenance of these gentlemen, a large peck loaf may be placed in amaundbasket in the said room, having been previously prepared and left in a damp place, so as to become mouldy, and the words and figuresThomas Flour, Bristol, 1769, being first impressed in common letters on the upper crust of the said loaf, and on the under side thereof, in Gothick Characters,Thomas Wheateley, 1464V*Rowley’sPurple Roll, Mr. Bryant very gravely tells us, it yet extant in manuscript in hisown hand-writing. “It is (he adds) intwoparts;oneof the said parts written by Thomas Rowley, andthe other by Thomas Chatterton.”(which Thomas Wheateley Mr. Barrett, if he carefully examines Rowley’sPurple RollV*, will find was anauncyentbaker, and “did use to bake daiely for Maister Canynge twelve manchettes of chete breade, and foure douzenne of marchpanes;” and which custom of impressing the names of bakers upon bread, Ican prove to be as ancient as the time of king Edward IV., from Doomsday-book, William de Wircestre, Shakspeare, and other good antiquarians, as also from the Green and Yellow Rolls, now in Mr. B’s custody)X†:—that a proper quantity of water may be conveyed into the forementioned room in one of Mr. Catcott’sdeepest and most ancient pewter plates, together with an ewer of Wedgwood’s ware, madeafter the oldest and most uncouth pattern that has yet been discovered at Herculaneum;—that Dr. Glynn, if he shall be thought to be sufficiently composed (of which great doubts are entertained), be appointed to cut a certain portion of the said bread for the daily food of these gentlemen and himself; and that, in order to sooth in some measure their unhappy fancies, he may be requested, in cutting the said loaf, to use the valuable knife of Mr. Shiercliffe (now in the custody of the said Dr. G), the historyY‡of which has so much illustrated, and so clearly evinced the antiquity of the poems attributed to Thomas Rowley. And if in a fortnight after these gentlemen have been so confined, they shall be found to be entirely re-established in their health, and perfectly composed, I recommend that the six locks may be struck off, and that they all may be suffered to return again to their usual employments.X†A learned friend, who, by the favour of Mr. Barrett, has perused theYellow Roll, informs me, that Rowley, in a treatise dated 1451, and addressed “to the dygne Maister Canynge,” with the quaint title,De re frumentaria, (chap. XIII.Concernynge Horse-hoeing Husbandrie, and the Dryll-Ploughe) has this remarkable passage: “Me thynketh ytt were a prettie devyce yffe this practyce of oure bakerres were extended further. I mervaile moche, ourscriveynesandamanuensesdoe not gette lytel letters cutt in wood, or caste in yron, and thanne followynge by the eye, or with a fescue, everyche letter of the boke thei meane to copie, fix the sayde wooden or yron letters meetelie disposed in a frame or chase; thanne daube the frame over with somme atramentous stuffe, and layinge a thynne piece of moistened parchment or paper on these letters, presse it doune with somme smoothe stone or other heavie weight: by the whiche goodlye devyce a manie hundreth copies of eche boke might be wroughte off in a few daies, insteade of employing the eyen and hondes of poore clerkes for several monthes with greate attentyon and travaile.”Introduction, Note 19.This great man, we have already seen, had an idea of many of the useful arts of life some years before they were practised. Here he appears to have had a confused notion of that noble invention, the printing-press. To prevent misconstruction, I should add, thatbokein the above passage meansmanuscript, no other books being then known; In other parts of his works,as represented by Chatterton, hespeaks of Mss. as contradistinguished from books; but in all those places it is reasonable to suppose some interpolation by Chatterton, andthose who choose it, may readbookinstead ofmanuscript; by which this trivial objection to the authenticity of these pieces will be removed, and these otherwise discordant passages rendered perfectly uniform and consistent.This valuable relick shows with how little reason the late Mr. Tull claimed the merit of inventing that useful instrument of husbandry, the drill-plough.I make no apology for anticipating Mr. Barret on this subject; as in fact these short extracts will only make the publick still more desirous to see his long-expectedHistory of Bristol, which I am happy to hear is in great forwardness, and will, I am told, contain a full account of theYellow Roll, and an exact inventory ofMaistre William Cannynge’sCabinet of coins, medals, and drawings, (among the latter of which are enumerated many, highly finished, by Apelles, Raphael, Rowley, Rembrant, and Vandyck) together with several other matters equally curious.—It is hoped that this gentleman will gratify the publick with an accurate engraving from a drawing by Rowley, representing the ancient Castle of Bristol, together with the square tower ycleped theDongeon, which cannot fail to afford great satisfaction to the purchasers of his book, as it will exhibit a species of architecture hitherto unknown in this country; this tower (as we learn from unquestionable authority, that of the Dean of Exeter himself,) “beingremarkablydecorated [on paper] with images, ornaments, tracery work, and crosses within circles,in a style net usually seen in these buildings.”—Chatterton,as soon as ever he heard that Mr. Barrett was engaged in writing a History of Bristol, very obligingly searched among the Rowley papers, and a few days afterwards furnished him with a neatcopyof this ancient drawing.Y‡This very curious and interesting history may be found in Mr. Bryant’sObservations, &c. p. 512. The learned commentator seems to have had the great father of poetry in his eye, who is equally minute in his account of the sceptre of Achilles. SeeIl.Α. v. 234. He cannot, however, on this account be justly charged with plagiarism; these co-incidences frequently happening. Thus Rowley in the 15th century, and Dryden in the 17th, having each occasion to say that a man wept, use the same four identical words—“Tears began to flow.”FINIS.
H*The following notices, which Mr. Walpole has preserved, are too curious to be omitted. They will give the reader a full idea of the professed authorship of Chatterton. In a list of pieces written by him, but never published, are the following:5. “To Lord North.A Letter signed theModerator, and dated May 26, 1770, beginning thus: “My Lord—It gives me a painful pleasure, &c.—This (says Mr. W.) is an encomium on administration for rejecting the Lord Mayor Beckford’s Remonstrance.6.A Letter to Lord Mayor Beckford, signedProbus, dated May 26, 1770.—This is a violent abuse of Government for rejecting the Remonstrance, and begins thus: “When the endeavours of a spirited people to free themselves from an insupportable slavery”——. On the back of this essay, which is directed to Chatterton’s friend, Cary, is this indorsement:“Accepted by Bingley—set for and thrown out ofThe North Briton, 21 June, on account of the Lord Mayor’s death.Lost by his death on this Essay1 11 6Gained in Elegies2 2 0———–in Essays3 3 0Am glad he is dead by3 13 6”
H*The following notices, which Mr. Walpole has preserved, are too curious to be omitted. They will give the reader a full idea of the professed authorship of Chatterton. In a list of pieces written by him, but never published, are the following:
5. “To Lord North.A Letter signed theModerator, and dated May 26, 1770, beginning thus: “My Lord—It gives me a painful pleasure, &c.—This (says Mr. W.) is an encomium on administration for rejecting the Lord Mayor Beckford’s Remonstrance.
6.A Letter to Lord Mayor Beckford, signedProbus, dated May 26, 1770.—This is a violent abuse of Government for rejecting the Remonstrance, and begins thus: “When the endeavours of a spirited people to free themselves from an insupportable slavery”——. On the back of this essay, which is directed to Chatterton’s friend, Cary, is this indorsement:
“Accepted by Bingley—set for and thrown out ofThe North Briton, 21 June, on account of the Lord Mayor’s death.
Lost by his death on this Essay
Gained in Elegies
———–in Essays
Am glad he is dead by
I†Chatterton wrote also “aMonksTragedy,” which, if his forgeries had met with a more favourable reception than they did, he would doubtless have produced as an ancient composition. With the ardour of true genius, he wandered to the untrodden paths of the little Isle of Man for a subject, and aspiredpetere inde coronam,Unde prius nulli velarint tempora Musæ.
I†Chatterton wrote also “aMonksTragedy,” which, if his forgeries had met with a more favourable reception than they did, he would doubtless have produced as an ancient composition. With the ardour of true genius, he wandered to the untrodden paths of the little Isle of Man for a subject, and aspired
petere inde coronam,Unde prius nulli velarint tempora Musæ.
petere inde coronam,
Unde prius nulli velarint tempora Musæ.
Almost every part of the Dissertation on this tragedy is as open to observation as that now mentioned. It is not true, as is asserted, (p. 175.) that therythmical tales, before calledtragedies, first assumed a regular dramatick form in the time of king Edward IV. These melancholy tales went under the name of tragedies for above a century afterwards. Many of the pieces of Drayton were calledtragediesin the time of Queen Elizabeth, though he is not known to have ever written a single drama. But without staying to point out all the mistakes of the reverend critick on this subject, I recommend to those readers who wish to form a decided opinion on these poems, the same test for the tragedy ofEllathat I have already suggested for theBattle of Hastings. If they are not furnished with any of our dramatick pieces in the original editions, let them only cast their eyes on those ancient interludes which take up the greater part of Mr. Hawkins’s first volume ofThe Origin of the English Drama(the earliest of them composed in 1512); and I believe they will not hesitate to pronounceEllaa modern composition. The dramas which are yet extant (if they can deserve that name), composed between the years 1540 and 1570, are such wretched stuff, that nothing but antiquarian curiosity can endure to read a page of them. Yet the period I speak of is near a century after the era of the pretended Rowley.
The argument of Mr. B. on this subject is too curious to be omitted: “I am sensible (says he, in hisObservations, p. 166,) that the plays mentioned above [the Chester Mysteries] seem to have been confined to religious subjects.—But though the monks of the times confined themselves to these subjects, it does not follow that people of more learning and genius were limited in the same manner. As plays certainly existed, the plan might sometimes be varied; and the transition from sacred history to profane, was very natural and easy. Many generous attempts may have been made towards the improvement of the rude drama, and the introduction of compositions on a better model: but the ignorance of the monks, and the depraved taste of the times, may have prevented such writings being either countenanced or preserved. It may be said, that we have no examples of any compositions of this sort. But this is begging the question;while we have the plays ofÆllaandGodwinbefore us.K*In the same manner argues the learned pewterer of Bristol, Mr. George Catcott. These poems are certainly genuine, “for Rowley himself mentions them in theYellow Roll.” See his letter in the Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. XLVIII. p. 348.The former is particularly transmitted to us asRowley’sK*.” I believe no reader will be at a loss to determine, who it is that in this casebegs the question. Here we have another remarkable instance of that kind of circular proof of which I have already taken notice.
In the multitude of topicks agitated by these commentators, I had almost forgot one, much relied upon by the last-mentioned gentleman. It is the name ofWiddeville, which, we are informed, (p. 317.) is written in all the old chroniclesWoodville; and the question is triumphantly asked, “how could Chatterton, in hisMemoirs of Cannynge, [Miscell.p. 119.] vary from all these chronicles?—Where could he have found the name ofWiddevilleexcept in one of those manuscripts to which we are so much beholden?” If the learned commentator’s book should arrive at a second edition, I recommend it to him to cancel this page (as well as a former, in which he appears not to have known that “happymanbe his dole!” is a common expression in Shakspeare, and for his ignorance of which he is forced to make an awkward apology in his Appendix); and beg leave to inform him, that Chatterton found the name ofWiddevilleina very modern, though now scarce, book,L*See the first volume of that entertaining work, p. 67; art.AntonyWidwille,Earl Rivers.theCatalogue of the Royal and Noble Authors of EnglandL*, by Mr. Walpole, every one of whose works most assuredly Chatterton had read.
The names of the combatants inthe Battle of Hastings, an enumeration of which takes up one third of this commentator’s work, and which, he tells us, are only to be found in Doomsday-book and other ancient records that Chatterton could not have seen, have been already shown by others to be almost all mentioned in Fox’sBook of Martyrs, and theChroniclesof Holinshed and Stowe. And what difficulty is there in supposing that the names not mentioned in any printed work (if any such there are) were found in the old deeds that he undoubtedly examined, and which were more likely to furnish him with a catalogue of names than any other ancient muniment whatsoever? It is highly probable also, that in the same chest which contained these deeds, he found some old Diary of events relating to Bristol, written by a mayor or alderman of the fifteenth century, that furnished him with some account of Rowley and Cannynge, and with those circumstances which the commentators say are onlyto tracedin William de Wircester. The practice of keeping diaries was at that time very general, and continued to be much in use to the middle of the last century. This, it must be owned, isa mere hypothesis, but by no means an improbable one.
I cannot dismiss this gentleman without taking notice of a position which he has laid down, and is indeed the basis of almost all the arguments that he has urged to prove the authenticity of the Bristol Mss. It is this; that as every authour must know his own meaning, and as Chatterton has sometimes given wrong interpretations of words that are found in the poems attributed to Rowley, he could not be the authour of those poems.
If Chatterton had originally written these poems, in the form in which they now appear, this argument might in a doubtful question have some weight. But although I have as high an opinion of his abilities as perhaps any person whatsoever, and do indeed believe him to have been the greatest genius that England has produced since the days of Shakspeare, I am not ready to acknowledge that he was endued with any miraculous powers. Devoted as he was from his infancy to the study of antiquities, he could not have been so conversant with ancient language, or have had all the words necessary to be used so present to his mind, as to write antiquated poetry of any considerable length, off hand. He, without doubt, wrote his verses in plain English, and afterwards embroidered them with such old words as would suit the sense and metre. With these he furnished himself, sometimes probably from memory, and sometimes from glossaries; and annexed suchinterpretations as he found or made.M*In Chatterton’s poems many words occur, that were undoubtedly coined by him; asmole,dolce,droke,glytted,aluste, &c. All these his new editor has inserted in a very curious performance which he is pleased to call a Glossary,with such interpretations at the context supplied, without even attempting to support them either by analogy or the authority of our ancient writers.When he could not readily find a word that would suit his metre, he invented oneM*.If then his old words afford some sense, and yet are sometimes interpreted wrong, nothing more follows than that his glossaries were imperfect, or his knowledge inaccurate; (still however he might have had a confused, though not complete, idea of their import:) if, as the commentator asserts, the words that he has explained not only suit the places in which they stand, but are often more apposite than he imagined, and have a latent and significant meaning, that never occurred to him, this will only show, that a man’s book is sometimes wiser than himself; a truth of which we have every day so many striking instances, that it was scarcely necessary for this learned antiquarian to have exhibited a new proof of it.
Let it be considered too, that the glossary and the text were not always written at the same time; that Chatterton might not always remember the precise sense in which he had used antiquated words; and from a confused recollection, or from the want of the very same books that he had consulted while he was writing his poems, might add sometimes a false, and sometimes animperfect, interpretation.—This is not a mere hypothesis; for in one instance we know that the comment was written at some interval of time after the text. “The glossary of the poem entitledthe Englysh Metamorposis(Mr. Tyrwhitt informs us) was written down by C. extemporally, without the assistance of any book, at the desire and in the presence of Mr. Barrett.”
I have here given this objection all the force that it can claim, and more perhaps than it deserves; for I doubt much whether in Chatterton’s whole volume six instances can be pointed out, where he has annexed false interpretations to words that appear when rightly understood to suit the context, and to convey a clear meaning: and these mistakes, if even there are so many as have been mentioned, are very easily accounted for from the causes now assigned.
Perhaps it may be urged, that when I talk of the manner in which these poems were composed, I am myself guilty of the fault with which I have charged others, that of assuming the very point in controversy; and the observation would be just, if there were not many collateral and decisive circumstances, by which Chatterton is clearly proved to have written them. All these concurring to show that he forged these pieces, an investigation of themannerin which he forged them, cannot by any fair reasoning be construed into an assumption of the question in dispute.
Great stress is also laid by this commentator on some variations being found in the copies ofthese poems that were produced by Chatterton at different times; or, to use his own words, “there is often a material variation between the copy and the original, which never could have happened if he had been the author of bothN*. He must have known his own writing, and would not have deviated from his own purpose.”——Thus in one copy ofthe Song to Ella, which C. gave to Mr. Barrett, these lines were found:
“Or seest the hatched steed,“Ifrayningo’er the mead.”
“Or seest the hatched steed,
“Ifrayningo’er the mead.”
Being called upon for the original, he the next day produced a parchment, containing the same poem, in which he had writtenyprauncing, instead ofifrayning; but by some artifice he had obscured the Ms. so much, to give it an ancient appearance, that Mr. B. could not make out the word without the use of galls.—What follows from all this, but that C. found on examination that there was no such word asifrayning, and that he substituted another in its place? In the same poem he at one time wrotelocks—burlie—brasting—andkennest; at another,hairs—valiant—bursting—andhearest. Variations of this kind he could have produced without end.—These commentators deceive themselves, and use a language that for a moment may deceive others, by talking of one readingbeing found in thecopy, and another in theoriginal, when in fact all the Mss. that C. produced were equally originals. What he called originals indeed, were probably in general more perfect than what he called copies; because the former were always produced after the other, and were in truth nothing more than second editions of the same piecesO*.
O*“Bie,” which he wrote inadvertently in the tragedy ofElla, instead of “mie,” (on which Mr. B. has given us a learned dissertation)——“Biethankes I ever onne you wylle bestowe”——is such a mistake as every man in the hurry of writing is subject to.Byhad probably occurred just before, or was to begin some subsequent line that he was then forming in his mind. Even the slow and laborious Mr. Capel, who was employed near forty years in preparing and printing an edition of Shakspeare, in a Catalogue which he presented to a publick library at Cambridge, and which he probably had revised for many months before he gave it out of his hands, has written “BloodyBloody,” as the title of one of Fletcher’s Plays, instead of “BloodyBrother.”
The inequality of the poems which Chatterton owned as his own compositions, when compared with those ascribed to Rowley, has been much insisted upon. But this matter has been greatly exaggerated. Some of the worst lines in Chatterton’sMiscellanieshave been selected by Mr. Bryant to prove the point contended for; but in fact they contain the same even and flowing versification as the others, andin generaldisplay thesomepremature abilitiesP†.—The truth is, thereaders of these pieces are deceived insensibly on this subject. While they are perusing the poems of the fictitious Rowley, they constantly compare them with the poetry of the fifteenth century; and are ready every moment to exclaim, how much he surpasses all his contemporaries. While the verses that Chatterton acknowledged as hisown, are passing under their eyes, they still recollect that they are the productions of a boy of seventeen; and are slow to allow them even that merit which they undoubtedly possess. “They are ingenious, but puerile; flowing, but not sufficiently correct.”——The best way of convincing the antiquarian reader of the merit of these compositions, would be to disfigure them with old spelling; as perhaps the most complete confutation of the advocates for the authenticity of what are called Rowley’s poems would be to exhibit an edition of them in modern orthography.—Let us only apply this very simple test,—“handy-dandy let them change places,” and I believe it would puzzle even the President of the Society of Antiquaries himself to determine, “which is the justice, and which is the thief;” which is the pretended ancient, and which the acknowledged modern.
P†The observations on this subject, of the ingenious authour of the accurate account of Chatterton, in a book entituledLove and Madness, are too pertinent to be here omitted. “It may be asked why Chatterton’s own Miscellanies are inferior to Rowley? Let me ask another question:Arethey inferior? Genius, abilities, we may bring into the world with us; these rare ingredients may be mixed up in our compositions by the hand of Nature. But Nature herself cannot create a human being possessed of a complete knowledge of our world almost the moment he is born into it. Is the knowledge of the world which his Miscellanies contain, no proof of his astonishing quickness in seizing every thing he chose? Is it remembered when, and at what age, Chatterton for the first time quitted Bristol, and how few weeks he lived afterwards? Chatterton’s Letters and Miscellanies, and every thing which the warmest advocate for Rowley will not deny to have been Chatterton’s, exhibit an insight into men, manners, and things, for the want of which, in their writings, authors who have died old men, with more opportunities to know the world, (who could have less than Chatterton?) have been thought to make amends by other merits.”—“In London (as the same writer observes) was to be learned that which even genius cannot teach, the knowledge of life. Extemporaneous bread was to be earned more suddenly than even Chatterton could write poems for Rowley; and, in consequence of his employments, as he tells his mother, publick places were to be visited, and mankind to be frequented.”—Hence, after “he left Bristol, we see but one more of Rowley’s poems,The Ballad of Charitie, and that a very short one.”
Of this double transformation I subjoin a short specimen; which is not selected on account of any extraordinary spirit in the lines that precede, or uncommon harmony in those that follow, but chosen (agreeably to the rule that has been observed in all the former quotations) merely because theAfrican Ecloguehappens to be thefirstpoetical piece inserted in Chatterton’s acknowledgedMiscellanies.
[From Chatterton’sMiscellanies, p. 56.]
“Recyte the loves of Narva and Mored,“The preeste of Chalmas trypell ydolle sayde.aWarriors.“Hie fro the grounde the youthful heretogsasprunge,“Loude on the concave shelle the launces runge:bmystick.cburning.dused by Chatterton forsoftortender.epanting.“In al the mysterkebmaizes of the daunce“The youths of Bannies brennyngecsandes advaunce;“Whiles the moledvyrgin brokkyngelookes behinde,“And rydes uponne the penyons of the winde;fascends.gbrow, orsummit.hholy.“Astighesfthe mountaines borneg, and measures rounde“The steepie clifftes of Chalmas halliehgrounde.”
“Recyte the loves of Narva and Mored,
“The preeste of Chalmas trypell ydolle sayde.
“Hie fro the grounde the youthful heretogsasprunge,
“Loude on the concave shelle the launces runge:
“In al the mysterkebmaizes of the daunce
“The youths of Bannies brennyngecsandes advaunce;
“Whiles the moledvyrgin brokkyngelookes behinde,
“And rydes uponne the penyons of the winde;
“Astighesfthe mountaines borneg, and measures rounde
“The steepie clifftes of Chalmas halliehgrounde.”
[From Rowley’s Poems, quarto, p. 391.]
“When England smoking from her deadly wound,“From her gall’d neck did twitch the chain away,“Seeing her lawful sons fall all around,“(Mighty they fell, ’twas Honour led the fray,)“Then in a dale, by eve’s dark surcoat gray,“Two lonely shepherds did abruptly fly,“(The rustling leaf does their white hearts affray,)“And with the owlet trembled and did cry:“First Robert Neatherd his sore bosom struck,“Then fell upon the ground, and thus he spoke.”
“When England smoking from her deadly wound,
“From her gall’d neck did twitch the chain away,
“Seeing her lawful sons fall all around,
“(Mighty they fell, ’twas Honour led the fray,)
“Then in a dale, by eve’s dark surcoat gray,
“Two lonely shepherds did abruptly fly,
“(The rustling leaf does their white hearts affray,)
“And with the owlet trembled and did cry:
“First Robert Neatherd his sore bosom struck,
“Then fell upon the ground, and thus he spoke.”
If however, after all, a little inferiority should be found in Chatterton’s acknowledged productions, it may be easily accounted for. Enjoin a young poet to write verses on any subject, and after he has finished his exercise, show him how Shakspeare, Dryden, and Pope, have treated the same subject. Let him then write a second copy of verses, still on the same theme. This latter will probably be aCentofrom the works of the authours that he has just perused. The one will have the merit of originality; the other a finer polish and more glowing imagery. This is exactly Chatterton’s case. The verses that he wrote for Rowley areperhapsbetter than his others, because they contain the thoughts of our best poets often in their own words. The versification is equally good in both. Let it be remembered too, that the former were composed at his leisure in a period of near a year and a half; the latter in about four months, and many of them to gain bread for the day that was passing over him.
After his arrival inLondon, if his forgeries had met with any success, he would undoubtedly have produced ancient poetry without end; but perceiving that the gentleman in whom he expectedto find at once a dupe and a patron, was too clear-sighted to be deceived by such evident fictions, and that he could earn a livelihood by his talents, without fabricating old Mss. in order to gain a few shillings from Mess. Barrett and Catcott, he deserted his original plan, and we hear little more of Rowley’s verses.
With regard to the time in which the poems attributed to this priest were produced, which it is urged was much too short for Chatterton to have been the inventor of them, it is indeed astonishing that this youth should have been able to compose, in about eighteen months, three thousand seven hundred verses, on various subjects; but it would have been still more astonishing, if he had transcribed in that time the same number of lines, written on parchment, in a very ancient hand, in the close and indistinct manner, in which these poems are pretended to have been written,Q*Let those who may be surprised at this assertion, recollect the wonderful inventive faculties of Chatterton, and the various compositions, both in prose and verse, which he produced after his arrival in London, in the short space of four months; not to mention the numerous pieces, which he is known to have written in the same period, and which have not yet been collected—Let them likewise examine any one of the defaced Mss. of the fifteenth century, in the Cotton Library, and see in what time they can transcribe a dozen lines from it.and defaced and obliterated in many placesQ*:—unless he had been endued with the faculty of a celebrated solicitor, who being desired a few yearsago in the House of Lords to read an old deed, excused himself by saying that it wasillegible, informing their lordships at the same time that he would make out a faircopyof it against the next day. Chatterton, I believe, understood better how to make fair copies of illegible parchments, than to read any ancient manuscript whatsoever.
It isamusingenough to observe the miserable shifts to which his new editor is forced to have recourse, when he is obliged to run full tilt against matters of fact.—Thus Chatterton, we find, owned that he was the authour of the firstBattle of Hastings; but we are not to believe his declaration, says Mr. Thistlethwaite, whose doctrine on this subject the reverend commentator has adopted. “Chatterton thought himself not sufficiently rewarded by his Bristol patrons, in proportion to what his communications deserved.” He pretended, therefore, “on Mr. Barrett’s repeated solicitations for the original [of the Battle of Hastings], that he himself wrote that poem for a friend; thinking,perhaps, that if he parted with the original poem, he might not be properly rewarded for the loss of it,R*”—As if there was no other way forhim to avoid being deprived of a valuable ancient Ms. but by saying that it was a forgery, and that he wrote it himself!—What, however, did he do immediately afterwards? No doubt, he avoided getting into the same difficulty a second time, and subjecting himself again to thesame importunity from his ungenerous Bristol patrons, by showing them no more of these rarities? Nothing less. The very same day that he acknowledged this forgery, he informed Mr. Barrett that he had another poem, the copy of an original by Rowley; and at aconsiderable interval of time(which indeed was requisite for writing his new piece) he producedanotherBattle of Hastings, much longer than the former; a fair copy from an undoubted original.—He was again, without doubt, pressed by Mr. B. to show the original Ms. of this also; and, according to Mr. Thistlethwaite’s system, he ought again to have asserted thatthispoem likewise was a forgery; and so afterwards of every copy that he produced.—Can any person that considers this transaction for a moment entertain a doubt that all these poems were his own invention?
R*Chatterton’s Poems, quarto, edit. Milles, p. 458.It was not without good reason that the editor was solicitous to disprove Chatterton’s frank confession, respecting this poem; for he perceived clearly that the style, the colouring, and images, are nearly the same in this, and the second poem with the same title, and that every reader of any discernment must see at the first glance, that he who wrote the firstBattle of Hastingswas the authour of allthe other poems ascribed to Rowley.—It is observable that Chatterton inthe Battle of Hastings, No2, frequently imitates himself, or repeats the same images a second time. Thus in the first poem with this title we meet——“he dying gryp’d the recer’s limbe;The recer then beganne to flynge and kicke,And toste the erlie farr off to the grounde:The erlie’s squier then a swerde did stickeInto his harte, a dedlie ghastlie wounde;And downe he felle upon the crymson pleine,Upon Chatillion’s soulless corse of claie.”In the secondBattle of Hastingsare these lines:“But as he drewe his bowe devoid of arte,“So it came down upon Troyvillain’s horse;“Deep thro hys hatchments wente the pointed floe;“Now here, now there, with rage bleedinge he rounde doth goe.“Nor does he hede his mastres known commands,“Tyll, growen furiouse by his bloudie wounde,“Erect upon his hynder feete he staundes,“And throwes hys mastre far off to the grounde.”Can any one for a moment doubt that these verses were all written by the same person?——The circumstance of the wounded horse’s falling on his rider, in thefirstof these similies, is taken directly from Dryden’s Virgil, Æn. X. v. 1283.—Chatterton’s new editor has artfully contrasted this passage of Dryden with thesecondsimile, where that circumstance isnotmentioned.
R*Chatterton’s Poems, quarto, edit. Milles, p. 458.
It was not without good reason that the editor was solicitous to disprove Chatterton’s frank confession, respecting this poem; for he perceived clearly that the style, the colouring, and images, are nearly the same in this, and the second poem with the same title, and that every reader of any discernment must see at the first glance, that he who wrote the firstBattle of Hastingswas the authour of allthe other poems ascribed to Rowley.—It is observable that Chatterton inthe Battle of Hastings, No2, frequently imitates himself, or repeats the same images a second time. Thus in the first poem with this title we meet
——“he dying gryp’d the recer’s limbe;The recer then beganne to flynge and kicke,And toste the erlie farr off to the grounde:The erlie’s squier then a swerde did stickeInto his harte, a dedlie ghastlie wounde;And downe he felle upon the crymson pleine,Upon Chatillion’s soulless corse of claie.”
——“he dying gryp’d the recer’s limbe;
The recer then beganne to flynge and kicke,
And toste the erlie farr off to the grounde:
The erlie’s squier then a swerde did sticke
Into his harte, a dedlie ghastlie wounde;
And downe he felle upon the crymson pleine,
Upon Chatillion’s soulless corse of claie.”
In the secondBattle of Hastingsare these lines:
“But as he drewe his bowe devoid of arte,“So it came down upon Troyvillain’s horse;“Deep thro hys hatchments wente the pointed floe;“Now here, now there, with rage bleedinge he rounde doth goe.“Nor does he hede his mastres known commands,“Tyll, growen furiouse by his bloudie wounde,“Erect upon his hynder feete he staundes,“And throwes hys mastre far off to the grounde.”
“But as he drewe his bowe devoid of arte,
“So it came down upon Troyvillain’s horse;
“Deep thro hys hatchments wente the pointed floe;
“Now here, now there, with rage bleedinge he rounde doth goe.
“Nor does he hede his mastres known commands,
“Tyll, growen furiouse by his bloudie wounde,
“Erect upon his hynder feete he staundes,
“And throwes hys mastre far off to the grounde.”
Can any one for a moment doubt that these verses were all written by the same person?——The circumstance of the wounded horse’s falling on his rider, in thefirstof these similies, is taken directly from Dryden’s Virgil, Æn. X. v. 1283.—Chatterton’s new editor has artfully contrasted this passage of Dryden with thesecondsimile, where that circumstance isnotmentioned.
Again:—We have the positive testimony of Mr. John Ruddall, a native and inhabitant of Bristol, who was well acquainted with Chatterton, when he was a clerk to Mr. Lambert, thatthe Account of the ceremonies observed at the opening of the Old Bridge, published in Farley’s Journal, Oct. 1. 1768, and said to betaken from an ancient Ms., was a forgery of Chatterton’s, and acknowledged by him to be such. Mr. Ruddall’s account of this transaction is so material, that I will transcribe it from the Dean of Exeter’s new work, which perhaps many of my readers may not have seen:—“Duringthat time, [while C. was clerk to Mr. L.] Chatterton frequently called upon him at his master’s house, and soon after he had printed the account of the bridge in the Bristol paper, told Mr. Ruddall, that he was the author of it; butit occurring to him afterwards, that he might be called upon to produce the original, he brought to him one day a piece of parchment about the size of a half-sheet of fool’s-cap paper: Mr. Ruddall does not think that any thing was written on it when produced by Chatterton, but he saw him write several words, if not lines, in a character which Mr. Ruddall did not understand, which he says was totally unlike English, and as he apprehends was meant by Chatterton to imitate or represent the original from which this account was printed. He cannot determine precisely how much Chatterton wrote in this manner, but says, that the time he spent in that visit did not exceed three quarters of an hour: the size of the parchment, however, (even supposing it to have been filled with writing) will in some measure ascertain the quantity which it contained. He says also, that when Chatterton had written on the parchment, he held it over the candle, to give it the appearance of antiquity, which changed the colour of the ink,S*See the new edition of Chatterton’s poems, quarto, p. 436, 437.and made the parchment appear black and a little contractedS*.”
Such is the account of one of Chatterton’s intimate friends. And how is this decisive proof of his abilities to imitate ancient English handwriting, and his exercise of those abilities, evaded? Why truly, we are told, “thecontraction of the parchmentis no discriminating mark of antiquity; theblacknessgiven by smoke appears upon trial to be very different from theyellowtinge which parchment acquires by age; andthe ink does not change its colour, as Mr. Ruddall seems to apprehend.” So, because these arts are not alwayscompletely successfull, and would not deceive a very skilful antiquary, we are to conclude, that Chatterton did not forge a paper which he acknowledged to have forged, and did not in the presence of Mr. Ruddall cover a piece of parchment with ancient characters for the purpose of imposition, though the fact is clearly ascertained by the testimony of that gentleman!—The reverend commentator argues on this occasion much in the same manner, as a well-known versifier of the present century, the facetious Ned Ward (and he too published a quarto volume of poems). Some biographer, in an account of the lives of the English poets, had said that “he was an ingenious writer, considering his low birth and mode of life, he having for some time kept a publick house in the City.” “Never was a greater or more impudent calumny (replied the provoked rhymer); it is very well known to everybody, that my publick house is not in the City, but inMoorfields.”—In the name of common sense, of what consequence is it, whether in factallancient parchments areshrivelled; whether smoke will give ink ayellowappearance or not. It is sufficient, that Chattertonthoughtthis was the case; that he made theattemptin the presence of a credible witness, to whom heacknowledgedthe purpose for which the manœuvre was done. We are asked indeed, why he did not prepare his pretended original before he published the copy. To this another question is the best answer. Why is not fraud always uniform and consistent, and armed at all points? Happily for mankind it scarcely ever is. Perhaps (as Mr. Ruddall’s account seems to state the matter) he did not think at first that he should be called upon for the original: perhaps he was limited in a point of time, and could not fabricate it by the day that the new bridge was opened at Bristol.—But there is no end of such speculations. Facts are clear and incontrovertible. Whatever might have been the cause of his delay, it is not denied that he acknowledged this forgery to his friend Mr. Ruddall; conjuring him at the same time not to reveal the secret imparted to him. If this had been a mere frolick, what need of this earnest injunction of secrecy?—His friend scrupulously kept his word till the year 1779, when, as the Dean of Exeter informs us, “on the prospect of procuring agratuity of ten pounds for Chatterton’s mother, from a gentleman who sought for information concerning her son’s history, he thought so material a benefit to the family would fully justify him for divulging a secret, by which no person living could be a sufferer.”
I will not stay to take notice of the impotent attempts that Chatterton’s new commentators have made to overturn the very satisfactory and conclusive reasoning of Mr. Tyrwhitt’s Appendix to the former edition of the fictitious Rowley’s Poems. That most learned and judicious critick wants not the assistance of my feeble pen:Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis——.If he should come into the field himself (as I hope he will), he will soon silence the Anglo-Saxon batteries of his opponents.
The principal argumentsthat have been urged in support of the antiquity of the poems attributed to Rowley, have now, if I mistake not, been fairly stated and examinedT*. On areview of the whole, I trust the reader will agree with me in opinion, that there is not the smallest reason for believing a single line of them to have been written by any other person than Thomas Chatterton; and that, instead of the towering motto which has been affixed to the new and splendid edition of the works of that most ingenious youth——Renascentur quæ jam cecidere—the words of Claudian would have been more “germane to the matter:”
————tolluntur in altum,Ut lapsu graviore ruant.
————tolluntur in altum,
Ut lapsu graviore ruant.
Having, I fear, trespassed too long on the patience of my readers, in the discussion of a question that to many may appear of no great importance, I will only add the following seriousandwell-intended proposal. I do humbly recommend, that a committee of the friends of the reverend antiquarian, Dr. Jeremiah Milles, Dean of Exeter, and the learned mythologist, Jacob Bryant, Esq., may immediately meet;—that they may, as soon as possible, convey the said Dr. M. and Mr. B. together with Mr. George Catcott, pewterer, and Mr. William Barrett, surgeon, of Bristol, and Dr. Glynn of Cambridge, to the room over the north porch of Redcliffe church, and that on the door of the said roomsixpadlocks may be fixed:—that in order to wean these gentlemenby degrees from the delusion under which they labour, and to furnish them with some amusement, they may be supplied with proper instruments to measure the length, breadth, and depth, of the empty chests now in the said room, and thereby to ascertain how many thousand diminutive pieces of parchment, all eight inches and a half by four and a half, might have been contained in those chests; [according to my calculation, 1,464,578;—but I cannot pretend to be exact:] that for the sustenance of these gentlemen, a large peck loaf may be placed in amaundbasket in the said room, having been previously prepared and left in a damp place, so as to become mouldy, and the words and figuresThomas Flour, Bristol, 1769, being first impressed in common letters on the upper crust of the said loaf, and on the under side thereof, in Gothick Characters,Thomas Wheateley, 1464V*Rowley’sPurple Roll, Mr. Bryant very gravely tells us, it yet extant in manuscript in hisown hand-writing. “It is (he adds) intwoparts;oneof the said parts written by Thomas Rowley, andthe other by Thomas Chatterton.”(which Thomas Wheateley Mr. Barrett, if he carefully examines Rowley’sPurple RollV*, will find was anauncyentbaker, and “did use to bake daiely for Maister Canynge twelve manchettes of chete breade, and foure douzenne of marchpanes;” and which custom of impressing the names of bakers upon bread, Ican prove to be as ancient as the time of king Edward IV., from Doomsday-book, William de Wircestre, Shakspeare, and other good antiquarians, as also from the Green and Yellow Rolls, now in Mr. B’s custody)X†:—that a proper quantity of water may be conveyed into the forementioned room in one of Mr. Catcott’sdeepest and most ancient pewter plates, together with an ewer of Wedgwood’s ware, madeafter the oldest and most uncouth pattern that has yet been discovered at Herculaneum;—that Dr. Glynn, if he shall be thought to be sufficiently composed (of which great doubts are entertained), be appointed to cut a certain portion of the said bread for the daily food of these gentlemen and himself; and that, in order to sooth in some measure their unhappy fancies, he may be requested, in cutting the said loaf, to use the valuable knife of Mr. Shiercliffe (now in the custody of the said Dr. G), the historyY‡of which has so much illustrated, and so clearly evinced the antiquity of the poems attributed to Thomas Rowley. And if in a fortnight after these gentlemen have been so confined, they shall be found to be entirely re-established in their health, and perfectly composed, I recommend that the six locks may be struck off, and that they all may be suffered to return again to their usual employments.
X†A learned friend, who, by the favour of Mr. Barrett, has perused theYellow Roll, informs me, that Rowley, in a treatise dated 1451, and addressed “to the dygne Maister Canynge,” with the quaint title,De re frumentaria, (chap. XIII.Concernynge Horse-hoeing Husbandrie, and the Dryll-Ploughe) has this remarkable passage: “Me thynketh ytt were a prettie devyce yffe this practyce of oure bakerres were extended further. I mervaile moche, ourscriveynesandamanuensesdoe not gette lytel letters cutt in wood, or caste in yron, and thanne followynge by the eye, or with a fescue, everyche letter of the boke thei meane to copie, fix the sayde wooden or yron letters meetelie disposed in a frame or chase; thanne daube the frame over with somme atramentous stuffe, and layinge a thynne piece of moistened parchment or paper on these letters, presse it doune with somme smoothe stone or other heavie weight: by the whiche goodlye devyce a manie hundreth copies of eche boke might be wroughte off in a few daies, insteade of employing the eyen and hondes of poore clerkes for several monthes with greate attentyon and travaile.”Introduction, Note 19.This great man, we have already seen, had an idea of many of the useful arts of life some years before they were practised. Here he appears to have had a confused notion of that noble invention, the printing-press. To prevent misconstruction, I should add, thatbokein the above passage meansmanuscript, no other books being then known; In other parts of his works,as represented by Chatterton, hespeaks of Mss. as contradistinguished from books; but in all those places it is reasonable to suppose some interpolation by Chatterton, andthose who choose it, may readbookinstead ofmanuscript; by which this trivial objection to the authenticity of these pieces will be removed, and these otherwise discordant passages rendered perfectly uniform and consistent.This valuable relick shows with how little reason the late Mr. Tull claimed the merit of inventing that useful instrument of husbandry, the drill-plough.I make no apology for anticipating Mr. Barret on this subject; as in fact these short extracts will only make the publick still more desirous to see his long-expectedHistory of Bristol, which I am happy to hear is in great forwardness, and will, I am told, contain a full account of theYellow Roll, and an exact inventory ofMaistre William Cannynge’sCabinet of coins, medals, and drawings, (among the latter of which are enumerated many, highly finished, by Apelles, Raphael, Rowley, Rembrant, and Vandyck) together with several other matters equally curious.—It is hoped that this gentleman will gratify the publick with an accurate engraving from a drawing by Rowley, representing the ancient Castle of Bristol, together with the square tower ycleped theDongeon, which cannot fail to afford great satisfaction to the purchasers of his book, as it will exhibit a species of architecture hitherto unknown in this country; this tower (as we learn from unquestionable authority, that of the Dean of Exeter himself,) “beingremarkablydecorated [on paper] with images, ornaments, tracery work, and crosses within circles,in a style net usually seen in these buildings.”—Chatterton,as soon as ever he heard that Mr. Barrett was engaged in writing a History of Bristol, very obligingly searched among the Rowley papers, and a few days afterwards furnished him with a neatcopyof this ancient drawing.
X†A learned friend, who, by the favour of Mr. Barrett, has perused theYellow Roll, informs me, that Rowley, in a treatise dated 1451, and addressed “to the dygne Maister Canynge,” with the quaint title,De re frumentaria, (chap. XIII.Concernynge Horse-hoeing Husbandrie, and the Dryll-Ploughe) has this remarkable passage: “Me thynketh ytt were a prettie devyce yffe this practyce of oure bakerres were extended further. I mervaile moche, ourscriveynesandamanuensesdoe not gette lytel letters cutt in wood, or caste in yron, and thanne followynge by the eye, or with a fescue, everyche letter of the boke thei meane to copie, fix the sayde wooden or yron letters meetelie disposed in a frame or chase; thanne daube the frame over with somme atramentous stuffe, and layinge a thynne piece of moistened parchment or paper on these letters, presse it doune with somme smoothe stone or other heavie weight: by the whiche goodlye devyce a manie hundreth copies of eche boke might be wroughte off in a few daies, insteade of employing the eyen and hondes of poore clerkes for several monthes with greate attentyon and travaile.”Introduction, Note 19.
This great man, we have already seen, had an idea of many of the useful arts of life some years before they were practised. Here he appears to have had a confused notion of that noble invention, the printing-press. To prevent misconstruction, I should add, thatbokein the above passage meansmanuscript, no other books being then known; In other parts of his works,as represented by Chatterton, hespeaks of Mss. as contradistinguished from books; but in all those places it is reasonable to suppose some interpolation by Chatterton, andthose who choose it, may readbookinstead ofmanuscript; by which this trivial objection to the authenticity of these pieces will be removed, and these otherwise discordant passages rendered perfectly uniform and consistent.
This valuable relick shows with how little reason the late Mr. Tull claimed the merit of inventing that useful instrument of husbandry, the drill-plough.
I make no apology for anticipating Mr. Barret on this subject; as in fact these short extracts will only make the publick still more desirous to see his long-expectedHistory of Bristol, which I am happy to hear is in great forwardness, and will, I am told, contain a full account of theYellow Roll, and an exact inventory ofMaistre William Cannynge’sCabinet of coins, medals, and drawings, (among the latter of which are enumerated many, highly finished, by Apelles, Raphael, Rowley, Rembrant, and Vandyck) together with several other matters equally curious.—It is hoped that this gentleman will gratify the publick with an accurate engraving from a drawing by Rowley, representing the ancient Castle of Bristol, together with the square tower ycleped theDongeon, which cannot fail to afford great satisfaction to the purchasers of his book, as it will exhibit a species of architecture hitherto unknown in this country; this tower (as we learn from unquestionable authority, that of the Dean of Exeter himself,) “beingremarkablydecorated [on paper] with images, ornaments, tracery work, and crosses within circles,in a style net usually seen in these buildings.”—Chatterton,as soon as ever he heard that Mr. Barrett was engaged in writing a History of Bristol, very obligingly searched among the Rowley papers, and a few days afterwards furnished him with a neatcopyof this ancient drawing.
Y‡This very curious and interesting history may be found in Mr. Bryant’sObservations, &c. p. 512. The learned commentator seems to have had the great father of poetry in his eye, who is equally minute in his account of the sceptre of Achilles. SeeIl.Α. v. 234. He cannot, however, on this account be justly charged with plagiarism; these co-incidences frequently happening. Thus Rowley in the 15th century, and Dryden in the 17th, having each occasion to say that a man wept, use the same four identical words—“Tears began to flow.”