i/e^^rr/
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
AT LOS ANGELES
b
»♦»
VINDICATION
O F T H E
APPENDIX TO THE POEMS,
CALLED ROWLEY'S,
IN REPLY TO
THE ANSWERS
O F
THE DEAN OF EXETER,
JACOB BRYANT, ESQJLJIRE,
AND
A THIRD ANONYMOUS WRITER;
■VVITH SOME FURTHER
OBSERVATIONS UPON THOSE POEMS,
AND AN
EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE
WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN
SUPPORTOF THEIR AUTHENTICITY;
r
BY THOMAS TYRWHITT.
4^
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR T. PAYNE AND SON,
CASTLE-STREKT, ST. MARTIN'S. .
MDCCLXXXII,
r\ <-«, O
) i V
9782 7.
r.
• • * •
• • • •. • •
• • • •
•••• ••••
> • • • •
I • • • • •
■ • •
• • •
• • , • • • •
•••• *••• .
NEQUE EGO SUM OFFENSU.^ DISPUTATIONE
VhSiRA, NEC VOS Oil hNDI DECKBIT, SI QUID
FORJE AUiitLS VESTRAS PERSTRfNGET, CUM
SCIATIS HANC ESSE EJUSMODl SERMONUM LE=.
GEM, JU. iC.UM ANIMI CITKA DAMNUM AFFEC-
TUS FKOEERiUi,
Tacit. Dialog, de Oratoribus,
S
■>!
[ m ]
THE
CONTENTS.
A
Vindication of the arguments drawn from Lan-
CUAGE, in the yirw^r par/ of the Appendix, to
prove, that the Poems were not written by Rowley,
P. 1—76
Se6^. T. Examination of three fuppofition?;, which have
been adopted to evade the force of all argunien s from
Language; i. That the Poems arc written in a
Provincial dia!e£l, p. 3. 2. That there was no
ftandard-language in the xv century, p 6. 3. That
the Poenis may have been much altered by the tran-
fcriber, p. 8.
ScvSl. n. Reply to the anfwers, which have been given
to the objeftions in the Appendix, under the first
t;ENERAL Head of wirds not ufed by my other author.
I. Abessie, p. 11. — 2. Aborne, p. 12. — 3. Abre-
DYNGE. The obje<Slio:i withdrawn, p. 14.
4. AcRooLE, Ibid. —5. Adave, p. 15 — 6. Adente,
p. 16. 7. Adrames, p. 19. — 3. Alatche, p. 20.
— 9. Ai.MER, Ibid. — 10. Aluste, p. 21. — 1 i.Alyn'E,
p. 23. — 12. Alyse, p. 24. — 13. Anere, p. 26.—
14. Anete, p. 27. — 15. Applynces, 16. Arrqw-
lede, 17. Asenglave, p. 28. — <8. AsiEE, 19. As-
•^WAIE, 20. ASTENDE, p. 29.
a 2
Seft.
Iv CONTENTS.
Sedl. III. Reply to the anfwers under the second ge-
neral Head of words ufed by other wiiterSy but in a
different ft^nfe. i. Abounde, p. 29. 2. Aledge,
p. 30. — 3. All-a-boon, p. 32. — 4. Alleyn, p. 33.
— 5. AscAUNCE. The objcftion withdrawn, p. 34. —
6. AsTERTE, Ibid. 7. AuMERE, p. 35. — 8. BaR-
BED, p. 38. — 9. Blake, p. 39 10. Bodykin,
SWARTHE, p. 41. II. BoRDEL, p. 42. — 12. BVS-
]\IARE, p. 43. 13. ChAMPYON, V. p. 44. 14. CoN-
TAKE, Ibid. — 1-5. Derne, p. 46. — 16. Droorie,
, p. 47.— 17. FIjnnes^ p. 49. — 18. Knopped, p. 53.
19. LecTURN, p. 54. — 20. LiTHlE, p. 55.
k.
i:c6l. IV. Reply to the anfwers under the third gene-
ral Head of words injicSled contrary to grammar and
citjlom. Preliminary obfervation, p. 56. Clevis,
p. 57. — EvNF, p. 60. — Heie, p. 62. — Thyssen, ib.
— voyen and Sothen% p. 65 — Termination of verbs
in the-fingular number in w. Han, &:c. p. 66.
PART THE SECOND.
Onfervations upon tlie ether parts of the INTERNAL
Evidence, to prove, tliat the Poems were not written
by Rowley, p. 77 — 115.
Sect. L Phrases. ^:ejf ufed as a fubftantlve. Did be*
p.,78 — .S dl.il. Figures, p. 80. — Se61. III. Ver-
sification, p. 82. Mr. Bryant's argumenls, from
coinp xiivfi oi other writers, cxainiiied, p. 83. Alexan-
drine verfe, p. 88. Pinda'ic itieafurCy blank verfe^
p, Sy. — j-cct. IV. Forms of Composition, Odes^
Elclogues., Difcorfing Trxigedles^ p. 91. — Sc6l. V. AnA-
c^iRoNjsMs add Contradictions to History.
K itting of HopTi„ Horf:-miiiant:r(y Political Frerdom,
p. 94.— /*-'/<7»'4.- ^ S'^'^''' ^^"^> A'^^^^i ^ filver coin, p. 95.
— St. (i'mrelurgusy St. haidwin, and St. Godwin^ three
" fiLirtious^a nts, p. 96. Canynge '/c/ fole founder of
Kedciiff Church, p. ^8. KoBert Canvnge not
gi'cai-f^randtather of VVilliam, p. 99, The name
of
CONTENTS. »
ofCANYNGE's brother «<5r JOHNfE, butTHOMAS, Ibid.
Tratifaftions relative to Sir Baldwin Fulford,
p. 100. to Canynge's Ordination, to avoid
a marriage propofed by K. Edward, p. io5. Ca-
nynge's finey p. 1 12.
PART THE THIRD.
Examination of the external Evidence for the
exijlenct of any Poems under the name of Rowley,
p. 1 1 6 — 128. No evidence, that any fuch Poems were
dcpofited byCANYNGE in Redcliff Church, either in
Canynge'j. vjilL p. ii7 — or in any deed of his,
p. 118. Improbability, that the works of Rowley
ihould have been preferved in a fingle copy, depofited
in a church-chcft ; or, if more copies had exifted,
that the name of the author {hould have fo long
cfcaped all notice, p. 119. The name of Rowley
totally unknown for many years after the clicft, in
which his works are fuppol'ed to have been depofited,
had been broken open, p. 121. never men-
tioned by the Attorney, under whofe infpection the
cheft was opened in 1727, p. 123. or by any of
the pcrfons, v.ha are related to have had accefs to the
MIT. which were left at large, from 1727 to 1765,
viz. Chattcrton the father, p. 124. — Perrot and 5i';Vr-
cliff, p. 127 — and Mirgany p. 127.
PART THE FOURTH.
Rcafons for believing that the Poems were all written
by I'homas Chattertok, by whom they were full
produced, p. 129— to the end. Hi. aflcrtion, that he
copied them from his father's Mil! coididered and rc-
futetl, p. 130. His pretended originals lhe*.vn to have
been probsbly forged by himfelf, p. 133. Examina-
tion of the argument drawn from his fuppfcd Wiint
of
vi CONTENTS.
of indnccmfnt to fuch a forgery, p. 150. from his
fuppofed want of ability^ 1. of natural parts, p. 144.—
2. oi acquired knovjUdge, p. 145. — 3, of time, p. 152.
Vindication of the laitn fart of the Appendix,
p. 161. Words in the Poems derived from blunder i of
older writers : All A boon, Aumeres, Bawsin,
p. 163. Brondeous, BaoNDtD, Brondeynge,
BURLIE BRONDE, p. 164. BURLKD, p. 165. ByS-
MARE, Bysmarelie, Bismarde, Calke, p. l66*
Alyse, Blstoiker, p. 167. Blake, ^lakied,
Hancellp-D, p. 168. Shap, p. 169. Ccmparifon
of the explanations given by ChattertoN of cer-
tain words objected to in the former part of the Ap-
pendix, with the explanation of the fame or fimdar
words in Kersey, p. 171. The praflice in the
Poems of prefixing a to words of all forts, arbitrarily,
not jufliflable, p. 172. Additional lift of words de-
rived from blunders of Kersey. Attenes, Bes-
TADDE, p. I7r. BhvylE, BewOPEK, p I76.
Cherisaunei, Ele, p. 177. Entyn, Forgard,
FoRswAT, p. 178. Gratche, p. 179. Haile^
Hailie, Lere, p. 180. LissF, p. 181. Obaie,
Regrate, p. 182. Semlykeeke, Unliart, p. 183.
Wychencref, p. 184. Yspende, p. 185. Con-
clufion, that Chatterton, having copied the blun-
ders ef Kersey, or fome oiler writer, was the author
of the Pocm!«, p. 185. Examination of the argu-
irients, which have been particularly urged to prove,
that he was only the tranfcriber \ his own declaration,
p. 187. His mifeonccptions, or mijlakcs in tranfcribing,
p. 189. h{\i mifinteypretutions Q^ words. Lordynge,
p. 198. Berten, p. 199. HouTON, p.20O. Defs,
p. 202. That the Poems contain many things with
which he could not pollibly have been acquainted;
Uncommon words; Fald^TOLE, FoRTUNIES, Fruc-
TUOUS ENTENIJEMENT, p 2O4. GoULF, MaNCA,
p. 205. Guek quotation from Gregory Nazi, nzen,
p. 206. Latin quotations, p. 208. Hijlorical fa6ls \
Canynge's ordination and yi'/;^, p. 216, The burning
3 of
CONTENTS. vli
of RedclifF S[)irc, p. 211. The To, pic Churchy p. 213.
Tlie mims in the iJattle of Hartlrigs, p. 214 i>pen!er,
IV'itworth^ zx\(\ Ph'hpot. Lincoln (.loth. Eftrild <x\^ ta^
brinOy p. 217- Ceremonial of Tourn.m-vtSy p. 2 1 8.
Coi clutli'.g obfcrvation from the uniformity of manner
in the Pocm^ attributed to Rowley, Canynge, "^ir
ThybBoT GoROHS, JoHs IscAxiME, andJoHN Ab»
bot of St. Auguftinc's, that they were all written
by Chatterton, p. 220.
A V I N D I-
[ '
-1
A
VINDICATION, &c,
r^jr^ H E diredt and pointed manner, in which
I my Appendix to the Poems, called Row-
ley's, has been attacked by the Dean of Exe-
ter, Mr. Bryant, and a third anonymous writer,
whom his pu.blilhcr ililes " very learned and in^e-
nlcus," ([) makes it abfolutely necelliry for me,
(i) In a piece, entitled, *^ Remarks on the Appendix cf
the Editor of Rowley'' s Poems.'" It is annexed to a pam-
phlet, printed for C. Bathurst, entitled, " Obfervation:
*' on the Poems attiibitted to Rowley^ tending to prove that
*' ihev ivrrc really v^uttcn by him, and iiher ancient au'
*' ^/)(7ri," by a Gentleman, who, it fecms, died before his
papers uen'c lo the prefs. Of this Lift Gentleman I fliall
lay very little ; not merely out of tendernefs to a pofthu-
mous work, or from deference to the old adage, De mor-
tuis nil nifi bonum ; but becaufe to a competent ftiare of
general literature he appears to have joined much candour
and good manners. It is. no new thing, that men of can-
dour and pro!)ity, and even of parts and learning, flioulJ
fupport a literary in.pofture. If Chatterton had iiveri
long enough, he might pulfibly, fome time or other, hnvc
exprcfled himfclf in words not very different from the
following of PsALMAN'AZAR. " And whcn 1 came to ihc
*' univerfitv, I fo'.-.nd mnny Icnrncd aad worchy friend? ,
B " as
[ - ]
either to vindicate the obfervations in that Ap-
pendix, or to retradt the conclulion, to which
they profefledly lead, viz.- that the Poems were not
'Written by any ancient author y but entirely by Thomas
Chatterton. As I do not feel myfelf in the
leafl dilpofed tO embrace the latter part of this
alternative, I am obliged, howevef reluftantly, to
enter into 2. minute examination of the fa(5^s and
arguments by which thefe three learned perfons
have attempted to contradi6>, and invalidate, my
obfervations upon the Language of the Poems
attributed to RoWley. If 1 Ihould be able, as
I truft I fhall be, to fliew that thofe obfervations
remain unihaken and uncont?adidted in any ma-
terial point, I might perhaps faf6*y leave the con-
clufion drawn from them to the judgement of the
candid and intelligent reader ; but, in the pre-
fcnt ftatc of this controverfy, as the advocates for
Rowley have at length releafed their opponents
from the difadvantageous neceffity of proving a
negative ; as they have condefcended to produce'
*' as warmly eng.^ged for, as others were agaihTt me; and
'* with this feeming advantage on my fide, at which I have
*' had frequent occafion to bhifli, that the former were
*' men of the beft charafter for candour and probity as well
♦' as learning and parts, and whom, for that reafon, I for-
** bear, as I ought; to name ; their partiality for mc being
" the mere eft'edt of too extenfive a charity and genero-
" fity, and which only expofed them to the farcalrns and'
'■'■ ridicule of my opponents." Memoirs of Pfalm. by him -
felf, p.. 221,
A<5
[ 3 ]
the evidence, external and internal, by which the
claim of this new Poet is fupported ; as more
Evidence on that fide, or abler advocates, can
fcarcely be expcfted ; I hope I fhall be exciifcd,
if, after having difpatched the immediate objcdt
of this publication, I take the opportunity of go-
ine a little more at largcf into the confideratlon
of the whole queftion.
I. But, before I attempt a particular defence
of my Appendix, it is necefTary for me to take
ibme notice of the endeavours, which have been
iifcd, to evad^ the force of all arguments which
caii be drawn from Language in this cafe. For
this purpofe three different fuppofitions have been
principally adopted. i. Th.it the Poems are
written in a provincial dialcift, and therefore are
not reducible to the rules of the ftandard-languagc,
2. That there was no fiandard-language in the
XV century, by which they can be tried. 3. That
hey may have been altered, and corrupted, in
their paffage to us, fo that the anomalies now
found in them may have been owing to the tran-
fcribers, and not to the author.
With refpcdt to' the first of thefc fuppofi:jons,
I had laid [App. p. 312. n.], '' that nobody would
*' contend, that the poems attributed to Rowley
" arc written in any provincial dialedV." I now
perceive that this was faid! inconfideratcly : for
the very learned Mr. Bryant begins thofe " Ob-
B 2 " seryation"s/
[ 4 3
" SERVATIONS, IN which" (if wc may believe
his title-page,) the authenticity of these
Poems is ascertained," with the following
words. ^'^ 07ie of the firft pofitioiis, which I miijl lay
'* dozvn, is, thai thefc Poems were written in a
'' PROVINCIAL Dialect : according to the idiom
*' of the -people, in whofe country the author refided,
'' and was probably bornT In another place
[p. ic,] he tells us, (upon what authority, I Ihall
not now enquire,) that " Rowley was of Somlr-
*' setshire." One miofht therefore have ex-
pedied, that Mr. Bryant would have proceeded
immediately to eilablilh this his firft, and very
material, pofition, by defining accurately what he
calls a provincial dialect ; by ftating authentically
the principal peculiarities of the Somerfetfliire
dialedt; and by fhevving, from the poems, that
the author adhered to thofe*peculiarities in pre-
ference to the more polifncd language of the
time. I am forry to fay, that, after a very atten-
tive perufal of Mr. Ery ant's book, I am Hill
unable to guefs what he means by a provincial
diakut (2) ; I cannot fee, that he has any where
(2) Mr. Bryant gives us firll two extrads from Caxton;
io which, he lays, " we have a clear account of the dialeds-
6f thofe times ; and of the variety of terms, that prevailed
in the days of Caxton, which were precifely the days of
Rowley." ' But all that I can colled from thofe extracts is,
that there were dialects in thofe times, as there are now ;
and that as hrodc and rude Kngl'ijhe was fpoken in the
weald nf Kait (where Caxton was born) as m an\ place.
of
[ 5 ]
flated the pcculiin-'iLlcs. of the Somerfctfliu-e dh-
of England. What i\\Q defaute was, which the Lady ?>l?.r.
garct found in Caxron's Englljhc^ is not fpccificd. Her
Ladyflup might perhaps be ;is n\cG. ^ pur ijf, as the Attic
herb-woman, who detedkd Thcophraftiis for a ftranger ;
but no modern critic, I believe, will pteter.d to lay down
the peculiarities of the Kentifli dialect from the writings of
Caxron.
With refpert to tlic uncommon words, wliich may be
found in the Vlfions of Pierce Ploivman, if Mr. Bryant had
thought proper to point any of them out, I apprehend they
might in general be proved to be rather orUiquatcd than
provincial ; as thofc undoubtedly are v.hich he has pointed
out in Shakfpeare; for to what province of England were
the words _/?///;;,', mold-ivarpy and U7>r^, ever peculiar ?
Spenfcr's provincialities are evidently afFeiled, and not
ded'.icible from any nat\iral dialev!!-. The tran/lation of the
JEiuis by Gaiv'ni Douglas is indeed, as Mr. Bryaiit fays,
mtircly provincial; but can he be ferious, when he adds,
" that much of the fame language is to be found in the
f)0"ms attributed to Rowley, and therefore that no book
can be applied to preferable to this, in order to authenti-
care thole poems, either in refpect to orthography or
llyle ?" If this were fo, one might be led to conclude,
either that the dialecf^s of Scotland and Somerfetfliire were
very fimilar, or that Rowley rejided and v:as probably born
in the former, rather than in the latter, diftrict ; but,
without coming to any conclufion at prefent, I would wiHi
the reader to compare part of a ftanza, which Mr. Bryant,
in his 434th page, has quoted froift Gawin Douglas, with
an equal number of lines in Rowley, and judge himfelf,
how the two writers agree in orthography and Ityle.
But it is time to ftate my own idea of a provincial dia-
led \ which is, infliort, that it confilh not fo much in the
ufe of peculiar words, as in the peculiar pronunciation of
common words. The following example from Verltegan,
p. 213, will explain my meaning. " Inlkad of pro-
nouncing, according as one would fay at London, 31 toouiu
eat more cfjecfc if 31 |)3t! it^ the Northern UiUn iaith,
ag full tat mare tpcefc cm ac I;a^ct, anil the WeUern
B 3 man
C 6 3
kd from any written, or even oral, authority (3) ;
nor do I find, that a fingle phrafe, or word, ' in
the Poems has been proved by him, or the other
It'arncd writers on the fame fide, to have been
more peculiar to Somerfetfliire than to Yorkfliire.
The SECOND fcems to be the favourite fuppo-
fition of the Dean of Exeter. He contend^
boldly [p. 513"', " that the criterion of antiquity
laid dozvn in the Appendix cannot be ad?nitted,
ziith regard either to the ufe, fignrjicatiot?, or in-
jledion cf words.'* The criterion laid down in
mnn faith. c|juti tit more tf)tttt an t?ja'D it»" Agrees
ably to tbefe Ipecimcns, it will be found, I believe,
that the fame noun<; and verln are in ufe in moft
dia!c«,Ts, and that their principal differences arife from a
cr>rnipr propimciation and commixture oi perfonal pro-
rouns, nuxiliary verbs, and fiich prrpojitions, conjunfiions'^
and ad'vciln^ as occxir moft frequently. At leaft it mull be
allowed, that many inllances of fuch mifpronunciation-,
"find irregular combinations of the laft mentioned pares ot
ipeech, would probably appear in every page of an author,
v.ho'.vrore in a provincial dialeft; whereas all the inftances,
v.-hich r\Ir. Bryant has produced in proof of the provin-
ciality of Rowley, ^v& Jingle words, which he is pleafed to
call provincial ; though many of then) are common words,
iifed by Chaucer and other writers, eiiher with or without
a fmall variation in orthograj.ihy ; and many of them, for
aught that has appeared, were never uled by any body but
the writer of thefe Poems,
(3) 1 Uiould except the quotation in p. lo, from Alexan-
der Gill, where we are told that theWcficrn diale^'^, efpe-
eially in Somerfetfliire, was the moft barbarous of any. Of.
the two inlhnces tliere given of worils peculiar to Somer-
Ijstfliire, viz. lax (or part, nnd toit {or Jcat^ it iij obfervable
tiiut neither occurs in the Poerfis.
I the
C 7 ]
the Appendix is the practice of other ivr iters of the
fame age ; a criterion, which, I believe, was never
before rejcftcd in trying the language of any
author (4). If it is now to be rejcdlcd, it muft
be upon the fuppofition, that no writers of autho-
rity ar-e to be found in the age of the pretended
Rowley, with whom he can be compared. But
this, one Ihould think, would hardly be main-
tained by aiiy one who recollcdtcd, that a century
of years, reckoned backwards froi-ji 1474, ^^'^^^
include the mod conijderablc compolitions of
Chaucer and Gower, and the whole works of
OccLEyE and Lydgate; four aijthors, from
whom, I will venture to fay, the ftandard-language
of England in their time may be as perfed:ly
alcertained, as it can be by any equal number of
poets for any fubfequent period of the fame du-
ration (5).
(d) I miut obferve, that theDcnn hinuclf ieems to have
made ufe of this criterion, or one very like it, in p. 4-63,
where he pronouiaces the language of two fongs to he too
mcdcrnfor the thirteenth centtny. I fliould be glad to know y^,
by what criterion he formed this judgement, if not by the '|^'
pratl'icc of other writers of that age; aad to what he chiefly
attended in examiuiug their language, if not to the uje^
JignlHcatlon^ and injie^ion of words. If by thefe means
the Dean was enabled to difcover, that the language of the
fongs was too modern for the thnteenlh century^ why may
not the fame means enable others to prove, that the Ian-
guagc of the Poems attributed to Rowley is too modern for
the fifteenth century P
(5) The Dean of Exeter has objei^ed [p. 465], " that,
inlleatl of adhering to the llandard which I had mvfelf ella-
'* ''• B 4 ' ' h\\{\\ti.
C 8 ]
The THIRD fuppofuion has been occafionally
adopted by every defender of Rowley, In order
blifiicd, nnd tryinij the biig-iinse of Rowley bv that of his
^ CD <f try J ^
contemporaries, I have ulaally appealed to Chaucer, a
n-riter of the preceding century, to whom 1 refer as almoil
the fole tcuchftone of truth and antiquity." Bur if the
reader will be pleafcd to run over thofe pages of the Ap-
pendix, to which the Dean has referred him, he will lee
that Chaucer is principally cited to fliew an eftabliflied ufe
of certain ivords in a fenfe different from that in the Poems.
]f 1 had cited a (ftridly) contemporary author, it might
have been faid, th.it ahy fuch author niight as well have
been miflaken in the ufe of a v/ord, as the author of the
Poems. It was necelfary therefore to appeal to fome older
writer of eftablifiied credit ; and, exclufive of every other
confideration, the facility with which the words might be
found in Chaucer by the help of the Gloffaries, naturally
led me to apply to him. If I was well apprifed, as the
Dean fuppofes, " that the writers of that period are not
fo much difiinguiflied by the words they make ufe of, as by
their manner of putting them together," I muft have been
quite indifferent to wiiich of them Ifhould appeal, as I had
no bufmefs but with their Jingle vjords ; their manner of
futtrng them together I did not meddle with in the Ap-
pendix.
With rcfpcct to the three writers, whom I have here
joined with Chaucer, as Ibndards of the Engliih language
in their time, it will not he difpatcd, I believe, that from
their learning and abilities, from the quantity of their
writings, and the corrcctneiS to which they may be broughc
by xrln". dill exiiiing, they are amply entitled to that pre-
eminence. 1 do not mean however that a proper allowance
fhould not be made for the variation of the language be-
tween the beginning of this period and the time of the
fiippofed Rowley, or that even later writers fl)ou!d not be
called in (if any can be found) to iuftify, or excufe, the
numerous departures from the ftandard language, which
occur in the Poenis. The more writers of that or the fol-
lowing 3gc arc cxr-mincd, the rr.cre clearly will the forgery
appear,
to
C 9 ]
to get rkl of fomc particiiLtr clifTjculdes In the
prefent text ; but it is embraced in the greateft
huitudc by Mr. Bryant [p. 434], where he faj's,
that *' Rowley may have been altered in the fame
manner with Blind Harry ;" i. e. modernized.
But how is this luppofition in any degree recon-
cileablc to the itory, which wc are required to
believe, concerning thefc Poems ? If the judicious
and munificent Cany'kgf, depofited any poems
of his friend Rowley' in Rcdcliffc Church, we
may be fure, that they were either originals in
Rowley's own handwriting, or at leaft fair and
corredt copies made under his Infpcdlion. Thcfe
WS. whatever they were, wc are told, came into
the hands of Chatterton, and from them he
made the copies, which wc now have. Accord-
ing to this ftorv, I do not fee the leaft ground
for fuppofing that the Poems have been much al-
tered. Compolitions really ancient could not
have wanted anv alteration to o-ivc them the co-
lour of antiquity; and that Ciiatterton had no
inclination to modernize them is evident, from
the multitude of uncommon words with which
they abound, and which it would have been much
more eafy for him to alter than to explain. The
ntmoft therefore which can be inferred from this
third fuppofition (confiftcntly v.ith the original
fuppofition, that CfiATTERToN tranfcribed the
Poems from ancient Mff.) is merely, that he may
have
have been guilty of fuch involuntary literal er-
rors, as are ufually to be found in almoft all
tranfcripts.
II. Having thus flievvn, that no fufficient reafon
has been alledged for exempting the Poems at-
tributed to Rowley from that fort of trial to
which I had brought them^ I proceed to examine
the feveral anfwers which have been given to thofe
Obfervations upon their Language, by which I
had attempted to prove that they were not writ-
ten in the XV century. I fhall be longer, I fear,
than the reader would wifh ; certainly much
longer than I fhould wifh myfelf. But the defence
in all cafes mufl be regulated by the attack.
The Dean of Exeter and the anonymous
Remarker have fubjoined their Apfwer^ tq each
cf my objcdVjons, in the ojrder in which thofe
Objedions fland in the Appendix. Mr. Bryant
has done me the honour to take fome notice of
many of my Objeftions^ not in any regular order,
but as they feem to have come acrofs him in the
profecution of his own plan. Whatever falls
from him is too valuable to be overlooked ^ and
il'.erefore I Ihall take fome pains to colled:, from
the different parts of his book, the Obfervations
relative to the Appendix; and I lliall arrange
them with thofe of the other two gentlemen,
that they may all appear together in one view.
Under
C » ]
Under my first Head of words not ufed by
fny other auihor^ I had recommended to the
reader's confideration twenty inftances, taken troni
the fiiKl: letter only of the alphabet.
I. ABESSIE, E. III. S2.
Whyleft the congeon flowrctte ahejjle dyghrc.
That there exiib fuch an Englifh verb as abcffe,
or abafcy from the French aba'ijfcr, I never had
any doubt. The qucflion is about abejjle. What
part of fpeech is it? Anonvmus feems to con-
sider it as an adverb ; for he fays, Abejfie dygbte is
humbly drefled. The Dean fays, that " Abejjle is
here put adverbially, and joined with a participle;
fo Spcnfcr has the expreffion of warlikc-dtght^
B. V. c. 4. ft. 21." According to this, AbcJjic
fliould be an adjCu.ivc. But juft before he has
obfervcd, that '^ AbeJfie dygbte correfponds exadly
with the Scripture phrafe, to be cloatbed with
humility^ i Peter, v. 5." I think it extremely
probable that the author (whoever he was) had
This Scripture phrafe in his mind, and ufed Abcjju,
as a noun, for Hianilit^' ; for I fee that Chatter -
TON, whom, notwithftanding his blunders and
ignorance, I muft ftill confidcr as the bell expofi-
tor of thefc Poems, has lb interpreted it. But
the point which remains to be proved is, that
Abejfie has been ufed as a nvun^ or adjctJive, oi
tid-verb, hv any other author.
I can-
[ ^^ ]
I cannot find that Mr. Bryant has taken any
rcticc of this word.
2. Aborne. T. 45.
Snctt oppe hys long ftrunge bowe and Iheeldc
ahorne.
AnonyiMus fays, that this word " might be
eafily explained and vindicated, were it needful ;"
but he declines the taik, for rcafons which may be
feen in his pamphlet, p. 8.
Mr. Bryant thinks, that " his fhield ahorne
may poffibly mean nothing more than his aivhurn
ihicld. Azvburnc, from azvbour, French : brown
ot a tan colour. Johnfon's DiQ:." If Auhurn
came from the French n. Aubour, 1 know not why
it fliould fignify brozvn of any fhade. Auboiir, or
Jiibie}\ is explained by Cotgrave to mean the
■pith^ fop, or WHITEST and fofleji part of ti?nber;
and its obvious etymology, from the Latin yi/-
bumwn, proves the truth of his explanation. I
do not however mean to argue, that auburn does
not at this day fignify a brozvn colour, but only
that the derivation of.it from aubour has. been
haflily and erroneouily adopted. Nor fhali I dif-
cufs upon what authority, or with what propriety,
the epithet auburn could be applied lo a f}yield\
as Mr. B^iYANT himfclf (diflatisfied, I prefume,
with every explanation of the prefent text) has
had recouric to a conjc^cure, " that the line was
not truly- copied ; and that inilead of —
hys
C '3 ]
hy« long (Irungc bowc and fbccld ahoniSy
wc fiiould read —
hys long ftrungc bow, and fhecld, and home?*
The word Borne has been before explained by
Mr. Brtant [p. 129] to fignify a kind cf gorget'^
ox breaji-plate. In this place [p. 279] he fays,^
" it was a fort of corjlet.'' He has proved, with
his ufual Icfirning, that Bjrna^ Brynia, Bnmia,
Briinic, Birnye, in various languages, have been
equivalent to the Latin Lorica ; but, I confeis,
I Ihould have thought his conjecture better fup-
ported, if he had produced a fingle inftancc of
Borne having been ufed in that fenfe in English.
But the flrongeft reafon againft any conjec-
tural alteration is, that the received reading JZ'<y7V2r,
fuppoiing it to be capable of fignifying Burnifced,
as Chatter TON has explained it, is better fuitcd
to the context than any other word. The Dean
of Exeter fays, that *' Burue, Burned, BournCy
and Tbourned, are frequently ufcd by our ancient
poets in the fenfe here affixed to then^i." His
inftanccs however are only of Burned, and
Tbourned; i\ot one o( Bur ne, or Bourne. Till he
produces one of Aborne, I Ihall confider my ob-
jedlion as in full force.
The Dean's obfcrvation, v;ith rcfpecl: to what
he calls *' the A. S. prefx, lubich {ht fays) Row-
ley and all our ancient poets infert or c?nit at their
pleafurCy* will be more proper!} corifidered when
I coaie
[ H 3
J come to Ac vindication of that part of tbe
Appendix [p. 531, n. *] in which I had re-
marked, " that it was ufual with Chatterton
to prefix a to words of all forts, without any re-
gard t6 cuflom or propriety."
3. Abredykge. ^.3340'
Agylted ^Ua, thie abredynge blyng^.
I am convinced by the pafTage, which the Deai^
of Exeter has quoted from Gower, x\\2X Abreidi
was ufed in the fenfe of Upbraid ; and confequent-
ly, that my objedion to Abredynge being ufed in
the fertfc of Upbraiding was ill-founded;
4. AcROOLE. El. 6;
Diddc fpeke acroole, wyth languifhmentof eynCo-
That To crool and To crookle might have been
properly faid of Doves, I never meant to difpute.
The queftion is, whether the word Acrcole was
ever applied adverbially to the human fpecch.
The Dean indeed fays, that it " exprefles ftrong-
ly the meaning affixed to it by Skinner, To /peak
in a murmuring voice;'' which might lead one to
imagine, that Skinner had adualiy explained
the word Acroole in that manner; whereas he only
fays, " Crosl, cxp. murmurare, obmurmurare,
credo idem quod (^rolDl."
The Dean's other authorities arc taken from
Bp. Douglas and his Gloflarift. 1. To crowde^
U)T the noifc maJe by df^veu 2. To croivpe, for
that
t -5 ]
(hzt made by cranes ; (he might have added;;
fiuans and ravens.) 5. To crane, or croyne, fig-
nlfying To /<?a'. Whether all thefe, taken toge-
ther, are ftifficient to make us believe, that Acroolc
was ever before tifed to exprcfs the manner of
fpeaking of a diftrcfTed damfel, mull be left to
the reader's judgement.
Mr. Bryant, I think, has palled over this
word; arid Anonymus only refers us to the ex-
|)ofitions of Crc^/, by Bailey; with an imperfedt
quotation from Minshew, which, if complete",
would probably fhew, that the word crcol, or
fomething like it, was applicable to cb-ves. His
obfervation, from Lye, concerning the Initial
augment a, will be confidcred elfewherc, with the
Dean of Exeter's A. S. prefix. See before,-
P- 13-
5. Ad AVE. H. 2. 402.
The fvneft dame the fun of moone adavc.
This word is " for the prefent given up" by
Anonymus. Mr. Bryant has faid nothing for
it. But the Dean tells us, that it is the pall
tenfe of Adaue \ and fignifies, Jirofe ov JJjom' upon.
It will be time enouirh to confider the fio-nifica-
tion of this word, when the ufe of it is cftabliihed.
He owns, that it is an '^ irregular" pail tenfe;
but fays, that ** it may be jullified by many /v;//-
lar inflinces in our ancient writers, who form
r i6 ]
^qf from givey droj^f i-om drive ^ groff homgrafenf
thohte from tbincken, with various other irregular
paft tenfes mentioned in Manning's Saxon Gram-
mar." The only fiinilarUy, which I can difcern
in thefe inllances, is, that they are irregular; and,
in that light, they would have ferved as well to
juftify the ufe of Adoff, or Adohte, for the paft
tenfe of Adawe. In order to form any argument
from fimilarity, the Dean Ihould have flated one
inflance at leaft of a verb in a^^e, terminating its
pafl tenfe in a-ve.
6. Adente. M, 396. Adented. G. 32,
On to thie vefle the rodde fonne ys adente.
Adented prowefs to the gite of wit.
For a complete judification of this word, Ano-
NYMus has cited his ufual authority, Natha-
niel Bailey, Philologus. " To adent, to fallen.
O. word. Bail." Upon which it may be proper
to obferve, once for all, that fuch citations really
prove nothing more than that the word has been
repeated by Bailey out of fome older didionary.
They will never prove (to thofc, who have been
at all converfant with our old didionaries) that
the word is really ancient ; and much lefs, that it
is truly explained. The Dean of Exeter in-
deed has produced a French word Adcnter, which
is explained by Cotgp.ave to fignify, To mortaife^
to f aft en or join by ?noitaife\ to enchafe one tking
wit bin
, t >7 ]
within another. But this llioukl rather convince
us that CoTGRAVK, at Icaft, knew of no fuch
Engliih Word as Adcfitc. If he had known of it,
he would probably have ufcd it to cxphiin the
Freneh, as, a little below, he explains Adherer^
To adhere; Adjiiger^ To adjudge; Adjurer^ TcJ
jidjurc, &:c. N6r has he inferted Adente in the
Englilh part of his Dl(ftionary ; {q that I am pcr-
fuaded he had never heard of fuch an Engliili
word. Skinner, many years after Core rave,
has inferted Adenty in his clafs of old and obfolete
words, upon the fingle authority of one, whom
he quotes by the title of Author Diet, Angl, (6) ;
(6) From a cortipaiifon of fcveral articles I am per-
ftiacled, that tliis Anther DUl. A)igl: whom Skinner hai
quoted fo frequently, was no other than Mr. Edwakd
I'mi.i.irs, whofe General Engli/h DiLtlonary, entitled.
The Nfzv IFotld of IVords^ was firll: pul)liflied foori after
the Reftoration. This article in Phillips ftands thus:
*' To adent (old word), to fallen or join." To which
•Skinnkr refers thus: " atJCnt, Authori Diol. Angl. apud
/^uem lolum occurrd^ exp. Co:ifigere, coiijungere, &c.'*
What opinion Sicinner had of the authenticity of fome
of PhiLli^ses words, will appear from what he has faid on
tlic firrt article of this clafs: " ?(fiarCiC&, v')x qux mihi in
Ida Diff. Aiigl: occurrit, inter vetcres Anglitas voces re-
cenfita, aliotjui nuiujuam vel lefta vel audita ; exponitur
autem infatlai'dls^ nefcio an ab &:c. Seu ita me Deus amet,
vereor ne infanti nondimi nato calceos parcin," The article
in Phillips is '■'■ Abuijiick (old word), iniatial le.'*
While I am upon this fubje(ft, it may be hot iaipertincnt
to oblervc, that where Skinner adds fimplv fxp. to any
word, he refers to the cxpofit'ion of that word in Spcgf.t'' i
idofj'ary to Chaucer. See his fecond article: " flbatofU, exp.
Pcrtcrrituii, mc.u cor.fteriiatus Sec." The jrri'.lc uoi-i-cnT
C r
C -s ]
and upon the fame authority expounds it conjigcre,
conjimgere^ i. c. To faftcn, To join together. B'
therefore it fliould not Hem probable, that this
Author D'lB. Angl. firfl enriched our language with
the word Adent, he muft at leaf! ht allowed lo
have been the firft writer, who is known to have
affixed to it that general, metaphorical fenfe, in
which it muft be underftood in the Paems. The
inference, in either cafe, is equally ftrongy that
the Poems were not written in the XVth century.
Mr. Bryant has not attempted to produce any
authority for the ufe of the word Adente, His dep-
rivation of it [p* 1 50] from the Saxoii' noun Dynty
is " abStoCtJ, b, daunted, abaflied." See alfo the articles
accog and atCOgeD, afatc, affrar, aj^ifej, &c. This laft word
is formed from a mirtaken reaoing in a Ballad of Lydgate's^
as the compiler of Gloff. Ur. has obferved. The true
reading is A G'llevy or rather G'llour, a deceiver. In the
fame manner afase has been erroneoufly inferted by Speght
in his Glolfary for fare ; abcnt for hent ; a0ipp for gipc ; ali
•which words have been copied from hiiii by Smnner,
■without exprefling the kail: doubt of their authenticity.
And yet thefe are the two authorities, to \vhich my learned
ar>tagoniil;s generally appeal, as to tlire court of the lail
jefort !
I will jull add, that, as SKI^f^7ER appeai*s to have takes
naoft of his o/^/ words from Speght and Phillips, fo the
later Di<^ionary-m.akers, Kersey, Coles, Bailey, &c.
feem to have attempted nothing more (in that part of their
"frorks) than to hand down to us the words of that defcrip-
tion, which they found in Skinner, or in any other of
their predeceflbrs. Unutn nons, omncs noris. The autho-
rity of one is as good as that of all ; and the authority of
all no better than that of the firft.'
01^
C -9 ]
or Dent; iolus ; a forcible Imprcfiion ; feems to
me lefs admiffible than the Dean's from the
French verb Adeiiter. I believe, few people, who
know what an hidenture is, will be of opinion with
him, that our " current verb, 'To indent-, to make
a bargain ; to contradt ; fhould be derived from
the Saxon Dynt, rather than from the French
endcnter."
7. Adramf.s. Ep. 27.
Loughe loudlic dynneth from the dolte adrames.
This word Mr. Bryant has paffcd over. — Ano-
N YMus, in vindication of it, produces " Adraming.
O. word, churlifh. Cocker. See alfo Bailey." He
might have added Coles, Kersey, and Phil-
lips. — The Dean of Exeter fays boldly, " that
we have the authority of Shakespeare for this
word, and for the fenfe in which it is ufed." But,
furely, he cannot fcrioufly mean that John a-
dreams in Shakespeare gives any countenance
to AdrameSj as ufed here. John a dreams, i. e. of
dreams, is no more likely to have given rife to
fuch a noun as Adrames, than ^ack a'lent and Jack
a'lantern are to have produced new families of
Aleuts and Alantertis, Had the phrafe been drame
adolts (as it might, and probably would, have
been, if a rime in cits had been required), it
might have been, as well defended.
C:i i
8. Alatche. ^.117.
Leave me fvvythe or I'llc alatche.
This word is alfo palTcd over by Mr. Bryant*— ♦
Anonymus cites from Lye, " Gc-lathian, cicre,
arcefTere, advocare;" and from Ray, " Lathing,
Entreaty or Invitation ;" and concludes, that '* Vile
a\aiche'' fignifies " Vll call out for bclpeJ' That
this was the meaning of the author, I have little
doubt ; but the queilion is, whether the word ex-
pielfes it. The fame meaning, I apprehend, would
have been drav/n from abatcbe^ or any other word
of no real fignification. That Alatche is not ca-
pable of it, I conclude from the condudt of the
Dean of Exkter •, w^ho would never have taken
the pains to fuggeft four or five unfatlsfa<5tory ex-
planations of a word, when he had it in his power
to eftabiilli one fo fuitable to the context,
9. Almer. Ch. 20. 77.
Where from the hail-ftone coulde the aimer fl^it}
Mr. Bryant and Anonymus both fuppofe, that
Aimer has been put by miflake of the tranfcriber
fox Palmer. Air. BrVant obfcrves very judiciouf-
ly [p. 102], " It is not impofTibic, but that there
:Ttight have been fuch a word to denote an ci/J:er of
Alms; but it is contrary to analogy, and I think
improbable." The Dean however contends, that
no alteration is neceflary. He aiks, " Why may
not this w*ord be applied to the receivfr as well as.
to
C " 1
to J^he giver of alms?" I anfwer; The applica-
tion of it to the giver of alms would, in my opi-
nion, have been as unwarrantable as to the re-
ceiver. The former, in our language, is called
ai) Almoner, the latter an Alms-man, But he goes
on ; " At leaft, fuch an application of the word
in Latin is juftified by Canning's will, who leaves
legacies to the alms-men of Weflbury College,
under the title oi Eleemofynariiy or Aimer j." What;
is meant by an " application of the word (Aimers)
in Latin," I do not underfland ; and in what folr
lows I fufpe(ft a little inaccuracy: but if Canning's
will really mentions the alms -men of \Vcilbury
under the title of Aimers, I fhall certainly no longer
difpure the authenticity of the word, Till this
is made clear, I muft be allowed to obferye, that,
in a quotation from Canning's will, p. 421 of the
Dean's book, thcfe fame legacies, I prefume, ap-
pear to have been \th Jcx pauperibus eleemofMuiriis
de IVeJlbur^ — without the explanatory addition —
or aimers^
10. Aluste. H. I. 88,
That Alured coulde not hymfelf aluj^.
Mr. Bryant agrees with me [p. 79], that Alu/tc
has been put by a miftake of Cuatterton's for
Ajujle. We may differ perhaps hereafter about
the inference to be drawn from this miftakc ; but
I am happy to have him with mc, though for ever
C3 fo
C " ]
fo fliort a time, — Anonym us fuppofes Alujle to bs
only another form of the verb ah/an, and to fig-
nify in this palTage To releafe ox free. The Dean
agrees with him as to the fignification of the word ;
but, not being able to find Alujlan among the
A. S. verbs, fuppofes Alujle to be a participle
formed from Alyfan ; and adds, '^ that it is not
uncommon with our ancient poets to ufe the par- j
ticiple inftead of the infinitive mode." It was in-s
cumbent therefore on the Dean to iht\Y, in the
firil: place (at leaft by fqme analogical reafoning),
that fuch a participle as Alujle could be formed
from Alyfan ; and fecondly, that either the parti-
ciple fo formed, or even the verb itfelf, remained
in ufe in the XVth century. Till both thefe points
■were efiiablifiied, it was rather unncccfTary for him
to hazard his laft affertion, ^' that it is not uncommon
with our ancient poets to ufe the participle inflead
of the infinitive mode.'* I had pointed out tu-o
inflances of this inaccuracy in Chaucer (in a
paflage, which the Dean has done me the honour
to quote, p. 497), but I conceived it to. have been
'uery uncommon ; and I am confirmed in that opi-
nion by the few in fiances, with which the Dean
has attempted to corroborate his afl"crtion. The
pafifjgcs from the Tragedy of JEUa can only have,
been alledged in joke. The line of Occleve,
which he has auoted fromWARTON, [Hifi. of Eng.
Poetry, vol. ii. p. \^,'\ is mifprintcd. An ex-
cellent
C ^3 ]
ccllcnt Mr. in the Mukum, Bib. Reg, 17D. vi.
inftead of '* to hope him fro mifchance** reads right-
ly " to kepe him" And in the line of Gower,
" As thou haft herd me fayd tofore," I have little
doubt, that we fhould r<.^ad, either herd ?nc fdyn,
or her de fayd.
1 1. Alyne. T. 79.
Wythe murther tyred he flynges hys bovve alyfie,
Mr. Bryant has fftid nothing for this word. —
Anonymus quotes " Alynian and Alynnan, Sax.
liberare. " Hence alyne. — He flings his bow u?i-
bent.'* — The Dean fuppofes ^/)72<? to be the fame
word as Alley Hy an adjcftive, Signifying Alo7i£f and
fomctimes emphatically, yJ";?^/^ znd feparjte. This
paildge therefore he fuppofes to mean, that ** the
Duke, after he had finifhcd his fport, flung his
bow over his flioulders Alyne, i. e. fingle ^ndfepa-
rated from the concomitant quiver." But furely
the bow was more fmgle and feparated from the
quiver, while it was in the Duke's hand, than
when it was flung over his fliouiders ; the quiver,
I apprehend, hanging alfo from the fliouiders.
This explanation therefore of Alyne is not only
unfounded, but alfo inconfiftent. The explana-
tion of Anonvmus makes better fenfe, but, being
cquallv unfounded, cannot be admitted.
C 4 I2t
[ H ]
12. Alyse. Lc. 29. — G. 180.
Somme dryblcttc fliarc you fhoulde to that alyfc^
Fulle tvventie mancas I wylle thee alife.
Anonymus has heaped together a number of
proofs, that Ahjan was a Saxon verb, fignifying
To releafe. It would have been more to the pre-
fent purpofe to iliew, that Alyfe had ever been
iifed, \>Y any writer in or near the XVth century,
in the fenfe o^ Allow \ in which fenfe, Mr.BRYANi^
obferves, " the word is interpreted very truly" in
both thefe paflages ; and the Dean pf Exe;ter.
concurs with him. How Chatter ton came to
affix the fenfe of Allow to the obfolete verb Alyfe^
will be more properly confidered in another place,
when we proceed to determine the fliare which he
probably had in thefe Poems. At prefent I thin^
it fufficicnt to obferve, that thefe tvyo learned per-
fons have by no means proved that this word ever
bore fuch a fenfe. Their arguments feem all tq
refl upon miflaken interpretations of fomc equi-
vocal words. Alyfan is rendered in the Di£l. Sax.
liberare, fohere. This the Dean calls a double
f.gnification, im.plying both deliverance and pay"
ment. But every one knows, that folvo, though
it fometimcs iignifics To pay^ has generally the
fame fignification vvith Libcro ; To loof:^ oxJetfrce\
and the very inflance, which he has quoted, foU
vere jejuniuUy docs not convey the lead idea of
payment*
[ ^5 ]
payment. Again ; as Dclrjcr with us is an cqui,
vocal word, which may be Qiadc to fignify either
T^o deliver from^ or T^o deliver to ; the Dean choofes
ro interpret Libcro in the latter fenfc, and to de-
duce from it Deliver'^, F<wncnt, or Allowance, as
three fynonynipus words. Eiut he fhould have
proved firl^, that Alyfan had any other fenfe than
that of the Latin Libero \ To deliver from, Mr.
Bryant indeed fays, that it fignifics To permit^
errant, and alloio ; but I cannot fee that he has
produced any authority for any one of thole figni-
iications. When he fays, that it fignifies To pay
tribute, he founds himfelf, I prcfumc, upon that
paflage of Orosius, which is quoted in theDicT.
Saxon, where " Jlyfin that land" is interpreted
" Rcdimere icrram, i.e. tributum pendere.'* But
who docs not fee that Rediniere in that paffage is
the interpretation of Alyfan^ and that tributum pen-
dere is an addition of the Lexicographer, to Ihew
the particular mode in which, in that inftance,
the land was to be redeemed, or freed? If the
land had been to be redeemed, or freed, by battle,
would any one contend that A!yfa?i fignificd To
jigbt ? Though a redemption or deliverance may
be efrc(fled by a payment, the two ideas of redeem-
ing and paying are totally dilViiift, and there fecms
to be no pretence for confidcring the words as
fvnonvmous.
^V
[ 26 ]
13. AvERE. JE. 15. Ep. 48.
And canii I lyve to fee herr w\'the aneref
— — — Adieu untrlle anere,
Anonymus is content to leave this word at prefent
wiexplained ; but infills, that " it evidently appears
to have been originally no word of Chatterton's ;
for himfclf could not make fcnfe of it in the clofe
of the Epiflle to Canning." I can never admit the
concluiion, that a word was not Chatterton's, be-
canfe he could not make (i. e, has not made) fenfe
of it ; but in the prefent cafe I deny the fadt.
** Adieu untylle anere i^ i, e. another letter^ feems
to me very tolerable fcnfe ; and the interpretation
of anere to mean another is confirmed by the other
paffage. M.. 15. — Accordingly the Dean of Exe-
ter makes no difficulty of fuppofing that anere
is put for another ; and contends, that contradtions
pf this kind are to be found in many authors,
whom he names ; but without any feference to
particular paffages. He alfo does me the honour
to quote me, as hiving anfzvered my own objeHicn*^
I have faid, it feems, fomewhere, that nerc is a
contraftion for never \ and in my Glossary, that
n^ere and Were it are contraftions, for were not and
were it not ; (he fhould have rather faid, for ne were
and 7ie were it ;) and in another place, x\\2Xferre
is ufcd ioxferer^ and derre for derer. All this I ad-
mit; but how it is applicable to the prefent queftloii
I can-
\
C ^7 ]
I cannot fee. Do fuch contractions as thcfc fur-«
nifh any ground for iuppofing, that anere was ever
put for another, or brere for brother , &c. ? The
contractions quoted from Robert of Gloucester
are, if poffiblc, ftill lefs to the purpofc,
Mr. Bryant has very prudently talvcn no notice
of this word,
14. Anete. p. 281. 64.
VVhych yn the blofom woulde fuch fins anete.
Mr. Bryant is again filcnt. — Anonymus quotes
from his Didt, Sax. " Nedan, cogere, compcllerc.
— Anydan, repellerc, expellere." — And concludes,
" that anete may fignify expel, or drive away ; or
repel. I wifh he would produce fome Englifh au-
thority for atiete in either of thofe fenfes, or even'
for anede. — The Dean of Exeter undcrftands
the word in a very different fenfe. According to
him "it is the old Englifli word nete, or nought^
with the A. S. prefix ; — to which correfponds the
old French verb aneantifed (anihilatcd) which is
iifed by Chaucer." Waiving the difcuflion, whe-
ther there exifts fuch an old Englifh word as netey
I will be fatisfied, if the Dean will produce a
finglc inftance, in which nele, or anete, or nought,
or anoughtj is ufed as a verb. Till that is done,
he fhould not require us to believe, that any one
of thof^^ words correfponds to a French verb, or
can lignify anihilate.
15'
[ iS 3
15. ArrLYNGEs. E. 1. 33.
Mic tendre applynges and cmbodyde trees.
The three learned commentators have all exerted
themfelves at fome length in defence of this word \
though they are by no means agreed, whether it fig-
rifies little apples^ or little apple-trees. As they have
not produced any thing like an authority for the
ufe qt it in either of thofe fignifications, I mud
remain in piy firft opinion, that therp is np fucH
wprd.
16. Arrow-lede. H. I. 74,
Han by his foundynge arrowe-lcde bene fleyne,
Anonymus fays, that arrowe-lede fignifies the path
of the arrow f from lade. Sax. iter, profedtio.— ;
The Dean thinks, that it may be a mif-fpcHing.
for arrozv-hede ; or that it may mean an arrow
beaded with lead. — Mr» Bryant fays ng.thing ^
and I fhall irnitate him»
17. ASENGLAVE. H. 1 . 1 I 7.
But Harold's ajenglave Itopp'd it as It lle\ve..
Angnymus interprets this word to mean '' ^yZ///2//i!^
fwoi'd : a bright hook or bill.'* — The Dean Hiys, that
it means in one place a fpear, in another the Jleely
part of a lance. No authority is produced i^x any
of thcfe interpretations, or for the exiftenct;; of the
word ; which Mr, Bryant has palled over,
18.
£ ^9 ]
/
18. AsLEE. M. 504.
That docll ajlcc alongc ynn doled dyflrclTc.
19. AsswAiE. JE. 352.
Rottc thos to leave thee, Blrtha, dothc affwaie
Moe torturuig peyncs, &c.
20. AsTENDE. G. 47.
Acheke the mokie aire and heaven ajlende,
I beg leave todifpatch thefe three words together;'
only obferving, that Mr. Bryant has faid nothing
for them ; that the two other learned pcrfons have
produced no authority for the ufe of any one of
them, and differ exceedingly in their explanations
and etymologies of all of them.
III. Under mv second general head of -i^vsrir
ufed by otter writers, but in a different Joife from
that in which tkey mnjt be ccnjlrued in the Foems, I
had objected to the fame number of twenty in-
itances, as they occurred to me in running over
the firft half of the alphabetical index. All of
thefe have been variouHv defended bv one or other
of the three learned patrons of this new old-
Poet ; with what fuccefs we arc now to examine.
I. Abounds. H. i. 55.
His criflede beaver dyd him fmalle abounde.
Anonvmus would derive tliis word from the Saxon
verb gcbindiUif Igare — ; hence bunden, &c. Ic
fceras
C 30 3
feenis to be iifcd here, he fays, not as a vei^b, but
&s 2i fub/la?iti-ve I and he interprets the line to meanj
*' His crcftcd beaver afforded him finall binding
by way of defencci" — Mr. Bryant too confiders
this word as a fuhjlajitive ; but thinks, " that the
tranfcriber has made a miffake, and exprefled by
abounde, what was originally abonne^ or abone ; by
which is fignified any good or advantage*' But
Skinner, who is Mr. Bryant's only authority
even for abone, confiders it as a verby and deduces
it immediately from the Fri abomnr. And the
Dean of Exeter (from Skinner, I prefume)
fays, that it is a verby equivalent to bonwn facere
in Latin, to abbonir in French, and to abbonar in
Italian. Whoever will take the pains to look into'
the Dictionaries for the meaning of thofe words,
in French and Italian, will fee how little it fuits
with this paflage. The Dean adds, that it might
be deduced alfo from the Englilli word boon, or
favour: and 1 really think that it might, with
more probability than from any other, with the
help of bis A. S. prefix, which I wonder he fhould
have forgotten on this occafion.
2. Alcdge. G. 5.
Lette notte thic agreme blyn, ne aJedgc ftonde.
This word, fays Mr. Bryant [p. 76], " Chat-
terton interprets idly : and that was certainly the
original purport of the paflage, before it was fo-
2 phiflicated
t 31 3
phifticated by him. For he has tranfpofccl the
ktters, and formed his opinion by gucfs. The
word idle is from the Saxon ydcl^ the adverb of"
which \s ydelecb (j:kX.\\Q.x ydelich). Therefore inftead
of alcdge he fliould have cxpreflcd it adelege^
which is analogous to ydelecb* This was un-
doubtedly the true reading, of which alcdge is a
tranfpofition." Here are feveral points in this
obfervation which call for our attention. Mr.
Bryant fuppofes, that Chatterton has inter-'
pretcd this palTage rightly, by guefs ; and that he
\\2i^ fophijlkatcd, or purpofely corrupted, the ori-
ginal word, by a tranjpofuion of letters \ but he
has not ftatcd clearly, I think, what he fuppofes
that original word to have been, whtthcr jy^^/t-^Z?,
or adelege. If it v/as ydelecb, how can aledge be
faid to be a tranfpofition of it ? If it was really
adelege, \s\i^t. temptation could Chatterton have
to change it into aled^e ? Was it to give the paf-
fage a more antique, or a more modern, ap-
pearance ? to make it more, or lefs intelligible ?
Thefe are queftions, which I wifli the reader to
put to himfclf, whenever he fees Chatterton
charged with fop biJI teat ion ; and 1 mul^ alfo dcfire
him to remember, that this '' ^inexperienced and
unlettered boy " is here allo.vcd to have given a
true interpretation by ^ucfs of a fingulariy obfcure
word; for though Mr. Bryakt can fee that ade^
lege is analogous loydslecb, there' are many perfon?,
I appte-
t .« ]
1 apprehend, of fome learning and cxperiehc^^
who would never have fufpedted it.
But, to come to the point immediately under
confideration, Mr. Bryant agrees with rne, that
aledge has no meaning, which will fuit this paf-
liige ; and his authority I beg leave to oppofe to
Anonymus and the Dean of Exeter \ the former
of whom would interpret it reprefs'dy and the
latter compofed, or relieved^
3. All-a-boon. E. III. 41.— p. 23. 1. 4'
All-a-boon, fyr Pricfl, all-aboon.
Thys ys the onelie all-a-boone~, I crave.
Upon this word^ or phrafc, whichever it is to be
called, Mr. Bryant has laid nothing* Anony-^
Mus has attempted a faint defence of it from his
Glojfaries, i.e. Speght ; for Skinner and the
others, in this inftance, feem clearly to have been
mifled by Speght. The Dean of Exeter has
gone to work more manfully, and contends, that
in the paffage which I have quoted from Chau-
cer, C. T. ver. 9492, " And alderfirft he bade
hem all a honCy^ (the only paffage, I believe, in
which thcfe eight letters are to be found togethcF
in the fame order,) all is improperly feparated
from the following letters, as an adjective con-
nefted with the pronoun hem, and might as well
be made to conftitute part of what he calls the
phrafc all-a-bone; which in that cafe mufl be con*
5 fidered
L s. ]
ficlered as 2. fuhjlaniive, governeJ of the verb hade,
and equivalent to boon o^ favour. Which of thefc
conftruclions is the mod natural and probable, I.
fhall leave to the judgement of the reader. Upon
what the Dean adds, that " according to the
idiom of the Englifli language all is fometimes
ufed as an expletive," I muft obfcrvc, that his
quotations by no means prove the fadt. Nor, if
it were proved, would it much help him. For
though it iliould be admitted to remove the diffi-
culty in the firil pafTage, yet, in the fecond, not
only all, but a too^ muft be confidered as an ex-
pletive. T^hc only a boon would be as great a fo
Iccifm, as ths only all a boon^
g|r ^. Allevn. E. I. 52.
]\Iie fonne, mie fonne all-'yn yllorven ys.
This word too has been paiTcd over by Mr*
Brvakt. The other two gentlemen have taken
fome pains to vindicate it, without having apprc-.
hended the ground of my objedtion. They both
fuppofe me to have objedted to the pofiiion, and
not to the meaningi of allcyn in this palTi^.ge ; and
therefore have heaped together examples of what
they wifh to be confidered as fimilar tranipoiitions;
fuch as, cofyn mine ; mother mine, &c. But my
objedtion was, and is, to the ufe of alleyn, cr
alone^ for only ; fo'.us for ttnicus ; feul for unique.
The diflindtion, I believe, fubfifls in m.oft lan-
[ 34 ]
guages. If the learned perfons do not yet appre-
hend it, I would advife them, in the following
paflage of Shakespeare [3d Part Henry VI.] —
*' Ah ! no, it -is my only Jon'' — to fubftitute — my
foil alone — and to judge for thcmfelves, whether
the difference in the idea fuggcflcd arifes merely
from the different pofition of the words.
5. AscAUNCE. E. III. 52.
I.okeyng afcaunce upon the naighbourc greenc.
The Dean of Exeter's quotation from La belle
dame Jam merci has convinced me, that this word,
in the'lenfe oi fidevoays^ obliquely, was ufcd earlier
in our language than I apprehended, and therefore
I beg leave to withdraw my objedion to it in this
pailage,
6. AsTERTE. G. 137.
you have their -^oi'Csx ajlerte»
To this word Mr. Bryant has faid nothing. The
Dean has accumulated quotations, to ihew tha^
ajlerte fignlfics to Jlart from, to efcape. Of which
I never doubted. But how does that fignification
luit this pafllige? Thus, fays the Dean. " He
cfcapcd fromj avoided, declined, and fuffered their
merit to efcape his notice." So that to efcape from
a tJjingy and to fuffer a thing to cfcaps from you, is
the fame idea; and we may fay as properly, that
the hound ajierte the hare, as that the hare ajlerte
the hov.nd. But furely to introduce fuch arbitrary
intcrpre-
[ io ]
interpretations of words is to confound all Km-
oriiao-c.
O C3
Anonymus, as iifual, has had recoiirfe to his
Saxon didionary, but has unluckily miftakcn a
very material letter. The words which he quotes,
*' Jj^eredf orbatus, njlerncjfe orbatio, ajlsrte or-
phani," arc all printed in my copy, as thev cer-
tainly Ihould be printed, ajlepedy ajlepnejfe, aftepte.
It is needlefs to examine any inference from :i
falfe quotationi
7. AUMERE. M. 398. Ch. 7. AUMERES.
E. 111. 25.
Depydic wyth ikylled honde upponn thic w}\dc
auincre.
And eke the grounds was dyghte in its moft
defte aumerc,
Wythe geltcn aumcres flronge ontoldc.
1 cannot find that Tvir. Bryant has contributed
any thing to the iiluflration of this word ; and
Anonymus has merely adopted the explanation of
it by Skinner, which certainly will not fuit all
thcfe paffages. The Dean of Exeier indeed
aflerts, that " the application of this word, in
thefe different paflages, in which it occurs, is
cflabllfiied on the ftrongeft proofs. The geltcn
aumcres J E. iii. 25. are properly explained by
Chatterton, borders ff gold and Jiher : they
might be bracelets. — The earth's deft: ■ cunnrc,
D z Ch.
[ 3^ ]
Ch. 7, is no lefs properly called a loofe robe 9f
mantle y fiirrounding it ; and the ividc aumere, of
garment of hope, M,. 397. is equally applicable
in either Icnfe." But, inflead of proving that
aumcre was ever ufed in either of thcfe fignifica-
tions, all that he endeavours tcr prove is, that it
does not fignify a purfe^ as I had interpreted it.
The reader mufl lee,' that, if this point were given
up, the Dean's argument would be very little
benefited, as he would ftill have to prove a pofi-
tive fenfe of o.umere, agreeing with the ufe of it
in the Poems. However, as he has thought it worth
his while to attack my interpretation at fome
length, I iliall iliy a few words in defence of my
former opinion.
He allows, that *^ the word does not occur in
?iny of our ancient poets, except in Chaucer's
R. R. v. 2271.
Weare ftreighte gloves with aimere
Oi -filk, and ahvays v;ith good chere
Thou geve Sec.
And that the French original ftands thus :
De gans, et de bcurfe de foye,
Et de fain<fture te cointoye.
Skinner, who probably did not think of con-
fulting the original, fuppofed aumerz to be fome-
thing belonging to gloves^ and fo at a venture ex-
pounded it yf;;;^/-/-;?, in/lit a; ^fringe ov border. It
fcemed.
C 37 ]
iicemed, and dill fccms, mofl probable to mc, that
auniere of Jilk is Chaucer's tranflation of bourfe de
j'oye ; and confequently that aiimerc was fomcthing
equivalent to ipurfe. But the Deam, if I under-
iland him rightly, differs from us both, and thinks
that aiimerc is a tranflation of /^/V7t7z/r^, a girdle.
*' Th.c faindure, or girdle," fays he, " has efcapcd
the notice of the learned Editor (as he is pleafcd
to call me), though, as a principal ornament in
ancient drcfs, it was more likely to be mentioned
by the poet than the purfc." Which was more
likely to be mentioned by the poet. Is not the
queftion, but which is mentioned ; and if the
girdle efcaped the notice of Chaucer, I do not
fee that I was bound to take any notice of it. In
Ihort, autnere, upon the face of this paflagc, muft
probably iignify, cither fometbing belonging to gloves,
or d. piir/cy or ?. girdle ; and I think I mighr fafely
truft the intelligent reader with the determina-
tion, in which of thefe three fenfes it is here ufed
by Chaucer. But I have alfo referred to another
paffage of the fame poem, R. R. vcr. 2087. in
which he ufes awncncr in this fame fenfe of a purfCf
The Dean has given the lines of Chaucer ;—
Then trom his aumener he drough
A little key fetife enough. —
And of the original \ —
Adonc Azfa bourfe il traift
Un petit clef bien fait. — -.
D 3 Where
r\ O *) -4 r\
«^' (^ '-J " .}
[ 38 ]
Where aumencr is undoubtedly the tvanflation of
bonrje. I muil obfcrve further, that in what I
take to be the moll: accurate and authentic edition
of the French Kcman de la Rofe [Paris. 1727),
thefe two Hnes are thus written, ver. 2028.
Loirs a dc Vaiimojiiere traifte
Unc petite clef bicn faicflc—
which, I apprehend, adds no fmall flrength to my
conjedture, that both aumener and aximere are
derivatives from the French awnonicre. If fo, it
becomes ftiil clearer, that the proper fignification
Qii aumere is a purfe i a fignification, which will
not fair any one of the paflages, in which the
word occurs in thefc Poems.
8. Barbed. JE. 27. 219.
Nott whann from the barbed horfe &c.
Mic lord fadrc's larhde halle han ne wynnynge.
Upon the firftof thefe paffiigcs, i had jull hinted
a doubt, whether barbed horfe v/as an expreflion
in ufe in the XVth century, and I confefs 1 fliould
fall wiih to fee fom.e earlier authority for it than
Shakefpeare. But my principal objection was to
harhds halle \ to which no fufficicnt anfwcr has
been given. The fuppofition of Anonymus, that
barbed, in thefe pafTages, is to be deduced from
^0 barb ; io trim and drcfs the beard, or to put it
into proper form ; is ridiculous. The expreflion,
barbed horf\ whenever it came into our language,
v;as certainly taken from the French, cheval bardL
Se;^
C 39 ]
See CoTGRAVE, " bai'dc'i barbed, or trapped, as
a great horfc. Bardes ; barbes, or trappings, for
horfcs of fcrvice, or of fliew." And Dl7 Cance,
in V. Barda, *' Eqiais Bardatus, i.e. Cataphrac-
tits,'^ As therefore this epithet appears to have
been peculiarly appropriated to horfcs, and no
inftance is produced of its ever having been ap-
plied in a fimilar fenfe to any other fubjeft, I do
conceive (in anfwer to the Dean of Exeter's
qucftion) that there would have been at all times
a great mprcpricty in applying it to the hall in a
gentleman's c cunt ry feat, though hung round with
f.ll the variety of armour, defcrihed in his Ballad cf
the Old Courtier „
Mr. Bryant has not taken any notice of this
word.
9. Blake. JE. 17S. 407,
Whanne Autumpne blakc and fonne-brente doe
appere.
Blake ftondeth future doome, and joie doth mce
alvfe.
Here too Mr. Bryant Is filent. Anonymus fup-
pofcs it in the firft paffage to fignify yellow ; and
the Dean of Exeter agrees with him. I know
that Ray mentions it, among his A^. Country tvords,
^s applied to butter and chsefe in that fenfe. If
the gentlemen choofc to apply it as an epithet to
Mtmnn, I Ihall not conteft the matter with them.
D 4 My
C 40 ]
My objedion to it was, that it appeared to be ufed
in the fenfc of naked, particularly in the latter
paffage. To get rid of this objcdion, Anonymus
iuppofes very flrangely, that blake in this paffage
fignifies frtgbtfid, horrid. But the latter part of
the line refutes his fuppofition. For how can a
frightful^ horrid doom give any occafion for jo'j f
The Dean of Exeter quotes Bailey for an ex-
planation of " B leaky i. e. cpeuy expofed, and there-
fore coLhy" and from thence interprets Blake Jlond-
eth future dcomc to mean my future fate is open and
expofed to my view. But here I am afraid we
are in danger of being miflcd by an equivocal term.
I can under ftand, that bleaks applied to a place or
fituation, may properly fignify open, expofed, and
therefore cold; but how it can be applied, in
either of thefe fenfes, to a profpeEl of futurity, I
do not underfland. Befides, what Ihall we fay to
hlaliiedy E. 11 1.4.? From this adjecStive hlake,
fuppofed to fignify open, we m.ufl form a verb Ti?
biakie, fignifying To open, in order to get at a
participle blakied, which may fignify opened, and,
by the help of a paraph rafe, naked and unJifguifed.
What a whimfical fellow this Rowley niufl have
been, to take fuch a round-about way to avoid the
life of the common Engliili word naked, which
was io perfcdly fuitable to his fcnfe and hi;i
n;etre ?
lOi
C 41 ]
10. Body KIN, iE. 265.
And for a body kin 2i /war the obtcync.
That body kin is a good dinumitive tenn, as ANONYf
Mus alFerts, I fhall not deny. But the qucftiou
is, whether it was, or can be properly, iifed as a
mere fynonyme of its original word. Every one
mull fee that in this pafl'age hodylin ftands for
body, and not as a diiiiinutive term. — But, fays
the Dean of Exeter, Shakespeare has ufcd
the word, in the oath •■' God's bodikins^^ in Ham-
Li'.T. And fo, J think, he has fomewherc fuch an
oath as 'odfpitykius ; and I would advife the next
fabricator of ancient poetry, whenever he fhall
find pity too fliort for his verfe, to write pitykin,
FIc wilhbe fure of at leaft one defender.
\Micn I added, under this article, \}!\2XfzvarthCf
as a' noun, had no fenfe that I was acquainted with,
I did not recoiled: that Ray, among his North-
country zvords, has fet down fiuarth, as ufed in
Cumberland, {ox the gbojl of a dying per/on. The
Dean fays, it fignifies the gh'Ji of a dead man ;
but, as I am informed, it is moit commonly ufcd
in Cumberland in the fenfe, which Anonymus has
given to it, of the fhadozv or refemblance of a living
perfony whole death it is fuppofed to prognollicate,
I have never heard of its bavins: been ufed in the
IFeJ}. For the prcfcnt, however, we will take
Mr. Bryant's word [p. 163. 250.] for Rowley's
gravels in the North, and fuppofe, that he might
have
C 41 ]
have brought this new term home with him, yet
ilirely the great extenfion, which he has given to
ks original fignincation, mull furprize us. Not
content with transferring it at once from its par-?
ticular and appropriated fenfe above defcribed, to
denote a JJjadow in general, he has further ex-
tended it, by various gradations, to fignify (ac-
cording to the Dean ot Exeter) the Jpirif,ghq/},
vital prmciplf, or departing foul oi ni^r^. In one
or other of thefe fenfes, he has formed from it an
ADJECTIVE fwarihlcfs, fignifying lifelefs; and a
PARTICIPLE fvcarthing (from a verb fivarthy I
fuppofe) to fignify dying. All this is fo new, and
contrary to the ufual progrefs of language, that
1 muft confidcr every one of thcfe words as fur-
nifhing a ftrong argument againfl the genuincnefs
of the Poems, till the ufc of them fhall be efta-
bliflicd by the authority of fome reallv amcient
writer.
II. BoRDEL. E. I I I. 2. ^. 147. BuRDEr
LIER. E. 4IC.
Goe ferche the logges and bordeh of the hynde.
We wylle in a bordelk lyve.
Hailie the robber and the bordclyer.
My three learned antagonifls have admitted both
my pofidons with rcfpccSl to thcfe words; that
bordel, in very old French, fignifies a cottage ^
u:xl. bcrdclicr a colt'^icr; but that Chaucer ufcs^
the
[ 43 ]
the firft for a brothel, or bawdyJjoufe, and the fc-
cond for the keeper of fuch a houfe. As not one
of them has attempted to prove, that either of
thefe words has been ufed in its primitive fenfc
by any writer fmce Chaucer, I fliall fay no more
•about them.
12. Bysmare. M. 95.
Roarynge and rollej-ng on yn courfe hyf,nare.
Anonym us acquiefces in my explanation of this
word, in Chaucer, to (igm^y abujivc fpeccb ; and
fays, " that no other fignification is wanted here."
He fuppofcs that byfmarey applied to the courfe
of a river, may fignify taunting and dajlnng its
banks. It would certainly be a bold metaphor;
and would not at all help us in the interpretation
of bifmard and bifmarlie^ two other words evident-
ly formed from this. — The Dean of Exeter lays,
that " bifniare^ bifmarde, and bifjuarelie, and whcre-
cver elfe the ivord occurs in thefe Poems," (as if
the three words were only one) " it fignifics cap7-i-
cious^ fanciful, dclufive ; in which fenfc it is ex-
plained by our Gloirarills." The explanations of
the Gloflarifts are too bifmare (if I may be allowed
the expreflion) to be repeated. Upon the whole,
I lliould have no objetflion to enlarge the fenfc,
which 1 had given to this word, fo far as to com-
prehend abu/f, or contumely, by action as well as
'pcech. Further than this, I really think we have
not
[ 44 ]
not any authority for going ; much lefs for con^
verting the noun into an adjedive, or participle,
s.nd foraging an adverb from it. Mr. Bryant
himfeif objects to the ufe of the word byfmare
as an adjective, which, he fays, by all other
writers is ufed as a substantive. He therefore
fufpeds an error in the copy, and that courfe
byfmare was in the original hoarfe byfmare ; which
he explains to mean hoarfe terror. Haying thus
fjppofed byfmare to fignify terror, he next fup-
pofcs bifnarde to fignify " a/lonijbed, filled with
'veneration -f being a participle, as he calls it,
from the suBSTA!tfTivE hifmar. What bifmarlie
iignifies he does not fay. Can any one read the
lame and difcordant expofitions of thefe three
learned men, Vvithout being fatisficd that no au-
thorifed fenfe of bifmar can be found, which will
fuit the context ?
13. Champyont, v. p. G. 12.
Wee better for to doe do champyon anie one.
I doubted whether champion was ufcd as a verb
by any writer much earlier than Shakcfpeare, and
I am now confirmed in my doubt, upon finding,
that no inflance of its having been fo ufed by any
fuch writer can be produced.
14. CoNTAKE. T. 87. CONTEKE. E. II. lO.
— — I con take thie Vv'aic.
Conieke the dynnyngc ayrc and rcche the flsics.
Whci>
C 45 ]
When I faid, that I knew no inflancc of coUcne
ufed as a verb, I fliould have laid as a "jcrb aBive,
and in ikefenfe required in tbcj'e pnjfoges ; though
the latter circumflance, without being formally
ftatcd, mull be confidered as making a necefiary
part of every objcftion under this second ge-
neral Head. If I had been provident enough
to ftate my objecftion fo fully, I conceive that the
Dean of Exeter would hardly have thought it
*' a fufficient anfwcr, to quote Robert of Glou-
cester for the word conteked, which hisGloITarift
explains contejled^ or contended.^^ He would ar
leaft, I prefumc, have thought it proper to quote
the palTage at large, in which the v>ord conteked
occurs. Till we fee the contrary, vxc have a
right to fuppofe, from the explanation of the
GlofTariil:, that it occurs only as a i-erb neuter^ and
not as a 'cerb a£iive. For the two words, by v;hich
he explains it, conlefted, con/ejided, are only fyno-
nymous, when they are ufed as verh iieiiter. In-
deed, lo contend is never properly ufed as a -jerh
atlive ; though To contcjl is frequently as a i-erb
r.eiiter. We might b.y. To contejl the 'u:ay ; and
To contcji, or contendy iviih any one for the way ;
but not To conUnd the 'way. if therefore contejled
is truly explained by the Glofl'ciriftj it was ufed by
RuBERT of Gloucester as a 'verb neuter^ and
gives no countenance to the ufe of conlcke in either
of thefc palfagcs. But if it Ihould even appear
to
2
C 46 ]
to have been ufcd by him as a verb acl'i've, yet flill
the ohjeftion to the ufe of it in the latter paflagc
will remain in full force ; for who ever heard of
fuch an exprcffion as to contckcy or contejl^ the
dinning air ?
Mr. Bryant has faid nothing to this or the
preceding word, and Anonymus what may be
conlidered as nothing.
15. Derne. M.. 582. Dernie. E. I. 19..
El. 8. M. 106.
" When thou didft boaftc foe moche of adtyon derne^
Oh Raufe, comme lyfle and hear mie dernie talc.
O gentle Juga, heare mie derrde plainte.
He wrythdc arounde yn drearie deniie paync.
Anonym us fays, '' It is at leaft very doubtful,
whether derne is ever iifed by Chaucer in the
fenfe'* (which I had affigned to it) " of fecrcf,
pri'vatc.'^ For a folution of his doubt I muft refer
him to the two paliages cited in the Glossary to
the Canterbury Tales. Ele adds, *' Neither
Benson, nor Lye, give any fuch Saxon adjcdlive
aS derne.^' They both give dyrn, and interpret it
occullus ; and in Lye's Junius it is fpelt derne, and
interpre'ted occultiis, fccrelus. So iiiuch for the
original of this word; with which Ray's account
of the ufe of it in the North pcrfcdly agrees.
" Dearn, tor lonely, folitary, far fro?n neighbours."
And perhaps, if theDzAx had thought fie to pro-
duce
[ ^7 ]
ducc that paffage of Robert of GLOuc::sTr.n, Li
which his Glofllirift has interpreted derne to mean
difnial, fad, it would have been found not incii-
pable of the fame fenfe. It is highly probable,
I think, that Speght not only mlfiook the meaning
of dcrne in Chaucer, but alfo milled Skimnf.u
to render it dirus^ crudclis; and dernly, in Spen-
ser, quoted by the Dean, is interpreted by UpTo>f
to mean only eagerly, earnejlly. To difcufs all
thefe matters minutely is unncccliary ; fincc, even
if derne fliould be allowed to fignity cruel as well
as fecret, the ufe of dcrnie and adcrne in thefe
Poems would form an infurmountable objection
to their authenticity.
i6. DROoniE. Ep. 47.
Botte lette ne wordes, which droorl: mote ne heare,
Wc placed in the fame.
I had faid, that the common fenfe of dnieric^
which is courtjlnb, gallantry^ would not fuit with'
this paiiage. To tins Anonymus anfwers, *•' that
it is doubtful whether druerie ever convcvs anv
fuch idea." It may be doubtful to him, who
fecms rarely to have looked beyond his Saxon,
Di<5tionary and Bailey for the meaning of any
word. Upon this occafion Irowever he quotes
Verstec-^n, as fayin;^, " drezv, drczurie is fpoken
of fadn-rfs, melancholy ^ "" ov; all that I can find
in V£Rsr£CAN to this purpofe is in hisIXth cluq-
tcr.
C 4* 3
ter, where he gives an account of the fuppofcd
derivaiions of many fiirnames. There he fays,
** Drew or Drewrie, o^ fadnefs',^' i« e. the fur-
name of Drew or Drezvrie is derived hom. fadnefs.
How very different is this from what Anonymus
would make him fay? Drew, va Vekstegan, is
a noun (the Saxon dreog), and drewrie an adjec-
tive (our dreary), and both names may be pro-
perly faid to be derived from dreog, fignifying
fcidnefs ; whereas Anonymus reprcfents him. as
proving that Drewrie, as well as Drew, is a nouD>
fign if y ing fadnefs ,
But all this is trifling; for druerie is un-
doubtedly a French word ; and the iignification
affigned to it in the ApPE^3DlX is fully cftablifhed
by the paffages cited in the Glossary to the
Canterbury T^les, v. DRUERiEi [See alfo the
Supplement, p. 260, for an elegant defcription
of a drut, or lonjcr, by a Provencal poet.] It is
ufed in the fame fenfe by Robert of Glouces-
ter, in a paffage, quoted by Mr. Bryant upon
another ocGaficn [p. i33l> which probably induced
him to be filent upon this.
" Wymmen ne kept of no knygt, as in drueryJ'
If wt conftrue this, that ihiy took no notice, or care-ij
of any knight, as in modcjly, what a pretty idea
will it give us of the delicacy and good-breeding
of the ladies of King Arthur's court, of v^'hich,
as Mr.BRYAKT obfervcs, the author is fpeak'.ng ?
In
C 49 1
la the fame fcnfe it is ufcd by GowEr, in a paf-
fage quoted by the Dean of Exeter. He is
fpeaking of a lazy lover —
— " that for no druerie
He vvol not leave his fluo-orardie.'*
DO
And yet the Dean infifls, that droorie fignlfieS
mcde/Iyi and attempts to prove it by afking, " Is
not the language of court Jlnp the language of modefiyV
One might certainly anfvver, " Not always^ or nc-
ccffarily^' to this qiieftion, and fo flop the whole
argumentation at once. But to let it go on. What
is the inference ? Becaufe the language of courtfljip
is the language of 7nodcfly, therefore courtfhip {ind
modejly arc fynonyjnous terms ; and druerie, which
fignifies courtfjipy lignlfics alfo modcfly 1 Bcfidcs this
argument, fuch as it is, the Dean has heaped to-
gether feveral quotations, which I ihall pafs over.
Except that fromGowER, jull: mentioned, which
makes againll him, they are all inflances of fomc
fecondary fenfes of the word druerie y not one of
which is in the Icaft applicable to the prelcnt
paflage.
17. FoNNFs. E. II. 14. ^.421. FONS. T. 4.
Decern with/o;2«£'j rare —
On of \}iiz fomils whych the clcrche have made,
Quay nty fled fjns dcpidtedd on eche Iheclde.
The queil:lon is, whether there be fuch a noun
plural T.'ifonnesy which has any fenfe fuitablc to
£ th^^lf.
so I
thcfe paflliges. Axonyml's quotes his Dldlionary
for *' fofi, a Saxon verb, caperc, accipcre, reci-
pcre ;" but that furcly is nothing to the purpofe.
Then he lays ; " In Wicliff, '' thefe fonnyd lords
and people'* lignifies lords and people deluded (I
might fay made fools of) by the tricks of the
priclls." This rather confirms my interpret;ation
oi Jonnes^ He adds, what he calls, two examples
of this wordf in different tranflations of the Lord's
Prayer, preferved in Cameden's remains (p. 32),,
v^htvt founding and/o;2 J/V/jo- iland for what is now ex-
prelfed temptation. But furely thefe cannot be called
examples o^ foiines, nor will the fenfe of tempta-
tion fuit thefe paffages. Bailey's word, ^^fonnes,
devices^' rcfls ultimately upon the authority of
SPEGHT.
Mr. Bryant (p. 4-4) promifes to fpeak more par-
iiadarly concerjiing this word hereafter ; but I can-
not find that he has rCfumed the fubjed:. In this-
placc, he is confidering only the firfl of the paf-
fages above flated ; and he fays, that " fonne is
the fame as the Saxon fan ; and fignifies any cu-
rious device: but particularly vexillimiy a flandard
or cnfign.'* Upon what he founds his affertion,,
" that the Saxon /^?2 fignifies a7iy curious device"!
cannot conceive ; that it fignifies vexilhrni, I allow ;-
but, allowing alfo t\\z.t fonne is put io\- fan, how
will that fignification oi fan fuit with all thefe
paffages ? or indeed with any one of them, unlefs
in
r 5' 1
Sn that one we adopt a new idea of Mr. Bryant's,
that the, word oare fignifics, not an oar, but a
wherry ?
The Bean of Exeter fays, xhdX foniies is the
fame word with fownes, in Chaucer's Troilus,
I. 466, and ufed in the fame fenfe; but that
** Rowley with a more accurate orthography (bc-
caufe nearer to the original fubflantivc /o/?, and to
the verb /i?W^«) calls ihQvn fonnes.'^ This orio-i-
nal fubllantive fon he afterwards explains to be
the fame with out fun ; which "Dr. Joiinsom
(we are told) had no reafon to call a low cani word,
it being of great antiquity and eftabliHied fignifi-
caiion, as well as the v^rh Jhiden, which Is formed
from it." To this verb fonden [fandian, Sax.]
(from which /o/;^/;?^^ quoted by Anonymus from
Cambden is derived, and which properly lignifics
to try or attempt) the Dean has afcribcd a great
Variety of fignificatlons, which really belono- to
two other verbs, ToJind\ and Tofcnne^ or hefcolij}:.
He has alfo confirmed the fignification of fod,
which I had attributed to the fubftantive fonne in
Chaucer ; but I cannot fee, that he has produced
any fitisfad:ory authority for the antiquity, or firr-
nitication, of his original fubftantive fcn^ ox fun.
He allows, that in the firft edition of Speght's
Gloflary the word, which he would make to be
the fame with /oww^j, Is written /«::c77fj; as it is,
1 believe, in the text of all the older editions of
E 2 CiiAu-
[ 5^ ]
Chaucer's Troilus; where only, as far as I ani
informed, the word occurs. The Dean has rC'*
proachcd me very juflly for not having taken no-
tice of this word in Chaucer. If I had not by
fome accident overlooked it, I lliould certainly
have inferred it among the Words and Phrases
NOT understood [vol. Vw p. 285]; for I am ftill
unable to explain it. The explanation of it to
inc2in devices, bySpECHT, feems to have been a
mere conjcfturc, though it has been adopted by
Junius, and other later Lexicographers. It muft
appear the more dubious, becaufe the very exif-
tence of the word, of which it pretends to be an
explanation, is doubtful. The line of Chaucer,
in which only, I believe, it is to be found, is thus
cited by the Dean,' from Troilus, b. i. v. 466.
Ne in defire none other fo:v?ies bred.
But in Mf Bodl. 3354, it is thus written :
Nyn fmn dejire none oxhtrjowms brcdde.
Ibid. 3444.
No he defyred none other /o<i^ m brcdc.
In a Mf. of the publick Library at Cambridge ;
Kyn him defired non o\\\tx fonncs bred.
In a Mf. of Benct College ;
Nyn him dcfire none other j^^cvz^j brcdde.
In Mf. Harl. 3943 ;
ISie in hys defire none other faniafyc brcdde,
Mf.
[ 53 J
J^jf. Harl. 2392 ;
Ntf hi hh defir non other /jZc'Wfj bred.
Without entering any further into the difcufiion
of thcfe difficulties, I will only obferve, that if
we 2\\o\s fonncs to be the true reading, and devices
the true interpretation, thofc devices can only be
undcrftood to mean devices, or conirivnuces, of the
mind, ur imnginalion ; and it will fllll remain a
queftion, whether /t;;//z^i was ever ufed to iignify
devices actually executed in -painting or fculpture^
which is the fcnfe required in the firft and laft of
thefe paflages,
18. K^^opr-ED. M. 14^
Theyrc myghte ys knoppcd ynne the frofte of fere.
In addition to the only fenfc, which I had been
able to difcover, of knoppcd, from knoppe, a button,
Anonymus would make it of the fame fignifica-
tion with knipped, and Mr. Bryant with knapped.
The latter indeed fays, " that both knopping and
knapping feem to be the fame as nipping, differently '
cxprcfTed;" and finally determines, that kmpped
here " fignifies diminijloed, nipped, and hlajled''
The Dean of Exeter allows the derivation of
kncppcd from knoppe, which, he fays, *« Is ufed by
Chaucer tor a rofc-hud, and a button, both im-
pl)'ing concoitrcd fubjlanccs,** He therefore fup-
pofes the poet's meaning to have been, that " the
animal fpirits were driven to, and concentered in,
E 3 th<?
[ 54 ]
the vital parts of the body, by the frofl of fear.**
The reader muft choofe for himfelf, which of
thcfe expofitions he will adopt. I fhovild prefer
Chatterton's interpretation ; fajiened^ chained^
congealed ; if it could be fupported.
19. Lecturn. Lc. 46.
An onlift kcturn and a fonge adygne.
Inftcad of defending the ufe of this word, Ano-
NYMus is angry, "^ that I lliould fingle it out, on
this occafion, when the whole line called for my
attention." In anfwer, I muft fay, that my purpofe
was only to fmgle out a few plain inftances of un-
authorifed language in thefe Poems ; fuch as I
thought would be fufficient to call the reader's
attention to the numberlefs barbarifms and fole-
cifms with which they abound. The difficulties
which Anonymus finds in explaining onlift and
£idygne deferve confideration ; but it is enough for
me, that he allows leSlurn to fignify only a reading-^^
defa. The Dean of Exeter indeed contends,
that it has two fignifications ; the ledure it/elf ^ and
the place where the lecture is read. He fliould have
proved, that it was ever ufed in the former figni-
fication. Mr. BRYA^"T has faid nothing to this
word.
ao.
C S5 ]
20. LlTHIE. Ep. 10.
Innc litbie monckc appears the barronncs pride.
I hadfaid, " If there be any fuch word as this,
ivc fhould naturally expccft it to follow the fignifi-
cation of lithe; foft, limber; which will not fuit
with this pailagc." I conceived, and ftill con-
ceive, that the fenfe intended by the author was
humble I but the authority of Bailey, whom Ano-
NYMUS quotes, or of Skinner, whom Bailey
probably followed, is not fufficient to convince me
that litbie was ever ufed in that fenfe. The in-
flance, which the Dean of Exeter has produced
of letby, from Chaucer's Test, of Love, B. iii.
plainly wants correction; and it might as pro-
bably be altered to lytbe as to litby ; but I flrall not
(lifpute that matter, as, however the word is writ'
ten, it is clearly ufed there in the fenfe oi Joft^
IV. I proceed to examine the attempts wiiich
have been made to jullify the words objcdlcd to
under my third general head, as inficBed con-
trary to grammar and ciifiom. When Ano^xVMus
rcprcfents this head of objection as confined to
grammatical errors^ he forgets, that the irregular
infledtions, to which I objedt, are exprefsly itatcd
to be contrary not only to Grammar, but to Cus-
tom alfo. They are therefore of a nature quiic
diftin^St from thofe inaccuracies, whicii (he fays)
E 4 *' ina^-
E 5« }
^' may be fciind in our bcfl modern poets ;'* as
thele, however contrary to grammar, are general-
ly agreeable to cuflom. Inflexions of nouns and
verbs, contrary to cujiom and grammar^ I mult al-
ways confider as a Tpecies of Iblecifm, which,
when frequently repeated, furniflics a reafonable
ground for fufpeding the genuinenefs of any com-
pofitiottb This the Dean of Exeter does not
controvert ; but, in the prefent cafe, he has fet up.
two defences (p. 496) i firil, " that neither the
rules of grammar, nor the law of cuflom, were fo,
well eftabliflied, or fo generally obfervcd in the
XVth century, as to furnifli a qriterion for afcer-
taining the precife a^ra, when a poem was writ-
ten ;" and fecondly, " tjiat, if fuch a criterion,
could be eflabliflied, it is apprehended, that the
words objedled to in the Appendix would not
come within the reach of its ccnfure.'* The lat-
ter is the point which we are now to examine (7).
(7) The Dean's 'ixx'k pofition is fo loofely ftated, andfo
little applicable to the matter in difpute, that I fhould have
p.-.fTed It over in filence, if I had not found myfeif called
upon to take fortie notice of ah r.igument ad hcmincm^ by
v.hich he has been pleafed to fupport it. To prove that
the authenticity of an ancient poem is not to be determined
by the fhi(5i: rules of grammar, [he means,! fuppofe, by the
authoi's obfervation or ncglec!^ of the flricCt rules of Gram-
rrar] he enumeiates \.\\t ioWowmq^ grammai'ical errors and
hwccuradcs, with which Chaucer (he fays) '* Jiayids
charged by bis learned editor.
I. In making a tiifagreement between the nominative
rale and the verb, by that iingrammatical phrafeology —
/ M u miller-^Tbou is a f'.n. (vol. iv, p. ::5i.)
2. \V\
C 57 ]
Clevis. H. 2. 46.
Fierce as a clevis from a rockc ytornc,
I had objcdlcd to the ufe of clevis as a noun JtJit
gular, Anonymus has propofcd, with fome inge-
nuity, to remove the obje<flion, by reading —
" Fierce as a clev is from a rocke ytorne."
2. In putting the nominative inlkad of tlic accufativc
cafe, as — ii'e tor us. (Ibid. p. 1:96.)
3. In ufing the pronouns redundantly, (vol. iv, p. ::;3.)
4. It is too frequent a pradlice with him to omit the go-
verning pronoun before his verbs, both pcrfonal and rela-
tive, (vol. iv. p. 316 and 277,)
5. He frequently abbreviates the third perfon fingular of
the prefcnt tenfe; as bid, rid^ for biddeth and ridcth\ fa-
that they may ealily be millaken for the paft tenfe. (vol. iv.
p. 199.)
6. He puts the participle of the pall tenfe improperly for
the infinitive mode. (Ibid. p. 222.)
7. He fometimes forms the participle of the prefent
[r. />«/?] tenfe in en, even in thole verbs of which he alfo
ufes the participle in ed ; Vis -Majbcn^ faretiy iox ivajhcd^
j'ared. (vol. iii. p. 317.)"
I mull go through all thefe inftances feverally, in order
to ftiew that 1 am not lb inconjifteyity as the Dean would re-
j>rcfent me, in believing the Canterbury Tales of Chaucer
ro be a genuine work, and the Poems attributed to Rowley
ipiirious.
To take off the force gf inftance i, which bears hnrdeil
upon mc, it will be only neceirary to cite at length the note,
which the Dean has thought proper to abridge. I had ob-
lerved, that Chaucer feemed to have given his Northern
clerks [in the Miller's Tale] a Northern dialed ; and among
other particulars, in which their language appeared to mc
to ditfcr from th-it ufed in the reft of his work, I mention
the following : *' If I am not miftakcn, he has drfgiu'dly
given them a vulgar, iingcainmatical phralcology. / do not
y:nwnbcr
[r 58 J
But unluckily the word occurs again in the fame
poem, ver. 510, where the il^.me remedy cannot
be applied :
" The thunder fhafts in a torn clevis file."
rememher in any othsr part of his zuri tings fuch a line as^
ver. 4043. I is as ill a miller as zj.ye. See alio ver. 40S4.
I is. ver. 4087. Thou is.''* ■ The reader muft fee, th:tt lam
io far from having charged Qhv.wccx with thefe grammatical
inaccuracies, that 1 fuppofe him to have introduced them
in this place by dejign, contrary to his practice in the reft of
Jiio v.-orks.
Inftance 2 flioiild have been quoted fiom vol. iii. p. 296;
but here too 1 am obliged to vindicate myfslf by citing my
note ai length. " Ver. 15783. And we alfoj It fhould iiave
been us. I take notice of this, becaufe Chaucer is very rare"
ly guilty of fuch an offence againfj grammar." One mutt
fuppofe, that the Dean had overlooked the latter part of
this note.
Inilances 3 and 4 are not to the purpofe ; becaufe the
life of perfonal pronouns redundantly, and the omilfion of
them and relative pronouns, though offences againft Gram-
mar, were authorifed by cuftom in the age of Chaucer.
Inftance 5 , is of an abbreviation commonly ufed by
other writers. The Dean indeed has mif-ftated it ; for the
ufage was, as I have faid, to put hit and rit (not bid [\ud
rid) fox biddcih and rideth : and he has been pleafed ta
::dd an obfervation, luhJch is intirely his ovjHy upon the in-
com^enience of this abbreviation, viz. that the words fo ab-
breviated may eajily be miftaken for the pafl tenfe. \ always,
thought, that the pail: tenfes of bid and ride, in the time
of Ciiaucer, were bade and rode, as they are now,
Inftance 6 has been fpoken to already, p. zz; and In-
flance 7 is improperly ftated as a charge of inaccuracy. It
is very probable, that, in the verbs alleged, both termina-
tions of the participle pafr were in ufe at the fame time.
Thefe are ail tiie inilances of grammatical errors, with
which I am faid to have charged the Father of our Englijo
poetry. I have fliev.n, I hope, that tlve greateft part are no,
charges
C 59 1
,Tlie Dean of Exeter wifhcs to perfuade us,
that clevis might have been ufed as a nouji Jin^
giilar. In the paffiige of Chaucer (L. W- 1366),
to which I had referred, he fays, it may be cithe^:
fingular or pluraL The reader fhall judge ;
" Hipfiphile was gone in her playing
And roming on the clevis by the fee.'*
It is furely moft natural to iinderfland the word
here pliirally, as there is not the leafl reafon to fup-
pofe that it relates to any one particular clift. I
add, that in a very good Mf. in the Bodleian Li-
brary, from which this poem of Chaucer might
be corredted in a hundred places, the word is
written dives, in the regular plural form. The
authority of the Gloss arist to Bifhop Douglas,
which the Dean quotes next, is not precifc
cnouo-h to be of anv weight without the orio;inal
pafl'age. In the Golden Targe of Dunbar,
flan, xxvii. ver. 9, I find cleiuis ufed as a pIwaL
^' Amancrs the cidzvis." — The Dean concludes
with an argument, which he might as well have
begun with, and omitted all others. *' Not that
this authority is neccilary for the poet's juftifica-
char(i;es at nil, and the others fo few and fo trifling, as not
to aftbrd the leall reafon for doubtino- the authenticity ot
a work of more than twenty-four thoufand lines, through
which they are difperfed. How very different in number and
quality are thoie, of which the Pseudo-Rowley Hands
convicted wjthin the compal's of lefs than three thoufand
vcrfes ?
tlon :
[ 6o ]
tion : it would be fufficient to fay, that the mea-
fure of his verfc required the word to be length-
eped into a dilTyllablc."
Eyne. E. II. 79. T. 169. See alfoiE. 681.
In everich eyne arcdynge nete of wyere.
Wythe fyke an eym ihee fvvotelie hymm dydd
view.
That epie is the plural number of eje, I find, is
not contefled ; but various reafons are ailigned,
why the plural in thefc paffages may Itand for the
fmgular. Anonymus fays, that qne is put for a
fiin'ijicaat look, in which both eyes are equally
concerned, and the fenfe of the paffages would
remain the fame, were the term look fubflituted
for that of e-piel — The Dean of Exeter has a
number of expedients, as ufual. He fays, '* that
everie eyiie may be underflood colledtively, as,
equivalent to all eyes ;;" and " th^itfykc an eyne may
fignify fuch eyes ;" but he has not attempted any
proof thd.^ everie, ox fyke an, was ever joined with
a noun plural. Or, fays he, " in the latter paffage,
we might read Jyken eyne;' i.e. we might ex-,
change a solecism for a barbarism. He urges
further, that the word eye, though Jin^^ii/ar, has
frequently a plural ftgn'iji cat ion, implying both eyes,
or a pair of eyes ; and this he proves by two quo-
tations from GowER ; but the point to be proved
-"^^-j that eyne, though plural, had 2ifiijgul:irfignifi-
cation^
f 6t ]
cation: To this he has only produced one pal*
iage from the Testament of Creseide, a Scot-
tifli compofition, where c\7ie is ufed with a verb
fingular, for the fake of the rime ; as it is alfoj for
the fame reofon^ in a palTage of Gawin Douglas,
produced by Mr, Bryant. That our old poets
often facrificcd fyntax to rime cannot be difputcd.
But Mr. Bryant adds [p. 411] " The following
line occurs in a very ancient poem :
Nis no tonge an crthe, nc no even —
i. e. no tongue, nor no eye. Vita Sandtir Mar-
garetiE. Hickes Thefaurus, vol. i. p. 228."
It not appearing clearly from this quotation whe-
ther cycn was ufed fingularly or plurallv, I had re-
courfe to the book quoted, and there I found the
whole line to ftand thus :
Nis no tonge an erthe, nc non eycn ////.
i. e. light. Where, if light be not mif- written for
fight, at leafl it nuift be joined with eycn in con-
(Irudtion, like eyen-fight, (ycn-brozv, Sec. in all
which eyen is the genitive cafe phiraL This iii-
flancc therefore is not to Mr. Bryant's purpofe,
any more than the preceding. His fuj)pofirioii
" that thcfe may have been the millakes of the
tranfcriber " was furely never lefs admiffible than
upon the prcfent occafion. The moil natural
millakes ot a tranfcriber are to leave out letters,
and to change uncommon words into fuch as arc
familiar to him. In this cafe the reverie muft
have
t «2 3
have been pradlifed. A fuperfluous letter has becit
repeatedly inferted, and a common word has bccit
changed mto one which Is obfolete.
Heie. E. ii»i5. T. 123. Lc. 5. 9. Eht* 2-
^- 355^
1 had objcdled, that heie, the old plural of he,
was obfolete, as I apprehended, in the time of the
fuppofed Rowley. This objedion nothing has
been brought to invalidate. The Dean of Exe-
ter indeed obferves, " that I o?iIy conje^nire that
this word was obfolete in the time of Rowley;
but conjefture ought not to have the force of
proof." That I allow; but furelyj if my conjec-
ture had been wrong, it would riot have been dif-
ficult for him in all this time to refute it. When-
ever it fliall be proved, that heie was in ufe in the
XVth century, my conjedure mufl fall to the
ground. Till then, I fhould hope it will be ad*
mittcd as at kail very probable*
Thyssex. li. 1 1. 87.
Lette thyffen men who haveth fprite of love,
Mr. Bryant, who has faid nothing for hcic,
comes forward in defence of this word. He con-
felfcs " that he had fome doubts about the pro-
priety of it;" — " but he found it to be the fame
as the word thefne, which occurs in Robert of
Gloucefler ; the fame alfo as the term thiffhe^
thijfum.
t 63 ]
thiffum, and ihijfon of the Saxons. JEfter thiffhm^
poll ha?c. JEfter tbiffbn, after thcfc things. Bcclc,
p. 504. and Gen. ch. xlv. 15. See Lye and
Manning. Thijhe laff- — this bread. Th'ifnefian—
this ilonc. Of thyffon klafe — of this bread. Saxon
vcrfion of the Gofpels."
1 might certainly difmifs all this learning with
a iingle obfervation ; that a Saxon term, unfap-
ported by any writer later than Robert of Glou-
cester, would have been as extraordinary a phie-
nomcnon in the XVth century, as in the prefcnt ;
but refpc(ft to Mr. Bryant, and a jufl: apprehen-
fion of the weight of his authority, oblige me to
enter into a minute examination of whatever aro-u-
ments he is pleafcd to advance. I fhould wifli to
know, in the fiifl: place, how he found thy (fen to
be the fame word as thefne, which occurs in Ro-
BKRT of Gloucester, as he has not produced,
or referred to, the pallage ; and the Gloffar)',
^vhich I have con fulted, interprets thesne, this^
in the singular number; whereas thyffen here,
being joined to men ^ mufl be plural. For the
fame reafon thyfjlu cannot be the fame as the
Saxon thijjhe and thyff(i7i, in the inflances quoted ;
ihi f tie laff \ ihifne flan\ ofthyffonhlafe; they being
all in t)ic SINGULAR number. In the two other
inftances, thiffumy and its corruption thfjon, are
PLURAL, but give no countenance to the ufe of
sb}iffl?i in the text; Lette tijyjjen vien. For thiffumj
when
C H .1
tvhen PLURAL, is only ufed In the dative cl*
Ablative cafe; but thyjpn in the text, being
governed of lette and joined to Jiwiy muft be con*
lidered as ufed in the accusative cafe plural,
which, as far as I can find, was never exprelTed in
the Saxon language by any other word than thas^
the original of our ibefe. The Dean of Exeter
indeed afferts, '' it is obferved by Lye, in his
Saxon grammar prefixed to Juniuses Etymolo*
gicon, that the dative and acaifative cafes -plural
of the Saxon pronoun tkes, hic^ are thisum and
poet ice this on." Had this been fo, the only
proper inference would have been, that Lye had
made a mlftake ; but, upon looking into his gram-
mar, I find, that he makes the dative and ablatiie
cafes plural to be thifu?n, and the accusative
ihas. And fo does Mr. Manning. The Dean's
appeal to the German language I pafs over, as he
does not even pretend to any authority there for
the ufe of thief en in the accusative cafe plural;
and I lliall leave him in full polTeJGjon of his other
argument from the pronunciation of the vulgar in
many parts of England. Enough has been faid,
I fhould hope, to enable the reader to judge,
whether it be credible, that a word, which was
originally thas^ and has continued in our language
with fo little variation to the prefent day, was
metamorphofed Into thyjjcn by any writer of the
XVth century.
After
C 65 ]
After all, the Dean feems inclined to fuppofc,
that the termination in en might be added for the
fake of the rime [rather metre\, ^^ additions cr abbre-
viations of this kind being occafi07ially ufed by our
ancient poets,** But this is the point in difpute,
which he ought not to aflimie. Till he proves
that additions of this kind were ufed by our an-
cient poets, there is rcafon to think, that the addi-
tion of en in this inftance lo^s owing to the authors
ignorance concerning the propriety of fuch additions.
I had pointed out two other words, coyen,
M. 125. and SOTHF.N, ^.227. as terminated in
the fame unfi-cilful manner in en, contrary to all
ufage or analogy. To thefe neither the Dean
nor Anonymus have faid any thing; but Mr.
Bryant has undertaken the defence of coyen i
which, he fays [p. 90], is a participle from the
verb. To coy. Why he fays lb, I know not. I will
venture to fay, that there are very few inllanccs,
if any, of participles from verbs of French origi-
nal, fuch as To coy is, terminated in cn-^ Qi coyen
in particular no inftance is produced, except in
this palTage; and here it has certainly nothing /(tTr-
ticipial in its fignification. " Come and do not
coven be" means neither more nor lefs than —
Come and do not be coy, in the mofl: modern accep-
tation of the word. Whether cuyen in E. I. 2>S-
be the fame word with coyen, I leave Mr. Bryant
to fettle with the Dean of Exeter, who, I think
F more
C 66 1
more probably, confiders cuyen as the plural of
cv, a cow ; though I do not fee how, upon that
fuppofition, it could be joined with kine, which is
the fame word a little corrupted. The qu, which
I had put after coycn in the IndeXy was not in-
fended to exprcfs my doubt about the fignificatioii
of the word, as the Dean fuppofes [p. 206. n.]y
but about the propriety of the termination in en»
We are now come to what I have called " the
CAPITAL Blunder, which runs through all thefe
Poems, and- would alone be fufficicnt to deftroy
their credit ;■ that i-s-, the termination of verbs in
thefinguhir number in «.'* My three learned an-
tagonifts feem fully fenfible of the decifivc Weight
of this objection, and" have therefore applied
themfelvcs to the combat of it with- more than
ordinary zeal and obflinacy. I had fet down, or
referred to, tzventy-Jix inftanees, in which ba7i is
ufed in the Poems for the present, or past, time
INGULAR of the verb have -^ with this obferva-
tion, that ha)t, being an abbreviation o-f havetiy is
never ufed by any ancient writer except in the
present time plural, and the infinitive
MODE*
in opposition to this. Anonym us has produced
iivelve paffages from different authors ; but (what
mull: feem very ftrange) not one of them is in the
Icall to his purpofc, except an old rime of nobody
knows whom, iu which there is thisphrafe; Icb
ban
C «7 ]
hiin bitten this ivax. Leaving him therefore in
pofTcflion of this for the prefcnt, I fhall briefly go
through his other inftances. *' Wicliff fays.
We believe as Chrift and his apottolus Ihm
taught us — the Pope and the Cardynals by falfc
laws that chcy hnn made." Thcfe examples, fays
Anonymus, arc contrary to the rule. Not at all ;
for in both ban is the present time plural.
'' Verstegan fays, ban was anciently ufed for
have; and to this day they fay in fome parts of
England, bun you any ? for, bai-e you any r" This
too is agreeable to the rule ; for, I fuppofe, no-
body but Anonyml's will difpute, ihii you and^'e',
however applied to a lingle pcrfon, arc pronouns
plural. In the firft of the following inftances
fi'om Chaucer — " She wcndc never ban come" —
ban is the infinitive Mode. In the tbree next —
*' Ye ban hcrde" — " Yc bar taken — and ban de-
nied" — it is the PRESENT time plural, as before
in the inftancc from Verstkoan. " On the very
fame page, fays Anonvmus, ban is ufed ioi had :
Our Lorde God of Hcven ne wolde, neyther ban
wrought hem." But he is miftaken. Han is there
the INFINITIVE MODE. Thc conftrudtioH is: Our
Lord, &c. would net neither have 7nade tbem. In
his remaining three inftances — *' The birdcs that
ban left"—'* Whyle they hari fuffcrcd"— " Jul-
rync and his brother ban take" — ban is the prh-
F 2 SENT
C 68 ]
SENT time PLURAL, agreeable to the rule. And
fo much for Anonymus*
Mr. Bryant allows, that bail ox hane in the
fmgular number is contrary to the common ufage
of the times; and he allows, that it ocQViXS fome-
times in that manner in the Poems. This he would
impute, as ufual, to the fault of the tranfcriber,
or to a provincial way of fpeaking ; but at laft he
comes to the point, and fays, that " after all,
there is authority for the ufage of this word in
the Jingular, by w^hich the reading in Rowley
may be countenanced." He then produces fve
examples. 7bree are from an ancient book called
the Pylgrimage of the Souk, printed by Caxton,
with his cuflomary incorrednefs. The firlt — He
that bane Jhffered—l find upon infpedtion to be
mifquoted for— 21? that ba?ie fuffered. This there-
fore is not to his purpofc. To the two others I
anfwer, once for ail, that u and n are fo frequent-
ly confounded at. the prefs, that I confider all ap-
peals to printed books, of which no Mff. exift,
as nugatory, and calculated rather to perplex
than to decide the quel^ion. If our objed is truth,
why fhould we depart from thofe works of Chau-
ci:r, GowtR, OccLEVE, and Lydgate, of which
the rcadinprs may be eflablifhed from authentic
o
Mir. to colled perhaps the miftakes of ignorant
copyifts, or the blunders of negligent printers?
It would alfo furely mu;h conduce to the fhortcn-
4 i"g
[ % ]
ing of thefe dlfcuflions, if, befidcs confining our
citations to witneffes of the bcft credit, we were
careful to cite them for nothing, but what they
have really laid, and is appofite to the point in
difpute. In Mr. Bryant's fourth example from
Pierce Plowman, p. 8i. 1. 24. what he cites as
bnney is have in my copy ; and in hhjiftb exam-
ple fromOccLEVE, as quoted by Mr. Warton,
vol. ii. p. 43,
" Of which I wont was ban counfel and rede,'*
han is the infinitive mode, and is ufed quite
regularly. To Mr. Bryant's affcrtion, that " in
Robert of Gloucester and Robert Brunne,
the terms bmt and hane occur for had and have,'*
I can fay nothing, till the parages arc produced.
I cannot find in either of the GlofTaries, that han,
or hanSy is ever interpreted bad. It is indeed
interpreted have in both ; but that proves nothing;
for ba^, when ufed regularly in the present time
PLURAL or the infinitive mode, is properly in-
terpreted have. Mr. Bryant fliould havcfhcwn,
that ban is ufed, by cither of thefe writers, in the
PRESENT and PAST times singular, as it is in the
Poems.
The Dean of Exeter has been very fparing
of inflances in fupport of Z'^v, ufed fingularly.
He has produced, I think, ot\\)' three \ two from
the Prologue to Chaucer's Testament of Love,
and a third from the Testament itfelf at large,
Y 7^ with-
L 70 ]
witliout referring to page or leaf. This laft h«
niight reafonably fuppofe, we ihould in any cafe
rather admit than attempt to verify ; but indeed I
except, for the reafons already afiigned, to aU
inllanccs which are taken from the Testameijt
OF Love, or any other books, of which printed
copies only are extant. His final argument to
this point is, that ^* in fad han is ufed in thefe
Foems as a contradion of the pafl tcnfe had, and
not of the prefent tenfe h-avai ;" as if that mended
the matter, or as if my objedion had not origi-
nally been, that it was ufed for the prefrnt^ or
PAST, time ftngular. The latter ufe of it w^ould
be, if poffible, lefs jqllifiable than the former.
It certainly is not in the Icaft countenanced by the
quotation from Chaucer's R, R, 71.
Rut if the Dean has been fparing of bis exer-
tions in defence of the word ban, he fcems to have
put forth all his ilrcngth to prove (in contradic-
tion to my general objcdion) " that the termina-
tion of verbs in thf^ fmgular number in n was not
■•.inurual ;" and (as a work of fiipercrogation) " th?.t
the ancient; authors a[)pcar to have made an arbi-
trary ufe of the en final, annexing it to almofl every
fpccies of words into which fpeech has been, ox
;'an be, dift-inguiilicd/' To this lafl point I Ihail
fpcak prefcnily. With rcfpeft to the former, with
which I ar.i uvn-e immediately concerned, I muft
'ibhrve thai Mr, Bryant, by his fiicncc, has left
[ 7' ]
jny objection in. full force; and that Anonymus
fccms rather inclined to evade than to combat it.
Thus, in my two firft inftances of fclleriy E. i. lo.
and H. 2. 675. he would, by a very forced and
unnatural conllrudlon, make fclkn a participle ;
•but he forgets, that the participle of /«// is falUn.
Jn the next inftanoe, p. 287.. ver. 17. he propofcs,
with fome ingenuity^ to change / ^oiltn into
ygottcri, a participle. But the conilruction of goi^
ten, as a verb, is very plain, though he is puzzled
about it. For thee J gotten — means — Fx)r I got thee,
fo my other in-ftanccs of font en, H. i. 252.
Jliooken, YL 2. 349,. Jhoulden, H. 2. 344. though-
ienne, J£*. 172. and thoughten, JE. 1136. Ch. 54.
fhezcn^ Qh. 54. he has not offered any oppofition
or fubtorfugc.. He fjys indeed, that " he has
a nunaber pf examples, taken from the XlVtli
and XVth .centuries, of verbs plural ufcd in the
fuigular number, aiid of verbs plural ufed inftcad
uf participles ;" (to whg.t purpofe are the latter ?)
but he has produced only a mifpriiit of Chaucer
.(corredted i,ia th.e laft edition, C. T. ver. 9135),
and a Hngle paliage «f Wicliff, where co?nen is
put fjQr come ; by a miftake, as it fhould feem, of
the tranfcribcr, whofc eye was caught by the
fanje word occurring in the next line. Forgctlen
was the old participle of f 07 get, m its firft llagc
of variation from the regular pall tcnle /o;>
f 4. I am
L 7- ]
I am now to examine the inflances which the
Dlan has collected of 'verbs fmgular terminated in
)/, They are in all, I think, tzventy-nine. Of
thefe f.ve are taken from the Testament of
Love, and are therefore liable to the exception
above ftated, in the cafe of hati. Seven are taken
from the Court of Love, one from the tranfla-
tion of BoETHius, and another from the Plow-
man's Tale ; three books, of which the text is
as iinfettled as that of the Testament of Love.
Six more are taken from the Canterbury Tales,
of Spcght's edition, 1602; though everyone of
them has been corrected from Mil', in the late
edition. If the Dean has any objed:ions to make
to the authority of the MfT. which I confulted,
or to the ufe which I have made of them, I iliall
always be glad to hear him ; but in the mean time
1 cannot think it very polite to me, or very fair
to his readers, to quote Speght's edition in con-
tradid:ion to mine. Of the remaining tiine in-
ftances, the firft is quoted from Adam Davie, by
a miftaken reference to War ton, vol. L p. 22.
which I Ihall not attempt to verify, as all the
works of Adam Davie, that I have feen, are in
too incorred: a ftate to furnifh any authority for
language. Ihe fecond is from Gower, p. 73. b.
" Thou 'wilten [a querele of truth]."
But here the mifprint is fo obvious, that I had
actually corrcftcd it in my copy to — Thou wilt
[ 73 ]
IN a q. — and two MIL which I have infpcdVcd
fince, have it— Thou wolt in. The third is
from GowER, p. 67. b.
*' The har/n thdt fallen:*
But in my copy, edit. 1532. to which the re-
ference agrees, it is — " The harmes — thcit fa lien:*
The fourth quotation from Gower, p. 73. b,
V. 32. does not appear in that place; but I have
found it in fol. 107. b. When the Dlan caa
make any fenfe of it, I will allow its authority.
The fifth quotation from La belle dame sans
MtRCiii, in Speght's edition of Chaucer, 1602.
p. 242. a. col. I .
** From /jim thztfelen no fore nor fickncfTe" —
is printed in my copy of that fame edition thus ;
*' From HEM th:itfelen &c." In the fixth quo-
tation from the Cuckow and Nightingale,
p. 317. b. col. 2. befoiighten may be properly cor-
rcftcd from the Bodleian MIT. to hefoii'^hte \ and fo
may fhouldcn in the eighth quotation, upon the
fame authority, to fJioulde. The only two quo-
tations, which remain to be confidcred, are from
the House of Fame. The latter — iyghen — I had
fet down among the ivorcls ami pbrflfes not under-
fiood; but any one may fee, that it is net a 'vcrh^
and therefore not to the Dean's purpofe. The
other — couden, H. F. iii. 724. is a mere mifprint.
The line is written rightly in Mf. Bodl.
Xhat any hcrtc ccuthe gclie.
Having
[ 74 ]
Having thus flicwn upon what very flight
grounds the Dean has attempted to cftablifh the
propriety of terminating verbs in t\\c Jiyigidar num-
|)er in ;/, I mnfl take a little notice of that moft
extraordinary a^ertion, with which he concludes
his argumentation upon this point. He aflerts
fp. 503], *' that, in fad:, the ancient authors ap-
pear to have made an arbitrary ufe of the en final,
annexing it to ahnoft every fpecies of words, into
which fpeech has been or can be diftinguilhed."
Such an aifertion ought furcly to have been better
fupported than by a firing of words, without re-
ference to the places where they are to be found.
Sut let us take them as he has been pleafed to
give them. The cafe of verbs has juft been con-
-idered ; to v;hich the Dean now adds another
quotation from his beil: authority, the Testament
0¥ Ldve. Of NcuNS fingular as well as plural,
which have received this arbitrary addition, his
inflances are, " Grceccn {qx Greece, Jokn for lole,
Joh-yn for fole ; himfeken, hirfehen, and theirfeheriy
in almof^ every page of Gower and Chaucer."
That proper names of perfons and places were
itiangely disfigured by our ancient writers cannot
be difputcdj and therefore I can believe, that
Creeccn and lolai may have been ufed, though I
should wifh to have been told where, and by
-/-hom, Soleyti ig a regular adjedive, ufed by
Oi/.f;r5R in xht i<:.u(c. oi ftngk^ ^ndfillcn [Gloss.
CT,
[ 75 ]
C T. in v.] Whether it came to us frorn an ob.
fgletc Fr. adj. feulein^ or from the IrAL.foHngo,
there is no pretence for confidcring the final ;/ as
having been added arbitrarily. Ilimfehcn and
Hirfelven are perfectly regular. The arbitr.irhiefs
of our authors has been fhewn in throwing away
the final «, and changing them into htiufelf and
herfclf. Tbeirfclvcn is a barbarifm, of which \
believe the Dean would be puzzled to produce
a fingle inftance from either Chaucer orGowEK.
To his ADJECTIVES, bothiii znd fa/nin, I will fpeak
whenever he produces the paiiages in which they
are ufed ; but I am really furprifcd that he ihould
{late fuch words as outin, aboven, aboulen^ aforeytie^
atwixcn, befiden^ fitheny as inftances of ADVERBr,
TREPOSiTioNS, and CONJUNCTIONS, to which the
filial n has been arbitrarily annexed. He mufc
icnow, that the cafe has been diretlly the reverfe.
He mull know that the Saxon originals of thefe
words all terminated in n ; that they retained the
fame termination in the Engliih language for k-
veral centuries ; that they loft it gradually, fome
fooner, fome later ; and that, while they continued
to be ufed indiflerentlv with it or without it, the
arbitrarinefs of WTitcrs (as has been faid bciore)
was rather exerted to fupprefs it than to annex it.
In ail fuch inflances therefore, in order to deter-
mine which is the regular and which the licen-
tious u(age» we mult have recourfc to the original
word.
[ 76 ]
word. In our own language, and, I believe, in
moft others, the prefumption is always ftrong that
the variation has been made by the rejection,
rather than by the addition, of a final confonant ;
and it is remarkable, that the Saxon adverbs &c.
juft mentioned, which originally terminated in n,
from the time that they had intirely loft that ter-
mination, have never refumed it. But in the cafe
of ban, and other verbs singular terminated
in n, (to which all this argumentation of the
Dean is meant to be applied,) if we believe the
Poems to be genuine, we muft fuppofe, that the
author in the XVth century arbitrarily annexed
a final « to a fpccies of words, which neither io
the original Saxon, nor in the derivative Englifh,
at any period from the time of Hengist to the
prcfent, ever had any fuch termination. The lup-
pofition is abfolutely incredible ; and therefore we
muft neceflarilv recur to the contrary fuppofition,
that the Poems are not oENtaNE. When the
Dean denies, that this anomaly can be made a
jnfjicient criterion of antiquity, he rrifappre-
hends the tendency of my argument. I never
thought of making a pradice, which I believe to
be quite lingular and unexampled in any age, a
criterion of the greater or lefs antiquity of the
writer. It is, I think, a criterion of his ictXO-
ranck; fuch an ignorance as is inconceivable in
a genuine author, but might very eafily tall to
the fharc of an impoftor.
PART
[ 77 ]
PART THE SECOND.
HAVING thus replied (I truft, fatlsfadorily)
to the feveral anfwcrs, which have been given l>y
my three learned antagonills to thofe objcdtions,
rtated in ihe former part of my Appendix, which
tended to prove, from the internal evidence of the
Language only, that thefe Poems were not
WRITTEN IN THE XVth Century, I fliould re-
gularly proceed to the vindication of the laltcr
part, in which I endeavoured to prove, from the
fame internal eindence^ that they were written by
Thomas Chatterton. But as the reafons, which
originally induced me to treat thefe two queflions
feparately, flill fubfift, I fhall defer whatever I may
have to fay upon the fccond, till 1 have completely
difpatched the firft. When the reader (hall have
attained a clear and f^eady convidion, that the
Poems are not of the antiquity to which they pre-
tend, and are confcquently a forgery, he will
find himfelf much better prepared to form a. deci-
five opinion, at what time and by whom they
were forg ed.
I Ihall therefore in this place infert fome ob-
fcrvations upon the othvr parts of the internal evi-
Jcuce, which, I think, will corroborate the proof
already
C 78 I
already given, that the Poems attributed to Row-
tiLY were not written in the XVth century; and I
Ihall alio examine the whole of the external c-ci-
denccy which has hitherto been produced in fup-
port of their authenticity,
I. Next to the confideration of words, taken
fingly, with refpcft to their fignifications and in-
flexions (which has been the fubjedt of our former
enquiry), we fhould naturally proceed to confidcr
them as combined one with another in what arc
called PHRASES. However difficult it may be to
determine with prccifion, when two or more words
were firft combined together, and applied in a
particular fenfe, there can be no doubt that many
Inch combinations prevail and are familiar in one
•jge, which in a former were entirely unknown.
It is impoffiblc to read a page of the Poems, with-
out obfcrving a number of phrafcs, which, when
divcfted of their hard words and uncouth fpelling,
are plainly modern, and of which no examples
can be produced from any writer of the XVth
century. I forbear to quote particular infianccs.
The fadt has been fufficiently evinced by various
pailages of modern authors, which even the ad-
vocates for Rowley have allov/ed to be coinci-
dences of thought and expreffion. They would
pe puzzled to find a fmall proportion of fuch co-
incidences in all his fuppofed contemporaries.
One
C 79 ]
One fet of phrases, which is very frequentlf
ufed in the Poems, is formed upon an idea, which,
I am perfuadcd, did not exift in the time of the
fuppofcd Rowley. I obfcrvcd in my Efay on tU
Language &c. of Chaucer [vol. IV. p. 36], that
HE was not acquainted with ** the mctaphyfical
fubllantivcyt//, of which our more modern phi-
iofophers and poets have made fo much wic" h\ix.
Rowley plays with this idea through all its
changes.
St. C. 134.
Hys dame, hys fecondeye'^6', gyve uppclier breth^.
M. 286. Yette I wylle bee viiefclfc.
299. Yett I mwlle bee miefdf,
368. Thic mynde ys now thiefelfe,
386. I'm flvynge from miefclfe } n flying thoe.
551. I Plurra amme miefd and aie wylle bee.
G. 140. They re volundcs arc ydorven Kofdfenucs.
This lail phrafe, like felf-lffvc^ fcif-intcrefi^ &:c.
is evidently formed upon 2. fuhfiantivc ligniiication
of jdf^ of which I have never been able to fiiui
any traces in our language before the XVIth cen-
tury, when it probably was firft introduced, to
cxprefs the power of the Greek ocj-:'^' in coinj.iO'
fition.
There is another phrase, fo contrary to all
ufagc and analogy, that, I apprehend, It could
never have been eoined by any writer, except fcr
the
C So ]
the puipofc of departing from the eflablifhed
mode of exprcffion. What I mean is the ufe of
did be for was or ivercy in the following paflagcs :
J£m. 966. Albeytte unwears dyd the welkynn rende,
Rcyne, alycke fallyngeryvers,(i)'^ferfe bee.
1 104. Whanne you, as cay tyfned, yn fielde dyd bee.
Such a combination of do, as an auxiliary verb,
with the verb be, I believe to be quite unexam-
pled in any age ; and therefore perhaps it is not
fo properly produced here, to fhew that the Poems
were not written in the XVth century, as it may
be urged hereafter, to prove that the author of
them was an unfkilful imitator of ancient lan-
guage. But the argument may fairly be applied
to both queftions. See before, p. 76.
II. Another circumllance, which calls for our
attention, is the profufion of figures in thefe
Poems. There can be fcarce any writing without
metaphors; but similies are very thinly feat-
tered in our really ancient authors, and what they
have are generally Ihort and confined to a fingle
point of refcmblancc. I much doubt whether an
inftance can be produced, from any poet older
than Spenser, of a fimdlie fo extended, fo varie-
gated, fo turned and rounded, as many of thofe
which occur in the Poems ; though it is notorious
that the art of fimilic-making has been fo im-
proved of late years, that boys and girls can deco-
rate
[ 8. ]
rate their comparlfons with all the graces of Pope
and Drydi:n. In like manner Personifications
are not unfrcqucnt in our oldcfl poets ; but in
which of them can wc find a groupe of fuch ima-
ginary pcrfons adting together in one conHllent
Allegory [T. V. i6i], and fet forth with that
exuberant pomp of didion, which has not till
very lately been introduced even into our Lyric
poetry ? In what old poet can we find fuch a
pcrfonage as Freedom, political Freedom? [G.
V. I 84] One may venture to fay, that the idea of
Liberty, ibeGoddcfs heavenly bright, was as un-
known in this country in the XVth century, as it
is perhaps at this day in Turkey. Where can we
find fuch a climax, as[^lla, v. 16]
" It cannot, muft not, rav, it fhail not be " ?
or fuch EXCLAMATIONS and interrogatories
(mere tricks of modern play-wrights) as are in
almoft every fcene of the ^lla ? It may be faid
perhaps, that, as we have no other tragedy of
thole times, it is not furprifmg, that we fhouid not
be able to meet with any other examples of a ityle
peculiarly fuited to theatrical exhibitions ; but
furely it muft be allowed to be exceedingly im-
probable, that the author of our firft drama
ihould at once hit upon thofe little artifices of
compofition, which were loft again with him, and
never (it I may ufe the expreffion) re-invented,
till a long courfe of pracftice had taught our adors,
G and
C 8- 3
and through them onr authors, the eafieft mcthoda
of entrapping an audience.
IIL From the Language, I might go on td
examine the Versification of thefe Poems ; but
I think it fufficient to refer the reader, who may
have any doubts upon this point, to the fpecimens
of really ancient poetry, with which the verfes of
the pretended Rowley have ktcly been veryjudi-
cioufly contrafted (8}. Whoever reads thofc fpe-
cimens, if he has an ear, mufl be convinced, that
the authors of them and of the Poems did not
live within the fame period. Mr. Bryant indeed
(p. 426) has taken fome pains to make us believe,
that " the arguments founded on the rythm and
harmony of the verfes are very precarious;" and
they mull be allowed to be fo, when they are
drawn from fmall detached portions ; a few lines,
or even ftanzas ; and from the compolitions of
writers who lived very near to each other ; but I
apprehend he might be fafely challenged, cither
to produce three thoufand lines written within the
laft hundred years in the ordinary verfification of
the XVth century ; or (what would be ftill more
to his purpofe) to fliew us an et^ual number of
lines, written in the XVth century, with that
exadnefs of metre and accent which has been fo
(8) In a pnmphlet, intitletl, Cursory Oeseryations
t>n the Puems attributed toTnoMAS Ro\m.ey, Sic.
comm.on
[ Sj ]
common of late, and appears in a remarkable de-
gree in the Poems.
The comparilbns, bv which Mr. Br vast has
attempted to prove the precarioufnefs of our
judgements on this fLibjcct, are mofi: of them, in
my opinion, inapplicable to his piir])ofe. The
full inftancc (p. 427) from VirgH*s Ciiat^ bv Si-kn-
SKR, proves only, that fome lines may be Icfs har-
monious than others in the fame Poem. The firll
line indeed of the ilanza, as quoted by Mr.
IjKYANT,
" There be x.\\o {lout fons of ^Eacus," —
is evidently defedtive in its metre; but the fvllable
wanting may be fupplled from the editions ;
" There be the two fiout fons of ^Eacus ;" —
and when that is done (and fome other little inac-
curacies in the quotation corrected}, I fee no ground
for fuppofing, from the language or rcrfiji, dlion of
the flanza, that it was not the worl-: of the fimc
writer who com])ofed the other famplcs ; much
lefs, that there was a ce,it:n-y and an l.alf (oi ycfirs,
or even of hours) between theiii.
In the fecond inllance [p. 429], Mr. Bmmnt
has contralled (as die calls it) fome vcrfes of
SpENSKR With fome others of Sir Joux CiiEKr,
written in 1553, and of Sir Hlnrv Lea in 1 ^o' >
with a view of fliewing, that both thofe compo--
litions, from their fmccthnefs^ rxthm^ and ian^mn-c-^
G z Ihould
[ 84 ]•
ihould be deemed of a pofterior age to that of
Spenser. And I mud confcfs, that, if our judge-
ments were neccffarily to be formed upon the fpe-
cimens produced by Mr. Bryant, there would be
fome ground for agreeing with him in his con-
clufion. But from what work of Spenser does
the reader imagine that Mr. Bryant has feledted
the fpecimen, from which we arc to determine
the chara6ter and age of the Poet ? Not from the'
l"*oem juft cited of Viygjl^s Gnat ; or from the Faery
£Qiecr:e ; or from any other of the numerous com-
politicns which he has left us- in the regular heroic
metre; but from the y^^^;?^ of his Pastorals, in
which, belidcs the ftudied affectation of obfolete
language which runs through ail the Paftorals, he
has designedly made the metre roua;h and halt-
ing, by curtailing each verfc, in one part or other,,
of a fyllable. By this mode of contrail, not only
Sir JoHM Cheke, but Chaucer himfelf, might be
made to appear a fmoothcr and more improved
verGfier than Spender.
' The contraft, which Mr. Bryant has form.ed
between the two Scottifh poets, Blind Harry and
Bp. Douglas [p. 43 3 1, is liable to fimilar and
equal objections. Allowing Blind Harry to
have been the older writer, '* it is evident," (fays
the learned editor of Ancient Scotiiflj Foems, p. 272)
'' that his work, however antiquated it may now
appear, has been much altered and amended."
Such-
I 85 )
$nch a work mud furcly be a very exceptionable
autiiority tor langungc. But in refpedt of njerfi-
f cation, the contraft is ilill more improper. The
verfes of Blind Harry, which, though mean
and hobbling enough, are in the regular heroic
metre, arc compared, not with the Bifliop's /rr/^t?-
t'lon of the JEncis, which is alfo in the regular hc-
•roic metre, but with his Prologue to the eighth
book, which is a fort of Ballad, written va ftanzas
of thirteen lines each ; of which the nine firji are
in an irregular, imperje6l rythm, moft Tcremblln^
that of Pierce Plowman, with the addition of
rime. Wx. Bryant has cited the nine frfi lines
•only of one of thefe ftanzas ; but to give a clearer
idea of the nature of the compofitlon which be
has chofen to contraft with Blind Harry's heroic
verfes, Ilhall take leave to add here the/oz/r con-
•cluding lines of the flanza, repeating the tzvo lajl
■of the lines cited by Mr. Bryant, for the f^ike of
rendering the example more pcrfpicuous.
Sche wyl not wyrk thocht fche want, bet waiftis
hir tyme
In thigging, as it thryft war, and uthir vane
thewis,
And ilcpis quhen fche fuld fjiyn,
With na wyl the warld to v.\n,
This cuntre is ful of Ca_\ nes l:yn.
And fvc fchirc fchrcwis.
G 3 The
[ 8« ]
The only p.ioper inQance (9) for comparifon,
which Mr. Bryant has produced, confifls of about
(9) I cannor however impute Mr. Bryant's choice of
the other inllances to any untairnefs, as, in his next fec-
tion (p. 441), he h,;is qiiored at length more than fixty lines
from Pierce Plowman, in which (he %s, p. 443) " we
may ohierve, that the r\ thm is as jtift, and the lines flow as
iinooihly, as any v, hcie in Rowley."
I have Oated mv notion of the verfification of Pierce
Plowman' in another place [/t//^'j on the Inn^uagc, Sic. of
Chauceb, n 57] ; and Mr. Bryant himfelf allows (p. 440%
that " his lines are often extended to tiftecn Syllables: but
gtnerallv" are fewer; and the metre is a kind of imperlect
an.ipaiilic meafurc." It flionld fcem, that Mr. Bryant
nuUl have a peculiar taile or fyftem oi verfificarion, if he
really thinks that fuch lines as thefe, in which the number
of fyllabies is indeterminate, and the accents irregularly
difpofed, can be compared to the verfes of Rowlly for
fnioothneis of flow and jufcnefs of rythm. When he goes
on to aflert (p. 44^), that, in thefe extrai^fs, — " the true
accent is generally preferved upon the terminating fyl-
lable," I am ftill lefs able to follow him, as, according to
my notion, h:ilf the lines, which he has ijuoted, have no
recent upon their terminating fyllablc. 1 will fet down
a few here, as he has quoted them, that the raader may fee
how fmoothly they flow, and how well the accent is pre-
fi.rved upon the terminating (yllable :
*' And cry we to kind, that he come and defend us :
A;id crv we to all the cnmnuinc, that thevcomc to unirve.
And tliere nbvde and biker againft Belial's children.
Kind confcitnce this heard, and came out of the pUmettt?,
And fcnt :jith his forriours, fevers and fluxes,
C'oiighcs and cartiiacle.?, crampes and toth-achcs ;
Retimes and radgondes, and raynous fcalles,
]-}ic3 anu ]:)oi:ches, and burnynge agneb."
1 am as mugh at a lofs to guels upon what principles
Mr. 'Bryant has formed his judgement, when he contends
^•■. ^;c), tiiat Ko-.vl:,y m:glu have had bcttci pntttrus of
verfi-
[ 8? ]
forty lines, extraftcd from certain hymns in the
Pilgrimage op the Soule, printed by Caxton
in 1^83, which, Mr, Bryant tells us [p. 438',
" arc written in the fame kind of (lanza as the
Elinowc and juga c/Rowlky, and the Z!,\v<:^//f«/^
Ballade of Charitc ;" and I have no fort of objec-
tion to let the whole controvcrfy be determined by
the fimintude, or diffimilitude, which thole forty
lines Ihall be judged to have to the fame number
of lines taken from any part of thole two pocrns.
I muft obferve however, that, when Mr. Bryant
ftates thefe flaiizas to be of the fame kind, he for-
NTrfiiicarion to follow tlian Lydgath, Gower, and C 'au-
rER. 1 cannot fee that his T-xtrafts from Robeut of
(ir.oucESTER, or from the ano>iymoui rimers quored by
Mr. Warton, or even from the Romance of the Squire of
low degree, G\h.'\h\t any fuch patterns. By the way, I miiil
c=>bferve, that the antitiuity afcribed by Mr. Bryant to rlic
Sfju/re of low di'^rcc, though countenanced by JMr. Wal-
ton* [Hift. of Engiifli Poetry, vol. i. p. 175], is very dif-
putable. The oijly fcwindatioH for it, 1 apprehend, is 1
notion, that Chaucer hds alluded to tliis romance in his
Rime of Sir To pas-, and for proof of this notion i^h•.^VAU-
lON has referred us to his Ohfervutlons on Spoi/cr, vol. i,
p. 139. But the note oj an ingenious correlpondcnt. to
which, I fuppofe, he refers, fays only, 1 tlnnk, th.it the
Sqiiicr of lovje degree has impertinent dig;cnions, fimilar to
thofe ridiculed by Chaucer ; not that the Squ'icr of lo-jce
degree was itfclf the objecl of Chaucer's ridicule. Mr.
Warton informs us, tliat he liad never ften any manu-
fcript of this romance ; an<l, for my own part, I am much
iuclined to fufpci'l, that, infterul of being older than Ciiav-
tEP, it was not written many years before it was printed.
G 4 gets
[ S3 ]
gets that the ruppofed Rowley clofes his with an
Alexandrine vcrfei a mofl material peculiarity,
of which I know no example earlier than Spen-
SEK. The lame peculiarity may therefore be rea-
fonably urged as a very fufpicious circumflance in
the ftanza of ten lines, in which the Tragedy of
^^LLA and feveral other poems are written ; and
moreover, that fuch a flanza (as has been remarked
in Curfory Obfcr-vatlons, &:c. p. 15) was probably
firft ufed by Prior. He has told us himfclf, that
he formed it by adding one verfe to the ftanza of
Spenser [Pref. to Ode on the Succefs of Her
Majefty's arms in 1706] Mr. Bryant's no-
tion, that this ftanza ot ten lines was called Rythme
Royal byGAscoiGNE, is founded upon a mifprint
in, Mr. Warton's Hiftory of Englifh Poetry [vol.
ii. p. 165, note]. Gascoigne fays exprefsly, that
" in Rythme Royal /even verfes make a ftaffe.'*
The Dean of Exeter has quoted Gascoigne
truly ; and yet (moft unaccountably) would rank
ftanzas of eighty ni/ie, and ien verfes under the
title of Rythme Royal [Prelim. Difl'. p. 31]. In
the ftanza of ten lines from a ballad attributed to
Ch.aucer [Ed. Urr. p. 538], ile rimes (as the
Dean has obfervcd) dre ciijf'ercntly difpofed from
thofe in the JElla ; and there is no Alexan-
drine vcrfe.
It has been already obje6ted (as I underftand
from the De.4N of Exeter, p. 381) to the metre
of
[ S9 3
of the Soii^e to ^lla^ " that the Pindaric, or (to
fpcak more properly) irregular meafurc, was un-
known, or at Icaft not revived, in Rowley's time ;"
and I do not fee that he has attempted to contro-
vert the fadV. This therefore may be confidered
as another of thofe metrical inventions, which were
liuried with the author in his iron cheil:, and con-
fcquentl\' loft to pofterity, till they were re-
invented in a much later age. The lall of thcfe,
of which I fliall take any notice, and certainly
not the leail:, is Blaxk-versk, of which we have
two or three fliort fpccimcns in the Tragedy of
^,LLA ; though it has hitherto been a received
notion, that blank-vcrfe was fn-fl invented in Italy
in the beginning of the XVIth century, and firfl
pradtifed in England by the Earl of Surrey.
If the Dean of Exeter was aware of this ob-
jcftion, he has attempted, not unably, to draw off
the reader's attention from it, by the following
note on the firfl of thcfe paflages, M. v. 552.
" This is one of the very few irregular Jlanzas
which occur in thcfe poems ; one line is wanting,
and the whole ftanza deficient in rime. That be-
ginning at line 571 is alio deficient in both re-
ipeds." I fhall take the liberty to let dovai at
length both thcicJlanzaSy as the Dean calls them.
The firfl begins at v. 532.
Ml 5-
t 90 3!
Messengerr.
Blynne your contckions, chiefs ; for as I (lode
Uponne mic watchc, I fpledc an armie commynge,
Notte lyche ami handfullc of a fremdcd foe,
Botte blacke wythe armoure, movyngc iigfomlie,
Lyke a blacl?;e fulle clonde, thatte dothe goe alonge
To droppe yn haylc, and hele the thondcr flormc.
Magnus.
Ax there meynte of them ?
Messengerr.
Thycke as the ante-flyes ^'nne a fommcr*s none,
Seeming as tho' tbeie ftynge as perfantc too.
The fecond, beginning at v. 571.
Second Messekgerr.
As from mie towre I kendc the commynge foe,
I fpied the crolTcd filicide and bloddie fvverdc,
The furious j^Ihi's banner; wythynnc kenne
The armie ys. Dyfordcr throughc oure hoafle
Is fleynge, borne onne wyngcs of iEUa's name ;
Styr, flyr, mie lordes !
If thefc were intended for fianziis in rime, they
muil be allowed to be vcrv irregular and deficient
indeed ! bur, inficad of imputing fuch grofs negli-
gence, or incapacity, to the author of ^Eli.a, I
am furprifcd that the Dean did not rather urge
tlicfe two pafTagc:^, as ]>ioofs, that i-iis Poet was
not
[ 9' ]
not only the inventor of Tragedy among us, but
alio of the metro In which Tragedy fliould be
vritten, though, for fomc reafon or other, he has
thought proper to write the greatcll part of his
own in ftanzas.
IV. That a genius, who was capable of making
all thefe improvements in LanguAv^^e andVEi^sw
Fi CATION, fliould alfo invent new Forms of Com-
rosiTiON', unknown to his predeccflbrs and con-
temporaries, is quite natural. Accordingly wc
iind, among thefe Poems, Odes in irregular me-
tres. Eclogues of the Pafloral kind, and Dis-
coRSiNG Tragedies, compofitlons, for not one
of w^hich any example could be found in England
in the XV'ch century. Even in thofe compofi-
tions, of which the fpecies was not entirely un-
known, it is impofTible not to obfervc a ftriking
difference from the other compofitions of that age,
w ith rcfpcct to the manner in which they are con-
ftrudtcd, and the fubjccis to which they are ap-
plied. Inllcad of tedious chronicles we have here
interefting poiiions of hiftory, felecVcd and em-
bellished with all the graces ot epic poctrr ; in-
llcad of devotional hvmns, le<iendarv tales, and
moralizatlons of Scripture, we have elfgant little
poems upon charitie and happinelJl:, a ncio churchy
a Hvi)ig worthy J and other occurrences of the mo-
ment : no tranllations from the French, no al-
lufions to the popular authors o^ the luidille
ages;
[9^1
ages ; nothing, in lliort, of what we fee in f<^
many other writers about that time. If Rowley
really lived and wrote thefe Poems in the XVth
century, he mud have ftalked about, like Tire-
si as among the Homeric ghojis,
" He only wife, the reft mere fleeting fhades."
V. In anfvver to thefe laft obfervations, I am
well aware it may be faid (it has been faid), <* that
the powers of genius and poetry are not confined
to one period or country ;" " that poets will arife
in every age far excelling the reft of their con-
temporaries ;" " that, if learning was little culti-
vated in any age, we muft not infer that it did
rot at cili exlft ;" '• that Josethus Iscanus was
once as pre-eminent as Rowley (lo)^" with other
( lo) This Lift argument is ufed by I\Tr. Bryant, p. 444,
and by the Dean ot" Exeter, Pre!. Dill', p. 25. but I ra-
ther uondcr, that thefe two iearned perfons fliould not have
fecn how litiie it is to their purpoie. In the firll: place, no
one, who has looked into the Alexatidreis of Gualteets
Casteli.ioxensis, the Ltgurhius of Gukthet?,8cC. 5«:c.&c.
will contend, that the pre-eminence of Jos-ephus Iscanus
over them is in any degree approaching to that of the iw^'
pofed Rowley over his contemporaries. And, fecondiy,
the excellence of JrsEpnub Iscanus (how great foever it
may be efteemed) atnoiinls only to this, that he was more
fuccefsful than others of his time in copying the finiflied
models of Latin poetiy, which he had before his eyes.
J)Ut the fuppofed Rowley, without any fuch models of
Englifli poefrr, mull be allowed not only to have furpaffed
all his contcniporaries, but alfo to have anticipated the in-
ventions and improvements oi his fuccelTors for feveralfub-
lequent ages.
argu-
[ 93 ]
arguments of the fame force ; all which, if ad-
mitted, would only prove that extraordinary things
h<iwe fomeiimcs happened, and that improhabilitics
arc not always impofftbilitics. For my own part,
I cannot help thinking, that, when the fcveral
points of internal evidence, which have been juft
ftated, are collcd:ed together and confidcrcd in
one view, the improbability, that any one perfon in
the X^^th century Hiould have anticipated, in fo
many inflances, the modes of expression, the
VERSIFICATION, and FORMS OF COMPOSITION" of
the two or three following centuries, mufl be
deemed to fall very little fhort of an impojfibility.
But, as I am very fenfible that the proofs of this
nature may not operate with the fame degree of
force upon all minds, I go on to the lall; and moft
cogent fpecies ot evidence, viz. anaciip^onisms
and contradictions to history, which m.ake it
r.bfolutely impojjihk that thcfe Poems fiiould have
been written by a genuine Rowley in the XVih
century.
Under this head I do not mean to take notice
of fuch departures from hiflorical truth as have
ufually been pardoned in all poets. Even blun-
ders of the grcatcfl: magnitude, in the compoli-
tlons of an ignorant or carelefs writer, do not im-
peacli their authenticity. Though Hector, in
Troilus and Cressida, be made to quote Aris-
totle, our belief in Shakespeare's authorlliip
is
C 94 ]
is not flsggercd. Had he quoted Mr. Locke, the
ctife would have been very dificrcnt.
I fhall therefore confine my obfcrvatlons to a
few matters, which are mentioned in the Poems,
though the fuppofed writer could not poflibly
have been acquainted with them ; and to fome
others, which are there falfified, though he mufi
neccilarilv have had the moft perfect knowlcucrc
of them.
In the firfl clafs may be reckoned the knitting of
white hojaiy in ^lla, ver. 21c. (n); the horfe-
inillanarCy in Bal. of Charitie, ver. 56. (12);
(11) The Dean's quotation from Palfgrave's Eclair cife-
nufit di' la Uaigue Francolfc, printed in 11; 30, is a llrosig
proof, that, even then, the modern pra(5tice of knitting
I'tocking?, with wires or needles, was not known in Eng-
haui. He renders — 1 kniti bonnets or hofen — jfe loffc,
Tlie Dean himfelf is fo fenlible of this, that he wiflies ta
perhiade ns, that the fenfe of the pafTnge " is not necefTa-
rily confined to the pre lent mode of foiltting Jiockings ; for
It might only imply hieing, agreeably to the French cxpld-
nation of Pallgrave." iiut the phrafe in ver. 230, " She-
pittlc uppe her knyttyvge" — fliews plainly what fort of knitting
the author had in view.
(12) It will not be denied, I fancy, that tlie trade of 3
hot Je-miJancr inuft have been of a later date in this coimtry
tli'iu that of a hmple mdJcner. The natives of Milan are
called /ii</i/^;7<rr J inRot.rarl. 22 E. IV. n. 9. but there is not
the ieall: ground for fuppoling that any of them had fet up
a trade h;;re, denominated from themfelves, at that tinie.
As to the modern term of horje-mlllcr.e)\ I apprehend tha^
the De.in need not have travelled ro Norwich inqneft of ir.
1 have been credibly informed, that he might have fcen ir,
rot many \ear£ ago, \i\ large letteib in at le.ifr one ftreet
ot Brifiol. '
and.
[ 95 3
and, I think, the perfonagc of FoUtical T-rccdom,
in Godwin, vcr. 184. See before, p. 81.
In the fecond chifs, one of the moil: flrlking
has been pohned out by the deccafed author of
Observations, &c. " In the Gouler's Requiem,
the mark is fpokcn of as a gold coin, which was no
coin at all, but only a fum in accounts, as the
prefent pound is ; and the noble is mentioned as a
filver ccin^ which was a gold one." '* Thefe mif-
takes," he obfcrvcs, *' could not come from one
fo convcrlant in the coins of his own time as
Canvnge, thefuppofed author of this little piece;"
and therefore he imputes them to Chatterton, of
ivhofc temerity in altering his originals he thinksr
this a notable inftance ; " for to what bounds (fa\ s
he, very gravely) will he confine himfelf, who, in
an affair of money, is not afraid to correct one
who in his time was a principal merchant in
Briftol(i3)!"
(13) It is curious to fee how the Dean of Exeter has at-
tcniptcd to flnr over this grol-; inconilliency, in liis note on
ver. 2, of the Goulers Requiem, p, 449, " Canning (iiiys
he) docs not fpe.ik of the irark and uoblc in the ihit'l lan-
guage of the mint : the former \va3 a nummulirveft:ni:ite,
in value tuo thirds of a pound : the latter a gold coin,
half the value of the mark ; Ijut they were the common
names by u hich funis were then comp\ired." Did the
Dean ever fee a fmn of any magnitude computed in
nobles? — Again: *' The nark and the noble beuig confi-
dered here as money of account, rather tlian as fpecies of
coin,' [the fact is the rcverfe ; for tliey are both conlidered
here as fpecics of com, though one of them very im pro ^
pcilyjj '' the larger denomination i* given to iljc gold,
and
[ 96 ]
In the fame clafs \vc need not fcruple to rank
the introdinflion of three faints, St. Warrebur-
Gus, St. Baldwin, and St. Godwin (14); of any
one of whom not the leail trace is to be found in
and the fmaller to the filver." By the fame logic a modern
poet might be jiiftified in talking oi golden pounds zndjilver
half-^mncas. The /jw;/^ rind \\\c half ■ guinea being confi-
dered as money of account, &c.
(14) St. Warehurghus is mentioned with great refpecl
in the Stor/e of I Villi am Canyvgc, ver. 31, He alfo makes
a principal figure with St, Baldwin, in the j^ccount of the
Cifemonics oblcrvcd at the opening of the Old Bridge, which
(the Dean tells us, p. 433) " was the firft of Rowley'' s Pa-
pers communicated to the public by Chatterton," and the
Dean has lately favoured us with two hymns compofed by
Rowley in honour of thefe two faints, p. 433 — 5. It ap-
pears too, from the Dean's note. Ibid, that feveral tranf-
aftions of St. Wareburgus are recorded in the Mf. hiftory
of Briftol, amongft Rowley'' s Papers^ afcribed to Turgot.
And yet, notwithllanding all thefe teftimonies, the Dean
does not fcruple to declare, with a fort of good-humoured
fneer at his friend Rowley, that " his favourite faint if'ar-
burghns is truly apocryphal ; nor is his name to be found
in any of our Englifli legends, which fpoak only of the
female faint IFerburga." A little lower, p. 436, he treats
faint Baldwin with as little ceremony. " This faint, and
his hiftory (fiys the Dean), like that of faint Warburgh, is
totally imnoticed by our writers, and not ar all explained
by the fong.'' ?Ie adds, hov/ever, that " fome countenance
is given to this legend by Baldwin^ s d'cfs, which formerly
ftood in the city of Briftol, and a ftrcet which is ftill called
by that name ;" but neither of thelc circumftances, 1 ap-
prehend, will be received at prefent as a proof of St. Bald-
win's canonization.
With regard to St. Gorwiw, the De;in has declared with
the fame franknefs, in his note on the B^lade of Charltle,
ver. 16, that " the fituation of St. Goduin's Abbey is
amongft Rowley's hiftorical dilHcullics : no faint of that
name.
C 97 ]
,1 any hiflorj^ or legend. It is impoflible that a
pricil: In the XVth century, of the charadter of
the fuppofcd Rowley, fliould have been fo grofs-
ly ignorant in a profeffional matter as to life the
names of faints who never exiiled, or fo wantonly
profane as to fet forth the creatures of his own
imagination under that ilicred title.
But the points of ail others, with which the
fuppofcd Rowley ought ncccffarily to have been
name, nor any church dedicated to fiich a faint occurs
either incur legends or ecclefialVical hiftory. The Afemoirs
before mentioned fpeak ferioufly of luch an abbey, to which
Rowley went on a commiirion from Mr. Canning, in fearch
of drawings ; but to afifivcr for the authenticity of that ac-
count is no part of the prcfent undertaking.^^ I mufl: ob-
ferve by the way (and I hope the reader will remember),
that the yl/fwo/rj, of which the Dean here fpeaks lb con-
temptuoufly, are thofe very Alcmoirs of Sir IVilliant
Canynge by Row/cy, to which Mr. Bryant frequently ap-
peals as to a genuine work [fee p. 162. 223], and which
the Dean himfelf, if I am not millaken, will be found to
have cited, upon another occafion, as the moji authintic.
records.
Mr. Bryant has been as unfuccefsful as the Dean in hi*
refearches after St. Godwin, whom therefore he would
change into St. Golvin', or St. Godwald [p. 409], though
it iloes not appear that either of thofe faints ever had a
convent under his tutelage. Of the other two, Ware-
burgus and Baldwin, Mr. Bryant has not deigned to take
the Icaft notice, though one fliould have imagined, that two
non-defcript faints delervcd at leall: as much illulhation as
he has been pleafed to bellow upon the Abhics of Ofvjald
[p. 235] and Goodric [p. :44], llibemics wood [p. 240],
and other dark allufions to things, which, like the faints
above mentioned (it is humbly prcUmicd) never cxillcd but
in the imagination of the writer*
H beft
[ 98 ]
beft acquainted (and of confequence mofl exadt in
treating them), are the perfonal hiftory of his
friend Canynge, and the tranfadtions at Briftol
during his own time. Let us fee therefore how
he has acquitted himfelf in the Storie of Wil-
liam Canynge, and the Dethe of Sir Charles
Bawdin, in which alfo Canynge is an adtor. If
thefe fliall be found to be full of impoffible falfi-
ties, we muft conclude that they were not written
by the perfon whofe name they bear.
In the firfl place it fhould be obferved, that
the principal topic of this writer's panegyric on
Canynge has no foundation in truth. The Dean
of Exeter has proved demonflrativeiy, that
Canynge was 720t fole founder or builder of Red-
cliff Church (15). Who can believe that a ge-
nuine Rowley would have complimented his
(15) IntrodiK^ion to the Poems on oure Ladles, Chyrchc^
p. 420. The Dean indeed lays, that " it feems to be a
•jiieition yet undecided^ whether William Canning was the
fole builder or only the principal benefa6lor to this edi-
fice;" but the only evidence which is produced for his
having been lole founder is that of the printed Poems, and
of another by the fame author, called the Fari'iamcnt of
Spr/tcSy yet unpublifhed in Mr. Barrett's hands. In con-
tradiftion to this, the Dean has quoted the following paf-
fngc from the Mf. Chronicle of Brillol. " Anno 1441.
This year William Canninge, and others of the worfliipfullc
town of Brillol, employed maions, workmen and labourers,
and did repair^ cd:fy, cover and gla%e Saint Mary RedclifF
Church, at his and their own proper cofts." He oblierves
further, that " William VVorceibc, a native of Bridol, and
C'.>ntcmporary,witli Caniiinge, whole accounts and nieafure-
mcnt&
[ 99 J
friend upon a fadt, which he and all the woild
mull have known to be falfc ?
A like Contradiction to History appears
in the Epitaph on Robert Canynoe^ who is reprc-
fcnted as the great grandfather of William. [See
the Dean's note, p. 427.] But allowing (what can
fcarccly have been poffible) that Rowley might
have been miftukcn in fuch a point as this, how
fliall we account lor his havins; called that brother
of William, who was Lord Mayor of London,
Johne, when fo many records prove that his name
was Tbojuas {id)?
ments of that building are fo precife and accurate, who
mentions Canning's trade and riches, his houfe and college
of priefts at Redcliff, does not Ipeak of him either as the
fole or even princijial benefac'^or to the work ;" and he al-
Icdges a palfage of Canning^ Ji'ill^ in which he orders hini-
fclf to be buried in loco quern conjlrui feci in parte aufirali
ejufdcm ecchfiee, with this \inanlwerable comment upon it ;
*' Would Canning have defined the place of his interment
by the words locum qucm conjlrui fcci^ if he had been the
tbie bnilder of the church ?* However undecided there-
fore the quetlion may have been formerly, the Dean has
proved incontrovcrtibly, thatCanynge was not fole founder
or builder of Rcdclift" Church. When he adds, that " the
acknowledgement of this point is not more in favour of
Chatterton's than of Rowley's claim to thefe Poems," I
mult differ totally from him. The tradition which he men-
tions to have given the credit to Canvn£[c, miH'.t eafilv
have miflcd Chatterton 5 but it is impoiTible that Rowley
lliould have been miihiken in a fact which palled before his
own eyes.
(j6) ^toric of fVilUam Canyngc^ ver. 129 — 134. ^Tr.
Bryant [p. 315] lavs, that this ciicumftance [of Canynge's
krotlicr ^'■hn havin:: been Lord IMavor of LoMdonl is I'cri-
H 2 iud
[ 100 ]
In the tranfacflions relative to Sir Baldwin
FuLFORD, who is fuppofcd to be celebrated un-
der the name of Sir Charles Bawdin, I have
proved from a record [Introd. Account, p. xix.],
that Canynge was Mayor of Briftol, and fat in
the commiffion which tried and condemned Sir
Baldwin Fulford in 1461, i Edw. IV. One
mufl therefore be jullly furprifed, that fo mate-
rial a eircumilance fliould be totally unnoticed in
the poem on the Dethe of Sir Charles Bazvdin (17).
fied by the lifts of Mayors in Fabian, Stowe, 8tc. though,
in his note, he allows, " that there is great reafon to think
that the Mayor's name was not John, bnt Thomas;" and
that Fabian ftyles him fo. But the Dean of Exeter, [n. on
ver. 91, p. 443] is fo far from confidering this circumftance
as verified, that he chooles rather to fuppofe (contrary to
the plain import of the words in the Poem) that yohn was
not the brother — whom Canynge put in fuch a trade,
That he Lord Mayor of Londonne town was made ;
for (foys he) the perfon who held that high office anno
1457, 36 Henry Vlth, was called Thomas. He uippofes
therefore '* that this ftanza may allude to two different per-
ibns ; Ca7tyv^c might fupply the wants of his brother 'John,
arid even fettle hun in London ; but Thomas had probably
an earlier eftabliihment in trade, bv the fucccfs of which
be was advanced to the higheft city honours." At the
fame time, the De;m is candid enough to confefs, that
*•' neither the Poem, nor thcfe Memorials [viz. 7/;^ unpnb-
lifhcd h'lje of Cannings and [fitters of Canning to Rowley,
in Ml-. Barrett's hands] meuLion any other brother befides
'John:'
{I'j) Mr. Bryant indeed fn\^, " In the Poem it is faid,
tluit at the time of iriii, event William Canynge was Mayor."
But 1 cannot find any pailige in whiL'h this eircumilance is
f--(id, or even implied, ii the poet luul been aware or it,
he
When Canvnge appears as InterccfTor for Sir
Charlf.s to the King, vcr. 45 — 100, or in his
fubfequcnt convcrfation with Sir Charles, vcr.
1 01 — 112, not the Icaft intimation is given of his
being Mayor, and having fittcn in judgement
upon him ; nor, on the other hand, when the
Mayor is introduced in the proccflion, vcr. 293,
have we any rcalbn to fufpcd:, that he !<= the
Canyn'ge, whom we had juft feen acting fo friend-
ly a part towards the criminal.
The Dean of Exeter has obferved on vcr. 265,
" that the proccffion here defcribed was probably
real, at leafl it was fo orderly in point of form,
that no modern pen could have difpofcd it with fo
much propriety." I am forry to differ from fo
great a mafter of antient forms and ufagcs ; but
it fecms to mc rjithcr improbable, that fuch a
proccflion il-'ould have attended the execution of
a rebel of no hii^h rank, in thofe times efpecially,
when Peers of the realm were fo frequently
brought to the fcaffold, and, as far us appears,
without any fuch ceremony. With rcfpccl to the
propriety of the dcfcription, I am inclined to
think, that rione but a modern pen would have
called the Canons of St. Augulline, and the
TvIoNKS of St. James, by the name of Freer s.
he would certainly liave made fome ufe of fo interefring a
lituation, as that of a niagidratc interceding for tlie lire
•f a fiicnd whom he had luiufelf judicially condeinncd.
H 3 While
[ 102 ]
While thofc feveral orders fubfiflcd, the difluiG*
tion of frercs from Monks^ and of Canons from
both, was too well underftood to be overlooked,
or voluntarily confounded (i8.)
It may be objected, fays the Dean [p. 3 s 7],
^^ that the poet has not given either to Sir Bald-
win or his WIFE their true Chrif:ia}i names •" and
the objedion certainly requires a better anfvver
than he has made to it. " i^^lo^^'y (S^y^ he), both
Dames were affumed by him, as more harmonious
(18) That fiich a flip might eafily be made by a modern
pen^ the Dean himfelf has proved in !;is note on this paf-
fage, where he has given the title of AugujVinian Fryers to
• the Augiirtinians founded by Robert Firzharding in 1148,
who arc called by Leland (cited by the Dean in his note on
vcr. 293) St. Augujiine's Black Cancns'^ which was un-
doubtedly their proper tide.
In the note on ver. 271, the Dean has thought himfelf
obliged to fay fomething to another impropriety, with
winch his poet had been charged, for dreffing the Aiigulti-
nians in I't^JJi-'i ivceds^ when the habit of their order was
black. After a good deal oi difculnon, to fhew that the
idea of ruflet might be affixed rather to the fubftance than
to tl;e colour of the garment, he concludes: " In faft,
rufjct ivccds, being the drefs of hermits, were conliderecl
as tokens of humility and mortification, and as fuch were
vvorn by the Knights of the Bath on the eve of their crea-
tion [fee .Aniiij's F,Jay, Appendix, p. 42]; they were
therefore, with great propriety, aliiuued in this melan-
choly ceremonial.'' If the Dean wifiics us to believe, that,
in this tne'ancholy ceremonial, the Auguilinians ajfuvicd (ac-
cordi.ig to the plain import of his words) a drcfs which
they did not lifualiy v.€ar^ he fliould flieu- that it was cullo-
mary for them, or any other religious order, to change
their habits on fuch occaiions,
to
[ 103 ]
to his numbers." Allowing this to have been
pqfiblc, 1 would afk how he came to think of
Charles, a name, which, in the XVth century,
if not abfolutely unufed in England, was, I am
pcrfuadcd, mod exceedingly rare, and therefore,
from its llrangcncfs, not likely to have been
adopted by a poet (19) ? It is alfo fcarce con-
ceivable, that a contemporary writer Ihould have
omitted to make Sir Baldwin Ihew fome atten-
tion to his two daughters, as well as to his tiuo
fonSj whom he mentions repeatedly. But it is
plain, that this writer did not know that he had
any daughters ; for he is fpoken of more than once
(rg) I muft not conceal, thaf, in tnrning over the 5th
and 6th volumes of the Parliament Rolls with a view to this
point, I found one perfon of the name of Charla % viz.
Charles Nowcll, vol. 5. p. 594, ann. 7 & 8 Edward IV. I
fliould imagine that he was of French or Burgundian ex-
traction, la thefe two volumes, which contain the Rolls
from about the 20th Henry VI. to the end of Henry VII.
I counted near a thoufand names without one Charles,
The name of Florence, which he has given to Sir Baldwin's
wife inftcad of Elizabclh, which, according to the Dean,
was her true name, is lefs exceptionable ; but one cannot
help being a little furprifed to fee a ballad-maker of the
XVth century fo refined, as to rejeft the proper names of
his contemporaries for others of a more poetical found.
The Dean informs us (with feeming difapprobation) that
this lady, notvulthJhoid'nig her great affeHlon for her huPoaud
and excejf.ve grief at his execution, was mitrricd again in
lefs than three years. He appears to be fearful (but furcly
without reafon) that the fliortnefs of her widowhood may
be deemed inconfiilent with that affeftion and grief de-
fcribcd in the Toem. I do not believe, that he had any
©tiicr authority for either,
H 4 i«
[ 104 ]
•as having only two children^ vcr. 24, and 57. The
latter is part of Canynge's fpeech to the King :
*' Hee has a fpouie and children twcine ;"
where it is impoffible to fiippofe, that the fpeaker
fhould cither have been ignorant of the true num-
ber of Sir Baldwin's children, or lliould wilfully
have diminiilied it.
That King Edv^^ard was at Briftol ahoiit the
time of Sir Baldwin's execution, and might
■pfffibly have been prefent at it, I fee no reafon to
difpute (20) ; but we may be certain, that the
fpeech fuppofcd to be made to him by Sir Bald-
win is entirely fictitious, and fuch as no contem-
porary writer v;ould have dared to invent. Befidcs
Canynge in the poem is reprefentcd as a Yorkilt;
(20) The firfl: point is clear enough; the fecond is very
problematical. I had inadvertently given more weight to
the entry in the books of St. Evvin's church than it de-
serves, by adding (from the account which I had received
of that entry) that St. Ewin's church %uas then the mivflcr,
J^ut this is nonfenfe. [Who has not, at one time or other,
talked nonfenfe upon the fnbjeft of Rowley?] Without dif-
cufiing minutely the feveral appropriations of the word
ivirijicr, we may be certain, that a fmall parilh-church, as
.St. Ewin's was, could never have acquiied the title of the
I^.liNSTER in a town in which there were feveral monallic
churches, and one fo confiderable as afterwards to become
a catliedral. We have therefore in reality no ground to
believe from this entry, that the King was a fpciiatoi of
the execution from the M infer voindovj^ as defer ibecl in the
Potm ; or even Irom the window of St. Ewin's church. If
be had come thither for that purpofe, wc fliould probably
hnve feen other charges for fcaft'olding, &c. befides that/or
ihujlnn^ the ehurch-^nivcmtnt,
and
[ i°5 ]
and therefore it is inconceivable thatRowLEY, what-
ever his private fentiments might have been,
Ihould have indulged himfclf in a compofition,
which mnft have given fo much offence to his
friend and patron. To get rid of the firft of thefe
difficulties, the Dkan has an ingenious fuppofi-
tion, that the poem was written, not at the time
of the tranfatlion, but ** late in King Edward's
reign, when fortune took a turn in King Henry's
favour ;" and I am ready to allow, that there were
Q\iO\itf£ven months, from September 1470 to April
147 1, in which a zealous Lancaftrian might have
vented his paffion in this manner, without an ap-
prchenfion of immediate punifhment.
But the other difficulty mufl remain in full force,
nnlefs we admit another fuppofition of the Dean's
[p. 331], that Canynge, at this latter period, had
changed his party ; and " that this change might
have been occafioncd by King Edward's impoling
on him a heavy line of 3000 marks, and endea-
vouring to force him into a marriage with a lady
of the Widdeville famil)', which he avoided by
taking refuge in the orders of the church."
This lall circumflance, as I have obfcrvcd [In-
trod. Account, p. xxiii.], is alluded to in the
Storie of William Canynge ; and the Dean
tells us [in his note on ver. 91, p. 445], " that
the menace of Kintr Edward to force a dau2;htcr
pf Woodviie, Loril Rivers, upon Can\nge for a
wife,
[ .06 ]
wife, and bis {heltering himlclf under the pro-
te<-tion of holv orders, is a fadt eftabliflied by the
MOST AUXLIJiN^'IC RECO.RDS." But hc doCS HOt
tell us what records he means, though fo fingular
a fa(ft moll: certaixily requires no ordinary attefta-
tion. Mr. Br v ant has been more fair [p. 312].
His record (the only one, I believe, in which any
mention of this tranfadrion can be found) is the
Memoirs of -Caxyngr, by T.Rov/ley, firft prin-
ted in the Tovun and Country Magazine for Novem-
ber 1775(2;). In a fubfcqucnt paffage indeed
£p. 316J he feems willing to ilrcngthen the autho-
(21) It hns been reprinted by Mr. Warton, Hifr. of Eng-
lifii Poetry, vol. ii. p. 1^9 — 164, and among Mlfcellanies
iiy T- Chatterton, p. 119, I'cq. It is fometimes called
Jllunoirs of Canning, fometinu-s jVIcmoirs of Rovjlcy, and
forrictimes, more fpccifically, Menvj'irs of Canyngc by Rovj-
ley. Mr. Bryant upon this otcalion, as well as many others,
J)a3 cited thefe Memoirs as a genuine work of Rowley; but
the Dean of Exeter has more than once intimated his
doubts about their authenticiry. I hare cited in a former
jiote, p. 97, one paiTage, in which he.fpeaks very contemp-
tuoully of them ; nor has he treated them with more re-
lpe6t in the following note on the Battle of Hajlhigs^
xer, 443. '' As to the treatment which Rowlc-y is faid (in
the printed Hillory of Canning's Life, fee Warton, vol. ii.)
to have received from the wife of Mr. Pelham, v.ho was
dcfcendcd from the family ot I ifcamp ; that account Jlndl
he left to plead fcr hjelf. It docs not affcft the authcnti-
-city of the Poem; nor is it nccejj'ary to hciicve^ that every
toper ^ %vh'ich has been produced through Chaiterton'' s har.ds^
n an undoubted original of Ro-zvley,^' After all this, one
cannot but ()t. fnrprifed to fee thefe fame Memoirs referred
to by the Dean as the most authenjic; Rucords; for I
sni toiiridenr, tlia^ he cannot point out sny other Record,
iliftory,
[ ^0? ]
rity of the Memoirs by other evidence. ** Of
"Sir William Canynge's going into orders to avoid
the marriage propofcd by King Ediuard, we have
the following evidence, for which we are indebted
to Mr. Tyrwhitt, // is ccrtaiUy from the regijler of
the BiJlMp of Worcefler, that Mr, Canynge zuas or-
dained Acolytbe by Bijhop Carpenter on igth of Sep-
tember, 1467, and received the higher orders of Sub-
deacon, Deacon, andPrieJl, on the izth of March ^
1467, O.S. the 2d and \6th of April, 1468, re-
fpeclivcly.'^ This evidence was produced by me
[Introd. Account, p. xxiii.] to fhew the time of
Canynge's going into orders, which it does, I
think, very precifely ; but I never dreamt of its
being applied to fhew, that he went into orders
to a-'coid a marriage propofcd by King Edivard, of
which the regifter fays not one word. On the
contrary, I hope to demonfirate very clearly, that
the dates afccrtained by the regifter are totally in-
confillent with thofc in the Memoirs ; and of con-
fequence, that neither the Memoirs, nor the Sro-
RiE OF William Canynge, which agrees with
them in the fame extravagant fidtion, could pof-
fibly have been written by a genuine Rowley.
Mr. BuYANT himfclf allows [p. '^S'^'li ^^'^^ " ^'^''<^
Jiiftory, or Narrative, b\' v.iiich " the menace of King
Edward to force a daughter of Woodvile, Lord Rivers,
iipon Canynge for a wife, and his flieltering himfclf under
fhe f rotcdion of holy orders," cun be ejlahlijhcd.
is
C :o8 ]
is the teji hy zvhich the authenticity of cur author if
iQ be tried. If thcfe evidences on each fide do not
correfpond, the whole falls to the grou/id,"
The account of this matter in the Memoirs is
thus ftatctl by Mr. Bryant [p. 353]: " In the
yeare Kyn^ Ed'ward came to Brifiozv, niafier Cannings
fend fur me, to avoide a inarriage ivhich the Kyng was
bent Kpon betxveen him and a ladie he neer had feen
of thefamike of the Widdeviles (22). I he danger were
(22) The Dean of Exeter fays [p. 445], that flie was a
daughter of [j/Qodville, Lord Riz'cys, and confequently fifter
to the Queen ; fo that, according to him, the King wanted
to make mailer Canynge his brother-in-law. So mate-
rial an improvement upon the Memoirs makes me ap-
prehend a little that I may have wronged the Dean, by
fuppofing, in a former note, that he had no other autho-
rity than the Memoirs for this tranfaction. Whenever he
produces any, I fliall be ready to beg his pardon.
Ml'. Bryant has attempted to argue, from the ortho-
graphy of the name PFiddevde, that Chatterton copied
thcfe Memoirs from a Manufcr'tpt ; '^ as all the printed
Tiiflories of England exhibit the name JVoodvdle [p. 319]."
But how is the faft ? I will take his word for thofe
hillories which he mentions, and has, I fuppofe, exa-
mined J but I have w'.)V^ before me a Summary of Rapines
Hijiory, in 3 vols. 8vo. London, 1747, (a book not un-
likely to have come into Chatterton's hand) in which the
name of King Edv/ard's Queen and her family is conftant-
ly, I believe, written lV'idevU!e, or IVydcvUe, The inge-
nious author of Curjory Objervatioi-n, he. informs us
[p. 39], that Mr. Walpole, in his Royal and Noble Au-
thors^ has fpelied this fame nime. fVidv die ', and I really
imagine that to have been, of late years, the fafliion.able
orthography. But it is uifficient to dfcilroy ]\lr. Bryant's
argvmient, to have fliewn, that Chatterton might have
found this name lo fpcUcd in a printed book.
nigh.
C 109 ]
nigh, unlcfs avoided by one remedce, on holle cnc^
which tuns, to be ordained a fonn of holy church,
heyng franke frojn the power of kynges in that cafe,
and ca?inot be wedded. — Mr. Cannings injlantly fent
me to Carpenter y his good friend, bijhop of Worccfler ;
and the Fry day following was prepairdc, and ordaynd
the ncxte day, the date of St. Mathezv, and on Sunday
fang hisjirjl ?nafs in the church of Our Ladie^ to the
ajlonifliir.g of Kyng Edward, &c. According to this
account, the tranfadtion palled " in the year Kyng
Edwarde came to BriJIowe," and the whole flory
fuppofes his prefcnce there. We have feen above,
that he was probably at Brillol in the beginning
of September, 1461 ; but that was at leaft fix
years before Canyngcs ordination ; and, befides, at
that tinie the King himlelf had not married into
the family of the Widdevilcs. We are alfo in-
formed by a Mf. Chronicle, cited by Mr. War-
ton [Hilt, of Engl. Poetrv, vol. ii. p. 153], that
fving Edward was at Brillol in 1472 ; but at that
time Canynge had been in full orders above three
years. What rcafon have we to believe that King
Edward was at Briitol in 1467, the time of
Canynges firft ordination, cflablifhed by the re-
giller ? I can find none. Mr. TiiiYANT, in another
place [p. 581], fays, " the very article of King
Edward being at Brillol in the }ear 1467, could
hardly liave been dikoverLd by Chatterton ; as it
i>, I believe, iiKntioned but by on-: hlf.orian." i
wmi
C no ]
wlfh he had named that one, as I know not where
to look for him.
For the prclcnt however let us fuppofe, npoh the
fmgle evidence of the Memoirs, that King Ed-
ward was at Brillol in September 1467; that he
formed the flrange fcheme of making the fortune
of one of his wife's coulins, by marrying her to
mafter Canynge ; and that maftcr Canynge had
no way of avoiding the match but by ftealing into
orders. The account goes on to fay, that on the
Fry day following be was prepared ', and ordained the
7iexte day (i. e. Saturday), the day of St. Matthew ;
and on Sunday fung his firfi juafs : but this is a flat
tontradidtion of the rcgifler, which fays, that
Canynge received his hrll orders on the imie-
teenth of September, 1467; for the day of St.
Matthew, as every one knows, is the tiuentieth of
that month; and moreover, in the year 1467 the
day of St. Matthew fell not on a Saturday, but on
a Sunday: another hiftorical fadf, with which the
account in the Memoirs is totally inconfiftent.
Mr. Bryant indeed has hit upon a curious me-
thod of reconciling thcic contradictions, hy fup-
pofing, that the day of St. Matthew^ in the Me-
moirs, means the Vigil, or, as he calls it, the
rnjt of St. Matthew, i. e. in common acceptation,
the day before the day rf St. Matthew. If he has
difcovcrcd any arguments by which he has been
able
[ "■ 1
able to make this fuppofition probable to bim-
fclf, I admire his ingenuity ; if he can make it
probable to others, I ihall certainly never venture
again to difpute with (o powerful a mafter of the
arts of perfuafion.
But even if we Ihould allow, that tbe day of
St. Matthew may be conftrued to mean the day be-
fore the day of St. Matthew, yet flill the account
in the Memoirs would be irreconcileable to the
Rcgifter. For the Memoirs fay, that Canysge
on Sunday fung hts firjl mafs \ an exprellion which
can only be properly ulcd of a prhjl : but the
Rcgiller proves, that in September 1467 he was
only ordained acolythe (23), and did not receive
the higher orders till the March and April follow-
inir. It Ihould be remarked further, that, as
Canynge at that time was only ordained aeolytbe,
however afionlflmi the King might be, there was
(23) An acohthe is thus dcfcribed in the Canons of J^X-
flic, Codex J.E. A. p. 99. Acolythiis dicitur^ qui candelam
1-cl ccrcum accoijnmfcrt, dnm F.vangcUum le^'itur in Del
m'ln'ijierioy vJ dnm faccreloi Sacramoitum Ccipoiis Domini
(ul a'.tare coyfeerat. The idea in theMEMoiPs, that Ca-
nvngc received all the l'c\c:al orders, including that of
j)rii.ft, in the fame d.iy, is not only contrary to the f:'6l, as
cilablilhed by the Rcgillci [icc bclorc, p. 107], but alio to
cccleliaflical law and praitice [Codex, J. E. A. p. i;i]. I
flioiild doubt whetiiei the Pope hiinfeit ever fo far dilpcnfed
•with the iiliial toiins, as to c(jnrcr all the orders in one day.
The four inferior orders might be conferred together, and
I probably were upon Cuivnge, tliough that oi aeolytbe ov\\y^
being ihc highell of thc;n, lo u.eu:ior.cd in the Rcgiller.
no
[ 1.2 ]
no reaibn uhy he lliould give up his projedl of
the marriage, as the order of acolytbe, or any of
the orders inferior to that oi fub deacon , did not
lay the perfon ordained under any incapacity of
contrafting matrimony. Canynge therefore, by
fuch a flep, would only have provoked the King,
without providing himfelf with any fecurity againft
his power.
This llory in the Memoirs has an additional
claufe, which, for feme reafon or other, Mr.
Bryant has thought fit to detach, and to illuf-
trate in a fcparate article, p. 313. " The King,
upon hearing this (fays Mr. Bryant), was angry
beyond defcription, and refented Canninge's be-
haviour highly : fo that, as we arc informed by
the author [of the Memoirs], Canninge was glad
to prefent him with three thoufand marks, in or-
der to avoid his future ill-will. This was an im-
menfe fum for thofc times, and almoft incredible.
But we have authority for it in the trcatife before
mentioned of William of Worceftre ; who authen-
ticates t\{\spart of thejlory^ pafl all difpute, p. 99.
" Item ultra ifta Edwardus rex quartus habuit de
didto Wilhelmo (Canyngis) III millia marcarum
pro pace fua habcnda." Whoever will take the
trouble of lookins; into William of Worcester
will fee, that all, which he can be brought to au-
thenticate, is the fimple fad, that Edward IV.
had
[ "3 J
had once from mailer Canynge a fine of three
thoufand marks ; but he has not a fylhible to au-
thenticate that fadt, as part of the Jlory in the
Memoirs, viz. that the fine was paid to mitigate
the King's difplcafure againft Canynge, for going
into orders to avoid a marriage with a ladie of the
JFiddcville family. With rcfped to the fimple fa(5t,
Mr. Bryant needed not to have had recourfe to
William of WoRCESTRE to authenticate it. He
might have quoted the authority which William
ofWoRCESTRE himfclf appcars to have followed,
the Epitaph on matter Canynge, Hill remaining
to be read by every body, in Latin and Englilh,
in Redcliff Church (23). I am not prepared, nor
do I think it incumbent upon me, to aflign the
(23) It is a common (I will not fay artifice, but) praftice
of my learned antagoniih, to cite obfcure and out-of-the-
way authorities for the proof of things of vulgar notoriety.
If Mr. Bryant had cited Catiyri^c^s Epitaph upon this occa-
fion, he would not have illuftratcd his poiition [p. 480],
that " it requires a great infight into antiquity to find out
the circumftances alluded to" in thefe Poems. The Dean
of Exeter has alio had the caution [p. 444] to cite this
flory, and other circumftances of Canynge's life, from
pViUiam of IVorcefire^ rather than from the Epitaph;
though he appears to have examined the monuments in
Redcliff churcli with fome attention ; as he alfincs us, that
the figure of mnfitr Canynge^ upon one of them, exaflly
"jcr'ifici a portruiliire of him, as it appears among Rov:hy^i
papers. Is he certain, that the portraiture was not made
from the figure ?
I true
[ 114 ]
true confidcratlon for which the fine was paid (24).
It is cnou2;h for nic to be able to denv, that it
could have any cor^ncxion with the traniaftion re-
lated in the MtMoiRs, that tranfaftion itfelf
having been proved to be a mere fable.
The whole ilory therefore of mafler Canynge's
ordination, having been tried by the teji propofed
by Mr. Bryant himfelf, and the evidences having
been fl^cvvn plaiidy 7iot to correfpond^ the reader
can have no difficulty in concluding with Mr.
Bryant, that " ihs whole falls to the ground.^^ So
(24.) The matters of difculTion, both civil and criminal,
bLtvvetn the prince and his fubjcfts, were in thcie times ib
numerous, and were all fo frequently terminated by a fine,
or payinent of money, that the field is too wide for con-
jedure. It appears from Aladoxcs Hhl. of the Exchequer^
Ch. :-;iii. Seft. x. that this particular fort of fine pro -pace
hubcnda was generally paid for the luipenfion or rcverfal of
fomc legal procefs or judgement, though perhaps it was
not unfrequently levied under the larger terms, Pro henevO'
laitla regis habenda, IJt rex indigiiationcm ranittnt, &c.
ibid. Sect. v. Among various offences, enumerated by
Madox, in which the King's peace was to be purchafcd, I
cannot find any one quite fimilar to that atrocious fpecics
of La-fc-maje/iy^ with which poor mafter Canynge has been
charged by the author of the Memoirs, viz. a refiijal to
mfiriy the ^uccii's cou/in. As the offence was new and un-
pi'ecedented, we may fuppofe, that the intent of fo fevere
a fine was to nip it in the bud. But to be ferious : though
it may not be fciiy to diicover what was the real occafion
of this payment, we may be morally certain, that, as the
Epit;?ph muft have been written by fome friend of Canynge*s
in the life-time of King Edward, the cranfadion alluded to
was of fuch a nature, as not to imply any criminality in
Canynge, or any opprcffion on the part of the King.
dire<^
[ "5 ]
dire(ft and manifcft a contradiction to his-
tory, in fo remarkable a tranlaiflion, in which
the writer pretends to have borne himfelf fo con-
fiderable a part, muft outweigh a hundred little
coincidcncics with probability, or even with truth,
in names, ufages, &c. all of which arc, in general,
fuch as an impollor of moderate abilities iinght at
any time cither borrow from books, or invent
himfelf.
li PART
ii5 3
PART THE THIRD.
BY the preceding examination of various parts
of the internal evidence, I flatter myfelf that I
have edabliihed this incontrovertible pofition, that
the Poems, attributed to Rowley, were not
WRITTEN BY HIM, OR ANY PERSON IN THE XVth
CENTURY. The remaining qucHion is, by whom
and WHEN they were written. But before I pro-
ceed to the difcuflion of that, I think it proper to
examine, fhortly, what is the earlieft external evi-
dence which we have of the exiftence of any
Poems under the name of Rowley, That thefe
Poems were written by any fuch perfon, no exter-
nal evidence whatfoevcr can be fufficient tO' prove ;
but it may be of ufe in determining the date of
their iirfl appearance in the world, and confe-
quently lead to the difcovery of the real author.
The firft ftory, which was circulated concerning
thefe Poems, and which the advocates for their
authenticity are flill obliged to fupport as well as
they can, was, that they made part of a collec-
tion of ancient writings, and other curiofities, de-
pofited by Mr. Canynge in Redclift^ Church.
But what evidence have we that Mr. Canvnge
made
C n7 ]
made any fuch depofitc? It was faid at firft to
appear from his will; in which he had given
particular dircdions for dcpofiting thcfe poems,
with the rcil of his collcdtion, in a certain chcft
locked with fix keys; and, for the better prc-
fervation of fuch treafurcs, had ordered the cheft
to be annually vifited and infpc(flcd by the Mayor,
and others. This mufl: be allowed to found well ;
but, unkickily, upon examination of Canynge's
will, not a fyllablc of this curious tale is to be
found in it. No books or writings are there men-
tioned, except ** two books, called *' Liggers cum
intc-rra lejrenda," which he leaves to RcdclifF
church, to be ufed occafionally in the choir by
the two chaplains there by him eftablilhcd."
Wc are now told by Mr. Brvakt [p. 508],
that we have a mod flitisfatTlory proof of this fadt
from a Latin deed in the polTcflion of i\Ir. Bar-
pett; which he defcribcs " as fairly written in
an official hand of indifputable antiquity ; made
in the 8th vear of Edward IV. and containing an
account of fome chantries, founded by Mr. Ca-
nynge; of the principal chcft locked with fix
keys, filled CiJIa ferata cum Jex clavihiis ; of the
annual vifitation," &c. But he docs not tell us,
whiit this Latin deed fays about the Poems. I h\s
ni)felf, and have quoted in the Litrodu<n:ory Ac-
count, p. xxv a { atin <\c^A in the poifcilion of
%X BARian, which agrees in many particulars
1 ; wuh
[ nS ]
wltK this dcfcribed by Mr. Bryant. The prin-
cipal difference, which I remember, Is, that the
deed which I faw was made in the 7th year ot
Edward IV. being dated on the xxth September,
1467 ; and, bcTidc Tome matters relative to the
chantries mentioned by Mr. Bryant, contained
a donation of 500/. part in money, and part in
jewels pawned by Sir Theobald Gorges, to the
church of St. Mary Redcliff'. The famous cheft
is alfo defcribcd, in the deed which I faw, in the
very words quoted by Mr. Bryant, cijia ferata
Cum fex cianjibiis ; but it is there applied to the pur-
pofe for which one might fuppofc it to have been
provided by a cautious old trader, the reception
of money and jewels, not poems or any other un-
profitable curiofities. If therefore the deed, to
which Mr. Bryant refers, be the fame with that
which 1 faw, I will venture to affert, as from me-
mory, that It contains not the leafl proof that any
poems were dcpofitcd by Canynge in Redcliff
church ; and that no other deed in the pofl'eflion
of Mr. B \RRETT contains any fuch proof, I think
niyfclf authorized to conclude from the filence of
the Dean of Exeter, who appears to have had
a free accefs to Mr. Barrett's colledtions, to
have perufed them diligently, and to have pro-
duced from them generally, with a laudable can-
dour, whatever he thought applicable to the quef-
tion, on the one fide or the other. He would
never
[ "9 ]
never have omitted to produce a deed, which
would furnifli fo ftrong a fupport to his own de-
clared opinion.
I have never heard of any other evidence that
has been pretended to prove this point of the ori-
ginal depofite of the Poems, and therefore I think
myfelf well tounded in preluming that none can
be brought. Suppofing, hovsever, for the pre-
fcnr, that fuch a whim might have entered into
the head of Canynge, as might have led him to
depofite a tair tranfcript of his friend's poems in
a church-cheft rather than in any library, is it
pofllble to fuppofc that this tranfcript was at that
time the only exifting copy of thofe Poems ? Had
the author deftroyed all his original draughts?
Had he never given an\' copies to any other per-
fon r Befides, according to the Memoirs of
Canynge by Rowley, which Mr. Bryant cites
fo frequently, Rowley furvived Canynge feveral
)'ears. W^is he under any reftridion never to
compofe any more poems, not even an elegy on
his patron's death r Or, Kiftl\ , could he be fo in-
fenfible of even laudable ambition, as to trulT: the
immortalltv of his own and his friend's fame to a
fingle copy of his works, and that locked up in
an almoft inacceflible repofitor\' ?
However difficult thefv^ queflions mav be to an-
fvver, I am of opinion, that the advocates for the
genuincnefs of thefc Poems cannot w^ith any falety
I 4 aban-
[ '^o ]
abandon the fuppofition, that they have been pre-
ferved in a fingle copy, dcpofited by Canynge, or
Rowley himfelf, in fome hole or other, where it
remained fafe, though unnoticed, for more than
two centuries. Even upon the fuppofition of a
Jingle ccpj having been originally depofited, it will
be difficult to affign a reafon, why the perfons to
whom that copy was entrufted, the friends, pro-
bably, of both Canynge and Rowley, who had
dined at thofe feafts which the Dean of Exeter
has painted fo charmingly [p. 191 ], and had after-,
wards perhaps been delighted with the variegated
fcenery of ^Ella; it will be difficult, I fay, to
affign a reafon, why they fhould never, either for
themfelves or others, have ordered or permitted
any copies of thcfe Poems to be taken; why their
fucceifors in the truft fliould for ages have main-
tained the fame obftinate referve ; why not even
an entry, or memorandum, appears to have been
made any-where, which might at lead inform
poUcrity that fuch a treafure exifted. All thefe
difficulties, it muil: be confeffed, attend the fup'^
])ofition of ?i fingle copy ; but ftill, as I faid before,
that fcems to be the mofl: tenable ground, upon
which the champions for Rowley can fland. If
they once depart from that ; if they allow, that
other copies were in being at the time of the de-
pofite, or were fuffered afterwards to iffije into the
world, it will be impoffiible for them to explain,
by
[ "■ 3
by what cxtrr.orJlnary concurrence of improbable
events it can have happened, that every one of
thofe copies Ihould have funk into entire oblivion ;
that no poet, no hiftorian, no antiquary, fliould
have taken the lead notice of them ; that no lite-
rary biographer, neither Lelanp, nor Bale, nor
Pitts, nor Tanner, ihould have found materials
enough (and we know that very little would have
fufficed) to enable him to enroll the name of
Rowley among the numerous w'riters of theXVth
century.
Suppofing, therefore, what neither has been,
nor can be proved, that the only exilVmg copy of
Rowley's Poems was depofited in Redclitt church,
and lay there tor many years locked un in acheft;
and that this accounts for the name of the author
having been during that time totally unknown j
what fuppofition are we to adopt next, in order to
account for his remaining equally unknown for
forty years, after the cheft had been broken open,
and the contents of it partly removed to a more
acccfiible rcpofitory, and partly lefi at br^e ? V\ c
are obliged to Mr. Bryant for what I believe to
be the true hiftory of opening the chefi:. He fays
Qi. 512], that " in the year 1727 there was a
notion, that fomc title-deeds were in the chcft :
and thofe of the veftry directed, that it fhould be
opened under the infpcd:ion of an attornev ; and
that the writing-;, deemed of value, Hjould be re.
moved
[ 122 ]
moved to the foiith porch of the church. Ac-
cordingly, all the locks were forced, and the cheft
broken open ; and as there were other chells in
the fame place, if I miflake not, fix in number,
fuppofcd to contain ancient writings, they all fuf-
fered in the fame manner. The deeds, which re-
lated to the church, were in confequence of this
removed ; and all the other manufcripts left at
large, without any defence ; being totally negledt-
ed, as things of no value."
Upon this hifliory it is obvious to remark, that
the attorney, under whofe infpe(flion the writings
deemed of value were to be removed, muft have
neceflarily examined not only thofe which were
removed, but alfo thofe which w^re left behind.
Without attributing to him more tafte for poetry
than ufually falls to the lot of gentlemen of that
profeflion, is it poffible to conceive, that, if he
had found a volume or more of ancient poems in
fuch a fingular fituation, he would have thrown
them aiide without looking into them ? Or, if he
had looked into them, and found them to relate
fo immediately to Canvngf, to Briftol, to Red-
clifF church in particular, is it not probable, that
he would at leafl have advifed his employers to
let them be removed, with /-'y writings deemed of
valuCf to the new repofitory ? If this advice had
been rejected, is it not probable that he would
have begged thefe abandoned volumes for himfelf,
or
[ 123 3
or fomc friend who might be curioi* in fuch mat-
ters, rather than they fliould be kft at Icirgi^ ,s
things of no value, to bo carried avvax' by the firft
comer ?
But in this tranf^nflion, as in every other rela-
tive t-o thcfe Poems, what is probable appears ne-
ver to have happened. They certainly were not
removed into the new repofitory ; and the attor-
ney, it fliould feem, was lo far from any wilh to
poUcfs them, that he did not even think it worth
his while to take notice to any one that he had
found any fuch poems in his examination of the
manufcripts. At leaft, the name of Rowley,
for many years after this opening ol rlie cheft,
v/as as totally unknown as before; and all the
change which he experienced in his fortvmes was,
that thenceforward he was to be cxiiofeci to be
torn to pieces in an open chefl, inll:cad of moul-
derine auietlv in one locked '■jjitb fix ke\s.
In this period of his purgatory he appears to
have been under the fole cuflody of Jons Chat-
TERToN, who, according to the Dean of Exeter
[p. 6], was fexton of RcdciilT Church from the
year 1723 to 1748. This man for fevcral years
feems to have afforded his prifoner no caufe of
complaint, except perhaps for a total neglcA of
him. We have 110 pofirivc evidence, that any of
thefe manufcripts, however abandoned, as we have
feen above, by the governors of the parifli, were
dcflroved
[ 124 ]
deftroyed or carried away out of the church, till
about the year 1743 (^5)' ^^ ^^^^ time, this
Chatterton's nephew " keeping a writing-fchool
in Pile-ilreet, the uncle (fays the Dean of Exe-
ter [p. 6], from the information of the fchool-
mafter's widow) furnilhed him with many old
parchments for covering the boys copy-books, a
little before the death of Mr. Gibbs, vicar of
Redcliff, which parchments were taken out of
fome ancient cherts in the room over the north
porch of RedclifF Church.'* Mrs. Chatterton
iays further, " that the charity-boys belonging
to the fchool brought thcfe parchments to her
(25) It fliould feem however, that fome of them had got
abroad betore that tiir.e, as Mr. Walpole in h\s ^nerdotcs
cf Painiifis^, Sicc. vol. i ch. 3, has printed a copy of a
paper, faid to be tnken from Rrdcllff Church, which was
communicated to the Society of Antiquaries in 1736. It is
7i Memorandum, fetting forth, that on the 4th day of July,
1470, maifrer Ci'nyngc had delivered to the vicar and pro-
curators of St, Mary Rf.dcliff a ncvjc fcpulchre, with various
figures and other fcenery, for the reprefentation of the
myilerj- of the Refurreftion. In Mr. Walpole's copy the
name is Cvmirgs, hut it is Camnge in a trp.nfcript which
I have fecn ; in vv-hich too the Memorandum is faid to have
been found " in the cabinet of the late John Browning,
Efq; of Barton, nearBriftol." If Mr. Browning had car-
ried off any poems of Rovvi.ey, they would probably have
been found in the fame cabinet.
I obferve by the way, that it is not to the credit of
maifter Canynge^ that he fliould have continued to encou-
rage thefe mummeries, after his friend Rowley had ex-
poffd the abfnrdiry and profancncfs of them in his Epijile
on Mila^ ver. 43 — 6.
husband's
C '^5 ]
hufband's houfe, and that they filled a large
mawnd bafket : that many of them had feals, the
figure of a pope or a bifhop in a chair ; others
had no fcals : that her hufband put them in cup-
boards in the fchool, for the purpofe of covering
the boys' writing-books ; the belt of them were
put to that ufe, and the reft remained in the cup-
board : Ihe thinks her husband read fome of
them, but docs not know that he tranfcribed any,
or was acquainted with their value. Being parti-
cularly fond of mulic, he employed his leifure
hours in writing it for the cathedral, of vvhich he
was a finging-man : he had been employed in Lon-
don in engroffing deeds for the attorneys, and was
probably acquainted with the old hands ; he had
alfo been writing-uflicr to a fchool where the
clafiics were taught, and thereby knew a little of
the Latin tongue."
This account, as flated by the Dean of Exe-
ter, from the information of Mis. Chatter-
TOM, I have tranfcribed at full length ; bccnufe it
contains the moft authentic evidence, vvhich we
have, with refped: to the firft removal of any ma-
nufcripts from Redcliff Church ; to the quantity
and quality of them; to the pcrlbn into whofe
hands they came, and to the ufe vvhich he made
of them. The time is ftatcd very particularly to
have been a little before the death of Mr. Gibbs,
that is, probably about 1743. '^^^ quantity was
7 fuch
C «z6 ]
fjch as to fill a large mavvnd bafkcr. The qna-
licy is no othcrwilc rpecificd, than that many of
them hadfc'alSy and others none. Nctbi/r^ in the
foiin of a book is ?nentioned to Ih.ve bee?! amovg them,
Mr. Cfiatterton, hito whole hands they came,
is ftatcd to have been at the time a vvriting-mafterj
lo have been formerly employed in engroffing for
attorneys, and probably acquainted with the old
handb, and to have known a lirtle of Latin.
Mrs. Ckatterton thinks, that he read fome of
the nianufcripts, but does not know that he tran-
fcribed any ; and the chief ule which fhe mentions
him to have made of them was to cover the bovs
writing-books with the beft of them, and to put
lip the remainder in a cupboard for the fame pnr-
pofe. He died in AugulT: 1752, without having
ever dropped to his wife, or any one elfe, as
fnr as ap^^ears, a fingle fyllable about Rowley or
his Poems; and when his widow removed from
the fchool-houfe, flie put the parcliments, remain-
ing in the cupboard, partly inio a large long deal
box, and partly into a fmallcr fquare oak box,
and carried them with her to her lodgings.
There we will leave them for the prefent, and
return to the manufcripts remaining in the church.
We have no evidence that Chattkrton the fex-
ton difpofcd of any of them, except thofe above-
mentioned to his nephew. The next fexton was
Ferrot, from 1748 to May 1736. Soon after
his
[ 1^7 ]
his acccflioii to the office, he had that converfa-
tion with a Mr. Shiercliff, of which Mr. Bryant
has given us fo accurate an hiftory [p. 512 — 514].
The fubftancc of it is, that Mr. Shiercliff favv
parchments in heaps, fome quite loofe, fome tied
up ; that Per ROT feemcd to intimate to him, that
he might, if it were agreeable to him, take fome
of them. But he did not regard the hint, as he
had no taftc for fuch ancient writings." Mr.
Shiercliff adds, what is very material, " that,
ivben the name of Rowley was afterivards brought
vp, and his Poems became the public talk, it re-
vived in his mind many faint ideas of this tranf-
adtion." This proves, that, at the time of this
tranfadtion in 17-19, the name of Kow ley bad 7iOt
been brought tip ; and therefore I fufpcdt that the
Dean of Exeter mull be under a miilakc [p. 16],
when he rcprefents Mr. Shiercliff as having
faid, that " at this diftance of time he cannot po-
fitivcly fay, whether the name of Rowley was
mentioned, but thinks it was.''* If Mr. Shiercliff
had exprelfed the fainteft idea of having heard
the name of Rowlky upon that occafion, Mr.
Bryant would afluredly not have omitted fo ma-
terial a part of his evidence.
The lad pcrfon, who is mentioned as having
taken any manufcripts out of the church (before
the year 1765), is a Mr. Morgan, whom the
Dean of Exlter calls " a curious man, and a
great
[ 128 ]
great lover of antiquities, although no fcholar/*
Mr. Bryant [p. 514] fays, " he had been a bar-
ber." A note of his has been produced by the
Dean [p. 16I, in which hefpeaksof " the trunks
and boxes ftill remaining" in RcdcliiF Church,
*' with many hundred old deeds in them ; where
(fays he) I have been furnifhed with many curious
materials." The Dean endeavours to account
for Mr. Morgan's not mentioning the poetry
among thcfe old records, by tviofuppofitions, which
I Ihall not examine here. It is fufficient for my
purpofe to obferve, that neither in this note of
Mr. Morgan, nor, I prefume, in his other papers,
Vv'hich are faid to be now in the poffeffion of Mr.
Barrett, is there any mention of Rowley, or
Poetry of any fort, difcovered by him in rum-
maging the manufcripts in RedclifF Church ; fo
that we may be very confident, that he had not
met with any fuch things.
PART
[ 129 ]
PART THE FOURTH.
WE have thus brought our enquiry, into the
external evidence for the exiflence of any poems
under the name of Rowley, down to the year
1765; which was nearly the time of Mr. Mor-
GxVn's death ; and at that time, I think, it is very
clear from the premiiTes, not only that there was
no evidence, but that there was not even a rumour
or imat^-ination, that any fuch poems either did
exift or ever had exifted. Very foon indeed after
this period, the Poems, which are the fubjedt of
our prefent dlfcuffion, were produced to the world,
as having been written by one Thomas Rowley
in the XVth century, and were attempted to be
authenticated, by the pcrfon who produced them,
by various fpecies of evidence. It has been
proved, I hope, to the reader's full fatisfadtion,
that thefe Poems could not have been written by
Thomas Rowley, or any other perfon in the
XVth century; and lihall now endeavour to make
it probable, that thev, and the evidence, fuch as
it is, in fupport of them, were both fabricated, a
little before their iirft appearance in the world,
by the perfon who produced them.
K That
C ^30 ]
That perfon is univerfally acknowledged to
have been Thomas Chatter ton, the Ion of
Chatterton the writing-mafter above-mentioned,
born, foon after his father's death, on the 20th
of November, 1752. We have jufl feen that not
an idea of Rowley or his Poems v/as entertained
by any one till feveral years after this 2era ; and
it is as certain, that not a fmgle Pocr,:, purporting
to be the work of Rowley, has fince appeared in
the world, which did not come originally out of
the hands of this Thomas Chatterton. The
Poems therefore having been proved to be forged,
the fufpicion at leaft of having forged them falls
naturally upon him.
His defence, whenever he was qucfiioncd about
them, was merely this ; " that he copied them
from the manufcripts which his father had taken
out of a chefl in RedcliiTChurchr" It has been
fliewn, that there is not the leaft ground for
believing, that any Poems were ever dcpofited in
Redcliff Church. If any had been there, is it
credible that they Ihould all have been fwcpt away
at one hawl by old Chatterton, fo that no one,
who cr.me after him, fhould have been able to
pick up a fmgle line ? If even that had happened,
is it credible that he, w^ho was probably capable
of reading any hand of the XVth century, fhould
either have never difcovered himfclf, or fliould
have obCinately concealed from every body elfe,
4 ■ that
[ '3' ]
that fome of thefe manufcripts contained Poenuf
Laftly, fuppofing him to have been entirely igno-
rant of their contents, is it poffible that they
fhould have been applied for eight or nine years
together^ indifcriminately, as far as appears, to the
covering of ivriting-bocks and bibles ; that, for four-
teen or fifteen years ?nore, the remainder ihould
have been applied, with as little felc^lion, to the
making of thread-papers, patterns, dolls, a?id the
like (26] ; and that, after all, the refufe of that
(26) This account of the application of the parchments
for the firft period, I'roni 1^43 to 1752, is tallen from Mrs.
Chattcrton's narrative, reported by the Dean of Exeter,
p. 6, 7. See alio Mr. Bryant, p. 5:10, i. Ths account
for the fecond period, from 1752 to 1767, is taken from
the information of young Chatterton to Mr. W. Smith, as
related by Mr. Smitlx to Dr. Glynne in 1778 [Bryant,
p. 527, 8j. Though both my learned opponents have in«
Icrted thio part of Mr. Smith's relation without any marks
cf diilriirt, 1 mull in candour obferve, that it is incon-
filknt with iMri. Chattcrton's narrative ; which fays, that
after the removal of the parchments in boxes to her lodg-
ing?, they continued ne^Ucitd and loidifiurbcd, till her Ion
firil difcovercd their real value [Mi'.les, p. 6J. It is not
material to my argument, v.hich of theie florics is true;
for, as nothing but a miracle could have preferved the
I'oems during the firft period, lo the fame miracle, it muft
be allowed, miglit have preferved them during the fecond,
Mr. Bryant's delicacy, it feems [^p. 528. n. *\ ** pre-
vented him from aJking Mrs. Chatterton about the MfT.
being put to thefe ufes, as it might have embarraffed her. —
Yet (as he oblewes very truly) there could be no more
harm in her making ufc of them for thread-paper?, than
for her hufoanJ cmployiiiij them for covers 01 books." I
K 2 will;
[ 13^ 3
remainder Ihould be found to contain a number
of Foems, by a Poet never heard of before (one of
twelve hundred lines without a finglc chafm), and
a number of pieces in profe by the fame au-
thor (27)?
' It is true, that, in order to gain fome credit to
this very improbable tale, Chattertom did, at
wifli therefore that he had afked her about this matter;
not merely for the fake of knowing the tnith of the fa(fr,
but becaufe our knowledge of it might enable us to form a
general notion of the degree of tfrracit)', which Chatter-
ton oblerved in his converfations with his bo fom friend':,
fvich as Mr. Smith and others arc reprefented to have been.
\f the parchments had not been ufcd for thread-papers,
Chatterton's account to Mr. Smith, of the manner of his
difcovering them, mull have been a lie. The account is
[Bryant, p. 529], " that one day (after he v/as articled
to Mr. Lambert) his eye u-as caught by one of thefe thread-
papers ; that he found not only the writing to be very old,
and the characters very different from common characters ;
but the fubject therein treated was different from common
fubje<!ls ; — that he began to queftion his mother what thefe
•thread papers were; how flie got them; and from whence
they came; and upon further t-nquiry v/ns led to a full dif-
covery of all the parchments wiiich remained."' I muft
obferve too, that Mrs. Newton, who, a: Mr. Bryant alTures
U'?, p. 521, " could recol!c6l the whole procefs of her bro-
ther's difcovering the parchments in the box," has not
fnid'a Word about the thread paper, which led to the difco-
reiy.
'-",(27) I li^'Ve obfcrvcd above, p. 126, that nothing in the
■form of a book h mentioned to have been amoncr thefe
parchments ; fo that the tragedy of yFJla mufl have had ex-
traordinary good luck to conic down to us, through all the
^perils v/ith which it v/as environed, complete, in loofe
icavcr., vvitliout the !of?, as far as wc cin judge, of a
/]ngl° Ici'f,
different
[ 133 ]
different times, produce a few fragments of what
he called the original manufcripts, from which his
copies were made. Had all thefe fragments been
proved to be genuine, they would have gone a very
little way towards authenticating the Poems attri-
buted to RowLEv ; but, in fadl, there arc the
flrongell reafons for believing them all forged.
They are four in number, and contain all toge-
ther 124 verfes. The mod confidcrable in length
was that which he produced firft, containing 66
verfes. It has fince been loft ; but we know that
it contained the Challenge to Ljdgatey the Songe to
lilla, and Lv^gafe's Anfzver ; and therefore we can
have no difficulty in pronouncing it a forgery, as
the correfpondence itfelf between Lydgate and
the fuppofed Rowlev is plainly fictitious (28).
(28) According to Mr. Bryant's o^v'i account of the
fuppofed Rowley [p. 539], he was admitted uc.lyth in the
year 1439, when he might be from fifteen to twenty years
of age. At that time Lydgate had been a prieli nhove
forty years, having been ordained in 1397, and he had
been admitted to his lirA orders nine years before, in 15BS ;
fo that he was probably at leafl fifty years older than Mr.
Bryant's Rowley. But in this correfpondence they are made
to converfe upon the footing of oldjVicnds^ which certain-
ly implies a greater equality of age.
Mr. Bryant has another way of folving the difUcultv by
fuppofing, that the Lydgate in t!ie correfpondence was not
the famous monk of Bury. The anfwer is faid to l\;ive beci\
fcnt by ]o\\v\ Lydgate, prieji in I.ounon. But, f;\ys Mr.
Bryant, a priift of Loudon could not be a mouk of Bury.
A caviller might fiiggert a little difference between a }»if/i
of London and a />v/V/? in London. A monk of Bury ii^
piiclVs orders, while icfiding in London, iiiiglu farcly be
K 3 tailed
[ '34 ]
Another of thefe fragments, entitled, " ^he ac-
counte of William Caiiynge's feajl,*' has been copied
called n prieft in London. If Mr. Bryant could prove that
there ever was another Lydgate, to whom the circumftances of
this correfpondence would bemoreluitable than to the monk
of Burj', we might admit his diftiqflion. As matters Hand,
1 cannot help thinking that he is too feverc upon thofe,
who *' have been Searching into Lydgate's works of Bury,
to find out the name of Rowley;" and perhaps at bottom
he himfelf may be not fo much difpleafcd with them for
having fearched, as for not having found.
I muii; not conceal what the Dean of Exeter tells us, that
*' this was the firll of Rowley's compolhions produced by
Chatterton to Mr. Barrett ; and, behdes the apparent anti-
quity of the vellum, ink, and hand-writing, it had this
unufua!^ hut Jliong proof of authenticity^ that it was writ-
ten in continued lines, extending the whole breadth of the
parchment, like a profe co-.-npofuion." Mr. Bryant has
the fame ilory, p. 566, and adds, " This was of old ufual,
in order to fave expcnce, by croiuling as much as could be
brought together within a Unall (.ompafs ; becaufe mate-
rials for writing v/cre der.r." But in the circumftances of
this cafe, this minncr of Tvriting is fo far from being a
proof of authenticity, that in my opinioii it very much in-r
crcafcs the fufpicion of forgery. In 13 13 (according to
Anderfon, vol. i. p." 153), a Ikin of parchment coll two
pence farthing. A Ikin was often folded into 12 leaves, of
which every p.ige would very well contain 36 lines; fo that,
I apprehend, all the works attributed to Rowley, unpub-
iifliLd as Well as pnblifiied, might have been tranfcribed
fairly, without croudiiig one vcrle into another, upon five
or fix Ikins of parchment ; the price of which at Briftol in
1460 (we will fuppofe) might be double to that in 1313.
Make if treble, or (juadruple, we iraiil: reverfe all our ideas
of Canynge, before we can believe, that he would fufTer his
poetical friend to be reduced to the necelfity of facrificing
the beauty of his writings to fuch a pitiful faving of parch-
ment. But poor Chatterton Iiad no Canynge; and his ma-
terials for writing were probaijly fcaiee. He might think
too
C '3i 3
4n the manner of a Facfimilc, and fubmlttcd to
public examination in my edition, and fince in
the Dean's. I have never met with any one, who
had examined that Fac fimile with the Icaft atten-
tion, who was not fatisficd that the archetype was
a forgery (29). Of the two other fragments, one
contains the " F.pitaph on Robert Cafiyn^^c," and
the other the 36 firft verfcs of the " Storie of JVil-
Ham CanyJigey If it had been thought that cither
of them would bear the light better than '' The
AccQunte of W, Canyr}ge*s Feajle" one or other of
the learned advocates for Rowley vvould certainly
have obtained Mr. Barrett's permiflion to give
us a Fac Jimik of them. An engraving of that
too, that a manner of writing fo contrary to modcra prac-
tice would have the appearance of being antient; as in ge-
neral he fecms to have thought, with reipert to words and
things, that whatever was not modern^ was ancient,
(29) Though the Dean has been pleafed to declare
roundly [p. 4^9]> " ^^^^ '^his Facjimile does not do jurtice
to the original," he has not attempted to point out any
inftance of deficiency, redundance, or variation in it. They
who are ac(piaintcd with the diligence and ability of the
engraver wjll not be much moved, I apprehend, by fo vague
a cenfure. Will the Dean venture to fay, that he believes
the original to be genuine ? I will only take notice here
of one egregious llip of the forger. Whoever has been at
all converfant with ancient MIT. muft have obfcived, that
the forms of many of the Arabian numerals have varied at
different times as much as any letters, liut the figures 6^
in the Fac Ihn'ilc are perfedly modern, and not only mo.
dern, but they are exactly fuch figures as Chatterton him-
felf \ifed to make; as can be proved by comparing them
V'ith fpecinic;i3 of his hand-writing now in bcirg.
K 4 l^rr
[ >36 ]
fort would have afforded at leaft as interefting a
decoration to the Dkan's commentary as either
the feal of Sir Baldwin de Fulford, or the
tomb-flone of John Lamington, or even the
Anglo-Saxon dulcimer with nine or ten firings.
However there is no reafon why they, who can-
not have ths ocular proof, fhould fufpend their
judgements upon this occafion> If the whole An-
t'quarian Society had infpeded thefe two frag-
ments, and had decided unanimously, that the
hand-writing was fimilar to that of the XVth
century j that the parchment had the true yellozv
tinoe, and the exadl rwnpie And foil of antiquity;
that the ink was of a due faintnefs and g^'eynefs,
and the charaders fufncitnrly obfcure ; all this
would prove, not that the fragments were genuine,
but that the forgery was well enough executed to
impofc, at firfl: fight, upon good judges. The
<' Epitaph on Robcr} Canpige" mud ftill be
deemed fuppofititiqus, from its mentioning him
41S the ^rf^/^^r^^z^^^/^/^^r of William [fee before,
p. 99]; and the 36 firil: verfes of the " Storie of
I'fill'iam Canytigc'" cannot be exempted from the
condemnation, which has already been pafTed upon
the whole (lory, as full of impoffible falfities [fee
before, p. 107 — 115]. One of thole falfities ap-
pears in this pretended original, ver. 31 — 34; the
jnention of Saint W.'.peburgus, whom the Dean
him-
[ 137 ]
himfelf calls truly apocryphal [fee before, p. 96.
n. 14] {Zo).
( jo) I cannot part with thefe curiou'- fragments, without
oblervintj, that they are very iil calculated to iirprcls us
with the idea of tlitir iiaving been depofired, anaonjj other
valuable curiolities, by a wealthy merchant in Redcliff
Church. One fl\oiild rather fiifpeO them of having been
fcrawled by a be^ear upon fcraps of parchment picked off
a dunghill. The Dean of Kxeter [p. 429] fays, " that the
hand m which the fragment of the S'oric of IViUuim Ca-
nynge is written, is fomewhat different from the /Iccount of
Cunyn<re's Fenjt ;" and I add, that the hr.nd in which the
Epitaph on Robert Lcnynge is written, tliffcvs entirely, as I
remember, from both. To get rid of this difficulty, the
Dean afke, " Why might they not have been tranlcribed
by different amanuenfes ?" To which the anfvver is obvious,
that neither Caiiynge nor Rowley could poffirly have hired
three fuch execrable fcribblers to write for themi. 1 Ihould
rather advife the Dfan to maintain, that the Account of
Canynge s Fccifi \\'iL%y as it purports to be, written by Ca-
nynge himfelf, being fabfcribed with his name. The two
others, being in different hands, could not both h ive been
written by Rowley ; but one of them might. Which it is,
Mr. Bryant will be able to determine beft, who, it feems
[p. 570], knows where to find " fevered manufcripts fill
ixta/it^ which were written by Rowley himfelf and are fiib-
fcribed with his name in his own hund-ivriting." The third
perhaps might as probably be attributed to Sir Thybbot
Gorges, wiiu, being a man of (jualiry, we may fuppofe, did
not pique himfelf nuich upon calligraphy.
I mult make another obfervation. In the cafe of the
fragment containing the fonge toytila, which is written in
continued lines like profe, we have been told "^fee before,
n. (28), " that fuch a manner of writing is a ftrong proof
of authenticity," it " having been ufyal of old, in order
to fave cxpence, by crouding as nvuch as could be bro'ight
together within a fmall compafs." But in each of thcfe
three fragments one fide of the parchment is blank, with-
out a.",y writing ipcn it. How u.-e ve to accjua: for this
total
[ '38 3
The fragments, therefore, which Chatter ton
produced as part of his original manufcripts, are
fo far from adding any credit to the Poems, that
they ferve to fix more ftrongly upon him the fufpi-
cion of having been himfelf the forger; efpecially
as it has been lately proved by indifputable evi-
dence, that in the very firft publication, which he
pretended to make from an old manufcript, the
Account of the Ceremonies obferveJ at the opening of
the Old Bridge, he not only confefTed to one of
his friends that he was the author of that Account,
br.t alfo brought to the fame friend a piece of
parchment, filled with writing, to reprefent the
total negleft of the old oeconomy ? If the former method
of writing was a proof of aiuhenricity, this wafte of pre-
cious parchment mui^ be confidercd as a proof of fpuriouf-
i^fs. But there is a ftill more material obfcrvation to be
made upon the fragment, which contains the beginning of
the Storie cflf/ilUam Canjvgr, It is particularly defcribed
by the Dean of Exeter, p. 428, who tells us, " that the
four or five firll lines in it are the conclufion of Rowley's
L'ljl cffk'ilkd Fainter s and CarzicUers." This fragment
therefore mull be fuppofed fo have made part of the book
containing Rowley's L:J1 of fKilUd Painters and CarvellerSy
of vv-hich feveral copies from Chatterton's tranfcript arc
extant. But it this fragment made part of a book, it is
difficult to conceive how one fide came to be left without
any writing upon it. If the written fide be (folium return)
the upper fide of the leaf, we fliould naturally expect to fee
the continuation of the Poem on the other ; if it be (folium
i-crfumj the under fide of the leaf, we fliould as naturally
expect to fee on the other fide the preceding part of the
LiJ} of f killed 'Painters and Carvedcrs. It fccms incum-
bent upon the advocates for the genuinenefs of the parch,
mcnts to de:;r up thefe matters. ...
original.
C '39 ]
original, and in his picfcnce held It over a candle,
to give it the appearance of antiquity (31). If he
had been tried for uttering a f:]lfe bill, his allega-
tion, that he found it, might have been confidered
as nothing more than a pica of AW guilty ; but if
he had attempted to juftify the gcnuinenefs of the
bill by forged evidence, and had been detected in
any one inftance, he mull have had great good
luck to efcapc conviftion, not only as acccllary,
but as principal in the fraud.
Indeed the learned perfons, who have lately
undertaken to defend the authenticity of thefe
Poems, feem to be fo fenfible of the total infuffi-
ciency of all the evidence, which has been or can
be brought in fupport of Rowley's title to
them, that they touch that part of the argument
very fparingly, and exhaud all their ingenuity in
afligning various reafons why CHATXiiRTON could
not have been the author of them. If this point
were allowed, 1 do not fee that the other follows
of necfffity. I might as well, from the proof
which I have given that they could not have been
'.vritten by Rowi.ev, infer at once that they were
(31) See Mr. RuridalTs teftimony, as rcporred by the
Dean of Exeter, p. 436 ; and by Mr. Croft, in Mr. War-
ton's Enquiry, iic. p. 115. There are ibrne v.iri;itions in
rhc two accounts ; but they borh agree in ellabhfliincr the
material fadt, that Chattcrron, fonn afrer liis fnll ciTjy to
impole falfc antiquities upon the public, bef.irc lie was fix-
lecii. years of age, hid f. nned a regii'ar pb-.n jf authcr.tl-
c-it'tir/ his pyctt'H.icd :opici by f:rgcJ originah.
written
[ 14^ J
written by Chaitlrtom. But the queilions are
certainly dillindt, and I fhall continue to treat
them feparately.
Wc have juil fcen how very weak the defence
was, which ChattI':rton himfelf fct up, againft
the charge, which lay heavy upon him from the
beginning, of having forged thcfe Poems. We
are now to examine whether his (or rather Row-
ley's) advocates have added any flrcngth to that
defence.
Their arguments arc all, I think, drawn cither
from his want of abiliiy for fuch a forgery, or
i'rom his want of induccmeiit. To the latter I fhall
fay very little. I doubt whether we have mate-
rials for judging of the motives and inducements
of fo eccentric a genius as CiiATTERTON. Befides,
the argument proves too much. Inducement being
ncceirarily fuppofed to mean rational inducement^
the want of that might be urged to prove, that
neither Annius of Viterb-, nor Curzio Inghi-
RAMi, nor Alphonso Ciccaiii:lli, were guilty
of the grofs and wanton forgeries of which they
ftand convicflcd (32}.
(32) An riccomn of Anmu^, or Na.vm, of Viterbo,
may be fccn in n.WjM:., v. Nannius; and his book, enti-
tled, " Birnji (^hiiUla.'l faccrdoth re liquor U/Wiue conJhndi\
ay^umrnti uulorum de nniufn'ttntr hali(£ ac trAius orhis,^^ ii
p )t uncoiTiinon, havin;j gone through feveral editions. It
Ihoiikl be obfervtd, th it, though his whole col legion was
vcr}' foon condemned by the Learned as a grof-i forgery, yet
tliere \scrc not \uinting fome, bclides his Doniinican bre-
thren.
[ H- ]
I mufl obferve too, that there is no occalioa
for fuppofing, with Mr. Bryant [p. 549], that
thren, \vh6 could not be perfmded that he had been the
forger. They argued from the unprobabltity of his en-
gaging in lb abfurd a I'chcme, and Iruin Kisivaat of capac'itv
to execute it. Slnod enim per Dei'.m vmnortakm prodi-
c.wvi fuer'it (fays the Vroteltant Batit hius, as quoted by
Bay LP.) claujlralcm ilium i^ nun i;ne tarn frofunde dodum
monnchum talia cotnni'in'ijci pcjje y If he had tol<l on!}' a
few little lies, he would have been iiniverfally given up as
fnon as <letedt:d j but the magnitude and extent ot his
fidions were received as proofs of his veracity. After all,
perhaps rhe true "key to the inipoilure of Annius is in the
Sic'.! /get ana, p. r i;9, " Anmus f^iier/jicn/t's a eftc veu pur
uo homme, 'pii me 1' .1 dit ; ii cjioit fou, U talis habeba-
(ur." A fpice of madnefs I fliould fufpec: robe a com-
mon ingredient in -x ^rcat literary impoftor ; and I think it
plain, from various circumftances of Chatcerton's pcrfonal
hiflory, that he Ivul.a ^rppe^^ fliare of that confritutioiial
qiialification.
CuRzio iMGHirvAMi and Altmionso Cicca«£i,li nrc
beft known (to nic qt-ieaft) froiLi a very learned and inge-
nJous little book '.vliich '.vas publiflicd by rhe celebrated
Lf.o Allatius, aboiit rhe year 1640, entitled, '* In An-
tiquiuuum Rivufcarnm fragmenta ab I}ighn\imio edit^ j^n'i-
mudvcrjioncs. Jdditiir animadverfio in iibro% AlphonfiCic-
carclVi i^ autlorcs ah eo co-.tfitlc:.'''' Cur::io pretended to
have dug up v^irious hi<lorichl coileif^ions of Prcfr^aus
Fa^fitlufUis (an Etrufcan Rowuy), written in the time of
SyUa. His lidions appear to have been fo abfur(ily and
ignorantly contrived, as icarcely to dcfervc fo learned a re-
futation. He had even been fo incautious as to produce his
pretended original urittcn upon coT)imo7i psipei', made of
linen rags ! The frauds of ALPdONso wanted no refuta-
tion, as he himfelf had corfeflcd them, being at laft exe-
cuted for the forgery of a moilern inllrumcnt fjidei com-
m:Jp cujufdam) under Gregory Xill. Ai-Latius luis given
a lift ol more rhan 120 authors, quoted by Ciccar tti.i,
who either never exiflcd, or at leaft never wrote any i\.\i:\\
books as he has afcribed to tliem.
Chat-
[ 142 ]
Chatterton fet out " ivith an idle fcheme of dc*
ceiving the whole ivorld»* It is more natural to
fuppofe, that his firft cffays in forgery were for
his own private amufemcnt ; the fuggellions of an
adVive irregular mind, eking out the fcanty fupplies
of knowledge, which came within its reach, by
invention. In the purfuits of ambition, it has
been faid, that a man never goes fo far, as when
he knows not whither he is going ;^ and I fufpedt
that the fame may be faid of forgery. The fal-
lies, in which the imagination indulges itfelf at
firft for amufement only, become by degrees its
habitual exercife. Lie is heaped upon lie, till
fomething like a regular hiftory is formed. How-
ever ill proportioned and disjointed it may be, the
contriver is pleafed with his own work ; and, after
a time, is deiirous to procure for it the notice and
approbation of others. If the perfons, whom he
firll; attempts to deceive, arc difficult and incre-
dulous, he is obliged, in his own defence, to fup-
port his old lies by new fidlions. If the fraud
paffes unfufpedted, he is encouraged by that fuc-
cefs to form further plans of deception ; efpecially
If he fees any poflibility of deriving from them
emolument y or confideration (33). By fuch fteps as
(33) Though I apprehend that a profpcd of gain can
ver)' rarely have been the firil: motive (in modern times at
4caft) to a literary impoilure, I am far from thinking th?.t
i^may noi fometimes have come in aid of the firll motive,
and induced the impollor to carry on his plan of deception
for
[ M3 ]
ititk, it feems to me not improbable, that Chat*
TERTON might at lengthhc led to engage in the idle
fcbeme of decehing the whole world; of which, at
his firfl fetting out, he had no more an idea, than
Cromwell had of afpirlng to the crown, when he
for a longer time, and to a greater extent, than he oiigi-
nally propofed. From forging a confirmation by Theodojrus
of the famous donation of Conflantitie, and other public
hiAorics, relative to the Origin of Cities, &:c. which could
hardly bring in any profit, Ciccarelli proceeded to applf
his invention to a more lucrative branch of bufinefs, the
fupplying of private families with ancellors of rank and
fplendor. In the fame manner, if Chatterton's firft tender
of his antiquities to Mr. Walpole had met with encourage-
ment, I have no doubt that Rowley's Lijl cf skillfd Painten
undCmvellers would have been greatly augmented. As it
was, the poor youth did contrive to turn his labours to
fome little profit ; and we have good reafon to think, that
he "vvas much difappointcd at not being able to derive more
advantage from them. The confiderution however uhich he
acquired, as the poiTcflbr and decypherer of fuch valuable
manufcripts, nuift have been very flattering to him ; and
his vanity muft have been fupremely gratified by the fuc-
ctl's of his impofitions upon men, greatly his fuperiors in
age and fortune, who were conftantly foliciting him to
ciieat then) again. This z-anity too (if we may believe a
notorious inipollor, who lived to repent, and confcfs his
fm) is of itfelf a forcible motive to deceits of this kirtd.
*' My cafe (fays he) was fo intiicite and perplexing, that
it was next to impoifible far the ablell heads to have guclied
luhat my motl'Jcs were, or for luhut, or by whom, I was tjt-
duccd thus to impofe upon mankind. — And I am tully per-
fv,;^{le(l — that the mcrcitul judge of all hearts, knowing
mine to be adu <ted only by rriere youthful folly and van.'ty,
without any other dangerous or guilty delign than the in-
An\g\n^ a wild and frantic pajfiori, did in his great pity
prevent my going on," &c. Memoirs of Pfalmana^ar^
fiood
[ M4 ]
flood candidate for a feat in the Houfe of Com-
mons. * *i» ii
The want of inducement therefore is not a de-
fence againft an acciifation of forgery. The want
of ability is ; but then it fhould be fully proved.
In the prefcnt cafe, it has been urged under three
heads, which mull: be feverally confidercd ; i. a
WRnt o^ fiaiura I parts y or genius -, 2. a want of ^r-
quired bioduled^Cy or liter aturc ; and, 3. a want oi
time.
Whoever has obferved how very equivocal the
indications of /)j;7J, or genius , arc in the minds of
infants, will not be furprifcd that nothing very de-
cifive upon this head fliould have appeared in the
firft ftage of Chatterton's life. We are told,
on one hand, ** that he had an early thirft for pre-
eminence ;" and on the other, " that he w^as dull
in learning his letters." But in truth the incon-
teftable proof of Chatterton's natural parts is
his acquired knowledge. A boy, at a charity-
fchool, where nothing was taught but reading,
writing, and accompts, who " began, about his
tenth year, out of his trifle of pocket-money, to
hire books from a circulating library ;" who, " be-
tween his eleventh and tiucljth year, wrote a cata-
logue of the books which he had read, to the
number of fevcnty ;'* who foon aftqr (34), without
(34) Rather, nhcut ihr fame t'lmc. The fird of his
known prodinftions in vciTc, entitled, " Jpo/iaie ff'ili^'"
is
C >45 ]
inllrufllon or encouragement, commenced poet;
fuch a boy muft undoubtedly have poflcfTcd that'
confcioufnefs of his own powers, and that cagcr-
nefs to exert them, which may be termed genius.
The peculiarities which have been recollcfted of
his temper and appearance; his pride and impe-
rioufnefs, his refervc, his inequality of fpirits, his
glooms, his reveries, the drearinefs and wildncfs
in his looks, the light in his eyes; though none
of them perhaps, hngly, any proof of a fuperio-
rity of parts, yet are all remarkably confiftcnt with
fuch a fuperiority, and, taken together, would na-
turally lead the obferver to expe<ft fomething ex-
traordinary (3 0'
But genius alone, it is agreed, could not enable
any one to counterfeit antient poetrv- A certain
portion of acquired knozjlcdge, particularly of hifio-
rj, poetry, and language, would alfo be neceffary.
We are now to enquire, whether Chattertok
really wanted fuch a portion of acquired knowledge
as was neceiTary for the compofition of thefe
poems. How much was neceffary, we mufl col-
is dated on the 14th of April, 1764, when he was not quite
eleven years and lix months old. Love arid Madncj]^
p. 1 1 5.
(35) '^'^'^ circumftances here llated of Chattertcn's hiftc-
r)' ^Vi^< charn<rtcr are taken from iLe reports of his mother
and ilfrer, and feme of his nicll intimr.te acquaintance,
who to tl'cfe points muft be coniidered ns competent wit-
neffes. See the Dean of Exeter's Preliminary Dificrtation,
from p. 3 to p. i^ ; and Mr. Brynnt, p. 5^5.
L ' lea
[ '46 ]
led: from an examination of the poems them- '
felves, and not from the learned comments which
have been made upon them. We are not bound
to fnppofe, with the Dean of Exeteh [p. 28 — 9],
that the author was a perfe^ majler of Homer in the
original (36); or, with Mr. Bryant [p. 563], that
(36) The Denn has taken a great deal of pains [p. 24]
to convince certain pcrl'ons, who, it feems, " have even
doubled^ whether any Englifli prieft of the XVth century
w as learned enough to read Homer in the original ;" but
all his quotations from Mr. Warton (fome of which he has
gricvoufly mif-ftated) prove only, that there were Greek
books in England, and that the language was not entirely
unknown there, from the Vlllth to the Xlllth century.
John of Salifbury's obfervation, that Homer had no-where
mentioned the name of Fortune; which (the Dean fays)
*' could only refult from a mod intimate acquaintance with
that Poet," is no proof at all of any fucli intimacy, as
St. AugulVme had made the fame obfervation long before^
and John of Salilbury probably repeated it from him. The
inftance of "John Free, which is moft to the Dean's purpofe,
might have been mr4de Hill more appofite, by obferving,
from Tanner, in v. Phrp:a, that he relided for fome time
at Briftol, before he went to Italy. But the truth is, I
believe, that his knowledge of the (ireek language was ac-
quired in Italy, from whence he never returned ; fo that
we may llill doubt, whether any prielT: in England of the
XVth century was learned enough to read Homer in the
ciiginal. If therefore the Dean could have proved, that
the author of th&fe Poems was a perfetl mafter of Homer
hi the original, he would have furniflied a ftrong argument
for belie\ ing, that tiiey wore not written in the XVth cen-
tury. But, to fpeak candidly, he has not proved any fuch
thing. The points of refcmblance, upon which he has
moft infifted, are in Jimilies, of rocks and torrents, and
lightning and earthquakes, and wolves and lions, which
have been the common -places of poetry from the time of
J Homei'
[ '47 ]
he was " a perfon of much rcadiiig; one, wh(j
was converfant both in ancient and modern lite-
rature." Mr. Brvant would prove this " from
the frequent allufions to ancient ceremonies and
cufloms" (I wifh he had fpecificd them) ; " and
from the references to Greek and Roman authors"
(I fee none in the (37) Poems) : " a 1 fd frOm a
Homer to the prefent. Whenever he attempts to trace any
lefs equivocal marks of imitation, he only reminds us of
the circiimftances of llkenefs, which a lively imacrination
was able to difcover between Alaccdon ^\\A A'lomnoiith. See
particularly the note on the buttle of Hajlhig;^ N' 1,
ver. 181.
(37) I cannot fuppofe that Mr. Bryant would have us
conlider the mention of Ncjhr and Homc)''s AL.rtlnl Maid
as any proof of a familiarity with Greek and Roman au-
thors ; though the Dean of Kxeter has obfervcd ferioulTy, ai
it feems, upon ver. 373 of the Battle of Haltings, N° 2,
" It is a circumlknce in favour of our author's acquain-
tance with the Iliad, that he mentions more than once the
7iame of H'>rhty, ver. 400 and 442, as well as thofeofvl//-
yicrva and Nii?or." Except thcl'e paffages, and the bare
mention of Virgilius in Lydgate^ Anfiver^ I cannot fee a
fmgle reference or allufioii to arty Greek or Roman authoi"
in the Focms ; a circuirflance, which I have always conli-
dered as affording good ground to believe, that tlicv were
entirely compofed by Chattetton. We know that lie, from
his education^ was nfecelfarily a ihanger to antierit litera-
ture ; but it would be contrary to all experience, tliat .5
learned priell:, as Rowley is fuppofcd to have been, flioulJ
write four thoufand vcrles without much (Ironger and more
frequent proofs of his acquaintance with clajfual Hlflory
■M\A Alythilogy than are to be found in the Poems. Ths
Quota r IONS in the Sermon uf>on the Ho/vS/rite, and in the
Story of John Larr.inpto}i, v/ill he taken noiice of bclow^
and flievvii to have lain within the reach of even Chatter-
ton's very limited erudition.
L 2 number
t h8 ]
number of words borrowed from the old French,
Saxon, and Scottifh languages.'* Of that number
I have Ihevvn how ignorantly many are ufed, and
I hope to fhew how eafily they were all borrowed*
In Ihort, it is my opinion, that very little learning
was neceflary for the compofition of the Poems
attributed to Rowley. Whether Chatterton
was actually polTcflcd of that little, we Ihould
know with more prccifion, if the Catalogue above-
mentioned were extant of the books which he
had read before he was twelve years old. As they
arc faid to have amounted to the number o^ feven*
ty^ chiefly in Hiflory and Divinity ; we may pre-
fumc, that there was at Icalt one History of
England among them. We are told, from his
mother, that, before he left fchool, he borrowed
from three different bookfellers y?/^Z> hooks as their
Jhops produced; and particularly that Mr. Green,
who had the larg-eft coUedtion of anv bookfeller in
Brillol, furnifhcd him with Speght's Chaucer,
the Gloflary to which he is faid to have tranfcribed
for his own ufe. It is furely not improbable, that,
in thefe refearches, he Ihould have laid hold on
fome elementary treatife on Heraldry, and fuch In-
trodudtions to EngliJJj Antiquity as Cambden's Re-
mains and Verstegan. If he Ihould be thought
lefs likely to have travelled through Cambden's
Britannia, he might at leaft have made himfclf
tnaftcr of thofc parts of it which relate to Briflol
and
[ 149 1
and the neighbourhood ; or lie might have met
with thofe parts extracted to his hand in fome to-
pographical hiflory (30). Me muft probably have
(38) I have now before me two numbers of a work, en-
titled, *' Bri/iollia, or Memoirs of the City of Brijiol^'" by
Andrew Hooke, Efq; native thereof, printed in 1748 and
1749. At the end of the firlt number, which contains a
Dlffcrtation on the Antiquity of Briftcl, is fubjoincd *' a
tranfcript of the "juhole paragraph relating to Brijh!,^* from
Cambden^s Britannia. 1 think it probable, that Chatterton
was mifled by Cambden to confider Canyngc as the founder
of Redcliff Church. [See before, p. g8.] From Cambden
too he probably learned the title of Robert Conful of Glou-
cefter ; though Mr. Bryant, in his article of Robert Con-
sul, p. 326, choofes rather to authenticate that title from
Leland, Matthew Paris, and Henry of Huntingdon, and
adds : *' Were it not for thefe fortunate atteftations, the
account of a perfon named Conful in Rowley would have
been looked upon as a fiction." Is not this another inflancc
of that practice which I have mentioned above, p. 113,
n. 23 ? But, befide thefe JLxtracls from Cambden, there are
many other pairag<:s in this work of Mr. Hooke, of which
Chatterton feems to have made m'e, as will appear more
fully, whenever the " Dijcorfe on Briflovi'c^^* attributed to
'J'urgot and Rowley, fliall be publiflicd. 1 will only take
notice here of one circumllance.
Mr. Bryant, in his article Bithrickus, p. 336, has taken
a great deal of pains to prove, that fuch an eminent per-
fon could not fail of being prefent at the battle of Haftings.
I do not know (fays he) of any hiftory to authenticate
this ; but, ivhat is extraordinary, he is thus rcprelcuted in
the Poem concerning that battle. And, iL-hatisjlillmore
remarkable, he is introduced at the head of the very people
from Brijiol" Mr. Bryant goes on to call this " a '>.'.' on -
dcrful coincidence of circumllance, in confirmation of the
hiilory aftbrdcd us by the poet." But, if we fuppole Chat-
terton to have read BriJioUia, we fliall fee nothing wonder-
ful in this circumftance. For in the fccond number of
that work, the Hiilory of Brirtol, from the Conouelt to
L 3 the
C 150 ]
been ImprelTed with an early admiration of Ca-
NYNGE, by the two monuments eredted to his me«
mory in Redcliff Church. The principal outlines
of Canynge's life appear in his Epitaph [fee be-
fore, p. 112]]; and the names of other benefaftors
toBriftol, fuch as Fitzharding, Burton, Gaunt,
&:c. might eafily have been colle6ted from build-
ings and infcriptions flill remaining. If there arc
any paiTages of true History in the Poems,
which could not have been drawn from one or
other of thefe fources, they have efcaped my no-
tice (39). With rcfpedt to what may be properly
the feconcl year of Henry L is digefted in the forni of An-
nals, the names of the King of England and of the Lord of
£ri/lo%ve being prefixed to each year j and to the year of
the Confjueft is prefixed the narne of Brictric, Earl of
Gloucefier, as Lord of Eristowe. "What fo natural as to
introduce the Lord of Brijlowe at the liead of the people
from Briilol ? The greatell part of the learning which
Mr. Bryant has colle6ted, with relation to the perfonal hif-
tory of Briihlc^ is to be found in the notes u})on BrijloU
Via; but Ipafs all that over, as I cannot find that Chatter-
ton has made any ufe of it, except perhaps to borrow the
7iarncs o^ y'lgar vt.i\i\ AilvJcird.
1 muft add, tliat, as Chatterton might have read thoie
parts of Crnhdoi^ Biitcnmia which relate to Briilol in
this pamphlet, fo I apprehend, that he might have found
every other part of the Britannia, of which he can be fup-
pofcd to have made any ufe, in fomc of thofe County Hif-
toncs, which have of late years been repeated oyer and
over again in the Maga-zuic:.
(39) "I have faid paffagcs of true hifoxy. As to thofe
*' dark hir.ts and oblique references" v.hich Mr. Bryant
[p. 402] ccnfiders as " a proof of the antiquity of thefe
?ot;n;s," 1 have a better right, I think, to fct them all down
for
called the Poetry of them, Chatterton is al-
lowed by Mr. Bryant [p. 1563] to have been
" converfant in Milton, Shakespeare, and
for airy nothings^ the workmniifhip of a bold but unin-
formed imagination. Mr Bryant has obfcrved, p. 471,
that Chatterton, in \\'\$ j^frtcan Eclogues, "not being ac-
quainted with the names of the principal phtces, with the
culloms and rehgion of the natives, nor -ivitli the produce
of the country — has fubftituted a number of rtrange appel-
lations, vvhich hxifuncy in its ivantomtefs fuggelled." But
why may not \\\% fancy have operated with the fame uianton-
nefi in the Poems attributed to RovAc^ f Why arc we to
fuppofe a better foundation in hiftory for *' the overthrovj
of Standrlp tower, Tinyati's }iecromaficy^ the goats of Conyan^
and rht fouls of the faiiy-flricken people, whicli are faid to
wander to the dike of Off'u^^^ than for the I'lica Rhadal
upon the coafl of Calabar^ the God Chalma^ Lorbar^s cavCy
the [acred oak a?id myjl'ic trees on thi coafi of Guinea, and
the African river Tiber, running through the dcfcrts of Ara-
bia? In another place, p. 583, Mr. liryant afks, *' How-
could he (Chatterton) know any thing of the Bhu Briton,
and Tinvan ? ot Fou'ls-Iand and Mati az'a/, and the hJ/Ury
of Hoive/ a/> fez'ah y" It is eafy to anfwer, that he might
have met with Po-wls-land and Matraval, in a paflage of
Cambden, wliich Mr. Bryant liimfelf has quoted, p. 229,
or probablv in any other defcription of ^.lontgomoryniirc ;
and the name of Hoivcl ap ftvah he might ha\e found,
where Mr. Bryant has found it, in the common hiftoriesof
Wales. But the hl/hrv oi' Hoivri apjcvah, who is intrq-
duced in the Batt/e of Ha/lhigs, N^ i. I conceive to have
been as mere a fiction as that of his friend Mcrvyn ap Tcir-
dor, of whom even Mr. Bryant, it fecms, has been able
to difcover only h{df the namr, p. 391. Of the hfhry
therefore of thefe imagin:>ry perlonages, Chatterton knew
iull; as much as he did of the Blue Briton, and Tlnyan, Sec.
&c. ike. and I would humbly ndvife his learned commenta-
tors not to be too defirous of knowing more, about any of
theni, th^n he hag been pleafcd to tell us.
L 4 TnoM-
[ 15- J
ThoxMsok." How infinitely might the genius of
Shak E SPEAK E havc been brought forward by a
fimilar advantage } But it is probable, that Chat-
TERTOM had dipped into many other of our befl
poets ; and, however contemptuoufly we may talk
and think of Magazines and Mifcellanies (in which
much of his reading is faid " to have been ex-
per^ded"), I conceive, that a fingle volume of any
one of our Magazines would have furnifhed a more
inftrudtive fchool for Englifh poetry, better mo-
dels of verfification and compofition, than a true
Rowley, in the XVth century, could have found
in all the libraries of the kingdom. Whatever
{lock of antient Language may be fuppofed to
have been wanted for the varnijh of thefe Poems,
the whole might have been derived from very
common dictionaries.
The third and laft fpecics of inability, which
is urged in exculpation of Chatterton from the
charge of forgery, is a want of time. But who
can determine how much tmie was neceflary for
the compofition of ihefc Poems ? In the motions
of bodies, where the velocity is known, the fpacc
palTed through Ihews the time of the pafTage ;
but the velocity of mind is always indeterminate,
and therefore we cannot fafely argue from the
length of a poem to the precife time employed in
compofing ir. We have been lately told by re-
fpcd^able authority [Wartcn on Pope, II. 83],
4 that
[ '53 ]
that Dryden's ode to St. Cecilia was the work of
one night. Statius has informed us himftlf of
what is by no means incredible, that his Epithiih-
mium to Stella, confifting of 272 hexameter vcrfes,
was written by him in two days. At that rate the
Georgics of Virgil might have been finiflied in
fixtcen days, and the yEncis in lefs than three
months. It will not be difputed, I believe, that
the {lylc and manner of rhcfe Poems are rather
Statian than VIrgilian. If, in (lead of 136 verfes»
the author fliould be fuppofed to have written only
twelve, one day with another, the quantity of
poetry attributed to Rowley might have been
compofed in about a twelve-month. But it Is
probable, that a lad of a vigorous invention, who
had fo much leifure for profecuting the ftudl^s of
his own choice (40), would have made a much
(40) We are told by his fiittr [Milles. p. 11], *♦ that-
he had little of his nuiltcr's bufinels to do, ibmetimes not
two hours in a day, which gave him an opportunitv to pur-
ine his genius *' She adds, that flie had heard liim fre-
quently lay, " that he found he fludied bell toward the full
of the moon ; and would ofren lit up all nii;ht and write
by moon-light." The circumilance or his Ikepitig very lit-
tle is confirmed by the evidence, collected by the author of
Love and Madnefs, Whether this vcakejuhicfi fl)ould be
confidered as the cauft- or the efteift of a dilleir.pcred mind,
I leave to be determined by the Faculty ; it certainly added
much to the time of his 'rifftive lile. Tlie Dean of Exeter
indeed contends fp. 17], " that two years and nine months
Ipent with Mr. Lambert (part tf which was employed in
copying books of precedents for his luafter), was not n-.ore
than fufficicnt for the bufincfs of ti.iHJlr'U'.n^ thefe parch-
mcntr.
[ 154 ]
more rapid progrefs ; (o that not only the poctiy,
but the prole ahb, and other devices, attributed'
ments, endeavouring to underjt'and their contents, reading
Chaucer, tranfcrlblng Speght's Gloflar)-, and acquiring a
competent knowledge cf the meaning of ancient words ;" not
to mention the hours dedicated to other Itadies and amufe-
nients. And Mr. Bryant has infifted ftrongly [p. 499 and
54q] upon the time which mult have been neceffary " for
7inderjlanding and tranfcrlhbig the numerous manufcripts.'*
3ut, il' my hypotheiis be well-founded, that Chatterton ne-
ver was poiTeffed of any manufcripts whatfoever of Rovyley,
all the thnc, which he is fuppofed to have expended in
iranjcribing and endeavouring to iindcrfland them, might
have been faved, and applied to the compojitlon of the
Poems, &c. under the nanie of Rowley, and i\\^ forgery of
the few pretended originals. How much time he fliould
l)e fuppofed to have fpent in reading Chaucer, and in ac-
quiring a competent knoti.'lcdgc of the meaning of ancient
VL'ords, I cannot precifely deteimine. I have proved, I
think, that he never had acquired a competent knowledge
of the m.eaning of ancient words ; and I cannot find any
marks of his having been a diligent reader of Chaucer. The
two quotations relating to Minflrels [in the j^ntlqulty of
ChrlJlmasGameSy Chattert. Mifcell. p. 133] are very likely
to have been taken at fecond-hand ; and a third paflage,
which he has pretended to cite from Chaucer, I fufpetl ta
have been forged by hinifclf. He exi)lains the word
ahredden^ F.. I. 6. to mean abruptly; and -adds, " So
Chaucer, Syke he abredden dyd attonrncP Till I fee fuch
a line in Chaucer's works, I fliall not believe that it exilts
there.
That he fpent fome time in tranfcrlblng Speght's Glof-
fary, or rather, perhaps, in comjMling a Crlollary fron\
Speght and other books, I have no doubt. I am even
willing to allow a double portion of time for this operation,
more tlian the Dean items dcfirous to crave, as he has
omitted to llnte one half of the labour and difficulty of the.
undertaking. He has ftattd Chatterton's Glofiary to have,
been a mere tranfcrlpt frona Speght'?, p. 507 ; but, accord-
ing
[ '55 ]
io RowLF.Y, might have been fabricated withui
the year (41).
ing to the information, which I received feveral years ago
from Mr. Barrett, and which he has been lb obliging as to
confirm to me very lately, the Gloffary, which Chatterton
had compihxl, was in tivo parts. The firll: contained " the
old ivordi ivith the moiirni Engli/?), and the lecond the mo-
dcrn Rngl'ijh iv'ith the old w or d^^ both alphabetically." As
the idea of \\\\% fecond part ravift have been quite nev.\ the
execution miift have been proportionably troublefome; and
therefore we may juftly wonder, that the Dean, whofe point
was to employ ns much of Chatterton's time as he could in
any thing but forgery, fliould have intiiely omitted all men-
tion of this feeond Gloflarv, in which a number of modern
Ku^li/Jj words were difpofed alphabetically, and interpreted
(if it m^y be fo called) by old v.'.ords of the fame fignifica-
tion. Was he apprehenfive, that this GlolUiry, though
not itfelf a forgery, would be deemed by every one to have
been an in/lrument prepared ioY forgery P In our common
Latin and Englifli Dictionaries, the part in which the Eng-
lifli words are placed firu, is faid to be for the piirpofe of
^£lft''''S />' V^'" '" tran/lating Engli/h into Latin ; and for
what other purpofe could this GlolFary hav^e poffibly been
compiled, but that of alnuing the compiler :'« trayfiating
modern Englijh into old i* Whether the folicitude, which
Chatterton exprefled repeatedly in his Letters to his Silver,
to have this Gloffary fent after him to London [Milles,
p, 507], fliould be alcribed to a conlcioufncfs of the infe-
rence which might be drawn from it, or to a dcfire of ufing
it in new forgeries, I will not pretend to determine. When
the Dean fays, " that Mr. Bui ett copied it, and that the
tranfcript is rtill in hi: polTeflion," he is not quite accurate.
Mr. Barrett, unluckily, copied only the /zV/? part; but his
teftimony, as to the cxillcncc and nature of the fecond parr,
cannot be dilputcd, and ought not to have been hip-
prclfed.
(41) We have a proof of the rapidity, with which Chat-
terton could compofc, in a f.mcifnl will, with fome fuirical
verles prefixed; " v.hich will and verfes (as Mr. Bryant in-
forms
[ '56 ]
We cannot pronounce with certainty how foon
Chatterton might have conceived the idea of
forging either poetry or profc, and of afcribing
the forgery to Rowley. If we believe Mr.
THiSTLETHWAiTE[Milles, p. 455], he commenced
forger as early as he is known to have com-
menced poet, in the fummer of 1764, in the
twelfth year of his age ; though at that time the
name of Rowley is not faid to have been men-
tioned. But there is no neceffity to affign fo early
a beginning to Chatterton*s love of forgery.
The fummer of 1767, when he was between four-
teen and fifteen years of age, and when he is ge-
nerally agreed to have firft difcovered the famous
parchments, which his father had taken from
Redciiff Church, would be early enough for my
purpofe ; but I muft obfervc, that, before this
difcovcry of the parchments, according to his
forms lis, p. 546) were made at a very folemn feafon, when
he purpofcd to put an end to his life." — " Upon the cover
of the book, which contained in his hand-wrifing the will
and verfes, was the following memorandum: ^11 thmurote
bctzueen eleven and tzvo o'clock^ Saturday ^ in the utmoft dif-
trcf% of m'nid.^'' By this (fays Mr. Bryant) is meant, between
eleven and two at midnight ; and, as it elfewhere appears,
upon the i4fh of April, 1770." Mr. Biyant has quoted
part of the will and fome of the verfes, 1. c. [See alfo
p. 560, and Milles, p. 34.] In the tranfcript, which I
fiw, there were ilfty-thvcc verfes and a halfy and about [even
pn^e.^ \n qwarto of profc, each, as 1 remember, containing
:ibout tiventy lines; the whole of which, both verfe and
profe, according to the memorandum, was written within
THRtt Hot" F.s, in the utmofi dijlrcjs of mind I
f:ftcr's
[ -57 1
filler's account, " foon after his apprcntlceHfip,^
which commenced on the ill of July, 1767, " he
wrote a Letter to an old Schoolmate, a collcdtion
of all the bard "words in the Engliih language,
and requcfted him to anfvver it [Milles, p. 10]."
This circumrtance, I think, argues fuch a profi-
ciency in antique lore, as may fairly lead us to in-
fer, that he might at Icaft have been qualifying
himfclf for the forgery of old poetry from the
beginning of 1767, or even an earlier period.
Upon that fuppofition, we may account for his joy
upon the firft difcovery of the parchments, and
for the cagcrners with which he is faid to have
been " perpetually rummaging and ranfacking
every corner of the houfe for more [Milles, p. 7]."
He was probabl}- at firft in hope of finding fomc-
tliing which might gratify his taile for antiqua-
rian knowledge ; and, when that failed, he was
ftill defirous to have the parchments thought
valuable, from the convenient pretext which they
afforded him of putting off any fidlion of his own
as tranfcribcd from them (42). It docs not ap-
(da) It dcfervcs remark, that the learned perfon?, who
wifli to havcChatterton confidered as merely the tranrcii'oer
of thefe Poems, have not been able, after all their inqui-
ries, to produce a fingle witncfs, who has given a fatistac-
tory attellation to the point of having feen him in the :i{t
of copying the original parchments. The attcflation, which
I fliould think fatisfactory to this point, would be that of
a peri'on, who had not merely feen Chatterton zi-ith porch'
rtfnts lyhtg be/ore LItt., which he faid he was or had been
copying i
C 158 ]
|)ear that he parted with any of thefc pretended
tranfcripts out of his own hands till he fent to the
copying ; but who had alfo coJhpared the pretended copy zv'ith
the parchments^ anfl found them to agree. It would be'
neceflary too, that fuch a perlbn fliould be able to give a
general dcfcriptiori, at ieall, of the Jize, and form^ and
contents of the parchment which he faw copied j for what
additional weight of evidence would accrue from the tcfti-
jnony of any one, who fliould have feen Chatterton fitting
in great form and copying the /Iccounte of IV. Canyngcs
fecijic, or any other of the fi"agments which he had forged
himfelf ? [See before^ p. 134 — 9. n. 29, 30.] But not oi\6
of the u'itnefl'es, who have been produced to prove the co-
pying of the parchments by Chatterton, pretends to have
compared the copy with the parchment j (indeed it maybd
doubted whether anyone of them w'as capable of making
inch a compnrifon ; ) not one of them has defcribed the
iize, and form, and contetlts of the parchment fuppofed to
have been copied. Even in their Vague and delufive fenfe
of the word copying, Mrs. Newton, Chatterton's fifler,
"• does not remember to have ever fceri him copying any of
the manufcripts, excepting onse ; ot which time Jbe can.e
upon him uncxpeticdly at his mojler'' s office." [Bryantj
p. 522.] Mr. Capel " often called in upon him when he
Was writing; and he aflured me (fays Mr. Bryant, p. 523],
that he had at times feen him copying the manufcripts."
But when Mr. Capel was aflced, " if they were parchments^
hfe Snfwtred, with proper caution, that he could not after
iuch an interval take up't)n him to determine about thcift ',
— he remembered very well that they lay in heaps, and in
great confufion, and feemed rumpled and ftained ; and near
them were the papers upon which Chatterton was tran-
fcribing." The next withefs, Mr. Cary, who is faid to
have been one of Chattctton's moil intimate fiiends, ap-
pears to have been fo far from having feen him in the aft
of copying Rowley's manufcripts, that he never faw any
fuch manufcripts. Theffe are his words, in his Letter pub-
liflied by Mr. Bryant, p. 526: *' Not having any tafte my-
felf for ancient poetry, 1 do not recollect his having ever
fliewn
[ 159 ]
Vi-cfs the Account of the Ceremonies ohfervcd at the
cpening of the Old Bridge , a little before the ift of
flic un them (Ro\Tlcy's mamifcripts) to me; but he often
mnitionrd x.\\cm, ?<c.'' We want no evidence of Chatter-
ton's having moinoucd Rowley's manufci'ipts. I go on
therefore to Mr. Bryant's lall witnefs to this point, Mr.
Smith. He, indeed, as he fays [Bryant, p. 528], " had
fren the maiuifcrii)ts — a conlidcrable number of them ;
perhaps a dozen. They were upon vellum." And he de-
fcribes them thus : " Mr.ny, as I remember very well, had
the hcddi of Khi^s and Popei^ or fomethhi^ in that way, upon
them; and fome were as bt oad as the bottom of your
chair." This dcl'cription, by the way, would lead one to
Aifpect that thefe manuferipts were Bulls, Commiffions under
the (heot Seal, or fomethhig in that ivay, rather than Pcetry.
But Mr. Smith had alfo " /m/ Chatterton DanfcrUung thefe
manufcripts, often, very often, at Mr. Lambert's office;
and he has frequently read to me there what he had juft
tranfcribed. But I had no tajie for fuch things."" This lalV
declaration of Mr. Smith's, I preiume, prevented his exa-
miner from aiking him, what part of Rov.ley's works Chat-
terton ever read to him, and how he knew, that it had juji
been tranfcribed. This queilion was the more neceffary,
as Mr. Smith, in anotlier part of his evidence, when he is
giving an account of C'liatterton's reading thefe manu-
lcrij)ts to him, concludes thus: " I recollect very allured-
ly, that he had a parchment in his hand at the very timie
when he gave me this defciiption ; but whether he read this
h'Jioiy out of that />arehme/it, 1 am not tertain.''^
Helide thefe witnellc?, produced by Mr. Bryant, to prove
that Chaltcrton had been leen tranfcribing, the Dean of
JExeter has publiflicd the ttllimony of a Mr. Thilllethwaite^^
which, it mull be confcfl"ed, goes nearer to the mark. His
words are [Milles, p. 457I, " During the year 1768, at
divers vifits 1 made him, I found him employed in copving.
kowley, from what 1 then confidcred, and do Hill confi-
dor, as authentic and undoubted originals. — Amongft
otlicrs, I perfectly remember to have read feveral ftan/:as
copied from the Demh of Sir Char'es Baivdin, the original
ulUi
[ '60 ]
October, 1768 ; bun at that time he had probably
a confidcrahle flock, as the greateft part of the
Pfeudo-Rovvleian poetry and profe was given out
by him in ':he latter months of that year, and the
firft half of 1769. He continued to deal out his
treafures, though more fparingly, during the re-
mainder of 1769, and as long as till the 4th of
July I/70, near three years from the difcovcry of
the parchments. The two firfl years only give
double the time, which has been calculated above
to be neceffary for the compofition of every thing,
which has appeared under the name of Rowley.
So much I have thought necellary to premife,
in anfwcr to the fa<5ts and arguments which have
been urged to prove, generally, that the Poems
neither were, nor could have been, written by
Chatterton. I hope I have made it fufficiently
clear, that no inipcljibility, cither phyfical or mo-
ral, prevented him from writing them. I fhall
alfoof v.hich then lay Irfcrc h'.m.^* Eiit lierc again we are
left in the dark, hon- Mr. Tliiftlctliwaiie knew that the
llanzas which he re:ui hau been cojjicil from the original,
which, he fays, thoii by before Chatterton. Did he com-
pare them togcthiCr ? If he did not, his tclliir.cny is of no
more weight than Mr. Smith's, &.'c. If he did, and found
them to agree, we ivcSi fuppofe that Chatterton had taken
the pains to forge an original of thofe flan/as for the fpe-
cial purpofe of deceiving Mr. Thiftletliwaire ; as it does
not appear that he ever produced, or promifed to ])roduce,
to anyone clio, any part of ihcDcthc cf Sir Charles Bali,-
din in the uriginal.
now
[ >6. 3
now proceed to fhew that they actually were w'nt-
ttn by him.
And here (after a long dlgrcfllon, but, I hope,
not improperly interpofed) I fliall take up the vin-
dication of the httei pent of my Appendix, in
which I endeavoured to prove, from the internal
evidence of the Lang i' age only, that thefe Poems
WERE WRITTEN F.NlIRILY BY TiI^maS ChaT-
TERTON. My argument was founded upon this
principle, that, if a perfon produces a compofi-
tion, which nobody but himfclf can interpret, he
muit be confidcred as the author. I proved, as I
thought^ in many inflances, that thefe Poems ware
inexplicable, except by the falie and unwarranted
interpretations which Chattertox had annexed
to them. If I had flopped there, the confequence
would have followed inevitably, that he was the
author ; but, in tracing his mifinterpretations to
their fourcc^, I made an unlucky miftake, which
the Dean of Exeter has refuted [_p,£o6~\ as often-
tatioufly as if it afFed:ed the main argument. I
J'uf)pofed, that the interpretations annexed to the
Poems were almoft all taken from Skivner's
Etymologicon ; but the Dzan, v.ith more pro-
bability, I confefs, fuppofcs, that they were rather
taken from Speght's Glossary to Chaucer.
As at prefent advifcd, I Ihall fuppofe, that they
were taken from a Lexicographer, of whom, I
am afhamed to fay, I had never heard the name
M till
[ '6^ )
till very lately, Mr. John Kersey, ThUohihU as
he figns himfelf ; who with laudable induftry has
colleded almoft all the o/<^ words, I believe, which
-are to be found either in Speght or Skinner, and
has generally with much fidelity copied the inter-
pretations affigncd to them by thofe two Gloffa-
rifts. Wherever therefore Chatterton is fup-
pofed in the Appendix to have been mifled by
Skinner, I beg leave to fubflitute Kersey inftead
of Skinner; and, in that cafe, I flatter myfelf
that the main argument will be fo far from re-
ceiving any detriment, that it will be confiderably
:improved, as it will be manifefl that the impoftor,
who wrote thefc Poems, lived not only fince
Skinner, but fince Kersey (43).
(43) Kerfey publiflied his Di(rti()nary in 1708. The fize
of the volume and the lownefs of its price make it very
likely to .have fallen into the hands of Chatterton ; and
there .arefome peculiarities in it, not to be found, I believe,
in other Diftionaries, which he feems to have copied. Some
of them will be pointed out below. At the fame time, I
muft beg the reader to remember, that my argument by no
means requires me to prove, that Chatterton in cvery^ hi-
Jlance followed Kerfey, and him only. Many of Kerfey'e
,old words, with their interpretations, are taken from
Speght, whom Chatterton is allowed to have ftudied ; and
many have been repeated very exadtly by Coles and Bailey,
to both of whofe books he may eafily be fuppofed to have
had accefs. It is fufficient for my argument, that Chatter-
ton fhould be proved to have concurred (not accidentally)
\':'\x.\\. fime older writer in unvarranted interpretations of
various words, of many of which even the ufe is unautho-
rized.
Wq
[ 1^3 ]
We arc firfl: to confidcr the Inftanccs of words
and interpretations, which I fuppofe to have been
immediately derived from blunders of Kersey.
All a bo )n. E. hi. 41.
AUiMEREs. E. iir. 25.
Thefc two words, the Dean fays [p. 507], have
been already explained \ and, for my own part, I
have nothing to add to my former obfervations
upon them [fee above, p. 32 and ^iS]^ except to
ll;ate both articles, as they appear in Klrsev.
AuMER, in Si'FGHr, is rendered J//i(^^r.
j^U'-n-bonc, (O.) a made Requeft.
ilumerc, (O.) Welt, Skirt, or Border.
Bawsin, ^.57. Large, Chattcrton. M. lor.
Hu^c, bulky. Charterton.
The manner in which I have declined the deter-
mination of the precife meanbia of this word,
might have led the Dean to fufpedt, that I was
not fo entirely unacquainted, as he fuppofcs, with
that pafliige, which he has quoted from a ballad
printed among Sto.ve's additions to Chaucer's
works. I mull beg leave to fay, that it is not ex-
plained by Si'EGHT in the lame manner as by
CnATTERTON. Speght's explanation is — '* 215alU-
Icn, higge : Ibmc fay it is a B.idgcr or Graye."
He evidentlv doubted what the true meaning- of
the word was. Skinner, who came after him,
hss made two words out of one, a fubftantive and
an
M2
C 164 1
an adjective. The former he interprets Taxus,
Miles y upon the authority o'i Julian Barnes;
and to the latter he has affigned the dubious inter-
pretation of SpEGHT, " magjiusy grandis," as if it
h^d been pojltive. But Chatter ton probably
foUoived Kersey, who has followed Skinner, in
giving both fenfes as equally authentic. ** 3i5atU-
Cn, (O.) grofs, big : alfo the Badger, a wild
bcaft/'
Brondeous. E. II. 24. furious, Chatterton,
BrONDED. H. 2. 55S. BllONDEYNG. M., 704.
BuRLiE BRONDE. G. 7. Fury, Anger. Chatterton.
See alfo H. 2. 664.
I fliould have imagined, that every body muft
have feen that thefe pafTages were cited by me, to
fhew that the author and interpreter of thefe
Poems (whether one or two perfons) had fallen
into the fame miftake of fuppofing Bronde to iig-
nify Fury, and had formed various derivatives from
it in that fenfe. One muft therefore be furprifed,
that Mr. Bryant [p. 120] fhould not make the
leafl attempt to jullify that iignification of Bronde
(Fury)i to which I had objedled ; and which is ab-
folutely neceffary in moft ot thole paliages, and
not inconfiftent with any one of them; but fliould
rather employ fcvcral pages to prove, what I had
allowed, that Bronde has a fignification (Sivord)y
which can be applied to make fenfe of only one
of thofe paliages. In burlie bronde, G. 7, it may
be conftrued either fivord or Jury j but which Is
the
C -65 ]
the moft probable conllrudion will appear fiom
another paflage, H. 2. 664.
Campynon's Iwerd in burlic-brande did dree ;
where it mitjl be conftrued fury^ as the Dean of
Exeter has rendered it.
But, if this fenfc of byo}7de and burlie-brande
be, as I contend it is, totally unauthorized, from
whence did the author and interpreter of thefe
Poems derive his, or their, ufe of it ? I anfvver,
Probably, from the two following articles in
Kersey :
l!5ronD, (O.) Fury, Rage.
OiSurl^^branD, (O.) a huge Sword, alfo great
Fury.
In the firft article Kersey has only copied
a blunder of Speght and Skixner. In the fe-
cond, to a right interpretation of theirs he has
added a blunder of his own (44), which has been
copied in the Poems. The inference is plain.
Burled. M. 20. Armed. Chatterton.
The Dean of Exeter fays, that this word is
" fo explained on Speght's authority, and jufli-
(44) I obferve, however, that he might have taken it
from Phillips. As I find that ic requires a Irrongtr me-
mory than I am pofTclTed of, or a more imrcmitting atten-
tion than I can betlou- upon fo many dic'tionaries, to allot
evejry blunder to its original author, I muft beg, when I
fpeak of a blunder as Kerfey's, to be underrtood to mean
only, that it is to be found in Kcrfcy, without warranting
fctut it ia HOt to be found in feme older dictionary.
M 3 ficd
C -66 ]
fied by the fenjeral pajfages in the Pocmi in which,
it occurs.'" But the qucftion is, whether the word
can be juftified by any paflagc of any author, ex-
cept the ivritcr of the Poems, Ki!RS£Y has given
the fame explanation of it : '' iBurlcO, (O.)
Armed." I am flill much inclined to believe
that there is no fuch word.
Bysmare. M. 95. Bewildered, curious. Chat-
terton. Bysmarelie. Le. 26. CuriouJ/y. Chat-
terton. See alfo p. 285. ver. 141. Bismarde.
Thefe words, as the Dean fays [p. 509], have,
already been confidercd [fee above, p. 43]. I only
add, that Kersey has the following article ;
OBifmare, (O.) Curiofity.
Calke. G. 25. cajl, Chatterton. Calked.
E. i-^9« caff Gilt, ejeSled. Chatterton.
As the Dean of Exeter feems to give up this
word, by propofing to alter it in both thefe paf-
fages, and Mr. Bryant has faid nothing for it,
I think my conjecture much flrengthened, tha,t it
had its original from a mijprint in the Frankeleines
^lale of Chaucer, [vcr. 1 1596. See the Appen^
pix, p. 328.] The advocates for the gcnuine-
nefs of the Poems may fay, however, that there
was the liimc error in the Mf. copy of Chaucer,
which Rowley read !
The ufe of the word in the Poem.s feems rather
derived from Kersey or Speght than from Skin-
J5ER, as 1 had fuj^pofed.
C 167 ]
CalbcD, cad. Speght — CnlkcD, exp. cal^,
(redo, cafi: up. Skinner. — CalftcD;, (O.) caft up,
or caft out. Kersey,
We have now gone through the words and in-
terpretations, which I had pointed out as derived
from the blunders of Skinner, but which I have
juft craved leave to confider as taken immediately
from Kersey. With the fame indulgence, I fhall
proceed to confider the words and interpretations,
which I had fuppofcd to be founded upon Chat-
tejiton's mifapprchcnfions of paflages in Skin-
ner, as taken in like manner from Kersey, who
had himfelf mifapprehended Skinner, or fome*
pther Lexicographer.
Alyse. Le. 29. G. 180. Mlow. Chattcrton.
That this interpretation is erroneous has been
Ihewn above [p. 24]. CHArTERTON probably
took it from Kkrsey. ^* J^lifeO, (O.) allowed."
From whence Kersey took it is lefs material ; but
I am ftill inclined to believe that it was fornied
originally from a miflakcn reading of the article
3IlfcD in Skinner, The very diftlndl lignifica-
tions qi the two words are thus ftated by Ver-
STEGAN, p. 227 : ^lifcOf Allowed, Licenfed. — r
0llfe. Rcleafe. — jailfeD. Relcafcd.
Brstoiker. Ai. 91. Deceiver. Chattcrton. Sec
alfp yE. 1064,
M 4 Mr,
[ '68 ]
!Mr. Bryant allows [p. io8], that this word
has been put by miftakc for Befwiker, I wonder
that he, who appears to have had Kf.rsey at
hand, did not advert to the following article in
him : «* To IP^effOlfee, (O.) to betray," which, I
am perfuaded, milled Chatterton. But then
there would have been no room for the inference,
" that this young man could not read the charac-
ters, with which he was engaged." I cannot fee
that the letters in Skinner are fo well defined,
but that Kersey might as eafijy have been led
into fuch a niiilake by them as by thofc of a ma-
nufcript.
Blake. M. 178.407. Naked. Chatterton.
Blakied. E. III. 4. Nakcdy Oi'iginal. Chatter-
ton.
The attempts which have been made tojuftif}
thtfe Vvords, and the interpretation of them, have
been confrJcred above | p. aol. I fliall onlv add
here, that Chattt r ton probably followed Ker-
sey ; " i3Ia!iC, (O.) naked;" and that Kersey's
interpretation probably originated from a mifap-
prehcnfion of that paffagc of Skinner, which I
iave quoted in the Apiendix, p. 320.
Hancelled. G. 49. Cut off, dcjlroycd. Chat-
terton.
There was no occafion, I find, to fend Chat-
terton to Skinner for this word^ as Kersey
would
[ >69 ]
would have furnifhed him with the fame ambi-
guous interpretation of it. " K^ailCelct), (O.) cut
off." It is ncedlefs to obfervc, how very different
cut offi as explained by Skinner to mean cut off
hy vjay of fpecimen or /ample, is from dcjlroycd,
the fenfc affixed to hancelcd in the Poems (45).
Shap. ^E. 34. G. iS. Fate. Chattcrton. Shap-
scuRGED. JiL. 603. Fdte-fcouyged. Chattcrton.
The Dean of Exeter obferves, that " Shap
is objedied to only becaufe it is ufcd as a iionnj*
(He ihould have faid, as a noiw, fignifying Fate.)
But, if fo, why has he accumulated fo many in-
ilances of the I'crb Shapen, with its participles f
At laft indeed he gives us one inftance of the
(45) If there be any fiich word as hanceled^ which I
much doubt, the true icnie ot it can only be determined
by the paffage in which it is luppofed to have been ufcd ;
tor Skinner plainly knew nothing more ot it, than that he
had found it in Speght's Glollary. But in that Gloffary
there are two articles fb very fmiilar, that I cannot help
Ailpec'ting one to be an er'onenus repetition of the other.
" l^amdci, d. cut ojF, abated." — '• l^ancricU, cut c/"."
Hamcicd is an authuiifed word, and occurs in Troilos,
! I. 964.
Algatc o fote is ham-led of thy forowe.
It anAvers properly to our word hamjlrung; but, in this
paffige, might be rendered cut off. S^Jbatcd feemi to be
the interpretation of a various reading LijJ'fJ^ mentioned in
GloJJ.Ur.'] But it would not be eaiy, I am perfuaded, to
ilnd the word hanccUd in Chaucer, c;- in any of thofc
writers publiflied with him; and accordingly I obferve that
it is omitted in GlofJ'.Ur. As Speght's GlofTarv is not ar-
ranged in exad alphabetical order, he has frequently re-
peated the fame word iu two articles.
noup
[ 170 I
>isun ScHAp, fropi Bifliop Douglas, p. i8o. v. 12,
-where fat q is rendered By werdis fc/jap ; which,
the Dean fays, means Parcarum fato. If he had
put it in Englifli, By the fates* fate, everyone miift
have feen, th.^x.fchap in that pafTagc does not fig-
nify Fate, but the ffnipiiig, or difpofitlon, of the
Fates. Accordingly in the vqry iiext paflage,
quoted by the Dean from Hickes, Gram. A. S.
p. 112, uurdi gif^'pu (a Franco-Theotifcan cx-
preffion, anfwering exadtly to werdu fchap in Scot-
tifh) is rendered Barcarwn decreta. I fliall not fol-
low the Dean into Scandinavia. Till fome aur
thority nearer home is produced, I mufl be of
opinion, that Chatterton, in this \vo.rd as in
moft others, copied Kersey, who has this article 5
^' ^[jap, (O.) Fate, Deiliny;" and that Kersey's
error was probably owing to his mifapprehenfioi^
of Skinner. See the Appendix, p. 330.
• The foregoing are the inftances, which were
particularly applied in the latter part o^ the Ap-
pendix to prove, that many words, with their
interpretations, in thcfc Poems, were copied from
the blunders of another writer ; and confcquently^
that the Poems are of a later date than that writer.
When two men agree in ufing a fet of fiditious
words, or gibberifli, which none but themfclvcs
can underhand, and in afHxinr to known words
the fame fanciful and unauthorized fignifications,
it mufc be prefumcd, that one of them copied
from
[ •?■ ]
from the other. But that Kersey fhould have
ever Icon the Poems, cannot be fuppofed. It foU
lows, therefore, that the author of the Poems co-
pied from KcRSEY.
This will appear ftill more plainly, if we com-
pare the explanations given by Chatterton of
thofe words, to which I have objedted in the
former part of the Appendix, as either not ancient,
or not njed in their ancient Jenfc, with the expla-
nations of the fame or fimilar words in Kersey.
I will ftatc them alphabetically.
Abessie ; Humility. C— jilbcCTcD, (O.) cafl
down, humbled. K.
A BORNE ; Burnijhed, C. — To IBorU, (O.) to
burnifh. K.
Acrool; Faintly. C — To Crool, (O.) to mut-
ter or growl. K.
Adente, Adented; Fajlened, annexed. C. —
To aocnt, (O.) to faften. K.
Adrames; Churls. C> — ^Oramincj, (O.) Chur-
lifli. K.
Aledge ; Idly. C. — ^IcDge, Eafe, Chaucer. K.
All a boon; A manner of ajking a favour. C.
— ^Il-'a-bonc, (O.) a made requeft. K.
Alyse; Allow. C. — lillifcD, (O.) allowed. K.
Asterte; ISlegle^edj or f>aj[ed b\, C. — ^ttcrt,
(O.) puffed. K.
Al'Mere;
r
[ 17^ ]
AuMERE ; Borders of gold or fdver. A loofe robe
er maiitle. C— ^umere, (O.) Welt, Skirt, or
Border. K.
Blake; Naked, C— BlflliC, (O.) naked. K.
Bodykyn; Body, fubjlance. C— llSoO^Uin, (O.)
a little Body. K.
BordI'l; Cottage. C— 3i5or5cl, (S.) a fmall
Cottage ; alfo a flew, or bawdy-houfe, K.
B Y s M ARE; Bewildered, curious. Bismarelte;
Curioiijl}'. C— 115ifmarc, (O.) Curiofity. K.
Contake; Difpute. Conteke ; Confufe^ con-
tend wUh. C— Contche, (O.) Contention, or
Strife. K.
. Derne; Cra^/. 'Dv.B.^i'E;lVoful, lameiitahle. C.
— E>crJT, (O.) fad, folitary; alfo barbarous or
cruel. K.
Droorie; Modcfiy. C— SDrur^j, (O.) Sobriety,
Modefty. K.
FoNS, FcNNEs; Fancies, or Devices, C—
irOKEiefi, (O.) Devices. K.
Kncpped ; Fajlenedj chained, congealed. C. — ■
ULioppet), (O.) tied, laced. K.
Lithie; Humble. C.--fiit\)^,(0.)\i\~^mb\c. K..
From two of thefe words, Aborne and Acrool,
which difTcred a little from their originals, I took
occafion to remark, that " it was ufual with Chat-
TERTON to prefix a to words of all forts, ivithout
any regard to cufiom or prcpricty ;" and I referred
to
r ^73 ]
to the following inftanccs in the Alphabetical GlolT.
Ahouney AbrezuCj Acome, Adygne, Agrame, Jgreme,
Ale/f, &c. Of thefe inftances the Dean has at-
tempted to juftifv only one, viz. Agrame, or
Agreme, which, he fays, occurs in the Plowman's
Tale of Chaucer, v. 2283.
Then wol the officers be agramed.
But I wonder he did not fee, that a^amcd is a
^ariiciple, and therefore gives no countenance to
the ufe of Agrame, as a nomi, in the Poems. To
take an obvious example ; Agrieved is a regular
word ; but no one, I believe, ever met with fuch
a compound noun as Jgrief.
The Dean goes on to judify his author, ge-
nerally, in prefixing a to words of all forts, from
the pradice of Chaucer, and the obfervations re-
lating to this prefix, both in Urry's and mv Glof-
fary. But he forgets that his author is not charged
fimply with prefixing a to words of all forts, but
with prefixing it, without any regard to cujlom or
propriety. No one ever doubted that words of all
forts, beginning with a, are to be found in all
authors. The qucftion is, whether this initial a is
ufually added arbitrarily, without any authority from
cuftom,or any change in the fignificationof the word;
As the DiiAN has done me the honour to refer
to my obfervation on this fubjeft, I Jball take the
liberty to repeat it here from the Glossary to
C. T. vol. v. p. 2. "A in compofition, in words
of
_ [ 174 ] •
of Saxon original, is an abbreviation of af, or of;
of AT ; of ON, or IN i and often only a corrup-
tion of the prcpofitive particle ck or y. In wotds
of French original, it is gerierally to be deduced
from the Latin ab, ad, and fometimes ex." I
cannot {ce how this obfervation can be applied to
juftify fuch an arbitrary ufe of the initial a, as
appears in the words above quoted from the
Poems. That they are all unauthorifed by cuftom
is confefTed ; and it is as plain, that the additional
a has no operation whatever but that of lengthen-
ing them. The Dean himfclf takes notice^ that
thefe words " are fometimes ufed by our Poet
without the prefix, as bouni', cojne, derne, dygne,
left, &c." arid he might have added, in exa^ly the
fa mc fignification .
I have now gone through, I think, all the words,
from the ufe or interpretation of which I had en-
deavoured to prove, in the latter part of my Ap-
pendix, that the Poems were written by Chat-
TERTON. Upon the cooleft and moll impartial
review of tlie attempts, which have been made
by my learned antagonifts to authenticate thefe
words, I fee no reafon for doubting, that every
one of them was copied by the author of the
Poems from Kersey, or fome former Lexico-
grapher not older than Speght. I might there-
fore, perhaps, fafely reft the caufc upon the in-
stances produced ; but as I think that the evidence
from
[ "75 ]
rroni Language mufl have the mofl decifive
weight in determining this qiicftion, I fhall add
here another lift of words, with their interpreta-
tions ; each of which I conceive to have been de-
rived, in the whole or in part, from blunders of
Kersey.
Attenes. J^. I ■'. 140. 317. G. 109. Ch. 13.
i}2. At once. Chatterton. And fo Kersey, after
Speght. But I very much fufpecft, that the word
Attaies ftands upon no better authority than a mif-
print in Chaucer, C.T. ver. 4072, where Speght's
edition has atteneSy and, at the end of the pre-
ceding verfe, benes I though the edition of 1542
reads rightly banes and utancs, agreeably to the
beft Mff.
Bkstadde. p. 2S6. 1. 3. CiiATTERTON has not
given any interpretation of this word. The Dean
of Exeter in his note, p. 448, fays, that in the
prefent paflagc it feems merely to imply a fixed
fituaticn. In his Gloflliry, however, he renders it,
fituated, dijlrc/fedy upon the authority, as it fhould
fcem, of the Promptoriiim purvulorum. But neither
of thcfe fenfes fuits the context. Kersey, upon
what ground I know hot, has the following ar-
ticle ; " locflraD, (O.; /cy?;" which, I am per-
fuaded, Chatterton followed. In the Poem on
Happieneffe, he makes Canynge to afk, Was it
loll -wif/j Eden^s bozver ? &c. In another paflTage,
^-E. 410, with his ufual licence, he has put Bejianne
for
C ■76 ]
for BcJla^Je ; but, 1 think, in the fame fcnfe s
*' Who kens ne thee or is to thee beflanne."
That is, I fuppofe, " Who knows thee not, or is
loft to thee." This meaning of Beftamie and
Bejladde, it muft be allowed, is unauthoriied ; but
it makes fenfe of both palTages, and therefore is
likely to have been adopted by the writer.
Bevyle. E. 1 1. 57.
Speers bevyle fperes.
Bevyle is explained by Chatterton to mean
*' break ; a herald teniiy fydfyhig a j-pcar hrokin in
iiltingJ* The idea of breaking, which is quite
foreign from bevyle, might perhaps have been fug-
gefled by the following paffage in Kersey :
" yBc^ilB (in Heraldry), broken, or open, like
a bevel, or carpenter's rule,"
Bewopen. H. 2. 665.
Bcwopen Alfwoulde fellen on his knee.
Chatterton has not explained this word ; but
it is clearly ufed by him in the fenfe affixed to it
by Kersey. " 'B^tccpClT, (O.) made fenfelefs."
Accordingly I fee that the Dean of Exeter has
interpreted \\.Jtupefied, BiK bewopen, I apprehend,
can only fignify one fort of faipejaBioii, arijlngfrom
exceffive ijueeping, which cannot be fuppofed to have
been Alfvvoulde's cafe. So it is applied by Chau-
cer, in his Troilus, IV. 916. and rightly ex-
plained by Speght : '* 2Sl!tU0pcri (it is printed by
miflake
[ ^77 ]
niiftake 3i5^toOFen), made fcnfclefs, ovowcpt'^ It
may be oblervcd, by the way, that in this indanee
GhattiiRton probably followed Kerslv, and not
Speght.
Cherisaunei. Ent. i.
Soninie cherifaunei 'tys to gentle mhide.
In my edition of thcle Poems, when I was but
a novice in genuine Archaological language, I kt
this down among the evident viiJUikcs cf the
Iranfcriber, and corredtcd it vcrv probably, as 1
thought, into cherifaunce it ys. My cxcufe mult
be, that 1 had not then feen Kersey, who, from
a rriiftake, as it feems, of the printer, has thisi
article. "^ CtlCl'irdUncJ, (O.) comfort." I\Ir.
Bryant, p. 562, allows, that this word was bor-
rowed by Chatter TON from Kersey; though be-
fore, p. ic6 — 7, he has taken a great deal of
pains to point out the feveral fieps by which
Chatthrton, whom he there confidcrs as an igno-
rant tr^nfcriber from MfT. arrived at fuch a coirpU'
cation cf mijlakesy as are to be found in this
palfage.
Ele. M. 74. Hdp. Chatterton. And Kei^set
and Speght have explained the fame word in the
fame manner ; but I cannot believe that fuch a
word was ever ufed by a genuine author.
[ 178 ]
ENTYNi P. G. 10.
Entjn a k} nge mote bee full pleafcd to nyghtc.
Chatterton explains this word to mean cven^
The Dean of Exeter adds — or in jhort \ upon
what ground, I know not. I never had the leall
conception from v/hencc this word could be de-
rived, till I faw in Kersey, '' ^xxt^xi, (O.) even."
I have little doubt that Chatterton, in his hur-
r}', either mifread or mifwrote (Il;jtt^n for Cut^rt.
From whence Kersey derived his word Eutyn
is immaterial to our prefent enquiry ; but I think
it probable, that he only intended to copy Speght's
article, " ^\x^x\, even ;" and that the t was in-
fertcd by fome accidental jumble at the prefs.
FoRGARD. J^, 564.
Whatte, doefl forgard thie blodde ? ys ytte for
feare ?
In this place Chatterton interprets this word
to mean lofe; in two other places, ^.434, and
St. of C. 57, it is a participle, and confequently
muft be conftrucd loft, agreeably to this article
in Kersey. " jrorgarD, (O.) loil." I know no
other authority for this word in either of thefc
fenfes ; which may both be wrong, though it is
fcarce polTible that both iliould be right.
Forswat. Ch. 30.
The forfwai meadowes fmcthc, anddrcnchc the
rainc.
5 Chat-
r 179 J
tifATTERTON's interpretation oi forfivat \s, fun-
huriit^ to which the Dean of Exeter has lub-
joined, by way of corrcdion, fweathig. It mud
be confellcdj thac the Dean's interpretation is
nearer the truth, but the image of a fiveatlng
jncadozu is fo aukward and unnatural, that no
Poet could poffibly have made ule of it. For-^
fzvonke and Vorfwat are epithets properly applied
to a Plowman, in the Prologue to the Plowman's
TalCf ver. 16, and Skinnier has explained them
feparatcly; but Kersey has joined them together
in the following article : " iforflUonlJC, or jfcrflBaf,
(O.) over-laboured and fweated, or fun-burnt.'*
There can be little doubt, I think, that this article
fuggefted the fenfe oi fun-buiiit, which Chatter-
ton has affixed to Forfzvat.
Gratche. JE. 115. M. 6S. Apparel, Chat-
TERTON. And fo it is interpreted by Kersey and
Speght. It is always ufed as c; noun in the Poems;
but in the paffagc to which Speght probably re-
fers (as there is no other, J. believe, in which the
word can be found), it is 11 led as a verb>,
R. R. 7368.
And gan her gratche as a beginc.
But even its exigence as a verb may be doubted ;
for the author of Glojf. Ur. has obferved very pro-
perly, that Gratche is perhaps the fame with
Graii/jCi if not millaken for It." To graif.be ^ or
p-eit/jc, is a verb ufed by Cjiauclr in feveral
N .^ other
[ i8o ]
other places, iignifying to prepare or mal^e ready ^
a fenfe, which fuits exacftly with this pafTage ot
R. R.
Haile, Hailie. K. III. 6c. M>< 148. 409^
M. ^'^^ Happy. Chattcrton.
I fufped: thefe two adjcdives to have been
formed from the following article in Kersey :
*' i^^ailcs, (O.) Happinefs." But Kersey appears
to have been miilcd by Skinker, who has ex-
plained the word Ha'iles in Chaucer, C. T.
ver. 1258(5, to meaa either m San^is fedibus, or
in Beatitudinc, the laft of which fenfes Kersey
has adopted. The miftake of Skinner is equally
evident, as he has quoted the line of Chaucer,
which he attempts to explain.
*^ And by the bloude of Chrift that is in llailes.**
For Hailes in that line fignifies neither holy feats
nor happinefs, but is the proper name of the Abbey
of Hailes in Glouceflcrlliirc. See note on C, T.
ver. 12586,
Lere. M. 567. H. 2. 597. 676.
This word has not been explained by Chatter-
TON, but the Dean of Exeter in all thefe places
very probably fuppofes it to mean leather. And
fo Kersey has explained it. " j^crt? (O.) Lea-
ther." But here again I fufpecft that Kersev
has been mified by, or has mifapprehended. Skin-
ner, who has the two following article? : " jLfrc,
exp.
[ iSr ]
cxp. ComplcrioiT, Colour. — lerc, PcHIs, fort.
contr. a JLcattjer." Thele two articles appear to
have been formed from this fingle one in Speght:
** Here, complexion, colour, /?;>/." But Jkin in
SpF.GHT, which Skinner has rendered />*:///j, and
fuppofcd to be contracted fiom leather^ was un-
doubtedly intended to be rhe interpretation of
here in the tollowing paffagc of Chaucer, C. T.
vcr. 1 3/86 :
He didde next his white kre»
Where kre^ if it fignifics any thing more than
(ompkx'wn (which may be doubted), can only be
fuppofcd to fignify \\\t Jkin of a living man, and
therefore affords no pretence for conlidcring it as
contracted from leather^
LissE. T. 2. Sport or play, LissEth. M. 15,
Boundcth, LissED. T. 97. Bounded. Chatterton.
The reader will be plcafcd to obfcrve, that, in
the lail palfage, the participle Lijfed is properly
applied to a field hounded by a lifi; but, in the two
former, the verb Lijfc is applied to borfcs, and a
Javelin y in another fenfe of the word bound, of
which L}/Je is abfolutely incapable. There can be
little doubt, I think, that Chatterton' was mif-
led by the equivocal article in Kersey ; " JLiffcD,
(O.) bounded ;" to fuppofc, that To life might
be ufed in all the fenfes of To bound.
The Dean of Exeter fecms fo fcnfible of rhe
inference which m\ift be drawn from this unau-
N 3 thorifed
L 1S2 ]
thorifed ufe of Life, that after fome hopclcfs
efforts to explain it in a different fenfe, he con-
cludes with a conjedture, " that the word in both
thefe pallages Hiould be read GUJJctb, fignifying
to glide, or pafs quickly,'^ But where ar^ we to
look for fuch a word as GliJJdb f
Obaie. E. I. 41. E. II. 26. Abide. Chatter-
ton. And fo the fame word is explained by Kert
SEY and Speght. But the compiler of Gloff. Un
has obferved, that Obay, in the fingle paffage of
Chaucer, in which it occurs, C. T. ver. 12034,
is a niifp/ifif, and fliould be Abeye, as it is printed
ill the laft edition from the bcft Mff. The infe-
rence is plain enough, from whence the author
of the Poems got his word Ohaic, with its inter-
pretation. The Dean of Exeter, in hisGloffary,
has added to this word P. Pa. from which one
j[liould naturally fuppofe, that the ufe of it was
authorifed by the Prompiorium Pa"'-oulorum\ but,
upon looking into the only co})y of that book
which I have an opportunity of confulting, Mf.
Harl. 22 1, I can find nothing nearer to Obaie than
the following article; *' Obeyyn or be buxum.
Obedic:^^- If the Dean has any thing more to. the
purpofe in his copy of P. Pa. he will do well to.
publifh it a,t length in the next edition of hiq
Commentary.
RhGRATE. Le. 7. EJleem, M. 70. EJke^j fa-^
vour, Chatterton,
And
C 183 ]
And fo Kersey. " jRcgratc, (O.) Courtcfv,
Efteem." But this interpretation is founded upon
a mlftake of Skinner in the following article;
" Kegrate, exp. Courtefy or Eflimation." To
what author Skinner refers, I cannot find. I
have obferved, n. (6,, that cxp. generally denotes
the cxpojition ot che '.vord in Spegbt^s Glojfdry ; but
in this cafe Spegiit's expof'ion is different, and
nearer the truth. " iicgratc, lamentation, for-
rowful fute." I conceive the noun Regrate to be
capable of exadtly the fame fenfes with the more
modern word Regret, none of which will fuit with
thefe paflages in the Poems, or the interpretation
of them by Chatterton.
Sr.Mi.YKLENE. J^. 9. Countenancc. G. 56. Beau-
ty, countenance. Chatterton. See alfo M.. 11 45.
H» 2, 568, where the fame word occurs in the
fame fenfc. In other places it is written Skmly-
KEED. M- 298. St. of C. 113- To this laft paf-
fage the Dean of Exeter in his Gloffary has
added the interpretation countenance, and refers us
to P. Fa. but I can find nothins: in P. Pa. which
in the leaft authorifes fuch an interpretation. It
feems plain to me, that both thcfc words owe
their original to the following article inKERSEv;
** ^rmclil)CC^, (O.) Semelincfs, comelinefs"
Unliart. P.O. 4. Unforgiving. Chatterton.
The Dean of Exeter has obferved very pro-
perly, that Unliart is the oppofitc to Uart. The
I<I 4 c^uel^lon
C •S4 3
quefllon therefore is, what is the true meaning of
Liart. The Dp: AN fays, that tt is not explained in
my Gloffciry, which is very true ; but he might
have found L/jr^ fwhich he conlidcrs as the fame
wordj in my Glolfary, with a reference to a note
on ver. ; 45, which if he had rcKl, I flatter my-
felf he would not have been io pohtive, that Liard
is ufed by Chaucer in the fenle of gentle, plianf»
A carter c.?.lls his horfe, min q-jdcu liard bpj \ upon
which I have remarked, that ^^' Liard was a com-
mon appellative for a hcrfe, from its grey colour,
as baycrrd was horn bay. [See before, ver. 4ii3.J
P. P. fob 92.
He lyght downe of liarde^ and ladde him In his
hande.
Bp. Douglas, in his Virgil, ufually puts liart for
nlhus^ incanus.'" In fhort, my notion was, and
is, that L/i?r/ was an adjective fignifying ^rrj', and
Lfcird an appellative for a grey /jorf.'. As neither
of thcfc knfes could have o-ivcn rife to the com-
pound U/diu-rt, 1 fhall fuppofe that the author fol-
lowed KiRSEY, who, after Skinner and Splght,
has explained " Iliart, (O.) Gentle, ^iliant;" the
oppofite to which might cafily be termed, unr
fjrgiving.
WvcHEN'crxEr. J£.. 419.
This word has not been explained by Chat-''
TLRTON ; but it is clearly ufed for Iflicbcraft^
I as
[ i85 ]
a8 the Dlan of Exeter has interpreted it. Till
I Ice the ufc of it confirmed by fomc good autho-
rity, I iliall believe that it was taken from the
following article in Kersey; " ?I2l ic fjcncrcf, (O.)
Witchcraft."
YsPENDE. T. 179. Confidcr. Chatterton.
But how could TJpcnde ever fignify conf.der?
There can be liptle doubt, I think, that Chatter-
ton formed this word from Keksey's " SifpcnDCf,
(O.) confidcrcd ;" and, as the fame article occurs
in Si'EGiiT, I fufpcdt it to have originated from
fomc Tnijpr:,:t m Chauc-. r : it is quite impoffible
that Yfpende fnouid be a genuine word.
Having thus proved, that fo mdny words, either
not ancient or not uicd in thc;r ancient fenfe, arc
to be found in the Poems, which can only be un-
dcrftood according to the unwarranted intcrpreta-r
tions which Chatthrion has annexed to them;
and having pointed out the author, from whom
he might cafily have borrowed thofe words, with
their interpretations, I am not aware of anv thing
which fiioulci prevent us from concludingr that he
wrote the Poems. It is inconceivable that any
writer older than Kersey fhould have anticipated
fo many of his blunders; and of wr'icrs fmce
Ki:rsev we have not the flighteft gromid of evi-
dence for fufpedfing any one except CHATrERioNf.
Mr. Br V ANT has informed us, p. 561, rh.^.t Chat-
terton " ufcd 1,0 hunt, in a mofl fervilc manner,
in
[ i8d ]
in Kerfcy's DiAionary." The fud:, it fcems, is
proved by a llrange bombad letter to his friend
Smith, confifhing of many high-foundhig and un-
common terms. — " Thefe (fays Mr. Bryant) are
all to be found in Kersey, and, I believe, in no
other Englilh Dictionary. That be had them from
this fource is certain, from Lis copying the very er-
rors of the aulhorJ" But if this argument be con-
clufive in a letter of Chatteiiton's to Mr. Smith,
why fliould it have lefs force in the Poems, attri-
buted to Rowley, to which I have juft been ap-
plying it ? One of the words which Mr. Bryant
has enumerated, as borrowed in this manner from
Kersey, is Cherifaunei for Cherifaiince, a word
iifed in the Poems. [See before, p. 177.] He adds,
indeed, that " this gives room to fufpe(5t, that he
[Chatterton] fom.etimes altered the orginals, which
he had before him, upon the authority of thefe
etymologifts ;" but, in my opinion, it gives much
more room to fufpecft, that it was upon the autho-
rity of thefe etymologifts that he compofed his
pretended originals.
I will add nothing more upon this head ; as I
confefs that I have no llronger evidence than what
I have already produced, to flicw, that the Poems
were Vvritten entirely by Chattertont ; but 1 can-
not conclude this difquifition, though already too
long, without taking notice of fome arguments,
which have been particularly urged to prove,
thai-
C '"7 ]
that he was not the author, but only the traa^
fcribcr, of them.
The firft, and perhaps the moll: extraordhiary,
Js drawn from what is called his iimform declara-
tion that the Poems were Rowley 's. Mr. Bryant
has infifled upon this very largely, p. 499, feq.
but furcly fuch a declaration, if it had been much
more uniform than it was, and I'.ad been continued
for a much greater length of time, would have
been entitled to very little credit. He mult have
been a very whimfical or a very fqueamilii im-
poftor indeed, who, after having planned and
executed a fuccefsful fraud, fliould voluntarily
abandon it, or rcfufe to fupport it by his own
aflertions. When Ciccarelli made a confeffion
of his impoilurcs, he had been legally convidled
of one, and was going to fuffcr death for it ; and
it is remarkable, that Psalmanazar, many years
after his fictions had been detcdted and univerfally
exploded, could not bring himfclf to an open
avowal of his guilt, except in a narrative to be
publifhed, when he fliould be infenfible of the
jlname arifing from it. But Chatterton, fup-
pofing him to have been an impollor, had none
of thcfc motives to confeffion. He had not even
Jiad time to be tired of this amufng exercife of
his fancy, as he died within lefs than two year?
from his firil: overt-adt of im])o{lure : and he ap-
pears to h^vc praitifed it to almofl the end of his
life i
[ ,88 5
lif'e; for the Baljde on Charitie was fent to the
prhucr in the month immediately preceding his
jdcjceafe. Was it pofliblc for him to recede from
his declaration that the Poems were Rowley's,
while he was every day forging new compolitions
tjilder the fame name ? Not that I can admit his
declaration to have been fo uniform as Mr. Bryant
would rep.refent it. In tv/o inllances, both of
'(sfhich indeed feem to have efcaped Mr. Bryant's
notice, he ackno^vledged himfelf to have been
the author of pieces which he had originally pre-
tended to have tranfcribed from ancient MfT. The
pieces, which I mean, are the Account of the Cere-
fiionies obferved at the opening of the Old Bridge,
and the Battle of Hiiflings, N*" i. I fhould be
amamed to urge this acknowledgement of his, as
a proof that he was really the author of thefe
pieces ; but, as a proof that his declarations were
not to be depended upon, I think it cannot be re-
jected or evaded by any one ; and leaft of all by
thoft, who, in direft contradiction to it, pcrfifl in
maintaining that thefe very pieces were written by
ROWLEY (46),
(46) In addition to the piihllck declarations of Chatfer-
ton, Mr. Brynlir, p. 545, has laid great flrefs upon what he
calls private aiUfutions to the truth of thofe declarations.
To this purpofc be his cited Certain mtcs^ lubjoined toMlT,
of Chatterton, containing references. !o Rowley, Cnnyn.g-e,
&c. and tho meyition of thofe perfonages in his f.uicifnl
*ill. bee hicK^:^^ p. 155. ii. (41). " We iKay be alTnred
(fays
[ >S9 ]
Another argunient is drawn irom what Mr.
Bryant fp. 564] calls Chatterton's miscon*
CEPTioNs, or miftakcs in tranfcribing, which are
fuppofed to have arifcn from his not being able
to read the Mir. I had pointed out [Introd. Ace,
p. xv] fevcral variations between a copy of the
** Son^c to jElla, &c." which Oiatte.iton^ had
(favs Mr. Bryant) from tliefe indirnl^ and repeated appeals
to Rowley, that he was etlcemed by Chattcrton n real per-
fon, the lame from uhofe writings he copied." But all,
1 think, that can be fafely inferred from rhefc appeals is^
that Chattcrton was gencraliy mindful of his aiTumed chji^
rarter, ^nd loll no convenient opportunity of exhibiti;ig ir.
In one paflbgc, however, (if the very will above iiientioncd,
he fceu^s, either from inadvertence or deilgn, to have
dropped the niafk. The^pairagc is as follav/s : ^'' I have
Mr. Clayfield thcjincerejl thanks my gratitude can give, and
I Will and dire fi, that, "juhatevcr any perfon may think the
pleafurc of reading my Works ivorth, they immediately pav
their own valuation to him, Br.ct it is ihen become a laivfui
dtbttome; and to him, as my executor iri that cale." Upoa
a former occafion, he is faid to have carried a fiditicj? bil.l
to Mr, Catcot, charging him as debtor in a certain funi.
*'y<?r plea-fur c received by reading Ro'u.-hv's zvorks iu ve* fe
and pro/e \" and if he had wiflied to maintain aiiv longer
the charadter of a mere tranfcriber, he would probablv hnve
vrorded this legacy to Mr. Clayfic-ld in terms of a limihi-F
import. But here, unlefs we fuppofe the expre(?ion Niy
WoRKs to include the works which he had pubMllicd aj
Roivlcfs, he claims no debt as due to him on the latter ac=-
count. If it fhould be aikcd, But why then did he not e:;^'
plicitiy declare himlelfthe author of the works at tribut.ed-
to Rowley? I can only anfwer, that, pojjibly, in the fit ,of
fuHen deipair which had determined him to quit the world,
he might equally difdain, either to confels, or to cofU.inue,
iiis jj75poilufe.
[ 190 ]
given to Mr. Barrett, and that which he after^
wards produced as the original. Thefe variations
Mr. Bryant has repeated, p. 566, to ihew, that,
**/ro;;z the letters being nearly effaced, Chatterton
had often miftaken the original terms, and fubfli-
tutcd one word for another." But the variations
theip.felves do not, I think, juilify any fuch infe^
■rence. The fubftitution of Ifrayninge for Ypraun-
tynge, of ^valyante for burlie, of dyfmall for honorCy
of varfes for perie, &c. can never have been ov/ing
to the letters being nearly effaced ; as in every
inftance the word fubflituted differs widely froin
the other in the form, or order, or number of its
component letters. Thefe variations, therefore,
which are evidently various modes of expreffion,
and not miftaken readings, are much more likely
to have proceeded from an author than from a
mere tranfcriber; and they probably took their
rife fromCiiATTERTON's giving out copies of his
compofitionsj at different times, from memory
only.
<« The like mijldkes (fays Mr. Bryant, p. 567)
are often to be difcovered from the context, in
copies, of which there is no original preferved ;"
^nd he gives feveral inftances from the Errata,
which I had annexed to my edition; whereCHAT-
TERTON is fuppofed to have miftaken vidiials for
•vicli?nfy— fears for tears, — toe for doe,—Jiorven for
JiroveHi—fytbe ioi fjke, — hie thanks ioimie thanks.
" Caa
[ '9' ]
'^ Can thefc (fa) s Mr. Bryant) be the mi (lakes
of an author r Certainly not." And I partly agree
with hini. Tliey cannot be the miflakts of an
author, in his capacity of author ; but an author
is alfo, generally, a tranfcriber of his own works,
and in that capacity, I apprehend, he is as liable
to the common errors of omitting, adding,
changing, and tranfpofing letters, as any other
tranfcriber. The millakes, here enumerated, are
all of this fort, mere flips of the pen, fuch as-
might eafily have fallen from an inattentive writer,
in copying either his own works or thofe of ano-
ther. They cannot therefore afford any proof,
that Chatterton was not the author of thofe
pieces in which they arc found.
The character i ill ck of thefe miftakes is, as
Mr. Bryan 1 has obfcrvedj " that the ti;ue reading
appears from the plain purport of the lines."
Where the word miflakcn is uncommon or ob-
fcurc, and the fenfe cannot be eafily reftored, there
is more rcafon to fnfpcdl a blunder of the tran-
fcriber. Some mi (lakes of this latter fort Mr.
Bryant has endeavoured to point out, which
therefore it may be proper to examine.
Onlyghtk. JE. G-jc).
Thevrc throngingc corfes fl-^all onhghte the flarres.
"■ Here (fays Mr. Bryant, p. yS) is certainly
a great mijlakc cf the tra72fcyibci\ who did not
know the author's meaning, and has fubllituted
one
C 19^ ]
6r\t word for another. Inflead of onlyghte, I make
no doubt but that the original was onlyche ; which
ligniiies to be like or equal to. Onlycb is the fame
term which we now exprefs liken" But what
proof have we from authority or analogy that
fuch a "oerh as onlych was ever in ufe ? If it was
ufed in the lenfe of liken, how would it fuit with
this pafTage ? Could we now fay to liken the Jiars
inllead of to match them in number ? Certainly not.
We have therefore no rcafon for believing, that
onlyche was the original word. As to onlyghte,
though I take it to be as little authorifed as
onlyche, I can conceive that it may have been in-
tended to mean to iin-light ; to darken, or intercept
the light of the ftars. The hyperbole, exceflive as
it is, might perhaps be matched in the Poems.
At leall the word muft keep its place, till a more
probable fubflitute than onlyche can be found for
it.
I had fet down among the e\)ldcnt blunders of thji
tranfcriher the following paffage of H. i. 300.
But manie knyghtes were men in womens geer —
and had propofed to correft it thus ;
But manie knyghtes were zvomen in mem geer.
Mr. Bryant, p. 86, has adopted this corredlion ;
and adds : *' This may have been the blunder of
a tranfcriher ; but could never be the miflake of
the real compofer of thcfe Poems.'^ But to me
fuch
*i
[ 193 ]
nicii a blunder as this fccms cquaily unlikely tb
have been committed by either, except from a
temporary diftradtion of thoughtj to which both
are cquaily liable; In a fimikir paflage, H. 1.19.
Go, do the wcaklle womman ih manns geare.
And fcond your manfion, if grym war come there;
I fee no reafon for fuppofing with Mr; Bryant^
t:nat " in the original the lines run thus ;
Go tOy ye Wcaklie wommcn &c." —
Goy do the wbmart — may fignify, I apprehend. Go,
Qui the woman, &c; Nor can I agree with him in
his interpretation df the fccond verfe^ where he
fuppofes fcond your mavfion to mcdn difgrace the
hcui'd of your ancejiors. Accotding to the little
{kill which I may have acquired in the Chatterto-
nian dialed:, I fhould con]QC\:uvt fcond to have been
formed from abfond, and to fignify here, abfconJ^
or run aivay, from your houfe, he.
E. II. 39, 40.
The rcynyng foemcri, thynckeynge glf to dare,
Boun the merkfwerde, theiefechc to fraic, theie
blyn;
*' Here (fays Mr. Bryant, p. 94) Teems to have
been a great blunder committed by the tranfriber,
— And, i think, nothing canfliew more fatisfacto-
rily, than this paiTagc, that Chatterton had an ori-
ginal before him which he did not undcrftand."
]iut all the perplexity, of which Mr. Bryant
complains in this pallage, arifes from his having
O «vcr*
[ 194 ]
ovci looked the comma which is ?iixQX fraie. Wl'-^
ihis little addition, there is fcarcc a pafiage in- the
Poems which is more intelligible than this, or
nficrJs Icfs ground for fulpeiling a blunder. Al-
lowing the author to have cxprcfled himfclf with
his ulual quaintiiefs, his meaning I take to be this :
" The foes running about, thinking whether they
ihall hazard a battle, liiakc ready their fvvords ;
fhcy one \\\\\\t feek to engage, at another they ccafcy
Rand ftill." Mr. Bryant, in his quotation, has
omitted the claufe — " thynckvn^e gif to dare" —
though it certainly gives light to what follows^
When he fliall be pleafcd to reconfider the whole
paiiagc, I flattet myfelf that he will not think
the received reading of the fecond line lefs worthy
of the author than what he would fubflitutc ;
*' Boun the merk fword, and feche thefaie to hl)nii.
I. c. and endeavour to impede and flop the land-
ing of the enemy." To which I have this further
objection, that hlyn, as far as I have obfervcd, is
never ufed by genuine v^'riters but as a verb neuter.
The ufc of it as a verb adhve in the Poems,
yE. 334. 552. G. 50. may be added to the many
other inftanccs of unauthorifed hmguagc, which
make their genuinenefs fo juftly fufpcded.
I pafs over Mr. Bryant's oblervations, p. 99,
upon the firft ftanza of the Stor'ie of WillianiCanyngei
as I profefs not to underhand the pafh.gc, either
as it appears in the Puemsj or as he has correjfted
it. There arc many other paliu^cb in the 1 oems,
which
L '95 1
which cannot be corrected into knk confnlcntly
with any rules of criticifm.
With rcfpedt to Aimer, m the Ba/ade of Cb.i} if ic^
ver. 2 and 76, which Mr. Bryant, p. 102, fnp-
pofcs to have been put h a mijiakc of the trini-
fcriber iox Palmer, I Ihall only obfervc, that it is
not ufudl fofa tranfcriber t6 change a known and
common word, fuch as rainier is, for one quite
unexampled — The true drigin of the word Cheri-
faunci has been pointed out above, p. 177. — Why
Mr. BrYAnt fuppofcS that amenvfed in E. 11. 5*
has been fubftituted by the tranfcriber for amanfed^
I cannot comprehend. The literal fcnfc of amanfcd
is excommunicated. If it ever feems to iignifv ac*-
ciirfcd, it mufl probably mean in confequence of (.y*
communicminn. But how could the infidel Sardccns^
of v^'hom Mr. Brvant fuppofes the Poet to fpcak,
ever have been excommunicaledf That term, I
apprehend, can only be applied tothofc who have
once been in the Chriftian communion. But irl-
dccd it feems to me, that we cannot fuppofe the
Poet to fpcak here of the Saracens, without doing
a great injury to the beauty and order of his de-
fcription. He is not defcrib'ng, in this place,
the CJjriJlian fleet afproacking lozvards the Holy
Land, as Mr. Bryant fuppofes, but the fleet of
RicfiARD juil launched upon the ocean from
England. The amcnufed nations therefore 1 con*
ceivc to be the nallcns of Eurcp:, who are njic-
O 2 nijhedy
I '96 1
niJheJ, and feci thcmfclves diminiJJjed In efllmation
by the fupcrior fplcndor of this armament. The
dcfcription of its cifcd: upon the Saracens does
BOt begin till ver, 23.
The Saracen lokes ovvte, &c.
This word amenufed has furnilhed Mr. Bryant
Tvith another argument to prove a mijlake of the
tranfcribcr, and fuch a miflake, as, I am ready to
own, if it could be clearly fixed upon him, would
induce a ftrong fufpicion that he was, merely a tran-
fcriber. It is contended [Bryant, p. 140], that
amenufed^ inl.CriS, has been put by miftake for
amcnvfcth'y and adcnted [Ibid. p. 152], by a like
miflake, for adenteth in G. 29; and that the mif-
takc in both inflanees has arifen from the Mf.
having had a mixture of Saxon characters, and
the tranfcriber having taken the Saxon ih (S) for
a common d (b). But, in the iirft place, here
is no proof at all of any miflake in either of thefe
words ; for the pafTage in Le. 28 remains as hard
•
to be underftood after the propofed alteration, as
it was before ; and the pafl'agc in G. 29 was as eafy
to be underftood without the propofed alteration
as with it. In the fccond place, I apprehend that
there is no ground for believing, that a tranfcriber
from any Mf. of the XVth century could have
been miflcd in the manner which Mr. BRVAiST has
foppofed; for, though the Saxon th, exprcfled
3^ > tl\U3;
[ ^97 3
thus (]>), was iifed in the common writing of that
century, the other cxpreflion of it (^), which
only could be miilaken for a cl, was at that time,
i am perfuadcd, totally dlfufcd and obfolete.
But, bcfide thcfe fiippofcd Miscokceptions,
or miltakcs in tranfcribing, which Mr. Bryant
has allcdgcd, to Ihew, that Chatterton copied
from Mir. which he was not able to read, he has
produced a number of what he calls Misinter-
pretations of particular paflliges, which, ac-
cording to him, prove, that this boy did not even
iinderllaiid the compofitions which he copied, and
confequently could not have been the author of
them. In this argument he is joined by the
Dean of Exeter, who fccms not to have been
aware of the other argument, drawn from the
miilakes of the tranfcribcr, or even to have dif-
covered that there were any miflakes of that fort,
which fhoujd not be confidered as mere Hips of
the pen..
It would be too tedious to 0:0 throuiih all the
jnftances of Misinterpretation, with which
Chatterton has been char2;cd bv thefe two
learned men. Many of them have been aJready
confidered in thecourfe of this dilquifition, I wili
take notice here of a fevv more, which have been
uro-ed wirh the jrreatell confidence. If I can fliew,
that in thefe the interpretations of the boy of
BrijJol arc as probable as thofe of his abkil
3 critif ksj
C 198 ]
crlticks, the reader will know what to think of
the reft.
I ihall begin with three words, which the Dean
of Exeter, confcious, as it feems, of their ir-
refiftiblc force, has placed together; according to
the rules of oratory, in his Peroration, p. 515.
The words are Be r ten, Lordykge, and Hour
TON. The two firft occur in the Tournainenty
ver. 57 — 8.
The lordynge toade ynn all hys paffes bides ;
The hertcn ncdcrs att hymm darte the ftynge.
J^ordynge is explained by Chatterton to mean
Jlanding on their bind legs. But this the two learned
commentators pronounce to be a mijiake^ and they
both agree, that lordynge is put for lourdi/i, or
Jourdan, and Ihould be rendered dully bcav)\ iin-
ivieldy. This is plaufible, I confefs, and, though
by no means <:onvincing, I might perhaps have
been puzzled to give it a fiat refutation, if a
young friend of mine, who is frcfher from this
fort of reading than I am, had not informed me,
that Spenser has applied this very participle
lording to a toad, and that his Gloflarift has ex-
plained it in fuch a manner as might very well
fuggcft Chatterton's interpretation. The paf-
fage of Spens:':r is in his Paftoral of December,
Aanza xii.
Where I wns wont to feek the hony bee
Wcrkinr^ har formal rowms in wexcn frame,
The
1
[ 199 J
The grkfly todcftool grown there moiight I lie.
And loathing paddocks lording on the lame.
Upon which the Gloflarill has obfervcd ; " Lord-
ing, fpoken after the manner of Paddocks and
Frogs fitting, which Is indeed lonlly, r.ot moving
or looking once afide, unlefs they aie llirred."
Thele authorities, I conceive, are t'ully Tuilicienr.
to jullity CiiATiERTON againft any charge of
either having mifwritten or mifintcrpreted this
word. If any one fhall be inclined to go further,
and to confider fo remarkable a coincidence of
expreffion as a proof of plagiarifm, I mnfl warn
him, that the Dean of Exeter, upon occafion
ot another coincidence with Spknser, which he
himfelf has pointed out in B. H. N° i. j). 64, has
declared ver\' peremptorily, that to fuppofe, that
Chaiterton had borrowed a thought from Spkn-
SF,R, would be a7i incredible idea.
The next word hcrtcn is rendered by Ciiat-
TERTON venomous ; and this too both the learned
commentators pronounce a juiflahe ; though they
are bv no means fo well agreed, as in the former
inftancc, what the interpretation fliould be. Mr.
Bryant, p. 2S5, fuppofes that Btrtni is an acl-
jedtive, " probably a contracftion of Bcirn/iy and
relates to colour;" — from the liarb. Lat. " BarL-
linus, cinereus, leueopha?us. Du Cangc." But he
has produced no manner of proof that fuch a
word was ever ufed in Englifh, or even in French.
O 4 The
£ 200 "]
The Dii.\N of ExLTER, OH tlic othcr hand, fup-
pofes it to be (or to be put for) a participle of
the prcfcnt tcnfe. He fa\s, in his note, " The
j^erten nedcrs do not mean 'venomous ^ but leafing^
to cxprefs their manner of attack. The Prompnar»
Fiirvifl. explains, burtyn by infilio, cornupeto, to leap
vpo7i, or piijh, as horned cattle do." But how can
adders be faid to attack^ like horned cattle f And
} et, from an inl'pediion of feveral articles in the
prompt. Parv. I cannot find that the old verb
To hurt had any other fenfe than the modern one
I'd Imit. Ik-R'iAR. beste is explained Cgrnupeta. —
BL'ur\NG, Curniipctiis. Burton, as hornyd
Bisns, Corniipcio. So that I am quite at a lofs to
gucfs upon what grounds the Dean has aflerted,
in p. ^13 (in contradidiion to his own quotation
iult clued), that the Pr. Par, had explained the
v^ord (berien) by darting or leaping, 1 need not
fay any niore, I think, to fliew that the explana-
tions of this word by thofe two learned men are
totally unfounded and inadmiffible. To jullify
Chatterton's interpretation of it is no part of
my undertaking. If he invented the word, as 1
piuch fufpedt, he had a right to affix his own
fenfe to it.
With the third word, honton, I Ihall have lefs
trouble, as Chatterton's miilake about it (it he
has made any) has efcapcd the corrcdion of
Mr.
[ 201 ]
Mr. Br^VAN'T. It occurs twice in the Poems ; h}
the MetdJuorphofis, vcr. 93.
The goddcs — —
Hcuton dyd make the mountainc hie thclrc mighte.
and in the Epitaph on llohcrt CanyngCy ver. 6 ;
Hoitton are wordcs for to telle hys doe.
In the former palllige Ciiatterton has inter-
preted it to mean hollow. But the Dean of Exe-
ter fays it means lofiyi becaufe " hazuicn is ex-
plained in the Prompts Farv. by excilto, and is ufcd
in this fenfe by Peter Langtoft; and l'aulai?ty in
old French, fignihcs proud or lofly." But why
iliould we believe, that /jouton is the fame word
with haiitain ? and how will the fenle of bautain.
fuit with thefc pafiages ? In the firll it has a very
queftionable meaning, and the other it makes ab-
folute nonfcnfe. But the fenfe of hollozu will fuit
with both. The mountain is made hoUozv, not,
as the Dean furmifes, by way of alleviation to the
fate of EJirild and Sabtina; but that the river may
run forth from it ; and words are faid to be Lollou.',
metaphorically, i, e. itnfuhftantial, zicak. I can-
not therefore allow that Chaiterton has made
any millake in his interpretation of this word,
efpecially as it is fupported by the Dldionary-
writers, Phillip?, Kersey, Bailey, &c. who
ail interpret /jouton to mean boHozv. Whether
there be any I'uch word as kouion is another (^uef-
tion.
tlon. As far as I am informed, it ftands upon no
better authority than the following article in
SpEGHT'sGloflary to Chaucer; " i^ototeil,/^^//oii?i'*
^nd that, if I am not much deceived, refers to
the following palTage of the PLo^jnaii's Tale, [\'Gi\
2812. Ed. Ur.]
Hoppen and hoiiten with heve and hale.
The article in Speght, which immediately pre-:
cedes Howten, is " ^Dppcn, leape." But it is
plain, that in this paflage of the Plowman's Tale
hoiitcn is a verl) fignifying to hoot, or halloo, cx-
preflcd by Speght hallow, from which the
Dicflionary-writcrs and Chatterton have formed
an adjedlive houton, fignifying hollow. I do not
fee how Rowley could have fallen into fuch a-.
miftake.
I will only add here one of thofe words, in the
explanation of which Chatterton is fuppofcd to
have failed, becaufe '* the Gloflaries, in which
alone they exifted, were not in his hands, nor was
it within his ability to underftand them if they
had been before him** [Milles, p. 514]. In the
lAetamorphofis, v. 9.
Whofe eyne dyd feerie Iheene, like blue-hayred
defi
That dreerie hange upon Dover's emblaunchecj
clefs.
The bhie-hayred defs (fays the Dkan of ExEr
TER in his note) " are explained by Chatter-
ton as meteors or vapours ; they rather mean
fpcclres
[ 203 ]
fpcBrcs or fj'iries, which might be fi^ppofcd to in-
habit thcle clirts. Dijfe nctyll^ in the P. Puti. is
explained Archangcliu. ^^-JtI^ i hi- khfore may
(ignify y/>//77." From this conclufion the Dean
proceeds to draw feveral ingenious coroUarics,
\A.'hich may be read in his book. I iliall only
briefly examine the conclufion itlelt. DeJ/t; > etyll
is QxyA-^\i\c<\ Arcbaiigelus ', therkfore Dcjf'e may
u^mix J'pirit. 1 lliall not dii'pute the connexion
of Archangel y Angel, Spirit, Sped re, and Fiiirie ;
though, according to the pofirion of the words,
one might perhaps more probably infer, that Dejfc^
lignificd arcfj, and yietyll, angel; but the truth is,
that Dsffj netyll, in the Prompt, j'arv. means nei-
ther more nor lefs than Deaf nettU (a weed mora
commonly called Dead nettle), of which the tech-
nical name is Archangel. Mow unfortunate was
poor CiiATTERToN, that the Gloliaries, in which
alone fuch curious learning is to be found, were
not in his hands, and that he was not even able
to undcrfland them, if they had been before him !
For lack of erudition, he was frequently obliged
to have recourfe to his o.vn invention, of which,
in the prefent inftance, hi has certainly availed
himfelf as fuccefsfuUy as the Di an has of his
Prompt. Pdiv. for though L believe ir.cieovs or
vapours to be not a lefs fap.cihil inter])retation of
defs thjiU Jpe^res or fairies, itb total want of foun-
dation cannot fo eafily be demonlhajd.
I come
[ 204 ]'
I come now to the lail argument of any weight,
which has been urged to prove, that Chatterton
was not author of the Poems, viz. that they con-
tain niany things, with which he could not poffibly
have been acquainted. The inftances alledged
are, chieilv, of ivords too rare and obfcure to
have been underftood by him, and of hiftorical
fcclsy which lay out of the reach of his fcanty
means of information.
Of the firft fort is Faldstole, J£..6i, which
the Dean of Exeter in his note explains very
Jearncdly, and adds : '' A modern writer, not
aware of the difference, would probably have
called it a/^i'^'?<?!9i." But Faldstool is explained
by Kersey to be a kind of Jlool \ which was fuffir
cient authority for C^atterton to ufe it in th&
fenfe of jootrflool.
Another inftance of thofe uncommon terms,
which have perfuaded Mr. Bryant, p. 351, " that
Chatterton had manufcripts betore him," is
FoRTUNiES. [SeeChattert. Mifcell. p. 131.) But
this word too is in Kerrey ; '' jfortuit^', a Tourna-
ment, or running a Tilt on Horfeback with
Lances.'*
Fructuous entendement [B. H. Is^'= I. 6j is
another exprefiion, upon which Mr. Bryant has
remarked, p. 414, that '* he fcarcely knows one,
which at firft fight is more likely to be fufpedted.
Y'jt there is authority in a Mf. Poem of Occleve ;
10
[ 2-5 ]
to which wc may well fuppofc that Ciiattkrtot?
had jiever acccfs" That he had never acccfs to
the Mf. Poem of Occlcve I can readily admit ; but
the ftanzas of that Poem, containing a compli-
ment to Chaucer, in which this expreflion of
frudims entcndemcnt occwr%y have been frequently-
printed. They arc printed (ro name no other
book) in the lifi of Chaucer prefixed to Speght's
edition, to which Chattkrton is allowed by
Mr. Bryant himfelf, p. 534, to have had accefs^
GouLE, fays the Di-an of Exeter, p. 449,
" according to the Pr. P.irv. means l^ury. Skin-
ner, who quotes the word from the antient Eng-
lilh Dictionary, as derived from gula, doubts both
the exiftencc and etymology of the term. Where
then could Chatterton meet with it, but in a
EatinGloflariil, v\hom he did not underlland, and
who did not believe the word to be ancient?" He
met with it in Kkrsev, who has the following
nrticle, " €^oulc, (O.) Ulury.'*
In the Tragedy of Godwin, as the Dean of
ExLTtR has obfcrved in his note on ver. 136,
" Mancas and Marks arc ufed fynonymoully for
money in general." He has explained how the
terms came to be confounded by the hiftorians of
the middle age ; and " Rowley (he fays) has fol-
lowed the hiilorians in this miftake ; but no author,
fnice his time, has ufed the word Manca for
7notie\'y and vjhere Jhould Chatterton^jir /««/«</ it ?"
He
[ 206 ]
He hiight have found it in KkrseV, who explains
^<".tra to be " a fquarc piece of gold, anciently
valued at thirty pence." The lame author ex-
plains Cg)(irli to be " a filver coin, anciently valued
at thirty pence;" upon what ground I Ihall not
•nquire.
Under this head may alio be claffed the Quo-*
TATI0^:s from Greek and Roman writers, which
have been fuppofed to prove a greater portion of
learning in the author, than Chatterton coukt
have poffcircd^ This argument is thus urged by
Mr. Bryant, l^^ 5^2* " In the fermon upon the
Holy Sprite there is a quotation from Cj'prian ;
and another from the Grifd-/^ of Gregory Nazianzen;
and in the ilory of John Lamington- are many
Latin quotations. None of thefe were obvious,
end fuch as a boy could attain to. Nor are they
idly and oftentatioufly introduced : they are all
pertinent, atid well adapted." The quotations
from CvpiiiAv and GlIFGory N*aZianzen may
be feen in zhc Frag?i!ent of a fermon, which Chat-
terton pretended to have copied fromRo^vLEY's
>lir. It is priPxted \\\ Mifcell. Cbnttert. p. 114.
Mr. Bryan r lays, p. 564, " the very texture of
it fhews, that it w-as the compofition of a pcrfon
verfed in divinity. Hence fomc have thought,
that Chatterton accidentally lit upon an old fer-
mon, and put it off for Rowley's." I am much
inclined to think niyfclf, that the ground work of
7 this
N
■ S.
i'r,
<t
y^
r
^
^'
^
g^
CI
X
3
>
4
^
^
■5?
\
'd
[ 2<57 ]
this Fragment was an old fcrmon, in which Ckat-
TERTON found the two quotations ready to hh
hand. The reft, if not his own invention, was at
leall tranflated by him into the Rowhian diatcit ;
as the language abounds with the fame foleeifms
and barbarifms, which have demonftratcd the
fpurioufnefs of the Poems. But^ without having
recourfe to them upon this occafion, it happens,
that the Greek quotation from Gregory Nazian-
ZEN contains in itfelf the molt unaucrtionable
proof, that it was not copied from any Mf. of the
XVth century. It will be allowed, I prcfume,
that Chatterton could only copy the charadiers
which he found in his original. He had not ikill
enough to vary the forms of the letters; to com-
bine thofc which were feparate, or to fcparate
thofe which were connected together. We may
be certain, therefore, that his tranfcript (involun-
tary errors excepted) was in all refpedts as like to
his archetype aa he could make it. But his tran-
fcript differs totally from all the fpecimens which
1 have ever fecn of Creek writing in the XVth
century. It appears to mc to have been evident-
ly copied trom a printed bock; but, us I do not
wifh to judge lor others in thefe matters, 1 fl^all
annex an exadt I'ac f.mile of the paOage, as it
ftands in Chatterton's own hand- writing. The
reader will determine, whether it could have been
copied by him from any Mf. of Rowlev.
[ 20S ]
Mr. Bryant's next aro-iimcnt is drawn frdrii
" the many Latin quotations in the Story of Johii
Lamingtoni" ThelCj I apprehend, arc all to h6
found in what the Dean of Exeter has printed j
p. 185, under the title of a Dialogue between MaJ-
ier Fhilpot and Walworth Cocbieies^ fiibjoined to
Iscamme's Poem on Lamington. This dialogue
therefore it may be proper to reprint here^ with
a few corrections from Chatterton's Mf*
FhiL God ye goodden, my good naighbour, how
d\e aylc >
Howe docs your wyfe, man ' What never aflble ?
W. Cum reflate vivas verborum mala ne cures*
Ah maftrc Phillepot, evil tongues do faie,
That my wyfe will lyen down to dale,
Tis ne twaine moneths fyth Ihee was myne
for aie.
Phil. Ani?num fubmitterc noli Rebus in adverjis*
Nolito quccdam referent i fcmper credere^
But I pity you, nayghbour, if it [be] fo;
W. ^a requirit wyfericordiaju Mala caufa eji-^
Alack ! alack ! a fad dome mine in fay.
But oft with Citizens it is the cafe.
'- Honefia tttrpiiudo — pro bona
*• Caufa ?non^ as aunclent Pcnfmcn fayfc.
*' None of thcfe quotations (fays Mr. Bryant)
were obvious, and fuch as a boy could attain to.''
And I can eafily believe that they were not obvious
to
[ 209 ]
to Mr. Bryant, whofe ftudies, we know, have
generally travelled a higher road ; but I can fay,
with truth, that I found them in the very firft
book in which I looked for them. The three
former are tranfprofed out of Cato's Dijlichs, and
the two others out of the Sentences of Publius SyritSy
ufually fubjoined to the Dijlichs, in a little volume,
which, in many fmall fchools, I believe, is Hill the
firfl that is put into the hands of learners of Latin
after the Grammar (47). It appears from the
(4.7) They {land thus in an edition by Boxhorn'rus,
L. Bat. 1635.
Cato, T,ih. III. Dift. 4.
Quum icifte vivas, ne cures verba malorum.
Lib, J I. Did. 26.
Rebus in adverlis animum lubmittere noli.
Lib. II. Dill. 21.
Noli tu qua;dam ret'crcnti credere femper.
Syrus, Sentcnt. Iamb. p. i u).
Mala caufa eft qui requirit mifericordiam.
Sentfnt. Troch. v. 3.
Eft honefta turpitude pro bon.i caufa mori.
In Chaf.crton's tranfcript of this laft line he had origi-
nally infercci! e/i after turpitixdo ; and he had written ic.v.Ty,
(to rime, I iuppofe, more exadly to fay).
The blunders in the firft hne of re(:late for re6it, and of
verhorum mala for verba malorum^ ieem to ftie'.v that he
wrote from memory. They imift hive been overlooked,
I prefuiric, by the Dean of Exeter, v.'ho conliders all thefc
palTages, not as quotations, but as original compofuions,
and argues, in p^rt, " from the corrstfnefi of the Latin^
that they muft have been written at leaft by a better icholar
than Chatterton."
P tcUimonys
I 210 ]
tclliiiiony of Mr. Smith [Bryant, p. 532], tlii*
Chatter TON h^d intimated very frequently both a
i^'f.te to learn ^ and a defign to teach hinifelf, Latins
innd though I do not fuppofe that he ever made
any great progrefs in that language, I really think
that he might have attained to thefe quotations.
With refpcdt to their -pertinency, and their not
being Idly and ofientatiGvJly introduced, it is fcarcc
credible, 1 think, that fuch a medley of quota-
tions, from fuch a book, Ihould have been hud-
dled together, in fuch a dialogue, by any one, but
'a boy, ^vho was proud of difplaying the little
Latin which he hadjuft acquired.
So much for the words, which Chatterton
is fuppofcd to have been incapable of underltand-
ing. I proceed, in the lafl. place, to confider the
Hijtoricid fa^s, with which, it is faid, he could
not poflibly have been acquainted. Some of thefc
fuppofed/i^ffZo" I have fhewn above [p. 150. n. 393?
to be probably nothing more than empty words;
fuch as the Blue Briton, Tinyan, &c. Others are
of a mixed nature ; a combination of truths with
falfitlcs ; of which the true part was eaiily known,
and the falfe might as eafily have been invented
by Chatterton as by any other perfon. Of this
■fort are the Ordination of Canynge — to avoid
a nmrriage propofed by Kino^ Edward, and the Fine
of 3000 marks exad:ed from' him— ^or refufing to
comply with that propojah The Ordination and
the
C '-■! ]
the Fine, which are the true parts of thefe two
ftories, might have been known by any one froiii
Canynge's Epitaph in Rcdcliff Church [I'cc
before, p. 113. n. 23]; the motive to the one,
and the caufe of the other, have been fhevvn to be
mere fidions, totally void of truth, or even pro-
bability [fee before, p. 107, and p. 114. n. 24.];
and yet Mr. Bryant, in his Rilcapitulation',
p. 580 — I, alledgcs both thefe ftories, as having
been verified in all their circu?)' fiances, and as
provincr that the iniclligencc of them dwie from
Redcliff'Tozver.
I fhiiU therefore confine myfelf to the confide-
ration of the few fadts rkally historical,
which are fuppofed to have lain out of Chatter -
ton's reach ; only prcmiling, that I can never al-
low a fatL to have lain out of his reach, merely
bccaufe I myfelf, or even my learned opponents,
/ may not be able to point out exa(5tly the place
where he found it. We have feen already, in
feveral inftances, that his reach was much more
comprehenfive than they imagined, or at leaft
have been willing to acknowledge; and it is cer-
■ tainly within the bounds of probability, that one,
who ^uejfed fo often as he did, fhould not always
• guffs wrong.
Next to the two ftories juft mentioned, Mr.
Bryant alledges the burni,ig of Rcdcliff Spire.
*' Rowley (fays he, p. 581} muft have been in
I P 2 foiiic
[ 212 ]
fome degree an eye-witnefs of the event : but
Chatterton had no hijlory of it ; 7io record^ except^
ing what muji have come from Rowley. He could
not have mentioned it without fome previous inti-
mation from that quarter ; for no account was elfe^
where to be had. This, like the two articles above,
has fince his death been attefled, and by the fame
hand : by the teflimony of William of Worceftrc/*
Mr, Bryant had before employed feveral pages
(537 — 542 )> ^^^ much ingenious argumentation,
to make it probable that this burning of the fpire
happened in the time of Rowley, before 1478;
but the Dean of Exeter, who, in this inllance,
cannot be charged with having afted in concert
with his learned ally, has told us plainly and
ihortly, p. 410, that the fpire was thrown down
by lightning in 1445, foon after it was eredled ;
and for this fadl he quotes the Mf. Chronicles of
Bri/lol, which, though no record, may fairly be
called a h'Jlory. If it Ihould fiill be contended,
that this fad: might be fliut up clofe in the Mf.
Chronicles, and out of the reach of Chatterton,
I will add, that I have been informed, from un-
queflionable authority, that " in 1746 was pub-
lished at Brillol a print of St. Mary Redcliff' s
Church, with an account of its foundation, &c.
by one John Halfpenny : in which was recounted
ihc ruin of the Steeple in 1446, by a tcmpejl and
fire." Indeed it is fcarce poflible that fuch an
4 e^^ent
C 213 ]
event as this fhould not always have been gene-
rally kn »vvn by tradition to hundreds of people at
Briftol, though it may have remained a fecret to
very inquifitive antiquaries in London.
Another initance urged by Mr. Bryant, p. 582,
is a romantic ftory, produced by Cha tterton in
the Rowkian dialctl, concerning the Temple-chttrih
at Briftol, which, he fays, was lb badly conflrufted
by the firfl: builder (Gremordie, a Lombard), that
it fubfided; but a better archite<ft {John a' Brixter,
a Briflowe man) preferved it, by laying a Wronger
bafis, founded on piles. " If this account, fuys
Mr. Bryant, were a forgery by Chatterton, it
could never have been by any means authenti-
cated ; but we find that it was lerijied in the year
1774, about four years after his death." Mr.
Bryant has told the ftory more at large in ano-
ther place, p. 310; but the utmoft that can be
faid to have been verijied is, that the church flood
upon piles ; and even that verity is but imperfe(fl-
ly made out, as it is allowed that the piles were
not feen by any body. But Mr. Bryant has
taken no notice of a remarkable circumlhince in
the Temple-churchy which, I am pcrfuaded, gave
rife to this whole ftory. It is thus dcfcribcd by
Cambden [Brit. p. 93]: " H:ird by it is alfo
another church, called Temple, the tower whereof,
as often as the bell rings, moves to and again, fo
as to be quite parted f-om the rejl of the building ;
p 3 and
[ 214 ]
snd rhere is fuch a chink from top to bottom
that the gaping is three fingers wide when the bell
rings, growing firft narrower, and then again
broader." This parting of the tower from the r(^ft
of the building muft always, I apprehend, have
been imputed to a defed: in the foundation, which
is ftated to have been upon wet marfliy ground ;
and it furcly was not above the reach of Chat-
TERTON to imagine, that fuch a defedt might af-
terwards have been remedied, and the building
preferved from finking further by piles. Mr.
Bryant himfelf fays, that " in fuch a fituation no
other fupport, but piles, can be well conceived.'*
This therefore is a fad:, of vvdiich Chatterton
needed not the ehoft of Rowley to inform him.
"With refpedt to the main ftory, no attempt has
been made to authenticate the conteft between the
two rival architefts, Gremordie and John a'' Brixter,
Mr. Bryant, for fome reafon or other, has not
even mentioned their names-, though, whether the'
flory told of them be true or falfe, their names,
one fhould think, dcferve as well to be recorded
as thofe of any of the other Rowleian heroes.
And this reminds me of an arg-ument drawn'
from the names ^ both Norman and Saxon, in the
Battle of Ilajlings, which, if it hsd come from a
Icfs authority than Mr. Bryant's, I believe I
fl:;ould have paffcd over in filcnce. Even my re-
fpcfl for him fliall not induce mc to wafte a word
7 upon
C "5 ]
upon the Norfiian na?>ies. " Of" the Siixoi's (he
lays very truly, p. 372) no lifts have been trrjii-
mitted." The brothers of Harold exccj^tcd, *' of
the other perlqns mentioned on the fame fide, there
is hardly a trace left in the accounts o«f thofe
tmics : To that to many they may have appeared
as imaginary characters, the work of poetical
fancy." In another place, p. 579, IMr. BuYANt,
in his Recapitulation, afks, rather triumphantlvj
" How could he (Chatterton) j)offibly krow //'?
navies of ibe Saxon Er,rL<, which occur in the Battje
ofHaJilngs, and whi,ch ar.e not to be found in any
hiftorian. They are indeed authenticated by
DoomfJay-book. But did he ever hear of tliat
book: or, if he did, had he ever accefs toit?"
JTere therefore feems to be a fair illuc, whether
the iiames of the Sax-07i Ecirls, ia the Eattk of
llaftings^ not to be found in any hiftoriao, are au-
thenticated by Doojvfday-bock. The quefiion is
very properly reftrifted to Earls ; for the names of
inferior perfons, in the mpft genuine poem, could
not be expedted to be authenticated by a record
of that nature.
The whole number of Saxon combatants men-
tioned in \.\\c Battle of HiijlingSy exclufive of tlie
;royal family, is, 1 think, tuenty-feven. Of eleven
,of thefe Air. BiiVANT has found the iiames (or
fomething like them) in Doonfilay^hook ; but pf
thefe eleven not one has any pretence to the title
P4 ' of
[ 2l6 ]
of Earl, except Brihtric. How Chatterton
might eafily have become acquainted with him,
has been explained above, p. 149. n. 38. Here-
ward indeed is called Earl in H. i. 301 ; but his
title is not authenticated by Doomjday-booky or by
any other evidence. It happens rather unluckily
for the credit of our poetical hiftorian, that ia
this Herpward, a really historical charac-
ter, we find a perpetual contradiction to hiftory.
He is reprefented as born at Sarum, though he
was in all probability a native of Croyland ; he is
repeatedly called an Earl, though he certainly
never vvas one ; he is introduced at the Battle of
Haflings, though he was undoubtedly at that time
not in England : and he is faid to have been killed
there, H. r. 409. though he is known to have
furvived that battle many years.
But to return to the names of our Saxon Earls,
Befides Herewapd, we have Erie Adhelm, H. 2^
505. Erie CuTHBERT, H. i. 262. Erie Egward,
H. I. 545. Erie Ethelbert, H. i. 541. Eric
Ethelward, H. I. 216, Erie Ethelv^^olf, H. i.
213. The names of i\\dQ fix Earls, it is allowed,
are not to be found in any hiflorian ; but how
many of them has Mr Bryant authenticated
from Doomfday-book ? Not one. The reader will
judge, with what propriety the vames of the Saxon
^arls, m the Battle of Hajiings, not to be found
t 217 ]
in any hiftovian, can be faid to be authenti-
cated by Doom [day 'hook,
Thefc, I think, are the fa(fVs really histori-
cal, upon which Mr. Bryant has infifted in his
Recapitulation, as having lain out of Chatter-
TON*s reach. \ have been fo long in examining
them, that the Dean of Exeter mull excufe me,
if, in this ftage — extremo fiih fine labonm, — I pafs
more lightly over fome objcdions of the fame
kind, which are peculiar to him. — The incredibi-
lity, that Chatterton Ihould have been acquainted
with Spenser, has been touched upon above,
p. 1 99.— He thinks that there is not the leajl de-
gree of probability, that Chatterton fhould have
known the n^ia of Walworth and Philpot
[Milles, p. 187], though they figure, as he partly
allows himfelf, in all the common hiftories of
England. — In another place, p. 370, he fays, " It
is by no means probable that Chatterton could
have known the reputation of the manufadure of
Lincoln cloth ;" though he has quoted himfelf two
paffages from old ballads about Robin Hood, in
which mantles and gowns of Lincoln-green arc
mentioned. — In his Introdu(flion to the Englijh
Met amor fhofi?, p. 354, he infills, " that the hif-
tory was beyond the compafs of Charterton's eru-
dition : he could not have underwood the original,
Geffrey of Monmouth ; and even the Enirlifh tranf-
lation, by Aaron Thompfon, is not commonly to
be
[ ^i8 ]
be met with/' But the Dean allows himfelf, that
this hiftory, or rather fable, is to be met vyith in
the tragedy of Locrine, contained in fome editions
of Shakespeare. It is alfo recited very much
at large in the Colh-^ion of Old Ballads [London,
.1726],, vol. II. p, I, — 5, abook wjiich Chatter-
TOi^ had certainly feen,; and in Stowe^s Chronicle^
whom I take to have been his principal hiflorian.
...But the Dean's moft formidable argument is
drawn from the Poem of the tournament -^ " the
ceremonial of which (he fays, p. 305) is fo well
adapted to the cuftoms of that age, that it could
not have been fo accurately defcribed by any fub-
fequent writer, who was not perfectly inflrufted
in the ancient formulary : Chatterton therefore
could not have been the author." That Chat-
terton was not perfectly intruded in the ancient
formulary of Tournaments, I can readily allow ;
but how has the Dean eftablilhed the other part
of his premifTes, " that the ceremonial in the
Poem is well adapted to the cuftoms of that age ?'*
Whether he means the age of Bourton, or that
of the fuppofed Rowley, it feems to me, that the
iiril and leading idea of the whole Poem, the in-
troduction of an alderman of Briftol tilting with
hnightSy muft have been not only ridiculous but
offcnfive in any age, while the true ceremonial of
tilts and tournaments was obferved. But, waiving
for the prefent that fundamental objtdion, I ^o
on
[ ~^9 ]
on to rem.irk iliortly, that the Herald, through-,
out the whole l^ocm, takes much more upon h)iii
than his office, which was merely miniilerial, could
warrant. — The form of challe72gd between Bolr-
T0\' and Neville; [ver. 87]
" I clavme the pallagc." " I contake thie waic;'*
is (juite unapplicable to a tiltiiigviatcb, in which
the two combatants ran in parallel lines, with a
low partition of wood or cloth between them,'
and their object was, not to ftop the paflage of
each other, but, in paffing, to break their refpec-
tive lances with a good grace. — The fequel of this,
when B;)URi0N replies, ver. 88,
*' Then there's m\z gauntlate en mie gaberdine,"
is equally incongruous. The Dean indeed has
obfervcd, that '' the ibrowhig doivn the gcmitlct
luns ihe ufual form cf challenge';'" and fo it was to
a due! 'y but where can he fhew an inflance of its
having been pradfifcd at a tilt'mg-matchf — The
arrangement propofed by De Bergham, ver. 105.
feq. and the orders of the Herald, ver. 121,
fcq. are, I am pcrfuadcd, quite fanciful, and un-
fupported by any ancient cullom ; though the
Dean has been pleafed to affert, " that the. lat-
ter are fo much in charadter, that they could not
have been did:ated by any perfon who was igno-
rant of the ceremonial, or a flran^er to ihe rules
of Tournament." I willi he had told us where
vvc may find that Cv:rcmonial and thole rules. — I
will
[ 220 ]
will only take notice of one more impropriety,
which is, that Bourton, the conqueror in the
tilts, is declared King; Kynge of 'Tourney-illtey
Ver. 155. That title, in fome countries, was given
to the Frefidents, or Judges^ of the Tournament,
but never, as far as I am informed, to the vid:o-
rious combatant. — When thefe things have been
duly confidered, the reader will determine, whe-
ther the poem of the Tournament is conftrufted
according to a formulary of really ancient ufages,
which lay out of the reach of Chatterton, or
whether it difplays that mixture of ignorance and
invention which marks him, in a peculiar manner,
for the author.
I will now conclude with a fingle obfervation
upon a matter, which, I think, has not yet been
properly attended to, or indeed fully flated.
Among the poems, which Chatterton pretended
to have tranfcribed from his Mff. belide thofe at-
tributed to Rowley, there are others under the
names of Canynge, Sir Thybbot Gorges, John
IscAMME, and Johne, fecond abbot of St. Auguf-
tine's, who is faid to have died in mccxv. (48)
(48) The Poems under the names of Canynge and Sir
Tl-ybbot Gorges are printed in my edition. " The pleafaunt
difcorfes (as they are called by the fuppofed Rowley) of
Mayftre 'John a IJeam^ hight the merr'ie tricks of Laming-
tOHy'' have been lately printed in the Dean of Exeter's edi-
tion, p. 183. I fliall inlert here the Poem attributed to
Abbot ^o/;«, as it ftands in my tranfcript of the Abbot's
Life, from what is called Rowley's " Lijl of fktllcd Painters
and
[ 221 ]
In all thefe we fee not only a fimilarity, but an
abfolute identity, of manner, language, verfifica-
»nd Carvellersy As this Life contains evidence oi Row-
ley's proficiency in the Greek language, of which his learned
advocates have not availed themfelves, I think it bat fair to
publifh the whole.
*' Johne, feconde abbotte of Seyndc Auguftynns, was a
manne well fkyllde ynn the languages of yore ; hee wrote
ynn the Greke tongc a poem onneRoberte Fitz Hardynge,
whyche as nie as Englyflie wylic ferve I have thus tranf-
placedd :
Wythe daityvc fteppe relyg}'onn dyghte yn greie,
Herr face of doleful hue,
Swyfte as a takel throwe bryghte hcav'nn tokc hcrrwaic.
And oft and ere anonn dydd faie.
Ah nice, whatte flialle I doe !
Sec Bryftowe cittie, whyche I nowc doe kennc
Aryfeing to mic vicwe,
Thycke throngde wythe foldyerrs rind traffyquc menne^,
Botte feyndes I feen fewe.
Fitz Hardynge rofe ; he rofe, 13'cke bryghte fonne ynn
the morne ;
Fayre Dame, adrie thyne eyne,
Lette all thys greefe bee myne,
Forrel v.ylle reere thee uppe a mynfterr hie,
(And wylle a inonckc bee fliorne)
The toppe whereoff fiiall reuchenn to the fkie.
Thanne dydd the Dame replie ;
1 ihall ne bee forlorne.
Hcere wylle I take a cheryfauniedd refte,
And fpende mie dales uppunne Fitz Hardynge's bfcile,
Norr was hec lackcynge ynne defcryptionncs of battles
and drcarc accountes, as yee male fee underre bic hymfchV.
onne Kynge Rycharde.
Harte of Lyonne ! fliake thie fwcrdc,
Bare thie morthie fternandc hondc,
Quace whol armies toe the Queede,
W'orkL' thie wylle ynn Eurlie Brond*.
BarreRi
[ 222 3
tion, S:c. fo that no one can doubt that they all
came from the fame author. Bur, though perhaps
phmfible rcafons may be affigned why the fup-
poled Rowley might have given out a few flight
copies of verfes under the names of his patron
Canynge and his friend Gorges, it is fcarce cre-
dible that he fliould have inferted in his *' Difcorfe
on Brijiowe^' a long poem of his own, as com-
pofed by John Iscamme; and flill lefs, that he
fhould have forged a poem under the name of
abbot John, who had ♦been dead above two hun-
dred years. Thefe Poems therefore cannot have
been written by the fuppofedRowLF.Y. But they,
as well as the Poems attributed to Rowley, un-
Barrens heere onne Bankcrrs broivded
fyghte ynne furrits 'genlle the Cale,
Whyleft thou ynne thonderynge maylc
Warrikethe whole cyttyes bale.
Harte of Lyonne ! foiinde the beme,
t^ounde ytt yntoe inner Londes,
Feere flyes fporteynge ynn the cleembe,
Ynne thie banneir terroure ftondes.
Thus mochc forr abbott Johannes poemies. Hre vv.is
ynndiiftedd 20. yeres, and dydd a6te as abbotte 9 yeres
before hys ynnduftyonne forr Phylyppe then abbotte. Hee
dyedde ynne M.CC.XV. beeynge bviryedde ynne hys albe
ynn the mynfterre."
If r.ny one can perceive any difii"erence of hand between
this po: m, attributed to abbot John, and thofe which pafs
under the name of the fuppofed Rowley, he miift poflefs
nnich greater powers of difcrimination, than fall to the
fliareof commoa»criticks,
doubtedly
[ 223 ]
doubtcdly came from one and the fame author ;
and I cannot fee the leaft ground for imaghiing,
that thc}^ could all have come from any one au-
thor except Chatterton.
THE END.
97S2 7
APR ^
v^
Form
Tills book is DUE on the last date stamped below
*^.V^j^j5 iqCA
University of California
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388
Return this material to the library
from which It was borrowed.
fV
1 3 ^158 003S4
6143
UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
l||tl|lll|lll II llll III I III III I 111 II
A A 000 176 233 5
Sou
Lil
.>h««*WWv«iiUliuiJULlkJLJkiLiiJ.«hdUf ] .
• #«««rt(kr%fH«#«MHIffffVWirHHll