The Project Gutenberg eBook of Cursory Observations on the Poems Attributed to Thomas Rowley (1782)

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Cursory Observations on the Poems Attributed to Thomas Rowley (1782)

Author: Edmond Malone

Commentator: James M. Kuist

Release date: June 14, 2009 [eBook #29116]

Most recently updated: January 5, 2021

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Louise Hope, Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and

the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at

https://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CURSORY OBSERVATIONS ON THE POEMS ATTRIBUTED TO THOMAS ROWLEY (1782) ***

This text includes characters that require UTF-8 (Unicode) file encoding, including a few lines of Greek:

⁂ [asterism]

œ [“oe” ligature]

Ἕκτορος ἀντικρὺ, βαλέειν δὲ ἑ ἵετο θυμός·

If any of these characters do not display properly, or if the apostrophes and quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, you may have an incompatible browser or unavailable fonts. First, make sure that the browser’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change your browser’s default font.

In addition to the ordinary page numbers, the printed text labeled the recto (odd) pages of the first four leaves of each 8-page signature. These will appear in the margin as A, A2...

For this e-text, footnote markers in the Cursory Observations have been changed from simple asterisks * to capital letters A*, and shorter footnotes are displayed as inset sidenotes. Other notes and markers are unchanged. All brackets are in the original.

Errors are shown with mouse-hover popups. In the Cursory Observations, the text was left as printed except when the error was unambiguous. In quoted verses, the use of y for þ (th) and z for ȝ (gh) is unchanged.

Introduction

Cursory Observations

Publisher’s Advertising

Augustan Reprints

THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY

EDMOND MALONE

CURSORY

OBSERVATIONS

ON THE

POEMS

ATTRIBUTED TO

THOMAS ROWLEY

(1782)

Introduction by

JAMES M. KUIST

PUBLICATION NUMBER 123

WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

1966

GENERAL EDITORS

George Robert Guffey, University of California, Los Angeles

Earl R. Miner, University of California, Los Angeles

Maximillian E. Novak, University of California, Los Angeles

Robert Vosper, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

ADVISORY EDITORS

Richard C. Boys, University of Michigan

James L. Clifford, Columbia University

Ralph Cohen, University of California, Los Angeles

Vinton A. Dearing, University of California, Los Angeles

Arthur Friedman, University of Chicago

Louis A. Landa, Princeton University

Samuel H. Monk, University of Minnesota

Everett T. Moore, University of California, Los Angeles

Lawrence Clark Powell, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

James Sutherland, University College, London

H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., University of California, Los Angeles

CORRESPONDING SECRETARY

Edna C. Davis, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

INTRODUCTION

Edmond Malone’s Cursory Observations was the most timely publication in the Rowley controversy. His work appeared just as the debate over the authenticity of the poems attributed to a fifteenth-century priest was, after twelve years, entering its most crucial phase. [1] These curious poems had come to the attention of the reading public in 1769, when Thomas Chatterton sent several fragments to the Town and Country Magazine. The suicide of the young poet in 1770 made his story of discovering ancient manuscripts all the more intriguing. When Thomas Tyrwhitt published the first collected edition in March of 1777, [2] speculation about whether the poems were the work of Rowley or Chatterton began in earnest. Malone arrived in London two months later to take up permanent residence, and very likely he soon became in private “a professed anti-Rowleian.” [3] But during the late 1770’s, although anonymous writers filled the periodicals with pronouncements on both sides of the question, there was no urgent need to demonstrate that the poems were spurious. The essay which Tyrwhitt appended to the third edition of Rowley poems in 1778 [4] and Thomas Warton’s chapter in his History of English Poetry [5] seemed to show with sufficient authority that the poems could not have been written in the fifteenth century. The Rowleians, however, were diligently preparing their arguments, [6] and late in 1781 they at last came forward with massive scholarly support for the Rowley story.

On the first of December, Jacob Bryant published his voluminous Observations upon the Poems of Thomas Rowley: in which the authenticity of those poems is ascertained. [7] Some ten days later, Jeremiah Milles, Dean of Exeter and President of the Society of Antiquaries, brought out his own “edition” of the poems, with a commentary providing extensive historical proof of what Bryant “ascertained.” [8] The remarks of Warton and Tyrwhitt suddenly seemed hasty and superficial. Warton had clearly outlined his reasons for skepticism, but he offered to show “the greatest deference to decisions of much higher authority.” [9] Tyrwhitt had also hesitated to be dogmatic. He saw fit to suggest that, since Chatterton had always been equivocal, the authenticity of the poems could be judged only on internal grounds. Merely to show what might be gleaned from the poems themselves, he examined “part of the internal evidence,” the language, and specifically “a part only of this part, viz. ... words, considered with respect to their significations and inflexions.” [10] Thus, when the apparently exhaustive work of Bryant and Milles was published, the Rowleians could well feel that the burden of proof now rested with the other side. Tyrwhitt and Warton had command of the proof they needed, and eventually they won over all but the fanatics. [11] But for the moment any answers they could make to Bryant and Milles would seem to be merely defensive. At this hour, the position which they represented needed new support from someone who could bring a fresh perspective into the debate and, if possible, throw the confident Rowleians into confusion. Edmond Malone’s observations served precisely these ends.

Malone must have set to work as soon as the books of Bryant and Milles appeared. [12] At any rate, he rushed his essay into print. His friend John Nichols published it, over the signature “Misopiclerus,” in the December issue and yearly Supplement of the Gentleman’s Magazine, which went into circulation early in January. [13] To appear in these numbers, Malone’s essay had to be in Nichols’ hands not long after the middle of December, for copy was already going to press by then. [14] Doubtless he now put to use many ideas which had occurred to him as the controversy developed. But the origin of the essay was clearly his response, not simply to the poems and the controversy surrounding them, but specifically to what Milles and Bryant had written. His questioning of their competence to settle literary questions is his most basic justification of his own analysis. His refutations of their arguments give substance to every stage of his reasoning. And even though in the Gentleman’s Magazine the essay is divided into two installments, its continuity and stylistic cohesiveness indicate that Malone wrote it purposefully at a time when his thoughts were unified by a clear provocation.

A letter which Malone wrote to Lord Charlemont in Ireland on 8 January 1782 reveals something of the seriousness with which, beneath their merriment, Malone and others regarded the Rowleian manifesto:

The Rowley controversy, about which you enquire, is going on ding-dong. Dr. Milles’s quarto and Mr. Bryant’s octavos are on my table, ready to be packed in your parcel. They have said everything that could be said on their side of the question, and have staggered some. Warton is preparing an answer, which will be out soon; only a shilling pamphlet. The cautious Tyrwhitt is slower in his operations. He means, I belive, to enter deeply into the business, and it will therefore be some time before we shall see his vindication. I am, you know, a professed anti-Rowleian, and have just sent a little brat into the world to seek his fortune. As I did not choose to sign my name, I preferred, for the sake of a more general perusal, to give my cursory remarks to a magazine, in consequence of which they appear rather awkwardly, one half in that for December and the other in the supplement, which is to be published in a few days. When I can get a perfect copy, I will send it to you, for I flatter myself your partiality to me will incline you to run your eye over it, notwithstanding your leaning to the other side of the question. Tyrwhitt wants me still to make a pamphlet of it, in order to bind up with all the other pieces which that most wonderful youth, Chatterton, has given occasion to. [15]

While his little brat was diverting the wide audience of the Gentleman’s Magazine, Malone was busy arranging for it to make a more damaging sally. Tyrwhitt may have asked for a more convenient text; what Malone gave him was a better essay. He seems to have spent the entire month revising his work, for the pamphlet was not ready until early in February. As late as 7 February, writers commenting on the essay referred to and even quoted from the Gentleman’s Magazine. [16] On 4 February, Horace Walpole, writing to thank Malone for sending him a copy of Cursory Observations, said that he had been “earnestly wishing” for such a present because Malone’s remarks were “far too good to be committed only to the few hours of life of a newspaper.” [17]

The pamphlet was first advertised in the St. James’s Chronicle, in which developments in the Rowley controversy were usually announced promptly, until No. 3266 (9-12 Feb.). This and all other advertisements of the pamphlet were for the version of Malone’s essay which the author sent to Walpole some days earlier: “the second edition, revised and augmented.” [18] This phrase on the title-page has led scholars to miss the significance which Malone himself found in the pamphlet. The phrase does not indicate, as bibliographies have heretofore stated, that the pamphlet achieved a second printing. It emphasizes that in the pamphlet Malone revised and expanded considerably the essay which made its first appearance in the Gentleman’s Magazine.

Every page in the pamphlet bears evidence of Malone’s revision. [19] It was necessary, of course, to re-orient the essay, which after the formula of the Gentleman’s Magazine was addressed to Mr. Urban. At least one passage, which carried a slur upon publishers, may have been changed to suit Mr. Nichols. [20] But more indicative of his carefulness are his revisions of words and phrases. “The whole fabrick” of Chatterton’s poems became “the beautiful fabrick” (p. 12). The “practice of knitting,” which Malone wished to show had not developed as early as the fifteenth century, he now called “the art of knitting” (p. 24). When he found that he had not questioned emphatically enough “the antiquity of these MSS,” he added the phrase “not of one, but of all” (p. 31). Malone attended to the more general stylistic aspects of his essay as well as to minute details. If he paused to recompute the number of parchments which could fit into the famous Bristol chests (p. 59), he also changed the simple declarative “I shall” to the more forceful “I will” throughout the essay. Although his verbal revisions cannot be called drastic, they are numerous and are frequently strategic.

Malone’s expansion of his essay, however, was in itself ample reason to call the pamphlet a “new edition.” The reviewer for the Gentleman’s Magazine might assure readers that “great part of this pamphlet” had already appeared there, [21] but there were also “great” additions. What Malone came to consider Bryant’s “most plausible argument” (“that every author must know his own meaning—that Chatterton did not know the meaning of many words and lines in his book, and therefore was not the author”), he answered in an entirely new passage (pp. 41-45). He observed later that “almost every writer on the subject” subsequently “adopted” this rebuttal. [22] Another crucial section (pp. 45-49), in which Malone compares a modernized passage from “Rowley” with a passage from Chatterton’s acknowledged poetry translated into Rowleian verse, was also new. This critical technique, which Malone perfected, became a standard one thereafter. [23] Malone added six other passages, none of which is less than half a page in length, as well as five footnotes documenting or elaborating points which he had made in the magazine. [24] The most heavily augmented part of the essay is that containing miscellaneous proofs, but Malone bolstered his initial arguments as well. In his comparison of “Rowley’s” smooth versification with the work of authentic late-medieval poets—the passage which, as we shall see, Tyrwhitt thought so effective—Malone introduced two further quotations and substituted the first lines from Bradshaw’s Holy Life for those he had quoted in the magazine. [25] Malone’s additions to his essay, which taken together amount to some twenty pages (in a pamphlet of sixty-two pages), represent a careful effort to support with an irresistable battery of arguments the main line of attack which he had thrown against the Rowleians.

As his second paragraph and his appeals to “poetical readers” indicate, Malone’s fundamental message was that the Rowley poems must be judged as literature and not as historical documents. The poems had, of course, found many appreciative readers. A correspondent in the Gentleman’s Magazine in 1777 (XLVII, 361-365), for instance, discussed with frank admiration the imagery, pathetic sentiment, accommodation of sound to sense and other aspects of the poems. It was Malone, however, who got to the heart of the matter in showing that poetry inevitably bears the hallmark of the era in which it is written. Even to appreciate the importance of this fact, he insisted, one must have read the early English poets with perception and taste. In establishing this criterion, Malone delivered his most devastating blow against the Rowleians: all their learned arguments were irrelevant.

Malone’s essay helped to awaken some very witty attacks on the Rowleians. Malone himself made use of wit in occasional passages, such as his abuse of Milles for relying on Shakespeare’s historical accuracy (pp. 22-24). The cure for Rowleiomania which he prescribed in the concluding passage aroused a good deal of comment. Not all readers were happy that he chose to ridicule respectable scholars, [26] and the effectiveness of his humor did not go unquestioned. Burnaby Greene, whose Strictures were the only major attempt to discredit Malone, was anxious to show that, although Malone seemed to promise humor, he did not prove to be “a writer abounding in exertions of the risible muscles.” [27] Among the replies to Greene were some jovial verses in the St. James’s Chronicle very likely contributed by Malone:

Says Bryant to Burnaby, what do you mean?

The Cause of old Rowley you’ve ruin’d quite clean.

I had taught Folk to think, by my learned Farrago,

That Drydens and Popes wrote three Centuries ago;

Though they stared at my Comments, and sometimes might slumber,

Yet the Truth they might fancy beneath all my Lumber:

But your stupid Jargon is seen through instanter,

And your Works give the Wits new Subjects for Banter.

Such cler-obscure Aid may I meet again never!

For now Milles and I will be laugh’d at for ever. [28]

Greene’s criticisms are frequently absurd, but probably even Malone was ready to acknowledge that humor was not the outstanding feature of the Cursory Observations. His purpose was not to satirize but to refute.

Other writers in 1782, however, exerted their risible muscles much more vigorously than Malone did. William Julius Mickle wrote The Prophecy of Queen Emma; An Ancient Ballad lately discovered, written by Johannes Turgotus, Prior of Durham, in the Reign of William Rufus, to which he added a long satirical postscript about the discovery of the poem. George Hardinge’s Rowley and Chatterton in the Shades brilliantly depicts various scenes in the other world after news of the Rowley controversy is carried there. The most hilarious performance of the year—indeed, of the entire controversy—was the Archaeological Epistle to Dean Milles, published by John Nichols at the end of March, [29] which turned the language of the Rowley poems ingeniously against the two fumbling historians. Such pieces would have appeared whether or not Malone had written the Cursory Observations. The general reader was likely to find ridiculous the sober effort to document Rowley’s existence. As a contributor to the St. James’s Chronicle said, “To mistake the Apprentice of a modern Attorney for an ancient Priest, too nearly resembles an Incident in the new Pantomime at Covent-Garden, where a Bailiff, intent on arresting an old Beau, is imposed on by a Monkey dressed in his Clothes, and employed in an awkward Imitation of his Manners.” [30] But ridicule could hurt the Rowleians only if their confidence had been penetrated already. Malone delivered his strokes two months before any of the others, and the strength of his diversified attack made it possible for the wits to strike home.

Throughout 1782, the Cursory Observations remained at the forefront of the reaction to Milles and Bryant. In March, William Mason wrote Walpole that he understood “a Mr. Malone” was “the proto-antagonist” of the Rowleians. [31] As late as the August issue of the Gentleman’s Magazine appeared an “Ode, Addressed to Edmond Malone, Esq. on his presuming to examine the learned and unanswerable Arguments urged by Jacob Bryant, Esq. and the Rev. Dr. Milles....” [32] Perhaps the fairest contemporary appraisal of Malone’s work was given in the June issue of the Critical Review. Although the reviewer felt that some of Malone’s proofs, such as the anachronism of “knitting white hosen,” [33] were as elusive as those of the antiquaries, he found the method of comparing “Rowley” and other poets illuminating, and the “miscellaneous observations” he considered “frequently important, and often decisive.” On the whole, the reviewer said, “Mr. Malone deserves much praise for his very clear and comprehensive view” of the controversy. [34]

In their replies to Bryant and Milles, both Warton and Tyrwhitt referred appreciatively to the Cursory Observations. Warton found that he had duplicated Malone’s method of rewriting Chatterton’s acknowledged poetry. In a footnote, he said: “The ingenious author of Cursory Observations on the Poems of Rowley, has been beforehand with me in this sort of tryal. But mine was made, before I had seen his very sensible and conclusive performance.” [35] Tyrwhitt went so far as to let Malone speak for him: “From the Language, I might go on to examine the Versification of these Poems; but I think it sufficient to refer the reader, who may have any doubts upon this point, to the specimens of really ancient poetry, with which the verses of the pretended Rowley have lately been very judiciously contrasted. Whoever reads those specimens, if he has an ear, must be convinced, that the authors of them and of the Poems did not live within the same period.” [36] A century after Tyrwhitt, in a re-examination of the Rowley poems which is in many ways the final word on the subject, W. W. Skeat recommended Tyrwhitt’s Vindication, the chapter in Warton’s History, and the Cursory Observations as the three contemporary analyses of the poems which a reader should consult. [37] The pamphlet is now offered to twentieth-century readers as an illustration of the mature and versatile critical powers of one of the eighteenth-century’s great scholars.

NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION

1. A good general account of the controversy can be found in E. H. W. Meyerstein’s A Life of Thomas Chatterton (London, 1930). I wish to thank the University of Western Ontario for the grant enabling me to work at the British Museum and Bodleian Library. I am indebted to my colleague Herbert Berry for his useful suggestions.

2. Poems, supposed to have been written at Bristol, by Thomas Rowley and Others, in the Fifteenth Century; the greatest part now first published from the most authentic copies, with an engraved specimen of one of the MSS.... The earliest advertisement that I have seen for this edition is in the London Chronicle, No. 3158 (1-4 March 1777).

3. Until Professor James M. Osborn’s biography of Malone is ready, Sir James Prior’s Life (London, 1860) remains standard. Concerning Malone’s private opinions about Rowley, see his letter to Charlemont quoted below.

4. A convenient reprinting of this edition is The Rowley Poems by Thomas Chatterton, ed. M. E. Hare (Oxford, 1911).

5. II (London, 1778), 139-164—perhaps more accessible in Richard Price’s edition of the History, II (London, 1840), 338-360.

6. Letters from Francis Woodward to Lord Charlemont on 21 July 1778 and 8 April 1779 give brief accounts of the progress of Milles’ research. See the Twelfth Report of the Historical MSS Commission, Appendix X: The Manuscripts and Correspondence of James, First Earl of Charlemont (London, 1891), I, 340-341 and 345.

7. An advertisement in the St. James’s Chronicle, No. 3233 (24-27 Nov.) says that the Observations will be published “Saturday next.” An advertisement in No. 3235 (29 Nov.-1 Dec.) says that the Observations “this day were published.” The latter phrase was often used in consecutive advertisements of a work during this period, but in view of the announcement in No. 3233, it would seem that Bryant’s work did appear on 1 Dec.

8. Milles reprinted Tyrwhitt’s edition (except for the “Appendix,” Tyrwhitt’s essay against the authenticity of the poems), correcting the errata and adding a few new pieces. His commentary includes a long answer to Tyrwhitt, a “Preliminary Dissertation,” introductions to various poems, and footnotes throughout the text. Since 1782 is the year imprinted on the title-page, bibliographies have always given this as the year of publication. But No. 3239 of the St. James’s Chronicle (8-11 Dec. 1781) advertises the work as published. A MS note by Joseph Haslewood in a pamphlet at the British Museum (shelf-mark C.39.f.16) mentions his having seen a copy of Milles’ work which Richard Gough obtained on 12 Dec. 1781.

9. History, ed. Price, II, 340.

10. Rowley Poems, ed. Hare, p. 311.

11. See Meyerstein, Life, pp. 472-474. Warton’s reply, advertised in the St. James’s Chronicle in No. 3280 (14-16 March 1782) to be published “in a few Days,” was An Enquiry into the Authenticity of the Poems attributed to Thomas Rowley. In which the arguments of the Dean of Exeter, and Mr. Bryant are examined. Tyrwhitt’s reply, first advertised in the St. James in No. 3342 (6-8 Aug. 1782), was A Vindication of the Appendix to the Poems, called Rowley’s . . . .

12. The only earlier replies were obscure squibs in the newspapers. See the St. James’s Chronicle, Nos. 3238 (6-8 Dec., against Bryant), 3240 (11-13 Dec., against Bryant), and 3245 (22-25 Dec., against both).

13. LI (1781), 555-559, 609-615. On its publishing schedule during the 18th century, see the Gentleman’s Magazine, N.S., I (July-Dec., 1856), 9. Neither the magazine nor the pamphlet mentioned Malone’s authorship, but his hand in “the new Pamphlet,” at least, was soon recognized (see the St. James’s Chronicle, No. 3268, 14-16 Feb. 1782). One can only speculate whether Malone and Nichols were fellow plotters from the beginning. They seem to have taken interest in each other’s work as early as 1779, when Nichols printed for Malone special copies of some early analogues to Shakespeare’s plays. See Albert H. Smith, “John Nichols, Printer and Publisher,” The Library, 5th Ser., XVIII (1963), 182-183. And evidently Nichols had an eye out for anti-Rowleian materials. At his solicitation, Horace Walpole allowed the Letter to the Editor of the [Chatterton] Miscellanies (Strawberry Hill, 1779) to be reprinted in the Gentleman’s Magazine in 1782 (LII, 189-195, 247-250, 300, and 347-348).

14. Nichols’ printing operations are described in a pamphlet by David Bond, Friendship Strikingly exhibited in a New Light (London, 1781).

15. Charlemont Correspondence, I, 393-394. I wish to thank Professor Osborn for calling my attention to this letter.

16. See the Gentleman’s Magazine, LII (1782), 14-15, and the St. James’s Chronicle, Nos. 3257 (19-22 Jan.) and 3264 (5-7 Feb.).

17. The Letters of Horace Walpole, ed. Paget Toynbee, XII (Oxford, 1904), 152.

18. Concerning Walpole’s copy, see Horace Walpole’s Correspondence, Yale Ed., ed. W. S. Lewis et al., XVI (New Haven, 1952), 363. I have found no trace of any other version of the pamphlet, and it is doubtful that there was time for one to be published between 8 Jan., when Malone wrote to Charlemont, and 31 Jan., the date of the “Advertisement” printed in the “revised and augmented” edition. We may presume that as editor of the magazine Nichols would not be anxious for another printing of the essay during Jan. to compete with two numbers in which the essay was a principal feature. All copies of the pamphlet which I have been able to locate specify “the second edition, revised and augmented.” In my examination of six copies (at the Library of Congress, the Bodleian, and the British Museum), I found variation only in the catchword on p. 32. Although the first word on p. 33 is “comprise” in all copies, the catchword in three copies (Bodleian, and British Museum shelf-marks 687.g.33 and 78.i.9) is “contain,” the word Malone used in the magazine.* Since the copies are otherwise identical, repeating distinctive flaws and errors (note, for instance, “written,” p. 19), I judge that this discrepancy was seen and corrected at press, and that all copies are of one printing.

* In this edition, the catchword is “comprise”.

19. Besides the added paragraphs and footnotes, I have noted 235 separate textual changes. Undoubtedly some deviations in spelling and punctuation were the printer’s work. But the number of changes in quoted passages (see especially pp. 16 and 60) and the regularity of changes (like those noted above) which evidently serve a stylistic purpose suggest the author’s meticulous revision.

20. In reference to Bryant’s Observations (advertised at 8s.), Malone had said, “by an unwarrentable artifice of the bookseller, it is divided into two, to furnish a pretence for demanding an uncommon price.” Compare with this the statement on p. 2.

21. LII (1782), 128.

22. See Malone’s letter of 19 Nov. 1782 in Charlemont Correspondence, I, 422.

23. See Meyerstein, Life, p. 474, and Warton’s comment (n. 35).

24. The other passages are on pp. 19-22, 23, 25, 49-50, 51-57, and 57-58. The new footnotes are on pp. 10, 24-25, 29, 33, and 50.

Links to “other passages” are conjectural.

25. That he had quoted out of Warton’s History the passages from Hoccleve and Bradshaw, not having other texts readily at hand, indicates Malone’s haste to publish the essay originally. He retained the Hoccleve passage (p. 6); his point about Warton’s basis of selection is effective. But, perhaps feeling that two such citations weakened the point, he took the trouble to bring the quotation from Bradshaw into conformity with the other examples.

26. The reviewer for the Gentleman’s Magazine commented that Malone’s “levity” and his ridicule of “respectable characters” could “only reflect on himself”—LII (1782), 128. According to Joseph Haslewood (see n. 8), the magazine’s reviewer at this time was Richard Gough, who devoted much of his life to antiquarian studies. For the opposite reaction to Malone’s “cure,” see the St. James’s Chronicle, No. 3289 (4-6 April 1782), and the Critical Review, LIII (1782), 418.

27. Strictures Upon a Pamphlet entitled, Cursory Observations on the Poems attributed to Rowley, A Priest of the Fifteenth Century (London, 1782), p. 3.

28. No. 3311 (25-28 May). In a vol. of clippings at the British Museum relating to the controversy (shelf-mark C.39.h.20), Joseph Haslewood wrote “E. Malone” beneath this poem. Haslewood attributed certain other items in the St. James at this time to “G. Steevens” and appears to have been reporting first-hand information.

29. Today scholars attribute the Epistle to William Mason, whose letters to Walpole certainly imply that he wrote it but was zealous to conceal the fact. See Walpole’s Correspondence, ed. W. S. Lewis, XXIX (New Haven, 1955), 168-169, 175, 182, 189-190, 199-200; and Philip Gaskell, The First Editions of William Mason (Cambridge, 1951), p. 26. The man who published the Epistle, however, says confidently, “this admirable Poem, very generally ascribed at the time to Mr. Mason, was written by John Baynes, Esq. and handed to the press by his intimate friend John Watson Reed, Esq.” Mason’s furtiveness may, of course, have fooled even the publisher. The periodicals of the day bear out at least Nichols’ word (contrary to what Gaskell says) that the work was immediately received as Mason’s. Besides this pamphlet and Malone’s, Nichols printed Tyrwhitt’s Vindication (for the publishers T. Payne and Son). In a letter to Nichols on 18 March 1782, George Steevens commented, “Your house seems to be the forge from which Anti-Rowleian thunders of every kind are to be issued.” For all of the above information, see Nichols’ Literary Anecdotes, VIII (London, 1815), 113.

30. No. 3257 (19-22 Jan. 1782).

31. Walpole’s Correspondence, ed. Lewis, XXIX, 195.

32. LII (1782), 379-381.

33. A series of articles on this very topic in Malone’s article illustrates how elusive such proofs were. See the Gentleman’s Magazine, LI (1781), 609; LII (1782), 76, 168, 229, 434, 471; LIII (1783), 38-39, 127.

34. Critical Review, LIII (1782), 418-419.

35. Enquiry, pp. 92-93.

36. Vindication, p. 82. A footnote refers the reader to the Cursory Observations.

37. The Poetical Works of Thomas Chatterton, II (London, 1890), xlv.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Edmond Malone’s Cursory Observations on the Poems Attributed to Thomas Rowley is reproduced from a copy at the Beinecke Library of Yale University.

CURSORY OBSERVATIONS

ON THE

P  O  E  M  S

ATTRIBUTED TO

THOMAS ROWLEY,

A PRIEST of the Fifteenth Century:

WITH

SOME REMARKS

On the COMMENTARIES on those Poems, by the Rev. Dr. JEREMIAH MILLES, Dean of Exeter, and JACOB BRYANT, Esq;

AND

A SALUTARY PROPOSAL

Addressed to the Friends of those Gentlemen.

THE SECOND EDITION, REVISED AND AUGMENTED.

——  Ridentem dicere verum

Quid vetat?

HOR.

LONDON

Printed for J. NICHOLS, and sold by J. WALTER, Charing Cross;

R. FAULDER, New Bond street; J. SEWELL, Cornhill;

and E. NEWBERY, Ludgate street.

M.DCC.LXXXII.

[Price One Shilling and Six-Pence]

ADVERTISEMENT.

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

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

January 31, 1782.

CURSORY OBSERVATIONS

ON THE

P O E M S

ATTRIBUTED TO

THOMAS ROWLEY.

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

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

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

“Wincing she was, as is a jolly colt,

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

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

Let us bring this matter to a very fair test. Any quotation from particular parts of old poetry is liable to suspicion, and may be thought to be selected by the advocates on one side as remarkably harmonious, or by those on the other as uncommonly rugged and uncouth. I will therefore transcribe the first four lines of as many ancient poems as are now lying before me; and I request that they may be compared with the opening of the Battle of Hastings, No 1, the piece which happens to stand first in the new quarto edition of Chatterton’s works.

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

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

“How many a noble earl and val’rous knight

“In fighting for king Harold nobly fell,

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

Or, as Chatterton himself acknowledged this to be a forgery, perhaps it will be more proper to quote the beginning of the Battle of Hastings, No 2, which he asserted to be a genuine, ancient composition:

“O Truth! immortal daughter of the skies,

“Too little known to writers of these days,

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

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

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

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

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

“In habit as an hermet, unholye of werkes,

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

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

“Whanne that April with his shoures sote

“The droughte of March hath perced to the rote,

“And bathed every veine in swiche licour,

“Of whiche vertue engendred is the flour—.”

The Confessio Amantis of Gower, who died in 1402, begins thus: [Berthelette’s edit. 1532.]

“I maye not stretche uppe to the heven

“Myn honde, ne set al in even

“This worlde, whiche ever is in balaunce,

“It stant not in my suffisaunce—— .”

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

“Aristotle, most famous philosofre,

“His epistles to Alisaunder sent,

“Whos sentence is wel bet then golde in cofre,

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

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

“Cupide, unto whose commaundement

“The gentill kinrede of goddes on hie

“And people infernall ben obedient,

“And al mortal folke serven busely,

“Of the goddesse sonne Cythera onely,

“To al tho that to our deite

“Ben subjectes, hertely greting sende we.”

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

“O myghty Mars, that with thy sterne lyght

“In armys hast the power and the myght,

“And named arte from easte tyl occident

“The myghty lorde, the god armipotent,

“That with the shininge of thy stremes rede

“By influence dost the brydell lede

“Of chivalrie, as soveraygne and patron—.”

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

“Men may finde in olde bookes,

“Who soo yat in them lookes,

“That men may mooche here,

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

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

“Le douzty Artours dawes

“That held Engelond in good lawe,

“Ther fell a wondyr cas

“Of a ley that was ysette—— .”

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

“Truly I heard Robert Ireliffeè say,

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

“Came every daye, forth most part alway,

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

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

“Wherefore he would set up in higth

“That bridge, for a wonderful sight,

“With pinnacles guilt, shinynge as goulde,

“A glorious thing for men to behoulde.”

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

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

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

“How many maner bestes of venery there were,

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

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

“I warne you first at the begynnynge,

“That I will make no vaine carpynge,

“Of dedes of armes, ne of amours,

“As does Mynstrellis and Gestours—— .”

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

“Of these sayynges Christyne was the aucturesse,

“Which in makyn had such intelligence,

“That thereof she was mireur and maistresse;

“Her werkes testifie thexperience;

“In Frensh languaige was written this sentence;

“And thus englished doth hit reherse

“Antoin Widevylle therle Ryvers.”

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

“When Phebus had ronne his cours in sagittari,

“And Capricorne entred a sygne retrograt,

“Amyddes Decembre, the ayre colde and frosty,

“And pale Lucyna the erthe dyd illuminat,

“I rose up shortly fro my cubycle preparat,

“Aboute mydnyght, and cast in myne intent

“How I myght spende the tyme convenyent.”

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

“When Phebus entred was in Geminy,

“Shinyng above, in his fayre golden sphere,

“And horned Dyane, then but one degre

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

A*  This very rare poem escaped the researches of the learned and ingenious Mr. Warton, who doubted whether it had ever been printed. See his Hist. of Eng. Poetry, vol. II. p. 211.

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

“In September, in fallynge of the lefe,

“Whan Phebus made his inclynacyon,

“And all the whete gadred was in the shefe,

“By radyaunt hete and operacyon,

“When the vyrgyn had full dominacyon,

“And Dyane entred was one degre

“Into the sygne of Gemyne—— ”

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

“Arrestynge my sight towarde the zodiake

“The signes xii for to beholde a farre,

“When Mars retrogaunt reversed his backe,

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

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

To be more particular: In what poet of the time of Edward IV., or for a century afterwards, will the Dean of Exeter find what we frequently meet with in the Battle of Hastings, No 1, and No 2, at the conclusion of speeches—“Thus he;”—“Thus Leofwine;”—“He said; and as,” &c? In none I am confident. This latter is a form of expression in heroick poetry, that Pope has frequently made use of in his Homer (from whence Chatterton undoubtedly copied it), and was sometimes employed by Dryden and Cowley; but I believe it will not be easy to trace it to Harrington or Spenser; most assuredly it cannot be traced up to the fifteenth century.—— In what English poem of that age will he find similies dressed in the modern garb with which Chatterton has clothed them throughout these pieces?—“As when a flight of cranes, &c.—So prone,” &c.—“As when a drove of wolves, &c. So fought,” &c. &c.—If the reverend Antiquarian can find this kind of phraseology in any one poet of the time of King Edward IV., or even for fifty years afterwards, I will acknowledge the antiquity of every line contained in his quarto volume. Most assuredly neither he nor his colleague can produce any such instance. Even in the latter end of the sixteenth century, (a large bound from 1460,) poetical comparisons, of the kind here alluded to, were generally expressed either thus—“Look how the crown that Ariadne wore, &c. So,” &c. “Look how a comet at the first appearing, &c. So did the blazing of my blush,” &c. “Look how the world’s poor people are amazed, &c. So,” &c.—Or thus: “Even as an empty eagle sharpe by fast, &c.—Even so,” &c.—“Like as a taper burning in the darke, &c. So,” &c.—Such is the general style of the latter end of the sixteenth century; though sometimes (but very rarely) the form that Chatterton has used was also employed by Spenser and others. In the preceding century, if I am not much mistaken, it was wholly unknown.

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

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

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

“My love is dead,

“Gone to her death-bed,

“All under the willow tree—— ”

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

“And will he not come again?

“And will he not come again?

“No, no, he is dead;

“Go to thy death-bed,

“He never will come again.”

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

So also in the Battle of Hastings we find

“In agonies and pain he then did lie,

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

clearly from Shakspeare:

“That Death and Nature do contend about them,

“Whether they live or die.”

So also in Ella:

“Fen-vapours blast thy every manly power!”

taken from the same author:

“As wicked dew as e’er my mother brushed

“With raven’s feather from unwholesome fen,

“Light on you both!”   [Tempest.]

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

“To fall and blast &c.”   [King Lear.]

Thus again in Ella:

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

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

from the Dunciad:

“O thou, whatever title please thine ear,

“Dean, Drapier, &c.”

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

In the Battle of Hastings we meet

“His noble soul came rushing from the wound—”

B*  It is observable, that this is the last line of the translation of the Æneid.

from Dryden’s Virgil—

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

and in Sir Charles Bawdin,

“And tears began to flow;” [1]

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

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

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

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

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

—— “Siere de Broque an arrowe longe lett flie,

Intending Herewaldus to have sleyne;

It miss’d, but hytte Edardus on the eye,

And at his pole came out with horrid payne.”

So Homer (says the Commentator):

——— ὀϊστὸν ἀπὸ νευρῆφιν ἴαλλεν

Ἕκτορος ἀντικρὺ, βαλέειν δὲ ἑ ἵετο θυμός‧

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

Υἱὸν ἐῢν Πριάμοιο, κατὰ στῆθος βάλεν ἰῷ.

Il. Θ. v. 300.

“He said, and twang’d the string, the weapon flies

“At Hector’s breast, and sings along the skies;

“He miss’d the mark, but pierc’d Gorgythio’s heart.”

POPE, B. viii. v. 365.

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

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

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

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

“His shaft smit faire Gorgythion.”

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

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

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

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

“What pleasure it is to be married!”

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

“The spinsters and the knitters in the sun,

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

“Did use to chaunt.”

Twelfth Night, Act II. Sc. 4.

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

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

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

“The spinsters and the knitters in the sun,

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

“Do use to chaunt it.”

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

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

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

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

“Richard of lion’s heart to fight is gone.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H*  The following notices, which Mr. Walpole has preserved, are too curious to be omitted. They will give the reader a full idea of the professed authorship of Chatterton. In a list of pieces written by him, but never published, are the following:

5. “TO LORD NORTH. A Letter signed the MODERATOR, and dated May 26, 1770, beginning thus: “My Lord—It gives me a painful pleasure, &c.—This (says Mr. W.) is an encomium on administration for rejecting the Lord Mayor Beckford’s Remonstrance.

6. A Letter to Lord Mayor Beckford, signed PROBUS, dated May 26, 1770.—This is a violent abuse of Government for rejecting the Remonstrance, and begins thus: “When the endeavours of a spirited people to free themselves from an insupportable slavery”—— . On the back of this essay, which is directed to Chatterton’s friend, Cary, is this indorsement:

“Accepted by Bingley—set for and thrown out of The North Briton, 21 June, on account of the Lord Mayor’s death.

Lost by his death on this Essay

1 11 6

Gained in Elegies

2   2 0

———– in Essays

3   3 0

Am glad he is dead by

3 13 6”

I†  Chatterton wrote also “a Monks Tragedy,” which, if his forgeries had met with a more favourable reception than they did, he would doubtless have produced as an ancient composition. With the ardour of true genius, he wandered to the untrodden paths of the little Isle of Man for a subject, and aspired

petere inde coronam,

Unde prius nulli velarint tempora Musæ.

Almost every part of the Dissertation on this tragedy is as open to observation as that now mentioned. It is not true, as is asserted, (p. 175.) that the rythmical tales, before called tragedies, first assumed a regular dramatick form in the time of king Edward IV. These melancholy tales went under the name of tragedies for above a century afterwards. Many of the pieces of Drayton were called tragedies in the time of Queen Elizabeth, though he is not known to have ever written a single drama. But without staying to point out all the mistakes of the reverend critick on this subject, I recommend to those readers who wish to form a decided opinion on these poems, the same test for the tragedy of Ella that I have already suggested for the Battle of Hastings. If they are not furnished with any of our dramatick pieces in the original editions, let them only cast their eyes on those ancient interludes which take up the greater part of Mr. Hawkins’s first volume of The Origin of the English Drama (the earliest of them composed in 1512); and I believe they will not hesitate to pronounce Ella a modern composition. The dramas which are yet extant (if they can deserve that name), composed between the years 1540 and 1570, are such wretched stuff, that nothing but antiquarian curiosity can endure to read a page of them. Yet the period I speak of is near a century after the era of the pretended Rowley.

The argument of Mr. B. on this subject is too curious to be omitted: “I am sensible (says he, in his Observations, p. 166,) that the plays mentioned above [the Chester Mysteries] seem to have been confined to religious subjects.—But though the monks of the times confined themselves to these subjects, it does not follow that people of more learning and genius were limited in the same manner. As plays certainly existed, the plan might sometimes be varied; and the transition from sacred history to profane, was very natural and easy. Many generous attempts may have been made towards the improvement of the rude drama, and the introduction of compositions on a better model: but the ignorance of the monks, and the depraved taste of the times, may have prevented such writings being either countenanced or preserved. It may be said, that we have no examples of any compositions of this sort. But this is begging the question; while we have the plays of Ælla and Godwin before us.        K*  In the same manner argues the learned pewterer of Bristol, Mr. George Catcott. These poems are certainly genuine, “for Rowley himself mentions them in the YELLOW ROLL.” See his letter in the Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. XLVIII. p. 348. The former is particularly transmitted to us as Rowley’s K*.” I believe no reader will be at a loss to determine, who it is that in this case begs the question. Here we have another remarkable instance of that kind of circular proof of which I have already taken notice.

In the multitude of topicks agitated by these commentators, I had almost forgot one, much relied upon by the last-mentioned gentleman. It is the name of Widdeville, which, we are informed, (p. 317.) is written in all the old chronicles Woodville; and the question is triumphantly asked, “how could Chatterton, in his Memoirs of Cannynge, [Miscell. p. 119.] vary from all these chronicles?—Where could he have found the name of Widdeville except in one of those manuscripts to which we are so much beholden?” If the learned commentator’s book should arrive at a second edition, I recommend it to him to cancel this page (as well as a former, in which he appears not to have known that “happy man be his dole!” is a common expression in Shakspeare, and for his ignorance of which he is forced to make an awkward apology in his Appendix); and beg leave to inform him, that Chatterton found the name of Widdeville in a very modern, though now scarce, book,        L*  See the first volume of that entertaining work, p. 67; art. Antony Widwille, Earl Rivers. the Catalogue of the Royal and Noble Authors of England L*, by Mr. Walpole, every one of whose works most assuredly Chatterton had read.

The names of the combatants in the Battle of Hastings, an enumeration of which takes up one third of this commentator’s work, and which, he tells us, are only to be found in Doomsday-book and other ancient records that Chatterton could not have seen, have been already shown by others to be almost all mentioned in Fox’s Book of Martyrs, and the Chronicles of Holinshed and Stowe. And what difficulty is there in supposing that the names not mentioned in any printed work (if any such there are) were found in the old deeds that he undoubtedly examined, and which were more likely to furnish him with a catalogue of names than any other ancient muniment whatsoever? It is highly probable also, that in the same chest which contained these deeds, he found some old Diary of events relating to Bristol, written by a mayor or alderman of the fifteenth century, that furnished him with some account of Rowley and Cannynge, and with those circumstances which the commentators say are only to traced in William de Wircester. The practice of keeping diaries was at that time very general, and continued to be much in use to the middle of the last century. This, it must be owned, is a mere hypothesis, but by no means an improbable one.

I cannot dismiss this gentleman without taking notice of a position which he has laid down, and is indeed the basis of almost all the arguments that he has urged to prove the authenticity of the Bristol Mss. It is this; that as every authour must know his own meaning, and as Chatterton has sometimes given wrong interpretations of words that are found in the poems attributed to Rowley, he could not be the authour of those poems.

If Chatterton had originally written these poems, in the form in which they now appear, this argument might in a doubtful question have some weight. But although I have as high an opinion of his abilities as perhaps any person whatsoever, and do indeed believe him to have been the greatest genius that England has produced since the days of Shakspeare, I am not ready to acknowledge that he was endued with any miraculous powers. Devoted as he was from his infancy to the study of antiquities, he could not have been so conversant with ancient language, or have had all the words necessary to be used so present to his mind, as to write antiquated poetry of any considerable length, off hand. He, without doubt, wrote his verses in plain English, and afterwards embroidered them with such old words as would suit the sense and metre. With these he furnished himself, sometimes probably from memory, and sometimes from glossaries; and annexed such interpretations as he found or made.        M*  In Chatterton’s poems many words occur, that were undoubtedly coined by him; as mole, dolce, droke, glytted, aluste, &c. All these his new editor has inserted in a very curious performance which he is pleased to call a Glossary, with such interpretations at the context supplied, without even attempting to support them either by analogy or the authority of our ancient writers. When he could not readily find a word that would suit his metre, he invented one M*. If then his old words afford some sense, and yet are sometimes interpreted wrong, nothing more follows than that his glossaries were imperfect, or his knowledge inaccurate; (still however he might have had a confused, though not complete, idea of their import:) if, as the commentator asserts, the words that he has explained not only suit the places in which they stand, but are often more apposite than he imagined, and have a latent and significant meaning, that never occurred to him, this will only show, that a man’s book is sometimes wiser than himself; a truth of which we have every day so many striking instances, that it was scarcely necessary for this learned antiquarian to have exhibited a new proof of it.

Let it be considered too, that the glossary and the text were not always written at the same time; that Chatterton might not always remember the precise sense in which he had used antiquated words; and from a confused recollection, or from the want of the very same books that he had consulted while he was writing his poems, might add sometimes a false, and sometimes an imperfect, interpretation.—This is not a mere hypothesis; for in one instance we know that the comment was written at some interval of time after the text. “The glossary of the poem entitled the Englysh Metamorposis (Mr. Tyrwhitt informs us) was written down by C. extemporally, without the assistance of any book, at the desire and in the presence of Mr. Barrett.”

I have here given this objection all the force that it can claim, and more perhaps than it deserves; for I doubt much whether in Chatterton’s whole volume six instances can be pointed out, where he has annexed false interpretations to words that appear when rightly understood to suit the context, and to convey a clear meaning: and these mistakes, if even there are so many as have been mentioned, are very easily accounted for from the causes now assigned.

Perhaps it may be urged, that when I talk of the manner in which these poems were composed, I am myself guilty of the fault with which I have charged others, that of assuming the very point in controversy; and the observation would be just, if there were not many collateral and decisive circumstances, by which Chatterton is clearly proved to have written them. All these concurring to show that he forged these pieces, an investigation of the manner in which he forged them, cannot by any fair reasoning be construed into an assumption of the question in dispute.

N*  So that an authour cannot revise or correct his works without forfeiting his title to them!—According to this doctrine, Garth was the authour of only the first copy of the Dispensary, and all the subsequent editions published in his life-time, in every one of which there were material variations, must be attributed to some other hand.

Great stress is also laid by this commentator on some variations being found in the copies of these poems that were produced by Chatterton at different times; or, to use his own words, “there is often a material variation between the copy and the original, which never could have happened if he had been the author of both N*. He must have known his own writing, and would not have deviated from his own purpose.”—— Thus in one copy of the Song to Ella, which C. gave to Mr. Barrett, these lines were found:

“Or seest the hatched steed,

“Ifrayning o’er the mead.”

Being called upon for the original, he the next day produced a parchment, containing the same poem, in which he had written yprauncing, instead of ifrayning; but by some artifice he had obscured the Ms. so much, to give it an ancient appearance, that Mr. B. could not make out the word without the use of galls.—What follows from all this, but that C. found on examination that there was no such word as ifrayning, and that he substituted another in its place? In the same poem he at one time wrote locks—burlie—brasting—and kennest; at another, hairs—valiant—bursting—and hearest. Variations of this kind he could have produced without end.—These commentators deceive themselves, and use a language that for a moment may deceive others, by talking of one reading being found in the copy, and another in the original, when in fact all the Mss. that C. produced were equally originals. What he called originals indeed, were probably in general more perfect than what he called copies; because the former were always produced after the other, and were in truth nothing more than second editions of the same pieces O*.

O*  “Bie,” which he wrote inadvertently in the tragedy of ELLA, instead of “mie,” (on which Mr. B. has given us a learned dissertation)—— “Bie thankes I ever onne you wylle bestowe”—— is such a mistake as every man in the hurry of writing is subject to. By had probably occurred just before, or was to begin some subsequent line that he was then forming in his mind. Even the slow and laborious Mr. Capel, who was employed near forty years in preparing and printing an edition of Shakspeare, in a Catalogue which he presented to a publick library at Cambridge, and which he probably had revised for many months before he gave it out of his hands, has written “Bloody Bloody,” as the title of one of Fletcher’s Plays, instead of “Bloody Brother.”

The inequality of the poems which Chatterton owned as his own compositions, when compared with those ascribed to Rowley, has been much insisted upon. But this matter has been greatly exaggerated. Some of the worst lines in Chatterton’s Miscellanies have been selected by Mr. Bryant to prove the point contended for; but in fact they contain the same even and flowing versification as the others, and in general display the some premature abilities P†.—The truth is, the readers of these pieces are deceived insensibly on this subject. While they are perusing the poems of the fictitious Rowley, they constantly compare them with the poetry of the fifteenth century; and are ready every moment to exclaim, how much he surpasses all his contemporaries. While the verses that Chatterton acknowledged as his own, are passing under their eyes, they still recollect that they are the productions of a boy of seventeen; and are slow to allow them even that merit which they undoubtedly possess. “They are ingenious, but puerile; flowing, but not sufficiently correct.”—— The best way of convincing the antiquarian reader of the merit of these compositions, would be to disfigure them with old spelling; as perhaps the most complete confutation of the advocates for the authenticity of what are called Rowley’s poems would be to exhibit an edition of them in modern orthography.—Let us only apply this very simple test,—“handy-dandy let them change places,” and I believe it would puzzle even the President of the Society of Antiquaries himself to determine, “which is the justice, and which is the thief;” which is the pretended ancient, and which the acknowledged modern.

P†  The observations on this subject, of the ingenious authour of the accurate account of Chatterton, in a book entituled Love and Madness, are too pertinent to be here omitted. “It may be asked why Chatterton’s own Miscellanies are inferior to Rowley? Let me ask another question: Are they inferior? Genius, abilities, we may bring into the world with us; these rare ingredients may be mixed up in our compositions by the hand of Nature. But Nature herself cannot create a human being possessed of a complete knowledge of our world almost the moment he is born into it. Is the knowledge of the world which his Miscellanies contain, no proof of his astonishing quickness in seizing every thing he chose? Is it remembered when, and at what age, Chatterton for the first time quitted Bristol, and how few weeks he lived afterwards? Chatterton’s Letters and Miscellanies, and every thing which the warmest advocate for Rowley will not deny to have been Chatterton’s, exhibit an insight into men, manners, and things, for the want of which, in their writings, authors who have died old men, with more opportunities to know the world, (who could have less than Chatterton?) have been thought to make amends by other merits.”—“In London (as the same writer observes) was to be learned that which even genius cannot teach, the knowledge of life. Extemporaneous bread was to be earned more suddenly than even Chatterton could write poems for Rowley; and, in consequence of his employments, as he tells his mother, publick places were to be visited, and mankind to be frequented.”—Hence, after “he left Bristol, we see but one more of Rowley’s poems, The Ballad of Charitie, and that a very short one.”

Of this double transformation I subjoin a short specimen; which is not selected on account of any extraordinary spirit in the lines that precede, or uncommon harmony in those that follow, but chosen (agreeably to the rule that has been observed in all the former quotations) merely because the African Eclogue happens to be the first poetical piece inserted in Chatterton’s acknowledged Miscellanies.

I. CHATTERTON in Masquerade.

NARVA AND MORED: AN AFRICAN ECLOGUE.

[From Chatterton’s Miscellanies, p. 56.]

“Recyte the loves of Narva and Mored,

“The preeste of Chalmas trypell ydolle sayde.

a Warriors.

“Hie fro the grounde the youthful heretogsa sprunge,

“Loude on the concave shelle the launces runge:

b mystick.   c burning.   d used by Chatterton for soft or tender.   e panting.

“In al the mysterkeb maizes of the daunce

“The youths of Bannies brennyngec sandes advaunce;

“Whiles the moled vyrgin brokkynge lookes behinde,

“And rydes uponne the penyons of the winde;

f ascends.   g brow, or summit.   h holy.

“Astighesf the mountaines borneg, and measures rounde

“The steepie clifftes of Chalmas hallieh grounde.”

II. CHATTERTON Unmasked.

ECLOGUE THE FIRST.

[From Rowley’s Poems, quarto, p. 391.]

“When England smoking from her deadly wound,

“From her gall’d neck did twitch the chain away,

“Seeing her lawful sons fall all around,

“(Mighty they fell, ’twas Honour led the fray,)

“Then in a dale, by eve’s dark surcoat gray,

“Two lonely shepherds did abruptly fly,

“(The rustling leaf does their white hearts affray,)

“And with the owlet trembled and did cry:

“First Robert Neatherd his sore bosom struck,

“Then fell upon the ground, and thus he spoke.”

If however, after all, a little inferiority should be found in Chatterton’s acknowledged productions, it may be easily accounted for. Enjoin a young poet to write verses on any subject, and after he has finished his exercise, show him how Shakspeare, Dryden, and Pope, have treated the same subject. Let him then write a second copy of verses, still on the same theme. This latter will probably be a Cento from the works of the authours that he has just perused. The one will have the merit of originality; the other a finer polish and more glowing imagery. This is exactly Chatterton’s case. The verses that he wrote for Rowley are perhaps better than his others, because they contain the thoughts of our best poets often in their own words. The versification is equally good in both. Let it be remembered too, that the former were composed at his leisure in a period of near a year and a half; the latter in about four months, and many of them to gain bread for the day that was passing over him.

After his arrival in London, if his forgeries had met with any success, he would undoubtedly have produced ancient poetry without end; but perceiving that the gentleman in whom he expected to find at once a dupe and a patron, was too clear-sighted to be deceived by such evident fictions, and that he could earn a livelihood by his talents, without fabricating old Mss. in order to gain a few shillings from Mess. Barrett and Catcott, he deserted his original plan, and we hear little more of Rowley’s verses.

With regard to the time in which the poems attributed to this priest were produced, which it is urged was much too short for Chatterton to have been the inventor of them, it is indeed astonishing that this youth should have been able to compose, in about eighteen months, three thousand seven hundred verses, on various subjects; but it would have been still more astonishing, if he had transcribed in that time the same number of lines, written on parchment, in a very ancient hand, in the close and indistinct manner, in which these poems are pretended to have been written,        Q*  Let those who may be surprised at this assertion, recollect the wonderful inventive faculties of Chatterton, and the various compositions, both in prose and verse, which he produced after his arrival in London, in the short space of four months; not to mention the numerous pieces, which he is known to have written in the same period, and which have not yet been collected—Let them likewise examine any one of the defaced Mss. of the fifteenth century, in the Cotton Library, and see in what time they can transcribe a dozen lines from it. and defaced and obliterated in many places Q*:—unless he had been endued with the faculty of a celebrated solicitor, who being desired a few years ago in the House of Lords to read an old deed, excused himself by saying that it was illegible, informing their lordships at the same time that he would make out a fair copy of it against the next day. Chatterton, I believe, understood better how to make fair copies of illegible parchments, than to read any ancient manuscript whatsoever.

It is amusing enough to observe the miserable shifts to which his new editor is forced to have recourse, when he is obliged to run full tilt against matters of fact.—Thus Chatterton, we find, owned that he was the authour of the first Battle of Hastings; but we are not to believe his declaration, says Mr. Thistlethwaite, whose doctrine on this subject the reverend commentator has adopted. “Chatterton thought himself not sufficiently rewarded by his Bristol patrons, in proportion to what his communications deserved.” He pretended, therefore, “on Mr. Barrett’s repeated solicitations for the original [of the Battle of Hastings], that he himself wrote that poem for a friend; thinking, perhaps, that if he parted with the original poem, he might not be properly rewarded for the loss of it, R*”—As if there was no other way for him to avoid being deprived of a valuable ancient Ms. but by saying that it was a forgery, and that he wrote it himself!—What, however, did he do immediately afterwards? No doubt, he avoided getting into the same difficulty a second time, and subjecting himself again to the same importunity from his ungenerous Bristol patrons, by showing them no more of these rarities? Nothing less. The very same day that he acknowledged this forgery, he informed Mr. Barrett that he had another poem, the copy of an original by Rowley; and at a considerable interval of time (which indeed was requisite for writing his new piece) he produced another BATTLE OF HASTINGS, much longer than the former; a fair copy from an undoubted original.—He was again, without doubt, pressed by Mr. B. to show the original Ms. of this also; and, according to Mr. Thistlethwaite’s system, he ought again to have asserted that this poem likewise was a forgery; and so afterwards of every copy that he produced.—Can any person that considers this transaction for a moment entertain a doubt that all these poems were his own invention?

R*  Chatterton’s Poems, quarto, edit. Milles, p. 458.

It was not without good reason that the editor was solicitous to disprove Chatterton’s frank confession, respecting this poem; for he perceived clearly that the style, the colouring, and images, are nearly the same in this, and the second poem with the same title, and that every reader of any discernment must see at the first glance, that he who wrote the first Battle of Hastings was the authour of all the other poems ascribed to Rowley.—It is observable that Chatterton in the Battle of Hastings, No 2, frequently imitates himself, or repeats the same images a second time. Thus in the first poem with this title we meet

—— “he dying gryp’d the recer’s limbe;

The recer then beganne to flynge and kicke,

And toste the erlie farr off to the grounde:

The erlie’s squier then a swerde did sticke

Into his harte, a dedlie ghastlie wounde;

And downe he felle upon the crymson pleine,

Upon Chatillion’s soulless corse of claie.”

In the second Battle of Hastings are these lines:

“But as he drewe his bowe devoid of arte,

“So it came down upon Troyvillain’s horse;

“Deep thro hys hatchments wente the pointed floe;

“Now here, now there, with rage bleedinge he rounde doth goe.

“Nor does he hede his mastres known commands,

“Tyll, growen furiouse by his bloudie wounde,

“Erect upon his hynder feete he staundes,

“And throwes hys mastre far off to the grounde.”

Can any one for a moment doubt that these verses were all written by the same person?—— The circumstance of the wounded horse’s falling on his rider, in the first of these similies, is taken directly from Dryden’s Virgil, Æn. X. v. 1283.—Chatterton’s new editor has artfully contrasted this passage of Dryden with the second simile, where that circumstance is not mentioned.

Again:—We have the positive testimony of Mr. John Ruddall, a native and inhabitant of Bristol, who was well acquainted with Chatterton, when he was a clerk to Mr. Lambert, that the Account of the ceremonies observed at the opening of the Old Bridge, published in Farley’s Journal, Oct. 1. 1768, and said to be taken from an ancient Ms., was a forgery of Chatterton’s, and acknowledged by him to be such. Mr. Ruddall’s account of this transaction is so material, that I will transcribe it from the Dean of Exeter’s new work, which perhaps many of my readers may not have seen:—“During that time, [while C. was clerk to Mr. L.] Chatterton frequently called upon him at his master’s house, and soon after he had printed the account of the bridge in the Bristol paper, told Mr. Ruddall, that he was the author of it; but it occurring to him afterwards, that he might be called upon to produce the original, he brought to him one day a piece of parchment about the size of a half-sheet of fool’s-cap paper: Mr. Ruddall does not think that any thing was written on it when produced by Chatterton, but he saw him write several words, if not lines, in a character which Mr. Ruddall did not understand, which he says was totally unlike English, and as he apprehends was meant by Chatterton to imitate or represent the original from which this account was printed. He cannot determine precisely how much Chatterton wrote in this manner, but says, that the time he spent in that visit did not exceed three quarters of an hour: the size of the parchment, however, (even supposing it to have been filled with writing) will in some measure ascertain the quantity which it contained. He says also, that when Chatterton had written on the parchment, he held it over the candle, to give it the appearance of antiquity, which changed the colour of the ink,        S*  See the new edition of Chatterton’s poems, quarto, p. 436, 437. and made the parchment appear black and a little contracted S*.”

Such is the account of one of Chatterton’s intimate friends. And how is this decisive proof of his abilities to imitate ancient English handwriting, and his exercise of those abilities, evaded? Why truly, we are told, “the contraction of the parchment is no discriminating mark of antiquity; the blackness given by smoke appears upon trial to be very different from the yellow tinge which parchment acquires by age; and the ink does not change its colour, as Mr. Ruddall seems to apprehend.” So, because these arts are not always completely successfull, and would not deceive a very skilful antiquary, we are to conclude, that Chatterton did not forge a paper which he acknowledged to have forged, and did not in the presence of Mr. Ruddall cover a piece of parchment with ancient characters for the purpose of imposition, though the fact is clearly ascertained by the testimony of that gentleman!—The reverend commentator argues on this occasion much in the same manner, as a well-known versifier of the present century, the facetious Ned Ward (and he too published a quarto volume of poems). Some biographer, in an account of the lives of the English poets, had said that “he was an ingenious writer, considering his low birth and mode of life, he having for some time kept a publick house in the City.” “Never was a greater or more impudent calumny (replied the provoked rhymer); it is very well known to every body, that my publick house is not in the City, but in Moorfields.”—In the name of common sense, of what consequence is it, whether in fact all ancient parchments are shrivelled; whether smoke will give ink a yellow appearance or not. It is sufficient, that Chatterton thought this was the case; that he made the attempt in the presence of a credible witness, to whom he acknowledged the purpose for which the manœuvre was done. We are asked indeed, why he did not prepare his pretended original before he published the copy. To this another question is the best answer. Why is not fraud always uniform and consistent, and armed at all points? Happily for mankind it scarcely ever is. Perhaps (as Mr. Ruddall’s account seems to state the matter) he did not think at first that he should be called upon for the original: perhaps he was limited in a point of time, and could not fabricate it by the day that the new bridge was opened at Bristol.—But there is no end of such speculations. Facts are clear and incontrovertible. Whatever might have been the cause of his delay, it is not denied that he acknowledged this forgery to his friend Mr. Ruddall; conjuring him at the same time not to reveal the secret imparted to him. If this had been a mere frolick, what need of this earnest injunction of secrecy?—His friend scrupulously kept his word till the year 1779, when, as the Dean of Exeter informs us, “on the prospect of procuring a gratuity of ten pounds for Chatterton’s mother, from a gentleman who sought for information concerning her son’s history, he thought so material a benefit to the family would fully justify him for divulging a secret, by which no person living could be a sufferer.”

I will not stay to take notice of the impotent attempts that Chatterton’s new commentators have made to overturn the very satisfactory and conclusive reasoning of Mr. Tyrwhitt’s Appendix to the former edition of the fictitious Rowley’s Poems. That most learned and judicious critick wants not the assistance of my feeble pen: Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis—— . If he should come into the field himself (as I hope he will), he will soon silence the Anglo-Saxon batteries of his opponents.

T*  I take this opportunity of acknowledging an error into which I have fallen in a former page (13), where it is said, that no instances are found in these poems of a noun in the plural number being joined to a verb in the singular. On a more careful examination I observe that C. was aware of this mark of antiquity, and that his works exhibit a few examples of this disregard to grammar. He has however sprinkled them too sparingly. Had these poems been written in the fifteenth century, Priscian’s head would have been broken in almost every page, and I should not have searched for these grammatical inaccuracies in vain.

The principal arguments that have been urged in support of the antiquity of the poems attributed to Rowley, have now, if I mistake not, been fairly stated and examined T*. On a review of the whole, I trust the reader will agree with me in opinion, that there is not the smallest reason for believing a single line of them to have been written by any other person than Thomas Chatterton; and that, instead of the towering motto which has been affixed to the new and splendid edition of the works of that most ingenious youth—— Renascentur quæ jam cecidere—the words of Claudian would have been more “germane to the matter:”

———— tolluntur in altum,

Ut lapsu graviore ruant.

Having, I fear, trespassed too long on the patience of my readers, in the discussion of a question that to many may appear of no great importance, I will only add the following serious and well-intended proposal. I do humbly recommend, that a committee of the friends of the reverend antiquarian, Dr. Jeremiah Milles, Dean of Exeter, and the learned mythologist, Jacob Bryant, Esq., may immediately meet;—that they may, as soon as possible, convey the said Dr. M. and Mr. B. together with Mr. George Catcott, pewterer, and Mr. William Barrett, surgeon, of Bristol, and Dr. Glynn of Cambridge, to the room over the north porch of Redcliffe church, and that on the door of the said room six padlocks may be fixed:—that in order to wean these gentlemen by degrees from the delusion under which they labour, and to furnish them with some amusement, they may be supplied with proper instruments to measure the length, breadth, and depth, of the empty chests now in the said room, and thereby to ascertain how many thousand diminutive pieces of parchment, all eight inches and a half by four and a half, might have been contained in those chests; [according to my calculation, 1,464,578;—but I cannot pretend to be exact:] that for the sustenance of these gentlemen, a large peck loaf may be placed in a maund basket in the said room, having been previously prepared and left in a damp place, so as to become mouldy, and the words and figures Thomas Flour, Bristol, 1769, being first impressed in common letters on the upper crust of the said loaf, and on the under side thereof, in Gothick Characters, Thomas Wheateley, 1464        V*  ROWLEY’s Purple Roll, Mr. Bryant very gravely tells us, it yet extant in manuscript in his own hand-writing. “It is (he adds) in two parts; one of the said parts written by Thomas Rowley, and the other by Thomas Chatterton.” (which Thomas Wheateley Mr. Barrett, if he carefully examines Rowley’s PURPLE ROLL V*, will find was an auncyent baker, and “did use to bake daiely for Maister Canynge twelve manchettes of chete breade, and foure douzenne of marchpanes;” and which custom of impressing the names of bakers upon bread, I can prove to be as ancient as the time of king Edward IV., from Doomsday-book, William de Wircestre, Shakspeare, and other good antiquarians, as also from the Green and Yellow Rolls, now in Mr. B’s custody) X†:—that a proper quantity of water may be conveyed into the forementioned room in one of Mr. Catcott’s deepest and most ancient pewter plates, together with an ewer of Wedgwood’s ware, made after the oldest and most uncouth pattern that has yet been discovered at Herculaneum;—that Dr. Glynn, if he shall be thought to be sufficiently composed (of which great doubts are entertained), be appointed to cut a certain portion of the said bread for the daily food of these gentlemen and himself; and that, in order to sooth in some measure their unhappy fancies, he may be requested, in cutting the said loaf, to use the valuable knife of Mr. Shiercliffe (now in the custody of the said Dr. G), the history Y‡ of which has so much illustrated, and so clearly evinced the antiquity of the poems attributed to Thomas Rowley. And if in a fortnight after these gentlemen have been so confined, they shall be found to be entirely re-established in their health, and perfectly composed, I recommend that the six locks may be struck off, and that they all may be suffered to return again to their usual employments.

X†  A learned friend, who, by the favour of Mr. Barrett, has perused the YELLOW ROLL, informs me, that Rowley, in a treatise dated 1451, and addressed “to the dygne Maister Canynge,” with the quaint title, DE RE FRUMENTARIA, (chap. XIII. Concernynge Horse-hoeing Husbandrie, and the Dryll-Ploughe) has this remarkable passage: “Me thynketh ytt were a prettie devyce yffe this practyce of oure bakerres were extended further. I mervaile moche, our scriveynes and amanuenses doe not gette lytel letters cutt in wood, or caste in yron, and thanne followynge by the eye, or with a fescue, everyche letter of the boke thei meane to copie, fix the sayde wooden or yron letters meetelie disposed in a frame or chase; thanne daube the frame over with somme atramentous stuffe, and layinge a thynne piece of moistened parchment or paper on these letters, presse it doune with somme smoothe stone or other heavie weight: by the whiche goodlye devyce a manie hundreth copies of eche boke might be wroughte off in a few daies, insteade of employing the eyen and hondes of poore clerkes for several monthes with greate attentyon and travaile.”     Introduction, Note 19.

This great man, we have already seen, had an idea of many of the useful arts of life some years before they were practised. Here he appears to have had a confused notion of that noble invention, the printing-press. To prevent misconstruction, I should add, that boke in the above passage means manuscript, no other books being then known; In other parts of his works, as represented by Chatterton, he speaks of Mss. as contradistinguished from books; but in all those places it is reasonable to suppose some interpolation by Chatterton, and those who choose it, may read book instead of manuscript; by which this trivial objection to the authenticity of these pieces will be removed, and these otherwise discordant passages rendered perfectly uniform and consistent.

This valuable relick shows with how little reason the late Mr. Tull claimed the merit of inventing that useful instrument of husbandry, the drill-plough.

I make no apology for anticipating Mr. Barret on this subject; as in fact these short extracts will only make the publick still more desirous to see his long-expected History of Bristol, which I am happy to hear is in great forwardness, and will, I am told, contain a full account of the YELLOW ROLL, and an exact inventory of Maistre William Cannynge’s Cabinet of coins, medals, and drawings, (among the latter of which are enumerated many, highly finished, by Apelles, Raphael, Rowley, Rembrant, and Vandyck) together with several other matters equally curious.—It is hoped that this gentleman will gratify the publick with an accurate engraving from a drawing by Rowley, representing the ancient Castle of Bristol, together with the square tower ycleped the DONGEON, which cannot fail to afford great satisfaction to the purchasers of his book, as it will exhibit a species of architecture hitherto unknown in this country; this tower (as we learn from unquestionable authority, that of the Dean of Exeter himself,) “being remarkably decorated [on paper] with images, ornaments, tracery work, and crosses within circles, in a style net usually seen in these buildings.”—Chatterton, as soon as ever he heard that Mr. Barrett was engaged in writing a History of Bristol, very obligingly searched among the Rowley papers, and a few days afterwards furnished him with a neat copy of this ancient drawing.

Y‡  This very curious and interesting history may be found in Mr. Bryant’s Observations, &c. p. 512. The learned commentator seems to have had the great father of poetry in his eye, who is equally minute in his account of the sceptre of Achilles. See Il. Α. v. 234. He cannot, however, on this account be justly charged with plagiarism; these co-incidences frequently happening. Thus Rowley in the 15th century, and Dryden in the 17th, having each occasion to say that a man wept, use the same four identical words—“Tears began to flow.”

FINIS.

NEW BOOKS published by J. NICHOLS,

PRINTER to the SOCIETY of ANTIQUARIES,

at Cicero’s Head, Red-Lion-Passage, Fleet-Street;

and sold by ALL the Booksellers in Great Britain and Ireland.

In a handsome Quarto, adorned with a Variety of elegant Plates.

BIBLIOTHECA TOPOGRAPHICA BRITANNICA.

No I. containing, 1. QUERIES for illustrating the Antiquities and Natural History of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND: 2. The History of TUNSTALL in KENT, by the late Rev. EDWARD-ROWE MORES. Price 5s. sewed.

No II. Part I. containing RELIQUIÆ GALEANÆ, or, Miscellaneous Pieces by the late learned Brothers ROGER and SAMUEL GALE; with Biographical Memoirs, and a Pedigree of their Family. Price 2s. 6d. stitched.

No II. Part II. A Continuation of the RELIQUIÆ GALEANÆ; containing the Epistolary Correspondence of the GALES with their learned Contemporaries. Price 5s. sewed.—To the Third Part, which will contain a Continuation of their Correspondence, will be prefixed an Account of the LITERARY SOCIETY at SPALDING.

No III. A Description of the Chanonry in OLD ABERDEEN, in the Years 1724 and 1725, together with many curious, entertaining, and pleasant Remarks on the said Town, &c. by WILLIAM OREM, Town Clerk of Aberdeen. Illustrated by a large and accurate Survey of Old and New Aberdeen, with the adjacent Country between the Rivers Dee and Don. Price 5s. sewed.

⁂ The SURVEY may be had separately, Price 1s.

No IV. Memoirs of Sir JOHN HAWKWOOD, Price 2s. stitched.

⁂ The Histories of HINCKLEY in Leicestershire, of CROYDON in Surrey, of the Hospital of St. KATHARINE by the Tower, and many other Articles, are getting forward, and will soon be published as subsequent Numbers of the BIBLIOTHECA.

V. Biographical Anecdotes of WILLIAM HOGARTH; and a Catalogue of his Works chronologically arranged; with occasional Remarks. By J. NICHOLS. Octavo, Price 3s. sewed.

VI. A Select Collection of Poems; with Notes Biographical and Historical, by J. NICHOLS. In Four Volumes, small Octavo, Price 10s. 6d. in Boards.

--> The Four concluding Volumes, which will contain many original Poems, and a General Poetical Index, are nearly finished, and will very soon be published.

VII. LETTERS on several Subjects; GENIUS, WIT, TASTE, DELICACY, LONDON, MUSIC, SHAKSPEARE, THE FRENCH, FOREIGN TRAVEL, &c. &c. By the Rev. MARTIN SHERLOCK, M.A. Domestic Chaplain to the Earl of BRISTOL, and Vicar of Castleconnor and Killglass in Ireland. In Two Volumes, small Octavo, Price 5s. sewed.—Either Volume may be had separately.

VIII. Letters of an ENGLISH TRAVELLER [MARTIN SHERLOCK, M.A.] In Two Volumes, Crown Octavo, Price 5s. sewed; or either Volume, singly, 2s. 6d.

IX. Four New Editions of the Supplement to SWIFT’S Works; with explanatory Notes on All the former Volumes, and a complete General Index, by J. NICHOLS.

1. In One Volume, Quarto, Price One Guinea, sewed.

2. In Two Volumes, large Octavo, Price Twelve Shillings, sewed.

3. In Three Volumes, small Octavo, Price Twelve Shillings, sewed.

4. In Three Volumes XVIIIo. Price Six Shillings, sewed.

⁂ The latter Volumes of EITHER Edition may be had separately, to complete Sets.

X. SWIFT’S Works, COMPLETE, in XXVII Volumes, in a small Pocket Size, Price Two Guineas sewed; the cheapest Edition of SWIFT hitherto published.

XI. PROPERTII ΜΟΝΟΒΙΒΛΟΣ: or that Book of the Elegies of PROPERTIUS intituled CYNTHIA; translated into English Verse; with Classical Notes. Pr. 2s. 6d.

XII. HARDYKNUTE, AN HEROIC BALLAD. Now first published complete; with the other more approved SCOTTISH BALLADS, and some not hitherto made Public, in the TRAGIC STYLE.

To which are prefixed,

Two Dissertations, I. On the Oral Tradition of Poetry. II. On the Tragic Ballad.

⁂ This Volume is printed in the same Size as Dean PERCY’s “Reliques,” Price 2s. 6d. sewed.

XIII. A Repertory of the Endowments of Vicarages in the Dioceses of Canterbury and Rochester. By Dr. DUCAREL, F.R. and A.S.S. Commissary of the City and Diocese of Canterbury. Octavo, Price 3s. 6d.

XIV. Biographical Memoirs of WILLIAM GED; including a particular Account of his Progress in the Art of Block-Printing. Printed for the Benefit of his Daughter. Octavo. Price 1s.

XV. In the Press, and speedily to be published in Two Volumes, Octavo,

The CORRESPONDENCE (LITERARY and POLITICAL) of Dr. ATTERBURY, Bishop of ROCHESTER; in which will be included many Original Letters.

WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK

MEMORIAL LIBRARY

University of California, Los Angeles

The Augustan Reprint Society

Publications in Print

The Augustan Reprint Society

WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY

University of California, Los Angeles

Publications in Print

When available, Project Gutenberg e-text numbers are included as links.

1948-1949

15. John Oldmixon, Reflections on Dr. Swift’s Letter to Harley (1712), and Arthur Mainwaring, The British Academy (1712).

16. Henry Nevil Payne, The Fatal Jealousie (1673).

17. Nicholas Rowe, Some Account of the Life of Mr. William Shakespear (1709).

18. Anonymous, “Of Genius,” in The Occasional Paper, Vol. III, No. 10 (1719), and Aaron Hill, Preface to The Creation (1720).

1949-1950

19. Susanna Centlivre, The Busie Body (1709).

20. Lewis Theobald, Preface to the Works of Shakespeare (1734).

22. Samuel Johnson, The Vanity of Human Wishes (1749), and two Rambler papers (1750).

23. John Dryden, His Majesties Declaration Defended (1681).

1950-1951

26. Charles Macklin, The Man of the World (1792).

1951-1952

31. Thomas Gray, An Elegy Wrote in a Country Churchyard (1751), and The Eton College Manuscript.

1952-1953

41. Bernard Mandeville, A Letter to Dion (1732).

1958-1959

77-78. David Hartley, Various Conjectures on the Perception, Motion, and Generation of Ideas (1746).

1959-1960

79. William Herbert, Third Earl of Pembroke, Poems (1660).

81. Two Burlesques of Lord Chesterfield’s Letters: The Graces (1774), and The Fine Gentleman’s Etiquette (1776).

1960-1961

85-86. Essays on the Theatre from Eighteenth Century Periodicals.

1961-1962

93. John Norris, Cursory Reflections Upon a Book Call’d, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690).

94. An. Collins, Divine Songs and Meditacions (1653).

96. Ballads and Songs Loyal to the Hanoverian Succession (1703-1761).

1962-1963

97. Myles Davies, [Selections from] Athenæ Britannicaæ (1716-1719).

98. Select Hymns Taken Out of Mr. Herbert’s Temple (1697).

99. Thomas Augustine Arne, Artaxerxes (1761).

100. Simon Patrick, A Brief Account of the New Sect of Latitude-Men (1662).

101-102. Richard Hurd, Letters on Chivalry and Romance (1762).

1963-1964

103. Samuel Richardson, Clarissa: Preface, Hints of Prefaces, and Postscript.

104. Thomas D’Urfey, Wonders in the Sun: or, The Kingdom of the Birds (1706).

105. Bernard Mandeville, An Enquiry into the Causes of the Frequent Executions at Tyburn (1725).

106. Daniel Defoe, A Brief History of the Poor Palatine Refugees (1709).

107-108. John Oldmixon, An Essay on Criticism (1728).

1964-1965

109. Sir William Temple, An Essay Upon the Original and Nature of Government (1680).

110. John Tutchin, Selected Poems (1685-1700).

111. Anonymous, Political Justice (1736).

112. Robert Dodsley, An Essay on Fable (1764).

113. T. R., An Essay Concerning Critical and Curious Learning (1698).

114. Two Poems Against Pope: Leonard Welsted, One Epistle to Mr. A. Pope (1730), and Anonymous, The Blatant Beast (1742).

1965-1966

115. Daniel Defoe and others, Accounts of the Apparition of Mrs. Veal.

116. Charles Macklin, The Covent Garden Theatre (1752).

117. Sir Roger L’Estrange, Citt and Bumpkin (1680).

118. Henry More, Enthusiasmus Triumphatus (1662).

119. Thomas Traherne, Meditations on the Six Days of the Creation (1717).

120. Bernard Mandeville, Aesop Dress’d or a Collection of Fables (1704).

William Andrews Clark Memorial Library: University of California, Los Angeles

THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY

General Editors: George Robert Guffey, University of California, Los Angeles; Earl Miner, University of California, Los Angeles; Maximillian E. Novak, University of California, Los Angeles; Robert Vosper, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

Corresponding Secretary: Mrs. Edna C. Davis, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

The Society’s purpose is to publish reprints (usually facsimile reproductions) of rare seventeenth and eighteenth century works. All income of the Society is devoted to defraying costs of publication and mailing.

Correspondence concerning subscriptions in the United States and Canada should be addressed to the William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 2520 Cimarron St., Los Angeles, California. Correspondence concerning editorial matters may be addressed to any of the general editors. Manuscripts of introductions should conform to the recommendations of the MLA Style Sheet. The membership fee is $5.00 a year for subscribers in the United States and Canada and 30/- for subscribers in Great Britain and Europe. British and European subscribers should address B. H. Blackwell, Broad Street, Oxford, England. Copies of back issues in print may be obtained from the Corresponding Secretary.

PUBLICATIONS FOR 1966-1967

HENRY HEADLEY, Poems (1786). Introduction by Patricia Meyer Spacks.

JAMES MACPHERSON, Fragments of Ancient Poetry (1760). Introduction by John J. Dunn.   e-text 8161

EDMOND MALONE, Cursory Observations on the Poems Attributed to Thomas Rowley (1782). Introduction by James M. Kuist.   Present Text

Anonymous, The Female Wits (1704). Introduction by Lucyle Hook.   In Preparation

Anonymous, The Scribleriad (1742). LORD HERVEY, The Difference Between Verbal and Practical Virtue (1742). Introduction by A. J. Sambrook.   In Preparation

Le Lutrin: an Heroick Poem, Written Originally in French by Monsieur Boileau: Made English by N. O. (1682). Introduction by Richard Morton.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

The Society announces a series of special publications beginning with a reprint of JOHN OGILBY, The Fables of Aesop Paraphras’d in Verse (1668), with an Introduction by Earl Miner. Ogilby’s book is commonly thought one of the finest examples of seventeenth-century bookmaking and is illustrated with eighty-one plates. The next in this series will be JOHN GAY’S Fables (1728), with an Introduction by Vinton A. Dearing. Publication is assisted by funds from the Chancellor of the University of California, Los Angeles. Price to members of the Society, $2.50 for the first copy and $3.25 for additional copies. Price to non-members, $4.00.

Seven back numbers of Augustan Reprints which have been listed as out-of-print now are available in limited supply: 15, 19, 41, 77-78, 79, 81. Price per copy, $0.90 each; $1.80 for the double-issue 77-78.

THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY

William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

2520 CIMARRON STREET AT WEST ADAMS BOULEVARD, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90018

Make check or money order payable to THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.

1. “And tears began to flow;”

This line has been reformatted to match the rest of the text. Page as printed, with Dryden verse included to show normal arrangement of quoted poetry:

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CURSORY OBSERVATIONS ON THE POEMS ATTRIBUTED TO THOMAS ROWLEY (1782) ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

The Augustan Reprint Society

EDMOND MALONE

CURSORY

OBSERVATIONS

ON THE

POEMS

ATTRIBUTED TO

THOMAS ROWLEY

(1782)

Introduction by JAMES M. KUIST

INTRODUCTION

NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

CURSORY OBSERVATIONS

ON THE

P O E M S

THOMAS ROWLEY,

A Priest of the Fifteenth Century:

SOME REMARKS

ADVERTISEMENT.

CURSORY OBSERVATIONS

P O E M S

THOMAS ROWLEY.

I. CHATTERTON in Masquerade. Narva and Mored: An African Eclogue.

II. CHATTERTON Unmasked. Eclogue the First.

FINIS.

The Augustan Reprint Society

The Augustan Reprint Society

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE