entirely written by Chatterton, is left to the reader's judgement.
If he should stick at the word _entirely_, which may possibly seem to
carry the conclusion a little beyond the premisses, he is desired to
reflect, that, the poems having been proved to be a forgery since the
time of Skinner, and to have been written in great part by Chatterton,
it is infinitely more probable that the remainder was also written by
him than by any other person. The great difficulty is to conceive that
a youth, like Chatterton, should ever have formed the plan of such an
imposture, and should have executed it with so much perseverance and
ingenuity; but if we allow (as I think we must) that he was the author
of those pieces to which he subjoined his interpretations, I can see
no reason whatever for supposing that he had any assistance in the
rest. The internal evidence is strong that they are all from one hand;
and external evidence there is none, that I have been able to meet
with, which ought to persuade us, that a single line, of verse or
prose, purporting to be the work of ROWLEY, existed before the time of
CHATTERTON.
[Footnote 1: I have chosen this _part_ of the internal evidence,
because the arguments, which it furnishes, are not only very decisive,
but also lie within a moderate compass. For the same reason of
brevity, I have confined my observations to a _part_ only of
this _part_, viz. to _words_, considered with respect to their
_significations_ and _inflexions_. A complete examination of this
subject _in all its parts_ would be a work of length.]
[Footnote 2: Of these varieties all, except the first, are more
properly varieties of _style_ than of _language_. The _local
situation_ of a writer may certainly produce a _provincial dialect_,
which will often differ essentially from the language used at the same
time in other parts of the same country. But this can only happen in
the case of persons of no education and totally illiterate; and such
persons seldom write. It is unnecessary however to discuss this point
very accurately, as nobody, I believe, will contend, that the poems
attributed to Rowley are written in any _provincial dialect_. If there
should be a few words in them, which are now more common at Bristol
than at London, it should be remembered that Chatterton was of
Bristol.]
[Footnote 3: It is not surprizing that Chatterton should have been
ignorant of a peculiarity of the English language, which appears to
have escaped the observation of a professed editor of Chaucer. Mr.
Urry has very frequently lengthened _verbs in the singular number_, by
adding _n_ to them, without any authority, I am persuaded, even from
the errors of former Editions or MSS. It might seem invidious to point
out living writers, of acknowledged learning, who have slipped into
the same mistake in their imitations of Chaucer and Spenser.]
[Footnote 4: This is a point so material to the following argument,
that, though it has never hitherto, I believe, been made a question,
it ought not perhaps to be assumed without some proof. It may be said,
that Chatterton was only the _transcriber_ of the Glossary as well
as of the Poems. If to such an attention we were to answer, that
Chatterton always declared himself the _author_ of the Glossaries,
we should be told perhaps, that with equal truth he always declared
Rowley to have been the author of the Poems. But (not to insist upon
the very different weight, which the same testimony might be allowed
to have in the two cases) it has happened luckily, that the Glossary
to the Poem, entitled "_Englysh Metamorphosis_," [See p. 196.] was
written down by Chatterton extemporally, without the assistance of any
book, at the desire and in the presence of Mr. Barrett. Whoever will
compare that Glossary with the others, will have no doubt of their
being all from the same hand.]
[Footnote 5: Printed at London, MDCLXXI. The part, which Chatterton
seems to have chiefly consulted, is that, which begins at Sign. U u u
u, and is entitled "_Etymologicon vocum omnium antiquarum Anglicarum,
quæ usque a Wilhelmo Victore invaluerunt, &c._"]
[Footnote 6: I will state shortly some of those words, which have
been cited above, p. 313. as _either not ancient or not used in their
ancient sense_, with their corresponding articles in Skinner.
ABESSIE; _Humility_. C.--Abessed;--_Humiliatus_. Sk.
ABORNE; _Burnished_, C.--Borne; _Burnish_. Sk. It was usual with
Chatterton to prefix _a_ to words of all sorts, without any regard to
custom or propriety. See in the Alphabetical Gloss. _Aboune, Abreave,
Acome, Aderne, Adygne, Agrame, Agreme, Alest_, &c.
ABOUNDE. This word Chatterton has not interpreted, but the context
shews that it is used in the sense of _good_. So that I suspect it was
taken from the following article in Skinner. Abone,--a Fr. G. Abonnir;
_Bonum_ facere.
ABREDYNGE: _Upbraiding_. C.--Abrede, exp. _Upbraid_. Sk.
ACROOL; _Faintly_. C.--Crool, exp. _Murmurare_. Sk. See the remark
upon ABORNE.
ADENTE, ADENTED: _Fastened, annexed_. C.--Adent;--_Configere,
Conjungere_. Sk.
ALUSTE has no interpretation: but it is used in the sense of _raise_.
Perhaps it may have been derived from a mistaken reading of Alust,
which is explained by Skinner to mean _Tollere_. See the remarks upon
_Alyse_ and _Bestoiker_, p. 328, 329.
DERNE, DERNIE; _Woeful, lamentable, cruel_. C.--Derne; _Dirus,
crudelis_. Sk.
DROORIE; _Modesty_. C.--Drury; _Modestia_. Sk.
FONS, FONNES; _Fancys, Devices_. C.--Fonnes; _Devises_. Sk.
KNOPPED; _Fastened, chained, congealed_. C.--Knopped; _Tied_. Sk.
LITHIE: _Humble_. C.--Lithy; _Humble_. Sk. But in truth I do not
believe that there is any such word. Skinner probably found it in his
edition of Chaucer's _Cuckow and Nightingale_, ver. 14. where the MSS.
have LITHER (_wicked_), which is undoubtedly the right reading.]