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.
[Footnote 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.)
[Footnote 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"]
[Footnote 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. 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.
[Footnote 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.]
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, the _Catalogue of the Royal and
Noble Authors of England_[L], by Mr. Walpole, every one of whose works
most assuredly Chatterton had read.
[Footnote L: See the first volume of that entertaining work,
p. 67; art. _Antony_ Widwille, _Earl Rivers_.]
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. 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.
[Footnote 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.]
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.
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."
[Footnote 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.]
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].
[Footnote 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."]