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.
[Footnote 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.
"Hie fro the grounde the youthful heretogs[a] sprunge,
"Loude on the concave shelle the launces runge:
"In al the mysterke[b] maizes of the daunce
"The youths of Bannies brennynge[c] sandes advaunce;
"Whiles the mole[d] vyrgin brokkyng[e] lookes behinde,
"And rydes uponne the penyons of the winde;
"Astighes[f] the mountaines borne[g], and measures rounde
"The steepie clifftes of Chalmas hallie[h] grounde."
[Text Notes:
a: _Warriors_.
b: _mystick_.
c: _burning_.
d: used by Chatterton for _soft_ or _tender_.
e: _panting_.
f: _ascends_.
g: _brow_, or _summit_.
h: _holy_.]
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, 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.
[Footnote 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.]
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?
[Footnote 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, and made the parchment appear black and a little
contracted[S]."
[Footnote S: See the new edition of Chatterton's poems, quarto,
p. 436, 437.]
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 manoeuvre 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.
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._
[Footnote 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.]
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 (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.
[Footnote 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_."]
[Footnote 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."
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.