Chapter 5

[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.”]

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.

[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 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.

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.]