ART. VI. A Vindication of the Appendix to the Poems called Rowley's; in Reply to the Anfwers of the Dean of Exeter, Jacob Bryant, Efq, and a third anonymous Writer; with fome further Obfervations upon those Poems; and an Examination of the Evidence which has been produced in Support of their Authenticity. By Thomas Tyrwhitt. 8vo. 3 s. 6d. Payne. 1782.

WE

E believe that by this time our Readers have had enough of this controverfy, and it is out of our power to ftimulate the palled appetite of the Public on a fubject, which however curious, yet perhaps owed more to its novelty than its merit. We shall of neceffity be very brief with the present Article, because we have no inclination to repeat what we have already faid.

Mr. Tyrwhitt divides his work into four parts. The first confifts of a vindication of the arguments drawn from language, in the former part of the Appendix, to prove that the poems were not written by Rowley. This first part is divided into four fections. The firft contains an examination of three fuppofitions which have been adopted to evade the force of all arguments from language. 1. That the poems are written in a provincial dialect. 2. That there was no ftandard language in the 15th century. 3. That the poems may have been altered by the tranfcriber. Each of thefe hypothefes he refutes with equal candour and judgment. The fecond fection confifts of a reply to the answers which have been given to the objections in the Appendix, under the first general head of words not used by any other Author, fuch as abeffie, aborne, abreydynge, &c. &c. &c. The third fection replies to the answers under the fecond general head, of words ufed by other writers, but in a different fenfe and the fourth fection examines the answers under the third general head of words, inflected contrary to grammar and cuftom. In an inftance or two, our Author ingenuously acknowledges his mistake: but with refpect to the greater number of words that he before objected to, he still adheres to his general opinion; and gives the moft fatisfactory reafons for his conviction.

The second part contains observations on fome other internal evidences, which arife out of the poems themselves, to fhew that they could not have been the compofitions of a priest of the 15th century. In this part Mr. Tyrwhitt confiders the use of fome phrafes which are evidently modern; as alfo fome figures of fpeech; together with the verfification which prevails in the poems of Rowley. He examines alfo Mr. Bryant's arguments from comparison of other writers, and proves indifputably, that the comparifon, fo far from anfwering Mr. Bryant's purpose, effectually defeats it. In this fection the learned Vindicator confiders

confiders the use of the Alexandrine measure, examines the Pindaric, and quotes a paffage in blank verfe, that bears every mark of modern fabrication. He enters into a difcuffion of the forms of compofition, adopted by the fuppofed Rowley, fuch as Odes, Eclogues, Difcourfing Tragedies, &c. and obferves, that not one example of them could be found in England in the 15th century.' He next confiders the anacronisms and contradictions to biftory which are obfervable in thefe poems; and having difcuffed this part of the argument with that acuteness and accuracy which might be expected from his pen, he proceeds to the third part, which confifts of an examination of the external evidence for the exiftence of any poems under the name of Rowley, Under this divifion of his work, he proves that there is no evi dence that any fuch poems were depofited by Canynge in Redcliff church, either in Canynge's will, or in any deed of his. He argues with great ingenuity on the improbability that the works of Rowley fhould have been preferved in a fingle copy depofited in a church cheft; or if more copies had existed, that the name of the Author fhould have fo long escaped all notice. In the progress of this argument, our Author remarks, that the name of Rowley was totally unknown for many years after the cheft in which his works are fuppofed to have been depofited had been broken open; that they were never mentioned by the attorney under whofe infpection the cheft was opened in 1727; or by any of the perfons who are related to have had access to the MSS. which were left at large from 1727 to 1765, viz. Chatterton, the Father, Perrot and Shiercliff, and Morgan.

The Author having brought his enquiry into the external evidence down to the year 1765, obferves [in part fourth], that at that time it is very clear that there was not even a rumour or imagination that any fuch poems either did exist or ever had exifted.' His obfervations on this argument are fo juft and ftriking, that we will present the Reader with them in his own words:

• Very foon after this period (viz. 1765), the poems which are the fubjects of our prefent difcuffion, were produced to the world, as having been written by one Thomas Rowley in the 15th century, and were attempted to be authenticated, by the perfon who produced them, by various fpecies of evidence. It has been proved, I hope, to the reader's full fatisfaction, that thefe poems could not have been written by Thomas Rowley, or any other perfon in the 15th century; and I fhall now endeavour to make it probable, that they and the evidence, fuch as it is, in fupport of them, were both fabricated, a little before their first appearance in the world, by the person who produced them. That perfon is univerfally acknowledged to have been Thomas Chatterton, the fon of Chatterton the writing-mafter above mentioned, born, soon after his father's death, on the 20th of November 1752. We have juft feen that not an idea of Rowley or

his poems was entertained by any one till feveral years after this æra; and it is as certain that not a fingle poem, purporting to be the work of Rowley, has fince appeared in the world, which did not come ori ginally out of the hands of this Thomas Chatterton. The poems, therefore, having been proved to be forged; the fufpicion, at least, of having forged them falls naturally upon him. His defence, when ever he was questioned about them, was merely this; that he copied them from the manufcripts which his father had taken out of a cheft in Redcliff church." It has been fhewn, that there is not the least ground for believing that any poems were ever depofited in Redcliff church. If any had been there, is it credible that they fhould al have been fwept away, at one hawi, by old Chatterton, fo that no one who came after him fhould have been able to pick up a single fine? If even that had happened, is it credible that he, who was probably capable of reading any hand of the 15th century, fhould either have never difcovered himself, or fhould have obftinately concealed from every body elfe, that fome of these manufcripts contained poems? Laftly, fuppofing him to have been entirely ignorant of their contents, is it poffible that they thould have been applied for eight or nine years together, indifcriminately, as far as appears, to the covering of writing-books, and bibles; that, for fourteen or fifteen years more, the remainder fhould have been applied, with as little felection, to the making of thread-papers, patterns, dolls, and the Jike; and that, after all, the refuse of that remainder should be found to contain a number of poems, by a poet never heard of before (one of twelve hundred lines without a fingle chafm), and a number of pieces in profe by the fame Author? It is true, that, in order to gain fome credit to this very improbable tale, Chatterton did, at dif ferent times, produce a few fragments of what he called the original manufcripts, from which his copies were made. Had all thefe fragments been proved to be genuine, they would have gone a very little way towards authenticating the poems attributed to Rowley; but, in fact, there are the ftrongest reafons for believing them all forged. They are four in number, and contain all together 174 verses. The moft confiderable in length was that which he produced firkt, containing 66 verses. It has fince been loft; but we know that it can. tained the Challenge to Lydgate, the Songe to Ella, and Lydgate's Anfwer; and therefore we can have no difficulty in pronouncing it a forgery, as the correfpondence itfelf between Lydgate and the fuppofed Rowley is plainly fictitious. Another of thefe fragments, entitled, "The Account of William Canynge's Feaft," has been copied in the manner of a Fac fimile, and fubmitted to public examination in my edition, and fince in the Dean's, I have never met with any one, who had examined that Fac fimile with the leaft attention, who was not fatisfied that the archetype was a forgery. Of the two other fragments, one contains the "Epitaph on Robert Canynge,' and the other the 36 first verfes of the Storie of William Conynge." If it had been thought that either of them would bear the light better than The Account of W. Canynge's Feats," one or other of the learned advocates for Rowley would certainly have obtained Mr. Barret's permiffion to give us a Fac fimile of them. An engraving of that fort would have afforded, at lealt, as interesting a decoration to

the

the Dean's Commentary, as either the feal of Sir Baldwin de Fulford, or the tombstone of John Lamington, or even the Anglo-Saxon dulcimer, with nine or ten ftrings! However, there is no reason why they, who cannot have the ocular proof, thould fufpend their judgment upon this occafion'

In a note, Mr. Tyrwhitt fays, I cannot part with thefe curious fragments, without obferving, that they are very ill calculated to imprefs us with the idea of their having been depofited among other valuable curiofities by a wealthy merchant in Redcliff church. One fhould rather fufpe&t them of having been fcrawled by a beggar, upon fcraps of parchment picked off a dunghill. The Dean of Exeter (p. 429) fays, “that the hand in which the fragment of the Storie of William Canynge is written, is fomewhat different from the acCount of Canynge's Feat:" and I add, that the hand in which the Epitaph on Robert Canynge is written, differs entirely, as I remember, from bath. To get rid of this difficulty, the Dean afks, "Why might they not have been tranfcribed by different amanuenfes ?" To which the answer is obvious, that neither Canynge nor Rowley could poffibly have hired three fuch execrable fcribblers to write for them. I rather advife the Dean to maintain, that the Account of Canynge's Feaft, was, as it purports to be, writen by Canynge himself, being fub cribed by his name. The two others, being in different hands, could not both have been written by Rowley: but one of them might, Which it is, Mr. Bryant will be able to determine beft; who, it feems (p. 570), knows where to find " feveral manuscripts fill extant, which were written by Rowly himself, and are fubfcribed by his name in his own hand writing.” The third, perhaps, might as probably be attributed to Sir Thbbot Gorges, who, being a man of quality, we may fuppofe, did not pique himself much upon calligraphy.'.

The Author next proceeds to a vindication of the latter part of his Appendix, in which he endeavoured to prove, from the internal evidence of the language only, that these poems were written entirely by Thomas Chatterton.

My argument (fays he) was founded upon this principle, that if a perfon produces a compofition which nobody but himself can interpret, he must be confidered as the Author. I proved, as I thought, in many inftances, that these poems were inexplicable, except by the falfe and unwarrantable interpretations which Chatterton had annexed to them. I. I had flopped there, the confequence would have followed immediately, that he was the Author; but in tracing his mifinterpretations to their fources, I made an unlucky mistake, which the Dean of Exeter has refuted as oftentatiously as if it affected the main argument. I fuppofed that the interpretations annexed to the poems were almost all taken from Skinner's Etymologicon; but the Dean with more probability, I confels, fuppofes, that they were ra ther taken from Speght's Gloffary to Chaucer. As at prefent advifed, I all fuppofe, that they were taken from a lexicographer of whom f am ashamed to fay, I had never heard the name till very lately, Mr. John Kerley, Philebibl as he figns himlelt; who with laudable in dustry hath collected almost all the old words, I believe, that are to be fourd either in Speght or Skinner, and has generally, with much fidelity, copied, the interpretations affigned to them by those two glof.

farilta.

farists. Wherever, therefore, Chatterton is fuppofed in the Appen. dix to bave been misled by Skinner, I beg leave to substitute Kerfey instead of Skinner; and in that cafe, I fatter myself that the main argument will be fo far from receiving any detriment, that it will be confiderably improved; as it will be manifell, that the impoftor who wrote these poems lived not only long fince Skinner, but fince Kerfey too.'

We directed Mr. Tyrwhitt to Kerfey and Bailey, instead of Skinner; and this hint of ours arose from an accidental difcovery of the word cherifaunei in the latter. It brought the controversy to a fhort iffue: and we are happy to find, that the generality of the learned, fince they were put in this plain track of enquiry, have acquiefced in our decifion.

ART. VII. Biographical and literary Anecdotes of William Bowzer, Printer, F. S. A. and of many of his learned Friends. Containing an Incidental View of the Progrefs and Advancement of Literature in this Kingdom, from the Beginning of the prefent Century to the End of the Year 1777. By John Nichols, his Apprentice, Partner, and Succeffor. 4to. 11. 1s. Printed by and for the Author. 1782.

TH

ture.'

THE life of a private tradefman, however diftinguished as a fcholar, cannot be expected to abound with advenOur induftrious Biographer is fully aware of the objec tion that may be made to his undertaking, from the want of curious and important incidents in the life of a man of fo retired a character; and acknowledges that the anecdotes of Mr. Bowyer are few, when compared to the many that are introduced of his learned friends. Without the latter, the former would have afforded little information, and lefs entertainment, as the anecdotes which more immediately refpe&t Mr. Bowyer confift chiefly of details relating to the trade of publication, which are calculated to afford amufement but to a very small clafs of readers. The principal figure of the piece ftands, however, every where foremost on the canvafs; and the other perfons, of whom anecdotes are occafionally introduced, were connected with him by the ties of friendship or of bufinefs.' In this view the work before us acquires fome degree of confequence; is curious and amufing; and contains a vaft ftore of literary and biographical information.

Mr. Bowyer, we are informed, was born in London, in the year 1699. His father was alfo a Printer, and in the foremoft rank of his profeffion. In June 1716, he was admitted as a Sizer at St. John's College, Cambridge. Here he formed many of thofe connections which introduced him into general esteem. But the greatest fhare of his intimacy was with Mr. Markland, and Mr. William Clarke a polite and accomplished scholar;

two