No More Learning

Jacob Bryant's _Observations upon the Poems of T. Rowley in
which the authenticity of those poems is ascertained_. Bryant was a
strong Pro-Rowleian and argues cleverly against the possibility of
Chatterton's having written the poems. He shows that Chatterton in his
notes often misses Rowley's meaning and insists that he neglected to
explain obvious difficulties because he could not understand them.
Bryant is the least absurd of the Pro-Rowleians.

1782. Dean Milles' edition of the Rowley poems--a splendid quarto with
a running commentary attempting to vindicate Rowley's authenticity.
Milles was President of the Society of Antiquaries and his commentary
is characterized by Professor Skeat as 'perhaps the most surprising
trash in the way of notes that was ever penned.

1782. Mathias' _Essay on the Evidence . . . relating to the poems called
Rowley's_--he is pro-Rowleian and criticizes Tyrwhitt's appendix.

1782. Thomas Warton's _Enquiry . . . into the Poems attributed to Thomas
Rowley_--Anti-Rowleian.

1782. Tyrwhitt's _Vindication_ of his Appendix. Tyrwhitt had
discovered Chatterton's use of Bailey's Dictionary and completely
refutes Bryant, Milles, and Mathias. It may be observed in passing
that though Goldsmith upheld Rowley, Dr. Johnson, the two
Wartons, Steevens, Percy, Dr. Farmer, and Sir H. Croft pronounced
unhesitatingly in favour of the poems having been written by
Chatterton: while Malone in a mocking anti-Rowleian pamphlet shows
that the similes from Homer in the _Battle of Hastings_ and elsewhere
have often borrowed their rhymes from Pope!

1798. _Miscellanies in Prose and Verse_ by Edward Gardner (two
volumes). At the end of Volume II there is a short account of the
Rowley controversy and, what is more important, the statement that
Gardner had seen Chatterton antiquate a parchment and had heard him
say that a person who had studied antiquities could with the aid of
certain books (among them Bailey) 'copy the style of our elder poets
so exactly that the most skilful observer should not be able to detect
him. "No," said he, "not Mr. Walpole himself. "' But perhaps this
should be taken _cum grano_.

1803. Southey and Cottle's edition in three volumes with an account
of Chatterton by Dr. Gregory which had previously been published as an
independent book. Southey and Cottle's edition is very compendious so
far as matter goes, and contains much that is printed for the first
time. Gregory's life is inaccurate but very pleasantly written.

1837. Dix's life of Chatterton, with a frontispiece portrait of
Chatterton aged 12 which was for a long time believed to be authentic.
No genuine portrait of Chatterton is known to be in existence;
probably none was ever made. Dix's life, not a remarkable work in
itself, has some interesting appendices; one of which contains a
story--extraordinary enough but well supported--that Chatterton's
body, which had received a pauper's burial in London, was secretly
reburied in St. Mary's churchyard by his uncle the Sexton.

1842. Willcox's edition printed at Cambridge; on the whole a slovenly
piece of work with a villainously written introduction.

1854. George Pryce's _Memorials of Canynges Family_; which contains
some notes of the coroner's inquest on Chatterton's body, which would
have been most interesting if authentic, but were in fact forged by
one Gutch.

1856. _Chatterton: a biography_ by Professor Masson--published
originally in a volume of collected essays; re-published and in
part re-written as an independent volume in 1899. The Professor
reconstructs scenes in which Chatterton played a part; but it is
suggested (with diffidence) that his treatment is too sentimental, and
the boy-poet is Georgy-porgied in a way that would have driven him
out of his senses, if he could have foreseen it. The picture is
fundamentally false.

1857. _An Essay on Chatterton_ by S. R. Maitland, D. D. , F. R. S. , and
F. S. A. A very monument of ignorant perversity. The writer shamelessly
distorts facts to show that Chatterton was an utterly profligate
blackguard and declares finally that neither Rowley nor Chatterton
wrote the poems.

1869. Professor D. Wilson's _Chatterton: a Biographical Study_, and

1871. Professor W. W. Skeat's _Poetical Works of Thomas Chatterton_ (in
modernized English) of which mention has been made above.

1898. A beautifully printed edition of the Rowley poems with decorated
borders, edited by Robert Steele. (Ballantyne Press. )

1905 and 1909. The works of Chatterton, with the Rowley poems in
modernized English, edited with a brief introduction by Sidney Lee.

1910. _The True Chatterton--a new study from original documents_ by
John H. Ingram. (Fisher Unwin. )

Besides all these serious presentations of Chatterton there are a
number of burlesques--such as _Rowley and Chatterton in the Shades_
(1782) and _An Archaeological Epistle to Jeremiah Milles_ (1782),
which are clever and amusing, and three plays, two in English, and
one in French by Alfred de Vigny, which represents the love affair of
Chatterton and an apocryphal Mme. Kitty Bell.

The whole of Chatterton's writings--Rowley, acknowledged poems, and
private letters, have been translated into French prose. _Oeuvres
completes de Thomas Chatterton traduites par Javelin Pagnon, precedees
d'une Vie de Chatterton par A. Callet_ (1839). Callet's treatment of
Chatterton is very sympathetic and interesting.

Finally for further works on Chatterton the reader is referred to
Bohn's Edition of Lowndes' _Bibliographer's Manual_--but the most
important have been enumerated above.




IV. NOTE ON THE TEXT.


This edition is a reprint of Tyrwhitt's third (1778) edition, which it
follows page for page (except the glossary; see note on p. 291). The
reference numbers in text and glossary, which are often wrong in 1778,
have been corrected; line-numbers have been corrected when wrong, and
added to one or two poems which are without them in 1778, and the text
has been collated throughout with that of 1777 and corrected from it
in many places where the 1778 printer was at fault. These corrections
have been made silently; all other corrections and additions are
indicated by footnotes enclosed in square brackets.




V. NOTES.


1. _The Tournament_, lines 7-10.

Wythe straunge depyctures, Nature maie nott yeelde, &c.

'This is neither sense nor grammar as it stands' says Professor Skeat.
But Chatterton is frequently ungrammatical, and the sense of the
passage is quite clear if either of the two following possible
meanings is attributed to _unryghte_.

(1)=to present an intelligible significance otherwise than by
writing--as 'rebus'd shields' do (un-write);

or (2) = to misrepresent (un-right).

With pictures of strange beasts that have no counterpart in Nature and
appear to be purely fantastic ('unseemly to all order') yet none the
less make known to men good at guessing riddles ('who thyncke and
have a spryte') what the strange heraldic forms
express-without-use-of-written-words ('unryghte')--or (taking
the second meaning of unryghte--misrepresent)
present-with-a-disregard-of-truth-to-nature.

2. _Letter to the Dygne Mastre Canynge_, line 15.

Seldomm, or never, are armes vyrtues mede, (that is to say, coats of arms)
Shee nillynge to take myckle aie dothe hede

i. e. 'She unwilling to take much aye doth heed'; 'which is nonsense'
says Prof. Skeat. But the sentence is an example of ellipse, a figure
which Chatterton affected a good deal, and fully expressed would run
'She--not willing to take much, ever doth heed not to take
much', which would of course be intolerably clumsy but perfectly
intelligible.

3. _AElla_, line 467.

Certis thie wordes maie, thou motest have sayne &c.

Prof. Skeat 'can make nothing of this' and reads 'Certes thy wordes
mightest thou have sayn'.

A simple emendation of _maie_ to _meynte_ would give very good sense.

4. _AElla_, line 489.

Tyrwhitt has _sphere_--evidently a mistake in the MS. for _spere_
which he overlooked. It is not included in his errata. In the 1842
edition the meaning 'spear' is given in a footnote.

5. _Englysh Metamorphosis_.

Prof. Skeat was the first to point out that this piece is an imitation
of _The Faerie Queene_, Bk. ii, Canto X, stanzas 5-19.

6. _Battle of Hastings_, II, line 578.

To the ourt arraie of the thight Saxonnes came

Prof. Skeat explains _ourt_ as 'overt' and observes that it
contradicts _thight_, which he renders 'tight'. But really there is
not even an antithesis. _Ourt arraie_ is what a military handbook
calls 'open order' and _thight_ is 'well-built', well put together
(Bailey's Dictionary). The Saxons were well-built men marching in open
order.




VI. APPENDIX.

BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE ARGUMENTS USED IN THE ROWLEY CONTROVERSY.

(Taken mainly from Gregory's _Life of Chatterton_. )


_Against Rowley_.

1. So few originals produced--not more than 124 verses.

2. Chatterton had shown (by his article on Christmas games, &c. ) that
he had a strong turn for antiquities. He had also written poetry. Why
then should he not have written Rowley's poems?

3. His declaration that the _Battle of Hastings_ I was his own.

4. Rudhall's testimony.

5. Chatterton first exhibited the _Songe to AElla_ in his own
handwriting, then gave Barrett the parchment, which contained strange
textual variations.

6. Rowley's very existence doubtful.

William of Worcester, who lived at his time and was himself of
Bristol, makes no mention of him, though he frequently alludes to
Canynge. Neither Bale, Leland, Pitts nor Turner mentions Rowley.

7. Improbability of there being poems in a muniment chest. 8. Style
unlike other fifteenth century writings.

9. No mediaeval learning or citation of authority to be found in
Rowley; no references to the Round Table and stories of chivalry.

10. Stockings were not knitted in the fifteenth century (_AElla_). MSS.
are referred to as if they were rarities and printed books common.

11. Metres and imitation of Pindar absurdly modern.

12. Mistakes cited which are derived from modern dictionaries
(Tyrwhitt).

13. Existence of undoubted plagiarisms from Shakespeare, Gray, &c.


_For Rowley_.

1. Chatterton's assertion that they were Rowley's, his sister having
represented him as a 'lover of truth from the earliest dawn of
reason. '

2. Catcott's assertion that Chatterton on their first acquaintance had
mentioned by name almost all the poems which have since appeared in
print (Bryant).

3. Smith had seen parchments in the possession of Chatterton, some as
broad as the bottom of a large-sized chair. (Bryant. )

4. Even Mr. Clayfield and Rudhall believed Chatterton incapable of
composing Rowley's poems.

5. Undoubtedly there were ancient MSS. in the 'cofre'.

6. Chatterton would never have had time to write so much. He did not
neglect his work in the attorney's office and he read enormously.

7. Chatterton made many mistakes in his transcription of Rowley and in
his notes to the poems. (Bryant's main contention. )

8. If Leland never mentioned Rowley it is equally true he says nothing
of Canynge, Lydgate, or Occleve.


_For Rowley_.

1. The poems contain much historical allusion at once true and
inaccessible to Chatterton.

2. The admitted poems are much below the standard of Rowley.

3. The old octave stanza is not far removed from the usual stanza of
Rowley.

4. If Rowley's language differs from that of other fifteenth
century writers, the difference lies in provincialisms natural to an
inhabitant of Bristol.

5.
Plagiarisms from modern authors may in some cases have been
introduced by Chatterton but in others they are the commonplaces of
poetry.


_Against Rowley_.

1. No writings or chest deposited in Redcliffe Church are mentioned in
Canynge's Will.

2. The Bristol library was in Chatterton's time of general access, and
Chatterton was introduced to it by Rev. A. Catcott (Warton).

3. Facts about Canynge may be found in his epitaph in Redcliffe
Church; and the account of Redcliffe steeple--(which had been
destroyed by fire before Chatterton's time) came from the bottom of an
old print published in 1746.

4. The parchments were taken from the bottom of old deeds where a
small blank space was usually left--hence their small size.




POEMS,

SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN AT BRISTOL,

BY THOMAS ROWLEY, AND OTHERS, IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.




POEMS,

SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN AT BRISTOL, BY THOMAS ROWLEY,
AND OTHERS, IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY. THE THIRD EDITION; TO
WHICH IS ADDED AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING SOME OBSERVATIONS UPON
THE LANGUAGE OF THESE POEMS; TENDING TO PROVE, THAT THEY WERE
WRITTEN, NOT BY ANY ANCIENT AUTHOR, BUT ENTIRELY BY THOMAS
CHATTERTON.




THE CONTENTS OF THIS VOLUME.

The Preface
Introductory Account of the Several Pieces
Advertisement
Eclogue the First
Eclogue the Second
Eclogue the Third
Elinoure and Juga
Verses to Lydgate
Songe to AElla
Lydgate's Answer
The Tournament
The Dethe of Syr Charles Bawdin
Epistle to Mastre Canynge on AElla
Letter to the dygne M. Canynge
Entroductionne
AElla; a Tragycal Enterlude
Goddwyn; a Tragedie. (A Fragment. )
Englysh Metamorphosis, B. I.
Balade of Charitie
Battle of Hastings, No. 1.
Battle of Hastings, No. 2.
Onn oure Ladies Chyrche
On the same
Epitaph on Robert Canynge
The Storie of William Canynge
On Happienesse, by William Canynge
Onn Johne a Dalbenie, by the same
The Gouler's Requiem, by the same
The Accounte of W. Canynge's Feast
GLOSSARY




PREFACE.


The Poems, which make the principal part of this Collection, have
for some time excited much curiosity, as the supposed productions of
THOMAS ROWLEY, a priest of Bristol, in the reigns of Henry VI. and
Edward IV. They are here faithfully printed from the most authentic
MSS that could be procured; of which a particular description is given
in the _Introductory account of the several pieces contained in this
volume_, subjoined to this Preface. Nothing more therefore seems
necessary at present, than to inform the Reader shortly of the manner
in which these Poems were first brought to light, and of the authority
upon which they are ascribed to the persons whose names they bear.

This cannot be done so satisfactorily as in the words of Mr. George
Catcott of Bristol, to whose very laudable zeal the Publick is
indebted for the most considerable part of the following collection.
His account of the matter is this: "The first discovery of certain MSS
having been deposited in Redclift church, above three centuries ago,
was made in the year 1768, at the time of opening the new bridge at
Bristol, and was owing to a publication in _Farley's Weekly Journal_,
1 October 1768, containing an _Account of the ceremonies observed at
the opening of the old bridge_, taken, as it was said, from a very
antient MS. This excited the curiosity of some persons to enquire
after the original. The printer, Mr. Farley, could give no account of
it, or of the person who brought the copy; but after much enquiry
it was discovered, that the person who brought the copy was a youth,
between 15 and 16 years of age, whose name was Thomas Chatterton, and
whose family had been sextons of Redclift church for near 150 years.
His father, who was now dead, had also been master of the free-school
in Pile-street. The young man was at first very unwilling to discover
from whence he had the original; but, after many promises made to him,
he was at last prevailed on to acknowledge, that he had received this,
_together with many other MSS_, from his father, who had found them
in a large chest in an upper room over the chapel on the north side of
Redclift church. "

Soon after this Mr. Catcott commenced his acquaintance with young
Chatterton[1], and, partly as presents partly as purchases, procured
from him copies of many of his MSS. in in prose and verse. Other
copies were disposed of, in the same way, to Mr. William Barrett, an
eminent surgeon at Bristol, who has long been engaged in writing
the history of that city. Mr. Barrett also procured from him several
fragments, some of a considerable length, written upon vellum[2],
which he asserted to be part of his original MSS. In short, in the
space of about eighteen months, from October 1768 to April 1770,
besides the Poems now published, he produced as many compositions,
in prose and verse, under the names of Rowley, Canynge, &c. as would
nearly fill such another volume.

In April 1770 Chatterton went to London, and died there in the August
following; so that the whole history of this very extraordinary
transaction cannot now probably be known with any certainty. Whatever
may have been his part in it; whether he was the author, or only
the copier (as he constantly asserted) of all these productions; he
appears to have kept the secret entirely to himself, and not to have
put it in the power of any other person, to bear certain testimony
either to his fraud or to his veracity.

The question therefore concerning the authenticity of these Poems must
now be decided by an examination of the fragments upon vellum, which
Mr. Barrett received from Chatterton as part of his original MSS. ,
and by the internal evidence which the several pieces afford. If the
Fragments shall be judged to be genuine, it will still remain to be
determined, how far their genuineness should serve to authenticate the
rest of the collection, of which no copies, older than those made by
Chatterton, have ever been produced. On the other hand, if the writing
of the Fragments shall be judged to be counterfeit and forged by
Chatterton, it will not of necessity follow, that the matter of
them was also forged by him, and still less, that all the other
compositions, which he professed to have copied from antient MSS. ,
were merely inventions of his own. In either case, the decision must
finally depend upon the internal evidence.

It may be expected perhaps, that the Editor should give an opinion
upon this important question; but he rather chooses, for many reasons,
to leave it to the determination of the unprejudiced and intelligent
Reader. He had long been desirous that these Poems should be printed;
and therefore readily undertook the charge of superintending the
edition. This he has executed in the manner, which seemed to him best
suited to such a publication; and here he means that his task should
end. Whether the Poems be really antient, or modern; the compositions
of Rowley, or the forgeries of Chatterton; they must always be
considered as a most singular literary curiosity.

[Footnote 1: The history of this youth is so intimately connected with
that of the poems now published, that the Reader cannot be too early
apprized of the principal circumstances of his short life. He was born
on the 20th of November 1752, and educated at a charity-school on St.
Augustin's Back, where nothing more was taught than reading, writing,
and accounts. At the age of fourteen, he was articled clerk to an
attorney, with whom he continued till he left Bristol in April 1770.

Though his education was thus confined, he discovered an early turn
towards poetry and English antiquities, particularly heraldry. How
soon he began to be an author is not known. In the _Town and Country
Magazine_ for March 1769, are two letters, probably, from him, as they
are dated at Bristol, and subscribed with his usual signature, D. B.
The first contains short extracts from two MSS. , "_written three
hundred years ago by one Rowley, a Monk_" concerning dress in the age
of Henry II; the other, "ETHELGAR, _a Saxon poem_" in bombast prose.
In the same Magazine for May 1769, are three communications from
Bristol, with the same signature, D. B. _viz_. CERDICK, _translated
from the Saxon_ (in the same style with ETHELGAR), p.
233. --_Observations upon Saxon heraldry_, with drawings of _Saxon
atchievements_, &c. p. 245. --ELINOURE and JUGA, _written three hundred
years ago by_ T. ROWLEY, _a secular priest_, p. 273. This last poem is
reprinted in this volume, p. 19. In the subsequent months of 1769 and
1770 there are several other pieces in the same Magazine, which are
undoubtedly of his composition.

In April 1770, he left Bristol and came to London, in hopes of
advancing his fortune by his talents for writing, of which, by this
time, he had conceived a very high opinion. In the prosecution of this
scheme, he appears to have almost entirely depended upon the patronage
of a set of gentlemen, whom an eminent author long ago pointed out, as
_not the very worst judges or rewarders of merit_, the booksellers of
this great city. At his first arrival indeed he was so unlucky as to
find two of his expected Maecenases, the one in the King's Bench, and
the other in Newgate. But this little disappointment was alleviated
by the encouragement which he received from other quarters; and on the
14th of May he writes to his mother, in high spirits upon the change
in his situation, with the following sarcastic reflection upon his
former patrons at Bristol. "_As to Mr. ----, Mr. ----, Mr. ----, &c. &c.
they rate literary lumber so low, that I believe an author, in their
estimation, must be poor indeed! But here matters are otherwise. Had_
Rowley _been a_ Londoner _instead of a_ Bristowyan, _I could have
lived by_ copying _his works_. "

In a letter to his sister, dated 30 May, he informs her, that he is to
be employed "_in writing a voluminous history of_ London, _to appear
in numbers the beginning of next winter_. " In the mean time, he had
written something in praise of the Lord Mayor (Beckford), which had
procured him the honour of being presented to his lordship. In the
letter just mentioned he gives the following account of his reception,
with some curious observations upon political writing: "The Lord
Mayor received me as politely as a citizen could. But the devil of
the matter is, there is no money to be got of this side of the
question. --But he is a poor author who cannot write on both
sides. --Essays on the patriotic side will fetch no more than what
the copy is sold for. As the patriots themselves are searching for a
place, they have no gratuity to spare. --On the other hand, unpopular
essays will not even be accepted; and you must pay to have them
printed: but then you seldom lose by it, as courtiers are so sensible
of their deficiency in merit, that they generously reward all who know
how to dawb them with the appearance of it. "

Notwithstanding his employment on the History of London, he continued
to write incessantly in various periodical publications. On the 11th
of July he tells his sister that he had pieces last month in the
_Gospel Magazine_; the _Town and Country, viz. _ Maria Friendless;
False Step; Hunter of Oddities; To Miss Bush, &c. _Court and City;
London; Political Register &c. _ But all these exertions of his
genius brought in so little profit, that he was soon reduced to real
indigence; from which he was relieved by death (in what manner is not
certainly known), on the 24th of August, or thereabout, when he wanted
near three months to complete his eighteenth year. The floor of his
chamber was covered with written papers, which he had torn into small
pieces; but there was no appearance (as the Editor has been credibly
informed) of any writings on parchment or vellum. ]

[Footnote 2: One of these fragments, by Mr. Barrett's permission, has
been copied in the manner of a _Fac simile_, by that ingenious artist
Mr. Strutt, and an engraving of it is inserted at p. 288. Two other
small fragments of Poetry are printed in p. 277, 8, 9. See the
_Introductory Account_. The fragments in prose, which are considerably
larger, Mr. Barrett intends to publish in his History of Bristol,
which, the Editor has the satisfaction to inform the Publick, is
very far advanced. In the same work will be inserted _A Discorse on
Bristowe_, and the other historical pieces in prose, which Chatterton
at different times delivered out, as copied from Rowley's MSS. ; with
such remarks by Mr. Barrett, as he of all men living is best qualified
to make, from his accurate researches into the Antiquities of
Bristol. ]




INTRODUCTORY ACCOUNT

OF THE

SEVERAL PIECES

CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME.


ECLOGUE THE FIRST. p. 1
ECLOGUE THE SECOND. 6
ECLOGUE THE THIRD. 12

These three Eclogues are printed from a MS. furnished by Mr. Catcott,
in the hand-writing of Thomas Chatterton. It is a thin copy-book in
4to. with the following title in the first page. "_Eclogues and other
Poems by_ Thomas Rowley, _with a Glossary and Annotations by_ Thomas
Chatterton. "

There is only one other Poem in this book, viz. the fragment of
"_Goddwyn, a Tragedie_," which see below, p. 173.


ELINOURE AND JUGA.

This Poem is reprinted from the _Town and Country Magazine_ for May
1769, p. 273. It is there entitled, "_Elinoure and Juga. Written three
hundred years ago by T. Rowley, a secular priest_. " And it has the
following subscription; "D. B. Bristol, May, 1769. " Chatterton soon
after told Mr. Catcott, that he (Chatterton) inserted it in the
Magazine.

The present Editor has taken the liberty to supply [between books][1]
the names of the speakers, at ver. 22 and 29, which had probably been
omitted by some accident in the first publication; as the nature of
the composition seems to require, that the dialogue should proceed by
alternate stanzas.


VERSES TO LYDGATE. p. 23
SONGE TO AELLA. Ibid.
LYDGATE'S ANSWER. 26

These three small Poems are printed from a copy in Mr. Catcott's
hand-writing. Since they were printed off, the Editor has had an
opportunity of comparing them with a copy made by Mr. Barrett from the
piece of vellum, which Chatterton formerly gave to him as the original
MS. The variations of importance (exclusive of many in the spelling)
are set down below [2].

[Footnote 1: Misspelled as hooks in the original. --PG editor]

[Footnote 2: _Verses to Lydgate_.

In the title for _Ladgate_, r. _Lydgate_.
ver. 2. r. _Thatt I and thee_.
3. for _bee_, r. _goe_.
7. for _fyghte_, r. _wryte_. ]


THE TOURNAMENT. p. 28

This Poem is printed from a copy made by Mr. Catcott, from one in
Chatterton's hand-writing.

_Songe to AElla_.

The title in the vellum MS. was simply "_Songe toe AElle_," with a
small mark of reference to a note below, containing the following
words--"_Lorde of the castelle of Brystowe ynne daies of yore_. "
It may be proper also to take notice, that the whole song was there
written like prose, without any breaks, or divisions into verses.

ver. 6. for _brastynge_, r. _burslynge_.
11. for _valyante_, r. _burlie_.
23. for _dysmall_, r. _honore_.

_Lydgate's answer_.

No title in the vellum MS.

ver. 3. for _varses_, r. _pene_.
antep. for _Lendes_, r. _Sendes_.