The Rowley Poems by Thomas Chatterton (inspirational books to read .txt) 📖

who has very absurdly explained Bismare to mean

Curiosity. The true meaning has been stated above, p. 318.

 

CALKE. G. 25. _Cast_. Chatterton. CALKED. E. I. 49. _Cast out,

ejected_. Chatterton. This word appears to have been formed upon a

misapprehension of the following article in Skinner. "Calked, exp.

Cast, credo Cast up." Chatterton did not attend to the difference

between _casting out_ and _casting up_, i.e. _casting up figures in

calculation_. That the latter was Skinner's meaning may be collected

from his next article. "Calked for Calculated. Ch. the Frankeleynes

tale." It is probable too, I think, that in both articles Skinner

refers, by mistake, to a line of _the Frankelein's tale_, which in the

common editions stands thus:

 

  "Ful subtelly he had _calked_ al this."

 

Where _calked_ is a mere misprint for _calculed_, the reading of the

MSS. See the late Edit. ver. 11596.

 

It would be easy to add many more instances of words, _either not

ancient or not used in their ancient sense_, which repeatedly occur

in these poems, and must be construed according to those fanciful

significations which Skinner has ascribed to them. How that should

have happened, unless either Skinner had read the Poems (which, I

presume, nobody can suppose,) or the author of the Poems had read

Skinner, I cannot see. It is against all odds, that two men, living

at the distance of two hundred years one from the other, should

accidentally agree in coining the same words, and in affixing to them

exactly the same meaning.

 

I proceed to state some instances of words and interpretations which

are evidently founded upon misapprehensions of passages in Skinner.

 

ALYSE. Le. 29. G. 180. _Allow_. Chatterton. See before, p. 314.

 

Till I meet with this word, in this sense, in some approved author, I

shall be of opinion that it has been formed from a mistaken reading

of the following article in Skinner. "Alised, Authori Dict. Angl. apud

quem folum occurrit, exp. Allowed, ab AS. Alised, &c." In the Gothic

types used by Skinner f might be easily mistaken for a long s.

 

BESTOIKER. Æ. 91. _Deceiver_. Chatterton. See also Æ. 1064.

 

This word also seems plainly to have originated from a mistake in

reading Skinner. "Bestwike, ab AS. Berpican, Spican, _Decipere_,

Fallere, Prodere, Spica, Proditor, _Deceptor_." Chatterton in his

hurry read this as Bestoike, and formed a noun from it accordingly.

 

BLAKE. Æ. 178. 407. _Naked_. Chatterton. BLAKIED. E. III. 4. _Naked,

original_. Chatterton. See before, p. 317.

 

Skinner has the following article. "Blake _and_ bare, videtur ex

contextu prorsus _Nuda_, sort. q. d. Bleak _and_ Bare, dum enim nudi

fumus eóque aeri expositi, præ frigore pallescimus. Ch. sol. 184. p.

Col. i."

 

Chatterton has caught hold of _Nuda_, which in Skinner is the

exposition of _Bare_, as if it belonged to _Blake_.

 

HANCELLED. G. 49. _Cut off, destroyed_. Chatterton. _Hancelled_ from

erthe these Normanne hyndes shalle bee.

 

Skinner has the same word, which he thus explains. "Hanceled, exp. Cut

off, credo dici proprie, vel primario faltem, tantum de prima portione

feu segmento quod ad tentandam feu explorandam rem abscindimus, ut ubi

dicimus, _to_ Hansell _a pasty or a gammon of bacon_." Chatterton, who

had neither inclination nor perhaps ability to make himself master of

so long a piece of Latin, appears to have looked no further than

the two English words at the beginning of this explanation; and

understanding _Cut off_ to mean _Destroyed_, he has used _Hancelled_

in the same sense.

 

SHAP. Æ. 34. G. 18. _Fate_. Chatterton. SHAP-SCURGED. Æ. 603.

_Fate-scourged_. Chatterton.

 

_Shap_ haveth nowe ymade hys woes for to emmate. Stylle mormorynge

atte yer _shap_.----There ys ne house athrow thys _shap-scurged_

isle.

 

I never was able to conceive how _Shap_ should have been used in the

English language to signifie _Fate_, till I observed the following

article in Skinner, "Shap, _now is my_ Shap, nunc mihi _Fato_

præstitutum est (i.e.) _now is it_ shapen _to me_, ab AS. Sceapan,

&c." I suppose that the word _Fato_, in the Latin, led Chatterton to

understand _now is my shap_ to mean _now is my fate_.

 

The passage, to which Skinner refers, is in the Knight's tale of

Chaucer, ver. 1227.

 

  _Now is me shape_ eternally to dwelle

  Not only in purgatorie but in helle.

 

But in the Edit. of 1602, which Skinner appears to have made use

of, it is written _Now is me shap_. The putting of _my_ for _me_ was

probably a mistake of the Printer, as Skinner's explanation shews that

he read _me_. I fancy the generality of readers will be satisfied by

the foregoing quotations, that the Author of these poems had not only

read Skinner, but has also misapprehended and misapplied what he found

in him. If more instances should be wanted, a comparison of the words

explained by Chatterton with the same or similar words as explained by

Skinner, will furnish them in abundance[6]. I shall therefore conclude

this Appendix with a short view of the preceding argument. It has been

proved, that the poems attributed to Rowley were not written in the

XV Century; and it follows of course, that they were written, at a

subsequent period, by some impostor, who endeavoured to counterfeit an

author of that century.

 

It has been proved, that this impostor lived since Skinner, and that

the same person wrote the interpretations of words by way of Glossary,

which are subjoined to most of the poems.

 

It has also been proved, that Chatterton wrote those interpretations

of words.

 

Whether any thing further be necessary to prove, that the poems were

entirely written by Chatterton, is left to the reader's judgement.

If he should stick at the word _entirely_, which may possibly seem to

carry the conclusion a little beyond the premisses, he is desired to

reflect, that, the poems having been proved to be a forgery since the

time of Skinner, and to have been written in great part by Chatterton,

it is infinitely more probable that the remainder was also written by

him than by any other person. The great difficulty is to conceive that

a youth, like Chatterton, should ever have formed the plan of such an

imposture, and should have executed it with so much perseverance and

ingenuity; but if we allow (as I think we must) that he was the author

of those pieces to which he subjoined his interpretations, I can see

no reason whatever for supposing that he had any assistance in the

rest. The internal evidence is strong that they are all from one hand;

and external evidence there is none, that I have been able to meet

with, which ought to persuade us, that a single line, of verse or

prose, purporting to be the work of ROWLEY, existed before the time of

CHATTERTON.

 

[Footnote 1: I have chosen this _part_ of the internal evidence,

because the arguments, which it furnishes, are not only very decisive,

but also lie within a moderate compass. For the same reason of

brevity, I have confined my observations to a _part_ only of

this _part_, viz. to _words_, considered with respect to their

_significations_ and _inflexions_. A complete examination of this

subject _in all its parts_ would be a work of length.]

 

[Footnote 2: Of these varieties all, except the first, are more

properly varieties of _style_ than of _language_. The _local

situation_ of a writer may certainly produce a _provincial dialect_,

which will often differ essentially from the language used at the same

time in other parts of the same country. But this can only happen in

the case of persons of no education and totally illiterate; and such

persons seldom write. It is unnecessary however to discuss this point

very accurately, as nobody, I believe, will contend, that the poems

attributed to Rowley are written in any _provincial dialect_. If there

should be a few words in them, which are now more common at Bristol

than at London, it should be remembered that Chatterton was of

Bristol.]

 

[Footnote 3: It is not surprizing that Chatterton should have been

ignorant of a peculiarity of the English language, which appears to

have escaped the observation of a professed editor of Chaucer. Mr.

Urry has very frequently lengthened _verbs in the singular number_, by

adding _n_ to them, without any authority, I am persuaded, even from

the errors of former Editions or MSS. It might seem invidious to point

out living writers, of acknowledged learning, who have slipped into

the same mistake in their imitations of Chaucer and Spenser.]

 

[Footnote 4: This is a point so material to the following argument,

that, though it has never hitherto, I believe, been made a question,

it ought not perhaps to be assumed without some proof. It may be said,

that Chatterton was only the _transcriber_ of the Glossary as well

as of the Poems. If to such an attention we were to answer, that

Chatterton always declared himself the _author_ of the Glossaries,

we should be told perhaps, that with equal truth he always declared

Rowley to have been the author of the Poems. But (not to insist upon

the very different weight, which the same testimony might be allowed

to have in the two cases) it has happened luckily, that the Glossary

to the Poem, entitled "_Englysh Metamorphosis_," [See p. 196.] was

written down by Chatterton extemporally, without the assistance of any

book, at the desire and in the presence of Mr. Barrett. Whoever will

compare that Glossary with the others, will have no doubt of their

being all from the same hand.]

 

[Footnote 5: Printed at London, MDCLXXI. The part, which Chatterton

seems to have chiefly consulted, is that, which begins at Sign. U u u

u, and is entitled "_Etymologicon vocum omnium antiquarum Anglicarum,

quæ usque a Wilhelmo Victore invaluerunt, &c._"]

 

[Footnote 6: I will state shortly some of those words, which have

been cited above, p. 313. as _either not ancient or not used in their

ancient sense_, with their corresponding articles in Skinner.

 

ABESSIE; _Humility_. C.--Abessed;--_Humiliatus_. Sk.

 

ABORNE; _Burnished_, C.--Borne; _Burnish_. Sk. It was usual with

Chatterton to prefix _a_ to words of all sorts, without any regard to

custom or propriety. See in the Alphabetical Gloss. _Aboune, Abreave,

Acome, Aderne, Adygne, Agrame, Agreme, Alest_, &c.

 

ABOUNDE. This word Chatterton has not interpreted, but the context

shews that it is used in the sense of _good_. So that I suspect it was

taken from the following article in Skinner. Abone,--a Fr. G. Abonnir;

_Bonum_ facere.

 

ABREDYNGE: _Upbraiding_. C.--Abrede, exp. _Upbraid_. Sk.

 

ACROOL; _Faintly_. C.--Crool, exp. _Murmurare_. Sk. See the remark

upon ABORNE.

 

ADENTE, ADENTED: _Fastened, annexed_. C.--Adent;--_Configere,

Conjungere_. Sk.

 

ALUSTE has no interpretation: but it is used in the sense of _raise_.

Perhaps it may have been derived from a mistaken reading of Alust,

which is explained by Skinner to mean _Tollere_. See the remarks upon

_Alyse_ and _Bestoiker_, p. 328, 329.

 

DERNE, DERNIE; _Woeful, lamentable, cruel_. C.--Derne; _Dirus,

crudelis_. Sk.

 

DROORIE; _Modesty_. C.--Drury; _Modestia_. Sk.

 

FONS, FONNES; _Fancys, Devices_. C.--Fonnes; _Devises_. Sk.

 

KNOPPED; _Fastened, chained, congealed_. C.--Knopped; _Tied_. Sk.

 

LITHIE: _Humble_. C.--Lithy; _Humble_. Sk. But in truth I do not

believe that there is any such word. Skinner probably found it in his

edition of Chaucer's _Cuckow and Nightingale_, ver. 14. where the MSS.

have LITHER (_wicked_), which is undoubtedly the right reading.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imprint

Publication Date: 05-09-2015

All Rights Reserved