Note 1 — POEMS

A good general account of the controversy can be found in E. H. W. Meyerstein’s A Life of Thomas Chatterton (London, 1930). I wish to thank the University of Western Ontario for the grant enabling me to work at the British Museum and Bodleian Library. I am indebted to my colleague Herbert Berry for his useful suggestions.

2. Poems, supposed to have been written at Bristol, by Thomas Rowley and Others, in the Fifteenth Century; the greatest part now first published from the most authentic copies, with an engraved specimen of one of the MSS.... The earliest advertisement that I have seen for this edition is in the London Chronicle, No. 3158 (1-4 March 1777).

3. Until Professor James M. Osborn’s biography of Malone is ready, Sir James Prior’s Life (London, 1860) remains standard. Concerning Malone’s private opinions about Rowley, see his letter to Charlemont quoted below.

4. A convenient reprinting of this edition is The Rowley Poems by Thomas Chatterton, ed. M. E. Hare (Oxford, 1911).

5. II (London, 1778), 139-164—perhaps more accessible in Richard Price’s edition of the History, II (London, 1840), 338-360.

6. Letters from Francis Woodward to Lord Charlemont on 21 July 1778 and 8 April 1779 give brief accounts of the progress of Milles’ research. See the Twelfth Report of the Historical MSS Commission, Appendix X: The Manuscripts and Correspondence of James, First Earl of Charlemont (London, 1891), I, 340-341 and 345.

7. An advertisement in the St. James’s Chronicle, No. 3233 (24-27 Nov.) says that the Observations will be published “Saturday next.” An advertisement in No. 3235 (29 Nov.-1 Dec.) says that the Observations “this day were published.” The latter phrase was often used in consecutive advertisements of a work during this period, but in view of the announcement in No. 3233, it would seem that Bryant’s work did appear on 1 Dec.

8. Milles reprinted Tyrwhitt’s edition (except for the “Appendix,” Tyrwhitt’s essay against the authenticity of the poems), correcting the errata and adding a few new pieces. His commentary includes a long answer to Tyrwhitt, a “Preliminary Dissertation,” introductions to various poems, and footnotes throughout the text. Since 1782 is the year imprinted on the title-page, bibliographies have always given this as the year of publication. But No. 3239 of the St. James’s Chronicle (8-11 Dec. 1781) advertises the work as published. A MS note by Joseph Haslewood in a pamphlet at the British Museum (shelf-mark C.39.f.16) mentions his having seen a copy of Milles’ work which Richard Gough obtained on 12 Dec. 1781.

9. History, ed. Price, II, 340.

10. Rowley Poems, ed. Hare, p. 311.

11. See Meyerstein, Life, pp. 472-474. Warton’s reply, advertised in the St. James’s Chronicle in No. 3280 (14-16 March 1782) to be published “in a few Days,” was An Enquiry into the Authenticity of the Poems attributed to Thomas Rowley. In which the arguments of the Dean of Exeter, and Mr. Bryant are examined. Tyrwhitt’s reply, first advertised in the St. James in No. 3342 (6-8 Aug. 1782), was A Vindication of the Appendix to the Poems, called Rowley’s . . . .

12. The only earlier replies were obscure squibs in the newspapers. See the St. James’s Chronicle, Nos. 3238 (6-8 Dec., against Bryant), 3240 (11-13 Dec., against Bryant), and 3245 (22-25 Dec., against both).

13. LI (1781), 555-559, 609-615. On its publishing schedule during the 18th century, see the Gentleman’s Magazine, N.S., I (July-Dec., 1856), 9. Neither the magazine nor the pamphlet mentioned Malone’s authorship, but his hand in “the new Pamphlet,” at least, was soon recognized (see the St. James’s Chronicle, No. 3268, 14-16 Feb. 1782). One can only speculate whether Malone and Nichols were fellow plotters from the beginning. They seem to have taken interest in each other’s work as early as 1779, when Nichols printed for Malone special copies of some early analogues to Shakespeare’s plays. See Albert H. Smith, “John Nichols, Printer and Publisher,” The Library, 5th Ser., XVIII (1963), 182-183. And evidently Nichols had an eye out for anti-Rowleian materials. At his solicitation, Horace Walpole allowed the Letter to the Editor of the [Chatterton] Miscellanies (Strawberry Hill, 1779) to be reprinted in the Gentleman’s Magazine in 1782 (LII, 189-195, 247-250, 300, and 347-348).

14. Nichols’ printing operations are described in a pamphlet by David Bond, Friendship Strikingly exhibited in a New Light (London, 1781).

15. Charlemont Correspondence, I, 393-394. I wish to thank Professor Osborn for calling my attention to this letter.

16. See the Gentleman’s Magazine, LII (1782), 14-15, and the St. James’s Chronicle, Nos. 3257 (19-22 Jan.) and 3264 (5-7 Feb.).

17. The Letters of Horace Walpole, ed. Paget Toynbee, XII (Oxford, 1904), 152.

18. Concerning Walpole’s copy, see Horace Walpole’s Correspondence, Yale Ed., ed. W. S. Lewis et al., XVI (New Haven, 1952), 363. I have found no trace of any other version of the pamphlet, and it is doubtful that there was time for one to be published between 8 Jan., when Malone wrote to Charlemont, and 31 Jan., the date of the “Advertisement” printed in the “revised and augmented” edition. We may presume that as editor of the magazine Nichols would not be anxious for another printing of the essay during Jan. to compete with two numbers in which the essay was a principal feature. All copies of the pamphlet which I have been able to locate specify “the second edition, revised and augmented.” In my examination of six copies (at the Library of Congress, the Bodleian, and the British Museum), I found variation only in the catchword on p. 32. Although the first word on p. 33 is “comprise” in all copies, the catchword in three copies (Bodleian, and British Museum shelf-marks 687.g.33 and 78.i.9) is “contain,” the word Malone used in the magazine.* Since the copies are otherwise identical, repeating distinctive flaws and errors (note, for instance, “written,” p. 19), I judge that this discrepancy was seen and corrected at press, and that all copies are of one printing. * In this edition, the catchword is “comprise”.

19. Besides the added paragraphs and footnotes, I have noted 235 separate textual changes. Undoubtedly some deviations in spelling and punctuation were the printer’s work. But the number of changes in quoted passages (see especially pp. 16 and 60) and the regularity of changes (like those noted above) which evidently serve a stylistic purpose suggest the author’s meticulous revision.

20. In reference to Bryant’s Observations (advertised at 8s.), Malone had said, “by an unwarrentable artifice of the bookseller, it is divided into two, to furnish a pretence for demanding an uncommon price.” Compare with this the statement on p. 2.

21. LII (1782), 128.

22. See Malone’s letter of 19 Nov. 1782 in Charlemont Correspondence, I, 422.

23. See Meyerstein, Life, p. 474, and Warton’s comment (n. 35).

24. The other passages are on pp. 19-22, 23, 25, 49-50, 51-57, and 57-58. The new footnotes are on pp. 10, 24-25, 29, 33, and 50. Links to “other passages” are conjectural.

25. That he had quoted out of Warton’s History the passages from Hoccleve and Bradshaw, not having other texts readily at hand, indicates Malone’s haste to publish the essay originally. He retained the Hoccleve passage (p. 6); his point about Warton’s basis of selection is effective. But, perhaps feeling that two such citations weakened the point, he took the trouble to bring the quotation from Bradshaw into conformity with the other examples.

26. The reviewer for the Gentleman’s Magazine commented that Malone’s “levity” and his ridicule of “respectable characters” could “only reflect on himself”—LII (1782), 128. According to Joseph Haslewood (see n. 8), the magazine’s reviewer at this time was Richard Gough, who devoted much of his life to antiquarian studies. For the opposite reaction to Malone’s “cure,” see the St. James’s Chronicle, No. 3289 (4-6 April 1782), and the Critical Review, LIII (1782), 418.

27. Strictures Upon a Pamphlet entitled, Cursory Observations on the Poems attributed to Rowley, A Priest of the Fifteenth Century (London, 1782), p. 3.

28. No. 3311 (25-28 May). In a vol. of clippings at the British Museum relating to the controversy (shelf-mark C.39.h.20), Joseph Haslewood wrote “E. Malone” beneath this poem. Haslewood attributed certain other items in the St. James at this time to “G. Steevens” and appears to have been reporting first-hand information.

29. Today scholars attribute the Epistle to William Mason, whose letters to Walpole certainly imply that he wrote it but was zealous to conceal the fact. See Walpole’s Correspondence, ed. W. S. Lewis, XXIX (New Haven, 1955), 168-169, 175, 182, 189-190, 199-200; and Philip Gaskell, The First Editions of William Mason (Cambridge, 1951), p. 26. The man who published the Epistle, however, says confidently, “this admirable Poem, very generally ascribed at the time to Mr. Mason, was written by John Baynes, Esq. and handed to the press by his intimate friend John Watson Reed, Esq.” Mason’s furtiveness may, of course, have fooled even the publisher. The periodicals of the day bear out at least Nichols’ word (contrary to what Gaskell says) that the work was immediately received as Mason’s. Besides this pamphlet and Malone’s, Nichols printed Tyrwhitt’s Vindication (for the publishers T. Payne and Son). In a letter to Nichols on 18 March 1782, George Steevens commented, “Your house seems to be the forge from which Anti-Rowleian thunders of every kind are to be issued.” For all of the above information, see Nichols’ Literary Anecdotes, VIII (London, 1815), 113.

30. No. 3257 (19-22 Jan. 1782).

31. Walpole’s Correspondence, ed. Lewis, XXIX, 195.

32. LII (1782), 379-381.

33. A series of articles on this very topic in Malone’s article illustrates how elusive such proofs were. See the Gentleman’s Magazine, LI (1781), 609; LII (1782), 76, 168, 229, 434, 471; LIII (1783), 38-39, 127.

34. Critical Review, LIII (1782), 418-419.

35. Enquiry, pp. 92-93.

36. Vindication, p. 82. A footnote refers the reader to the Cursory Observations.

37. The Poetical Works of Thomas Chatterton, II (London, 1890), xlv.