at the fame time prove a confiderable confirmation to the truths of Christianity. For the purpose of exhibiting this view,' continues he, { have taken my point of time about 150 years before the Trojan war, when we may fuppofe the reafon of the inftitutions which were followed was not entirely loft; yet when the corruptions of them were beginning to appear, fo as to give a view of both together, in the inftitutions and inftructions discoverable in the RELIGIOUS GROVES. The fcene is laid in Greece, whofe inhabitants confeffedly borrowed their religious rites from Egypt and the Eaft, and built their own fables on the traditions they received from thence. The instructor made choice of is MELAMPUS, the fon of Amythaon, an experienced philofopher, who travelled into Egypt, and imported from thence into Greece their theology. He is celebrated for having reftored the daughters of Proctus to a found mind, at a fountain near Nonacris in Arcadia. One of these he afterwards married, and had in dowry with her part of the kingdom of Argos; and from him defcended a long line of prophets and inftructors.' By thofe who can attentively follow an uninterrupted chain of allegory through a poem of four Cantos, this performance may be read, if not with great pleafure, at leaft with confiderable improvement; for Dr. Ridley, though not of the first rank as a poet, was a very learned and ingenious man, and, confequently, from every thing that he wrote much ufeful information is to be collected. The notes, with which this work is accompanied, are particularly curious and valuable. ART. IX. Bryant's Obfervations on the Poems of Rowley. Continued from the laft Review. And Concluded. HE leading object of this work is to prove that Chatterton could not have been the Author of the Poems attributed to Rowley, because, in a variety of inftances, he appeared not to underftand them. There is fomething fpecious in this plea; but the learned Author hath egregrioufly failed in his proofs. Mr. Bryant hath invented meanings never meant, and discovered allufions never intended; and, deluded by his own fancy, hath made the moft whimfical hypothefes the ground of his argument; fo that because Chatterton did not anticipate Mr. Bryant's conjectures, he muft, truly, be ignorant of Rowley's meaning! This is to make the error in order to correct it. We have already ftated, that Chatterton really mislook the meaning of feveral words: but then we obferved, that the miftake equally concerned the poet and the gloffarift. Mr. Bryant would confine every mistake, both as to words and things, to the laft; and produces a lift of upwards of fifty terms to demonstrate his his propofition, viz. That if a perfon, in tranfcribing a learned and excellent compofition, varies the terms through ignorance, and the true reading appears from the context, he cannot have been the author. It is impoffible for us to examine every word adduced by this Author in defence of his hypothefis. We can only felect a few on which the moft confiderable ftrefs is laid: for, with refpect to the far greater number, his reafonings are fo futile, and his inferences from them fo forced and unnatural, that it would be lofs of time to give them any ferious review. The firft word that Mr. Bryant remarks on, is flughorne. This word, fays he, occurs more than once; and it is interpreted by Chatterton in one place, a musical inflrument, not unlike a bautboy in another it is faid to be a kind of a clarion. But a clarion and a hautboy are very unlike, being diftin& inftruments. It occurs in the fecond Eclogue, The water flughornes wythe a fwotie cleme : And in the Tournament, Methynckes I hear the flughorne's dynn frome farre. It is plain that Chatterton only formed a judgment from the context, and knew nothing precifely about this inftrument. In the first place it was certainly a horn; fuch as the Danes, Saxons, and other Gothic nations, ufed in war; and the name fignifies as much; for by flug and flag is denoted flaughter and battle. A flughorne is properly buccina bellica. Now, what doth all this prove? Why, that Chatterton was ignorant of the precife nature and use of this musical inftrument. And so we think was Rowley too: and this, we apprehend, very clearly appears from the first quotation. The water-flughornes, &c.' This additional expletive would fcarcely have been made by a poet who had been accustomed to the word in its primary meaning; nor would fwotie cleme' [fweet mufic] have been noted as the diftinguishing characteristic of the born of flaughter. • Byfmare; Forth from Sabrina ran a ryverre cleere Roarynge and rolleyng on yn courte bysmare. This term, bymare, is by the tranfcriber interpreted, bewildered, curious; which epithets he couples together as if they were fynonymous. But they neither of them convey the true meaning. 'The word occurs in Chaucer, and is faid to betoken abufive fpeech. . . . . In the beft Saxon dictionary, where the various fenfes of the word are enumerated, Bifmorful is, among others, rendered, horrendus. This feems to be the original purport of the word; and from hence, I think, we may be pretty certain that there is nothing curious alluded to; but by course byfmare is fignified curfu fonoro, vel horrenda; which is a defcription very applicable to the Severn.Had Chatterton been the Author of thele compofitions, he would have introduced the word in D 3 the the fame acceptation in which it is to be found in Chaucer; for if there be any writer with whom we may presume him to have been acquainted it was with him. But he deviates from him in this place, and in many other inftances. The reafon was, because he had an original before him; and the term, as it is to be found in Chaucer, could not be made to agree with the context. He therefore gave it the beft interpretation that he was able; but was wonderfully wide of the mark.' The question is not how Chaucer himself ufes this term ; but how it is explained by his gloffarift. Now Speght explains bifmar (which he derives from the Fr. bizarre) by fantaftical frangeness. Bailey makes bifmare fignify curiofity. On both thefe authorities, Chatterton hath interpreted it, bewildered, curious. But we shall be asked, if the original text warrants this comment? We think it does: for what fhould hinder us from thinking, that the Poet by byfmare meant irregular or meandring?The word, Mr. Bryant obferves, is here used as an adjective: whereas, by all other writers, as he believes, it is introduced as a fubftantive.' So far he is right; but then Rowley, as well as Chatterton, is affected by the blunder. To remove it from the former, and to throw it wholly upon the latter, our Author is obliged to have recourfe to the following conjecture: I have a fufpicion that Chatterton has not copied the text truly; and that what he hath rendered courfe byfmare, was in the original boarfe byfmarre, i. e. rauco terrore. Did ever conjectural emendation fport itself fo byfmarelie? It hath the advantage of all reafoning, and fupercedes all reply! Onlyghte. Ella threatens deftruction to the Danes who have invaded his country; and in describing his purpose he says rows. Theyre throngynge corses shall onlygbte the starres, v. 678. Every body knows that the Danes buried their flain upon plains and open places in Tumuli, which were called Lowes and BarAnd Ælla, in thefe fine lines, tells his foldiers, that the enemy's dead fhall be fo numerous that they fhall fwell their tombs till they burft for want of room, and not fuffice to hold them. But what is the meaning of the firft line, where it is faid, that the dead bodies fhould onlyghte the ftars? Here is certainly a great mistake of the tranfcriber, who did not know the Author's meaning, and has fubftituted one word for another. Instead of onlyghte, I make no doubt but that the original was onlyche, which fignifies to be like, or equal to. Onlych is the fame term which we now exprefs, liken: and the meaning of the word is this, that the corfes of the Danes fhould be like or equal to the ftars. Theyre throngynge corfes fhall onlyche the stars. We never faw a match for this piece of criticifm! One line in Gray fully illuftrates the poet's meaning; and fhews us too, with undoubted certainty (for why should not we also speak of demonftration?) the fource from whence the ftrange idea was derived. "Clouds of carnage blot the fun." Or, in the Rowleian language Throngynge corfes doe onlyghte the funne. "But is not this unintelligible fuftian?"It may be fo. But that is nothing to the argument. We are not defending the propriety of the metaphor. We are only fhewing from whom Chatterton borrowed it. Mr. Bryant repeatedly obferves, that Chatterton was incapable of reading the old MSS. with accuracy, which he undertook to tranfcribe. If there were fuch manufcripts, and if they in any refpects resembled the Fac Simile given by Mr. Strutt of one of them, the wonder is not, that he fhould have made a mistake now and then in the tranfcript of fome words, but that he fhould have been able to have made any fense of them at all. Let an experienced antiquary, who hath been verfed in the different mode of antient writing, infpect the engraved plate entitled, The Accounte of Mr. Cannynge's Feaft, at the end of Rowley's Poems, and inform us honeftly what idea he must form of the acuteness and penetration of a youth who could, in the fpace of a few months, decypher long poems, written in characters equally obfcure and imperfect:-characters which cannot be traced to any ftandard, and which bear no fimilarity to any mode of writing in any age! Now, that Chatterton was capable of reading all the poems in this old cheft, fo as to be able to give a juft interpretation of their general meaning (which is confeft even by those who affect to call him the ignorant and illiterate boy), must be acknowledged to be a most wonderful circumftance: it muft fhew, that his knowledge of old hands and old words was uncommonly great; fo that the very tranfcribing and interpreting the poems are of themselves fufficient confutations of every reflection that hath been thrown on his knowledge and understanding. Now, with that acquaintance which this extraordinary youth must have had with antient English literature, to have enabled him to accomplish what all confefs he did, we have only to confider him as poffeffed of a high degree of poetic genius (and of that there can remain no rational doubt), and the main difficulty concerning Rowley is folved; for nothing more was neceffary to produce the poems, than the very qualifications which Chatterton poffeffed. Mr. Bryant employs upwards of five pages to demonftrate Chatterton's ignorance of the true reading of the old MSS. because he hath written Cherifaunei for Cherifaunce, and D 4 Beftoikerre Beftoikerre for Beftwikerre. We never faw learning more idly employed! We never faw conjectural criticifm more a mockery, to common fenfe! Granting that Chatterton had manuscripts to tranfcribe from, and that the words Cherifaunce and Beftwikerre occurred according to their true fpelling, we fee no reason for his having written them in any other manner. Had he left them unexplained, or had he given them a wrong interpretation, there might alfo be fame plea for Mr. Bryant's conjecture. But he did explain them, and that too very properly. From whence had he his explanations? Why, from Speght, and Bailey or Kerfey. In the former, the word cherifaunce is fpelled as Mr. Bryant fays it ought to be fpelled. In the two latter, it is written cherifaunie. Now, Chatterton confidered it as indifferent which way the word was fpelt, and therefore adopted either of them, juft as it fuited his humour: for it deferves notice, that in the Minstrel's fung in the tragedy of Ælla it is spelt according to the former, Does ro cherieauncys from Elynoure houlde. In Bailey, beftoike (from whence Chatterton formed befloiker) is interpreted, to betray. On these two words Mr. Bryant lays great ftrefs, and confiders them as evident proofs of the exiftence of MSS. We confider them rather as proofs of the contrary; and have accounted for the manner in which Chatterton wrote them, not by miftaking the original, but by confiding in the dictionary. Mr. Bryant proceeds to fpeak of references to antient hiftory which occur in the poems. Under this head he undertakes to prove, ⚫ that the allufions are too refined and curious, and relate to circumftances too remote and obfcure to have proceeded from the young man to whom these poems have been by many afcribed." All that our Author hath advanced on this head is merely gratuitous. The general facts referred to in the poems are indubitably fuch as fail within the circle of common hiftory, and the knowledge of them might have been eafily acquired even by a youth of lefs application and lefs difcernment than Chatterton. As to the more curious and refined allufions,' which Mr. Bryant thinks to have been out of the reach of this youth, we can only fay, that the fources of many of them have been pointed out, and that they have been found not to be fo curious and refined, fo deep and recondite, as was at firft imagined: and as to the reft, though they may feem too curious and fecret to fall within the fphere of Chatterton's reading, yet it may in time. appear from whence he borrowed them; for his acquaintance with books was very extenfive for one of his youth, and his tudy was chiefly bent on fubjects that fell inore immediately within the line of thefe poems. It is impoffible for Mr. Bryant to prove that Chatterton had not read fuch books as were necef fary |