vol. ii. p. 207.]Le xv fingnes [fignes] de domefday. [Pr. "Fifteene toknen ich tellen may." Compare vol. i. p. 219.]— Ci comence la vie feint Euftace ci ont nom Placidas. [Pr. "Alle pat lovep godes lore Les "Olde and yonge laffe and more." See MS. VERNON, fol. 170. ut fupr.]—Le diz de feint Ber- love is goed fware."]Chaunçon de nouftre feigneur. This manuscript seems to have been written about year 1304. Ralph Houdain, whose poem called VISION D'ENFER it contains, wrote about the year 1230. : VOL. II. The ་ The word, LAI, I believe, was applied to any fubje&t, and fignified only the verfification. Thus we have in the Bodleian library La LUMERE AS LAIS, par Meftre Pierre de Feccham. Verai deu omnipotent Keftes fin et commencement. MSS. BODL 399. It is a fyftem of theology in this species of metre. Pag. 121. To Not. . ADD, "In Jean Petit's edition in 1535, and perhaps in that of 1485, of Premierfaict's tranflation of the DECAMERON, it is faid to be translated from Latin into. French. But Latin here means Italian. Hence a mistake arose, that Boccacio wrote his DECAMERON in Latin. The Italian, as I have before observed, was antiently called Il volgare Latino. Thus the French romance of MELIADUS DE LEONNOIS is faid to be translatè du LATIN, by Rufticien de Pisa, edit. Par. 1532. fol. Thus alfo GYRON. LE COURTOIS is called a verfion from the Latin. [Supr. vol. ii. p. 117.] M. de la Monnoye obferves,. Que quand on trouve que certains VIEUX RO"MANS ont été traduits de LATIN en François, par Luces de "Salefberies, Robert de Borron, Rufticien de Pifa, ou autres, "cela fignifie que ç'a été D'ITALIEN en François.” REм. au BIBL. FR. du La Croix du Maine, &c. tom. ii. p. 33. edit. 1772. [See fupr. ADDIT. ad p. 15. i.] Premierfaict's French DECAMERON, which he calls CAMERON, is a most wretched caricature of the original. Pag. 148. Not. col. 2. 1. 4. For "1115," READ " 1015.” Pag. 153. To Not. . ADD," I. have received fome notices from the old registers of faint Ewin's church at Bristol, antiently called the MINSTER, which import, that the church pavement was washed against the coming of king Edward. But this does not at all prove or imply that the king fat at the grete mynfterr windowe to fee the gallant Lancastrian, Baldwin, pafs to the fcaffold; a circumftance, and a very improbable one, mentioned in Rowlie's pretended poem on this fubject. The notice A at most will prove only, that the king affifted at mafs in this church, when he came to Bristol. Nor is it improbable, that the other churches of Briftol were cleaned, or adorned, at the coming of a royal gueft. Wanter, above quoted, is evidently wrong in the date 1463, which ought to be 1461, or 1462. Pag. 156. Notes, col. 2. To 1. 9. ADD "I have observed, but for what reafon I know not, that faint Ewin's church at Bristol was called the minster. I, however, fufpect, that the poet here means Bristol cathedral. He calls, with his accuftomed mifapplication of old words, Worcester cathedral the minfter of our ladie, infr. p. 160. But I do not think this was a common appellation for that church. In Lydgate's LIFE OF SAINT ALBAN, Minfter is used in its first fimple acceptation. MSS. Coll. Trin. Oxon. Num. xxxviii. fol. 19. Seynt Albone Of that mynftre leyde the first stone. That is, of faint Alban's monaftery. Pag. 164. To the end of the Section, ADD, "What is here faid of Rowlie, was not only written, but printed, almost two years before the correct and complete edition of his Poems appeared. Had I been apprifed of that publication, I should have been much more fparing in my fpecimens of these forgeries, which had been communicated to me in manuscript, and which I imagined I was imparting to my readers as curiofities. I had as yet seen only a few extracts of these poems; nor were those transcripts which I received, always exact. Circumstances which I mention here, to fhew the inconveniencies under which I laboured, both with regard to my citations and my criticisms. These fcanty materials, however, contained fufficient evidence to convince me, that the pieces were not genuine. The entire and accurate collection of Rowlie's now laid before the public, has been fo little inftrumental in inducing me to change my opinion, that it has ferved to exemplify and confirm every argument which I have produced in fupport of my fufpicions of an impofition. It has likewife afforded some new proofs.' Those who have been converfant in the works even of the best of our old English poets, well know, that one of their leading characteristics is inequality. In these writers, fplendid defcriptions, ornamental comparisons, poetical images, and striking thoughts, occur but rarely: for many pages together, they are tedious, profaic, and uninterefting. On the contrary, the poems before us are every where fupported: they are throughout, poetical and animated. They have no imbecillities of ftyle or fentiment. Our old English bards abound in unnatural conceptions, ftrange imaginations, and even the most ridiculous abfurdities. But Rowlie's poems present us with no incongruous combinations, no mixture of manners, inftitutions, cuftoms, and characters. They appear to have been composed after ideas of discrimination had taken place; and when even common writers had begun to conceive, on most subjects, with precifion and propriety. There are indeed, in the BATTLE of HastINGS, fome great anachronisms; and practices are mentioned which did not exist till afterwards. But these are such inconfiftencies, as proceeded from fraud as well as ignorance: they are tuch as no old poet could have poffibly fallen into, and which only betray an unfkilful imitation of antient manners. The verses of Lydgate and his immediate fucceffors are often rugged and unmusical: but Rowlie's poetry fuftains one uniform tone of harmony; and, if we brush away the afperities of the antiquated Ipelling, conveys its cultivated imagery in a polished and agreeable strain of verfification. Chatterton feems to have thought, that the diftinction of old from modern poetry confifted only in the ufe of old words. In counterfeiting the coins of a rude age, he did not forget the ufual application of an artificial rust: but this difguife was not fufficient to conceal the elegance of the workmanthip. The BATTLE OF HASTINGS, juft mentioned, might be proved to be a palpable forgery for many other reasons. It is faid to be tranflated from the Saxon of Turgot. But Turgot died in 1015, and the battle of Hastings was fought in 1066. We will, however, allow, that Turgot lived in the reign of the Conqueror. But, on that fuppofition, is it not extraordinary, that a cotemporary writer fhould mention no circumftances of this action which we did not know before, and which are not to be found in Malmsbury, Ordericus Vitalis, and other antient chroniclers? Efpecially as Turgot's defcription of this battle was profeffedly a detached and separate performance, and at leaft, on that account, would be minute and circumftantial. An original and a cotemporary writer, defcribing this battle, would not only have told us fomething new, but would otherwife have been full of particularities. The poet before us dwells on incidents common to all battles, and fuch as were easily to be had from Pope's HOMER. We may add, that this piece not only detects itself, but demonftrates the spuriousness of all the reft. Chatterton himself allowed the first part of it to be a forgery of his own. The fecond part, from what has beenfaid, could not be genuine. And he who could write the second part was able to write every line in the whole collection. But while I am fpeaking of this poem, I cannot help expofing the futility of an argument which has been brought as a decifive evidence of its originality. It is urged, that the names of the chiefs who accompanied the Conqueror, correfpond with the Roll of Battle-Abbey. As if a modern forger could not have feen this venerable record. But, unfortunately, it is printed in Hollinfhead's Chronicle. A It is faid that Chatterton, on account of his youth and education, could not write these poems. This may be true; but it is no proof that they are not forged.' Who was their author, on the hypothefis that Rowlie was not, is a new and another question. I am, however, of opinion that it was Chatterton. For if we attend only to fome of the pieces now extant in a periodical magazine, which he published under his own fignature, and which are confeffedly of his compofition, to his letters |