of a Hebrew book into French, whereto, in one month, he added notes that contain, it is faid, fo many curious remarks and enquiries out of the common road of learning, and afford fo many inftances of penetration, judgment and accuracy, that the reader finds in every page some reason to perfuade him they cannot poffibly be the work of a child; but of a man long accustomed to thefe ftudies, enlightened by reflexion, and dextrous by long practice in the use of books. Greater men than Catcott might profit by the just observations of Barretier's biographer, that "incredulity may per"haps be the product rather of prejudice than "reafon---that envy may beget a difinclination to "admit immenfe fuperiority---that an account is "not to be immediately cenfured as false, "merely because it is wonderful."

How qualified Catcott is to feparate wonderful from falfe, we may judge from his own mouth. In the Monthly Review for May 1777, he formally tells the world, that Chatterton. could be little more than 15 when he gave him the Briftow Tragedy, the ode to Ælla, and the two or three little pieces which he first produced. A few lines further of this account, he tells us how abfurd it would be to fuppofe that a lad of 15 could forge Rowley. In the Gentleman's Ma

gazine

gazine for Auguft 1778, this confcientious pewterer figns his name to a letter, which thus attacks Warton's 2d vol. of English poetry.

"Page 141, He (W.) fays Chatterton was 17 years old when he first produced the poems to me. He was but just turned of 15. He was born November 20th, 1752, and he gave me the poems in the beginning of the year 1768. He had then the tonfure on his head, being just come from Mr. Colfton's charity-fchool. By thus mifrepresenting the year of his age, in which he mentions most of the poems which have fince appeared as being then in his poffeffion, two years are gained; an interval of time, which might give colour of probability to the (I must say) other wife very improbable fuppofition of Chatterton's being the author of the works afcribed to Rowley."

In the Gentleman's Magazine for September 1778, Mr. Catcott writes thus to the Printer, and talks rather differently about this interval of time, and its confequence.

"I lately received a letter from London, charging me with an inconsistency in my account of the time in which I firft became acquainted with young Chatterton. In mine of last month, I faid, it commenced the beginning of the year; I now recollect it was about three weeks, or perhaps a month, fubfequent to the publication in Felix Farley's Bristol Journal, dated the ist of October, 1768, respecting the ceremonies used in opening the old bridge; confequently, it could not have been 'till the latter-end of the year: but, in my spinion, it is matter of little moment as to the precife time in which we

became

became acquainted, as it will not add a single minute to his life, and, of course, not the leaft degree of credibility to the Suppofition of bis being the author of the poems attributed to Rowley."

So that, fuppofing Catcott to tell truth at laft, (and his "perhaps a month," perhaps a month," may be perhaps two months; and probably ❝ about three weeks, or perhaps a month," intervened between the first acquaintance, and the communication of the poems) Chatterton, inftead of being a lad of 15 when he produced the firft of Rowley's poems, was, on the 20th of the month fubfequent to the publication in Farley's Journal, 16; for he was born in November, 1752. They, at leaft, who tell us of Chatterton's fhocking impofitions, fhould not themselves impofe upon us about Chatterton. It is pleafant enough that every thing like argument in Catcott refts on Rowley's own evidence of his own existence. These are Rowley's poems, because Rowley" in a MS. of his own writing," produced by Chatterton, fays he depofited poems in the cheft out of which Chatterton faid he had these poems. These poems were written three hundred years ago, becaufe the ode to Ella is written in long lines like a profe compofition, as was ufual three hunyears ago, when parchment was scarce.

dred

4

(Monthly

(Monthly Review, May, 1777.—But if Chatterton invented Rowley's poems, he invented also the other MSS. in which those poems are mentioned. If Chatterton compofed the ode to Ella, it was furely less difficult to write it on parchment, in," lines not "kept diftinct, in the manner of profe," as was usual in Rowley's age, than to be the author of it! But, fays Mr. Catcott→→→

"With respect to the antiquity of these poems, it needs "only to be observed, that Mr. Canynge, the great friend " and patron of Rowley, died in the year 1474, and by his

will directed that theje, together with a vaft collection of other "writings, fufficient to fill three or four large chefts, fould "be depofired in Redclift church, in the room before mentioned; "requesting that the mayor and chief magiftrates of the city, " attended by the town clerk, together with the minifter and "churchwardens of the parish, would annually inspect the "fame, and fee that every thing was carefully preserved; "ordering, moreover, that

"An ENTERTAINMENT (Catcott himself gives this pasfage in capitals) SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR THEM ON THE DAY WHEN THIS VISITATION SHOULD BE HELD." (Monthly Review, May, 1777.)

If this be fo, it is, to be fure, tolerably conclufive. But how ftands the matter, if there fhould not be a single fyllable of truth in the whole passage?-Every word, except perhaps the date of his death, is falfe. Rowley's name is

not

not once mentioned in the will. It makes juft as much mention of "three or four large chefts" of Rowley, as of Offian; or of three or four large chefts of Catcott's pewter (Warton's hiftory of English poetry, vol. 2. 159). Whence did Mr. Catcott get this formal story? Certainly, either from Chatterton, or from fome of C.'s friend Rowley's MSS. But, fays Mr. Catcott (Gentleman's Magazine, Auguft, 1778), it is true that what I told the world is not true-all this is not mentioned in Canynge's will. It is however mentioned in

a deed in Mr. Barrett's hand; and, what is "more, mention is there made of a particular "portion of Mr. Canynge's eftates fet apart "to defray the expences of an entertainment "on that occafion, and the cheft itself is most " particularly defcribed." Catcott adds, "if "C. had feen this deed he could not have read "it, it being written in Latin, of which he

was, to my knowledge, totally ignorant." To cut the matter short at once, he had better tell us that, to his knowledge, Chatterton did not write a fyllable of Rowley; and there would be an end of the bufinefs-with thofe at least who believe in Catcott's infallibility. But, unluckily, next to Chatterton, Catcott is the man least to be believed. What a proper per

fon