No More Learning

1781. Jacob Bryant's _Observations upon the Poems of T. Rowley in
which the authenticity of those poems is ascertained_. Bryant was a
strong Pro-Rowleian and argues cleverly against the possibility of
Chatterton's having written the poems. He shows that Chatterton in his
notes often misses Rowley's meaning and insists that he neglected to
explain obvious difficulties because he could not understand them.
Bryant is the least absurd of the Pro-Rowleians.

1782. Dean Milles' edition of the Rowley poems--a splendid quarto with
a running commentary attempting to vindicate Rowley's authenticity.
Milles was President of the Society of Antiquaries and his commentary
is characterized by Professor Skeat as 'perhaps the most surprising
trash in the way of notes that was ever penned.

1782. Mathias' _Essay on the Evidence . . . relating to the poems called
Rowley's_--he is pro-Rowleian and criticizes Tyrwhitt's appendix.

1782.
Thomas Warton's _Enquiry . . . into the Poems attributed to Thomas
Rowley_--Anti-Rowleian.

1782. Tyrwhitt's _Vindication_ of his Appendix. Tyrwhitt had
discovered Chatterton's use of Bailey's Dictionary and completely
refutes Bryant, Milles, and Mathias. It may be observed in passing
that though Goldsmith upheld Rowley, Dr. Johnson, the two
Wartons, Steevens, Percy, Dr. Farmer, and Sir H. Croft pronounced
unhesitatingly in favour of the poems having been written by
Chatterton: while Malone in a mocking anti-Rowleian pamphlet shows
that the similes from Homer in the _Battle of Hastings_ and elsewhere
have often borrowed their rhymes from Pope!

1798. _Miscellanies in Prose and Verse_ by Edward Gardner (two
volumes). At the end of Volume II there is a short account of the
Rowley controversy and, what is more important, the statement that
Gardner had seen Chatterton antiquate a parchment and had heard him
say that a person who had studied antiquities could with the aid of
certain books (among them Bailey) 'copy the style of our elder poets
so exactly that the most skilful observer should not be able to detect
him. "No," said he, "not Mr. Walpole himself.