VI. Preached at Fitz-Roy Chapel. By J. N. Puddicombe, Minifter. 4to. 15. Johnfon. Another fpirited declaimer !-but on the other fide of the question. Dr. Difney harangues on the parent's cruelty to the child, and Mr. Puddicombe on the child's ingratitude to the parent. Much may be faid on both fides!-and much may be faid against both! VII.-At St. John's Clerkenwell. B. A. Rector of that Parith. By the Rev. E. W. Whitaker, 4to. 1 I s. Rivington. A well drawn parallel between the people of ancient Ifrael and modern Britain, both with refpect to their privileges on the one hand, and their abufe of them on the other. This Sermon breathes a fpirit of piety and moderation. The Preacher avoids all political difcuffions; and very properly confines himself to what is of more general concern; and more becoming the duty of a Christian miniiter on a day of fafting and humiliation. The Remainder of the Faft Sermons in our next. CORRESPONDENCE. To the AUTHORS of the MONTHLY REVIEW. NOT doubting your readiness to convey any literary informa tion compatible with the plan of your work, I take the liberty to make an obfervation on a paffage in your Review, for February laft, page 85, quoted from Mr. Thomas Warton's ingenious Hiftory of English Poetry. "There is an old madrigal fet to mufick by William Bird, fuppofed to be written by Henry when he fell in love with Ann Boleyn. It begins, "The eagle's force fubdues each birde that flies And melt the eyce, and make the froft retire ?" When I first read thefe verfes in the Nuga Antique they feemed to me too good to be written by a king; and I have fince found that their real author was Thomas Churchyard, a poet of Queen Elizabeth's time, and one of the affiftants in the Mirror of Magiftrates. The lines in queftion are part of a ftanza in Churchyard's legend of Jane Shore, and may be found in Mrs. Cooper's Mufes Library, 8vo. 1741. p. 122.-Confidering Mr. Warton's very extenfive acquaintance with old English poetry, it is ftrange this circumftance fhould have escaped him. Royalty fhould not have been deprived of this little fprig of bays which former flattery, or prefent accident has giver it,-but for the confideration that every author dead, or living, ought to have the merit of his own works, be it what it may. ttt We acknowledge the receipt of a Letter relative to a late pofthumous publication, from a perfon who figns himfelf An Enemy to pious Frauds;' and who charges the Editor of that work with having been guilty of a trefpafs againft fidelity, as an Editor, which nothing can excufe.' We rather wonder that our ingenious but anonymous Correspondent hould not perceive the manifeft impropriety of our publishing a charge of a very ferious kind, on the teftimony of an unknown perfon: nor indeed is it our bufinefs to make ourselves parties in difcuffions of this kind, even on the best authority. A fecond letter on the rot in fheep, has been received from our obliging correfpondent Mr Roberts. Another ingenious correfpondent, who figns himself Philopatriæ, has alfo favoured us with one on the fame fubject. We are forry that neither the nature nor the limits of our undertaking permit us to engage any further in this excurfive inquiry. From our general rule of admitting nothing has not relation either immediately or remotely to literature. We that deviated in the firft inftance, feduced merely by the importance of the fubject, and by the hope of awakening the general attention to a matter of fuch great national importance. As this effect is in fome degree answered, we muit here take leave of our correfpondents.They will no doubt find fome other vehicle of public intercourfe, to the nature of which their communications will be more fuitable.--We intended to infert thefe letters entire ; but on re-perufing them, we perceive that, befides their being of a length that would encroach too much on our limits, as well as on the immediate object of our journal, they wear fomewhat of a controverfial complexion, with an appearance of perfonality, to which we can by no means afford admit tance. *This is lefs applicable to one of the letters than to the other. Our Readers are requested to correct the following errata in the article of Milles's edition of Rowley's Poems, in our laft Review, viz. Page 207. 1. 30. for unharmonious coincidence of words,' - 1. read harmonious. 34, for • decifive', r. delufive. 201. towards the bottom, r. the muniment room." 214. 1. 6. for authority,' r. authenticity. 216. near the bottom, for forms,' r. terms. 217, 1. 16. for Embrice,' r. Ewbrice. For fome fmaller mistakes, we beg the Reader's indulgence, to which the hurry often attending periodical works gives them an especial claim. We are obliged to poftpone our conclufion of the review of Dean Milles's edition of Rowley; but it will certainly appear in the next Month's Review. THE MONTHLY REVIEW, For MAY, 1782. ART. I. Dean Milles's Edition of Rowley's Poems CONCLUDED. See Review for March. HERE are two points which may be regarded as the main hinges on which this controversy turns. The first refpects the genius and abilities of Chatterton: the fecond, the æra of the fuppofed Rowley. The oppofers of the authenticity of thefe Poems have, at the utmoft, only an extraordinary, or, if it must be so called, an improbable circumftance to struggle with: but thofe who defend it, have an abfolute impoffibility to fur mount. We have already delivered our opinion respecting the fingular genius and abilities of Chatterton; and in proportion to our acquaintance with the hiftory and acknowledged productions of this extraordinary youth, fo are we the more firmly convinced that he was fully equal to the impofition of Rowley. The fuppofition might at firft confound a carelefs and uninformed enquirer; and indeed there are few perfons who would not be staggered to have such a question as the following proposed to them on a fudden, or without any previous acquaintance with the character of Chatterton :-"How was it poffible for a low-bred boy, juft emancipated from the rigorous bondage of a charityfchool, to have written poems which evidently bear the deep traces of antiquity, reflection, learning, and genius ?" We grant the fact to be extraordinary to a very high degree. Let it even be called improbable. It was a circumftance not likely to happen in the course of a century. But what then? The fact implies no abfurdity-no contradiction. It is at leaft poffible: and we think it one of thofe very fingular events that fometimes occurs to amuse and aftonish mankind, Chatterton was himVOL. LXVI. felf felf a wonderful being; and can we be furprised that he should project fomething as extraordinary as himself? By his own confeffion he wrote the firft part of the Battle of Haftings; the account, originally published in Farley's Briftol Journal, refpecting the ceremonies used at the opening of the bridge in the fifteenth century, was acknowledged by himself to be a fiction of his own and we are affured by Mr. Rudhall, one of his confidential friends, that he blackened parchment, and imitated the old mode of writing, in order to give his MS. the appearance of antiquity. If the truth of his own acknowledgments be questioned, we have at leaft ftrong internal evidence to appeal to for their support; and that fupport is afforded very amply, not only to one poem, but to all; for the marks of impofition are uniform and univerfal. If his confeffion receives credit (and why fhould it not?), it at leasts affords a fufpicion, that he who was capable of a fraud (and a fraud too fo very ingenious) in one cafe, was capable of varying the impofition, and of devifing fictions without number, in a line fo congenial to the bent of his genius and the habit of his ftudies. If he was more guarded in the language, fentiments, and allufions of the fecond part of the Battle of Haftings, than in the firft, it only tends more forcibly to fupport the fuppofition of impofture. The imitations of Chevy Chace, in the first part, were fo flagrant and palpable, that we apprehend they must have ftruck Mr. Barret himself, to whom the poem was at first given. His fufpicions very probably made him fo eager (as we find he was) to prefs for the original MS. When it could not be produced, the fufpicion of an impofture was undoubtedly confirmed in Mr. Barret's mind, and very reasonably. What was the iffue of this tranfaction? Why, we are fairly informed by Mr. Barret himself, that Chatterton confeffed the whole was a trick ;-that the poem was his own; and that he wrote it at the folicitation of a friend! This confeffion was very natural, on the fuppofition of Chatterton's having acted the part of an impoftor; but in any other view, it is unnatural and improbable in the highest degree. If he had been in poffeffion of the original MS. what should have hindered his producing it? and if he had at any time poffeffed it, what fhould have tempted him to have deftroyed it? If he wifhed to give credit to his pretenfions, how could he better have effected his purpose than by fhewing his originals? What (we afk again) could have been his motive for deftroying them, under the fuppofition of his having poffeffed them?-This question was never answered; and we believe it out of the power of any advocate for Rowley to give any answer to it, that can afford the leaft fatisfaction to an impartial enquirer. To return to Mr. Barret. When Chatterton confeffed the impofition in the firft Battle of Haftings, because having been preffed preffed for the original MS. he was incapable of producing it, he promised to fupply the defect, and, in some measure, to atone for his fraudulent attempt, by prefenting him with a poem on the fame fubject, that fhould undoubtedly be original. The producing of fuch an original was now abfolutely neceffary to his credit; and it must have ftruck him with double force, that if his first attempt was fufpected for want of evidence, the fecond would be more ftrongly fufpected on the fame ground; efpecially as he had engaged to furnish the evidence which was requifite to give credit to his pretenfions. The objection to the authenticity of the second part of the Battle of Haftings would have been, in every degree, more weighty than that which was urged against the firft, if it was after all found deficient in evidence, so easy to have been produced, if it could have been produced at all;-for what fo eafy as the producing the MS. from which the tranfcript was profeffed to have been taken ?-We would afk Mr. Barret the following queftions:-What made him fufpect the authenticity of the first poem which Chatterton gave him? Did he believe Chatterton when he affured him that the poem was his own? If Chatterton only faid this to avoid all further enquiries refpecting the MS., from whence it might be supposed to have been taken, did he fufpect that the MS. was in Chatterton's hand, or that he had deftroyed it? If it was in his hand what motive could he have for refufing to fhew it, which might not have induced him to have kept other MSS. of the fame pretended antiquity, concealed with the fame care? If he had deftroyed, or accidentally loft this MS. would he not have been more careful to have preferved the other, in order to have given Mr. Barret that fatisfaction which was both expected and promifed? When Chatterton produced the copy of the fecond part of the Battle of Haftings, did not Mr. Barret afk, as in the former cafe, to see the original? If this request was refused, what reafon was given for the refufal? If no MS. was produced, but Chatterton's pretended transcript, what could have induced Mr. Barret to give it that credit which he had denied to the former ? Would he not naturally have faid,-" Young man, I am not to be deceived a second time. You acknowledge yourself to have made an attempt on my credulity in a former inftance. Do you imagine me to be fo great a fool as not to be guarded against a fecond attempt? My objection recurs with additional force, Produce the MS., nor pay fo poor a compliment to my underftanding as to fuppofe that I fhall always be a dupe to your artifices."-Would not this have been the language of any man of fense in Mr. Barret's fituation? Was it not his? We wish he would inform us. These questions are not confined to the poems we have been speaking of, but to all the reft; and especially to the Tragedy Y 2 of |