TC Paper January 2014 V II 2018

The Case for Thomas Chatterton – Poet & Writer or Forger?
A New Enquiry into the Work & Legacy of Thomas Chatterton
Michael Doble BSc (Hons) AMInstLM
Please refer to the adjoining PDF file: Figure 1 The Thomas Chatterton Canon 2014 v II 2018
© 2014 2018 Michael Doble ~ Chairman The Thomas Chatterton Society Page 1
In order to attempt a fresh, new view on this subject, (the work of Chatterton) only the older
scholarly texts on Chatterton have been researched, rather than more recent subsequent
interpretations. The primary source for this study was restricted to: ‘The Complete Works of
Thomas Chatterton – A Bicentenary Edition’ edited by Donald S Taylor and Benjamin
Hoover Volumes I and II 1971. I have accepted into the Thomas Chatterton canon only that
ascribed by Taylor. This reference was augmented by ‘A Life of Thomas Chatterton’ by E.
H. W. Meyerstein 1930. In section 1.i. below: Thomas Chatterton’s Creative Influence, the
list given (a fraction of the complete list), is from ‘Rowley's ghost: a checklist of creative
works inspired by Thomas Chatterton's life and writings.’ by John Goodridge in: N. Groom,
ed., ‘Thomas Chatterton and Romantic Culture.’
Abstract
Thomas Chatterton 1752 - 1770, poet and writer, born in Bristol, England, had a life span of
only 17 years and 277 days. In his very short life he shocked and confused the leading
scholars and critics of the time by writing his ‘Rowley’ poems and prose (in a period of
perhaps a year around his sixteenth birthday) in the guise of a 15 th century Bristol merchant
Thomas Rowley, whom Chatterton portrayed as a poet-priest. It was initially widely
assumed at the time that the ‘Rowley’ poems were genuine medieval manuscripts.
His untimely death by poisoning in his tiny garret above a brothel in Holborn London,
coupled with his fooling some of the intelligentsia into believing that his Rowley works were
truly of the 15th century, gave rise to the ‘Rowley Controversy’ with the ‘Rowleians’
believing the works to be genuinely that of Thomas Rowley and ‘Anti-Rowleians’ believing
that they were modern. The controversy raged after Chatterton’s death reaching a peak in
1782 finally petering out after about eighty years – there was an advocate from Bath
maintaining that the poems were by Rowley in the 1850’s! It was proven by the internal
evidence of the poems alone that they were the modern writings of Thomas Chatterton.
This paper reassesses the known facts about Chatterton’s work and legacy and proposes that
Thomas Chatterton was not a ‘forger’ but rather, one of England’s finest poets and writers
and the Precursor or Forefather of English Romantic Poetry.
The Life of Thomas Chatterton - A Brief Introduction
Thomas Chatterton was born posthumously at approximately 6.00pm on 20 th November 1752

in a little cottage opposite St Mary Redcliffe Church in Bristol, England. The cottage was
the writing master’s house for the adjacent Pile Street School.
His deceased father (who died three months before Chatterton’s birth) was the writing master
at Pile Street School and Chatterton was brought up by his widowed mother, his grandmother
and his sister two years his senior. He was expelled from Pile Street School as a “dull boy
incapable of improvement” at six years of age and spent the next year and a quarter or so at
home. Apparently enraptured one day by the illuminated capitals of an old folio he implored
his poorly educated mother and sister to teach him his letters. Once he knew his letters, he
essentially taught himself to read. From then on, he vigorously self-taught and devoured all
within his interests including divinity, heraldry, archaeology, history, philosophy and many
other subjects. A truly veracious “library cormorant” as per Coleridge. At almost eight years
he attended Colston’s School in Bristol (a charity school) which was run like a prison and
founded by Edward Colston a Bristol merchant, to provide a minimum education of the three
R’s for the production of Bristol’s braziers, coopers, carpenters, rope-makers etc.
Chatterton at fourteen years of age left Colston’s and joined the offices of John Lambert a
Bristol Attorney as an indentured scrivener copying tedious legal texts.
His life at Lambert’s was as tedious as Colston’s. His only reprieve was his creative writing
and he was published in a local newspaper ‘Felix Farley’s Journal’ at fifteen years of age.
He dreaded his life at Lambert’s and in order to break from his indentures he wrote a mock
will saying that he would be dead within a few days if not released. So Lambert, fearing the
worst, reprieved Chatterton of his indentures and Chatterton was free. Within days he left
Bristol to pursue a career as a writer and poet in London.
Chatterton wrote little until around his sixteenth year and in a period of scarcely two years
between the summer of 1768 and his death on 24th August 1770 he wrote both his ‘Rowley’
poems and prose and modern works infrequently under his own name and rather more under
pseudonyms such as ‘Decimus’, ‘Harry Wildfire’, and ‘Vamp’. He claimed that he
discovered the ‘Rowley’ ancient parchments that came from a chest in a room above the
north porch of St Mary Redcliffe Church. His father having pilfered many such parchments
from the north porch room to cover school bibles and his mother had used them for sewing
patterns.
He wrote in many forms both in Bristol and in London: the quasi medieval ‘Thomas Rowley’
poems and prose; modern poems of many forms: elegies, odes, eclogues, epistles, poetical
satire, musicals, and prose political letters, prose satire, and social sketches.
Thomas Chatterton left Bristol to stay with relatives in Shoreditch, London on 24 th April 1770
where he remained until June when he then moved to 39 Brooke Street Holborn, without
explanation, perhaps so that he could have a room of his own rather than share a room and a
bed with a relative. He lived at Brooke Street, in a garret at Mrs Angel’s until his death on
the night of 24th August 1770, residing between approximately 7 and 10 weeks respectively in
each location. In London, Chatterton essentially ceased writing Rowley poems and
concentrated more on his journalistic and modern writings. His modern work was widely
published in the London journals both when he was in Bristol and in London. Only one of his
‘Rowley’ poems was published in his lifetime – ‘Elinoure and Juga’ in the Town and
Country Magazine for May 1769 when he was sixteen.
A Definition of ‘Forger’ and ‘Forgery’
‘Forge’ – produce a fraudulent copy or imitation of a banknote, work of art, signature etc
‘Forgery’ – the action of forging a banknote, work of art, etc
‘Forger’ - noun
from the Oxford English Dictionary.
In order to assess if the definitions above apply to the work of Thomas Chatterton we should
investigate the nature and the intention of his entire work.
The Thomas Chatterton Canon

The work of Thomas Chatterton can be very broadly divided into two parts:
1. Quasi-medieval poems and prose

2. Modern work - prose, poems, letters, musical pieces
The separate PDF file named ‘Figure 1 The Thomas Chatterton Canon 2014 v II 2018’ shows
a chronological itemised table of the works of Chatterton depicting where written, whether it
was a “Rowley” piece, the ascription (alleged author), title, date, description, the number of
lines and the age at which it was written.
The satirical poems are highlighted in pale blue, the political letters in dark blue, the Rowley
in mauve and the Macpherson styled ‘Ossianics’ in pale fawn. The ‘Ossianic’ are seven
pieces written in the style of James Macpherson’s (1736 - 1796) ‘Fingal’ that was announced
in 1761. Macpherson claimed that the ‘Fingal’ works were original Gaelic pieces translated
by a 3rd Century bard called ‘Ossian’. Further Macpherson ‘Fingal Ossian’ works were
published in 1763 and 1765.
1. Quasi-medieval poems and prose - Background
Apart from some early satirical pieces and early verses Chatterton commenced his writing
career with his Rowley works commencing sometime during or before his fifteenth year. The
first fully dated piece is the ‘Bridge Narrative’ of 1 st October 1768 written under the
pseudonym of ‘Dunhelmus Bristoliensis’. We see the Rowley works coming in a number of
phases – See Figure 1 The Thomas Chatterton Canon 2014 v II 2018 in adjoining PDF file.
Rowley Item nos. 1 to 40 from by Sept 1768 to Oct/Nov 1768. This phase was probably
accelerated by Chatterton’s Bridge Narrative being published in the Bristol publication ‘Felix
Farley’s Bristol Journal’ on 1st October 1768. This period was when Chatterton was
promoting Rowley to George Catcott and William Barrett, two Bristolians who came to know
Chatterton through the ‘Bridge Narrative’. Catcott was a local pewterer businessman and
Barrett was a surgeon and amateur antiquarian. The next phase was Rowley Item Nos. 41 to
47, December 1768 to March 1769 which was around the time that Chatterton was promoting
his masterpiece ‘Ælla’ to James Dodsley a publisher in London, through his letters of 21
December 1768 and 15th February 1769. The final phase was from Rowley Item nos. 48 to 62
dating from March to May 1769 when Chatterton approached Horace Walpole (the 4th Earl of
Orford and son of Sir Robert Walpole the first prime minister) with correspondence and
Rowley works regarding the Rise of Painting in England (The Ryse of Peyncteynge, yn
Englande) from 25 March through to 24 July 1769. Chatterton’s approach to Walpole was for
patronage of him and his Rowley poems. Walpole initially believed the work to be medieval
but referred them to friends to check their authenticity but they were announced as modern.
So Walpole declined to help Chatterton with his literary career. So Chatterton had finished
with Rowley by May 1769. However, Rowley Item No 63 ‘An Excelente Balade of Charitie’
came to light in August 1770 and is traditionally assigned to June 1770. The Rowley canon
was written say from mid-1768 (or before) to May 1769, perhaps a minimum period of
approximately one year, say six months either side of Chatterton’s sixteenth birthday (20 th
November 1768).
However the precise dating of the commencement of the Rowley canon is difficult because
Chatterton did not typically date them. It is perhaps unlikely that ‘An Excelente Balade of
Charitie’ was a sole Rowley piece written a year after the end of the Rowley period.
It may have been written by May 1769 during the bulk of the Rowley pieces. The quasi
medieval Rowley works total 8,344 lines. We will look into these works in detail later.
2. Modern work - prose, poems, letters, musical pieces - Analysis
The remainder of Chatterton’s work was modern in language and tone that he admitted was
his own. Some of which were satirical poems (highlighted in pale blue) which totalled 3,442
lines, the remainder were letters to the London Journals, modern poems and musical pieces.
This is dealt with quite summarily below. The quasi medieval Rowley works require much
greater analysis and are dealt with in detail after the modern works are assessed.
In a letter to a Mr Stephens 20 July 1769 Chatterton states: “You may enquire if you please
for the Town and Country Magazines wherein all signed D.B. and Asaphides are mine. The
pieces called Saxon [Ossianics] are originally and totally the product of my Muse…”.
Chatterton further admitted that D. B. and De Be where his pseudonyms in letters of 21 st
December 1768 and 15th February 1769 to James Dodsley a publisher and bookseller in Pall
Mall London.
In a letter to his mother on his arrival in London dated 26 April 1770, Chatterton states:
“Got into London about 5 o’Clock in the evening – called upon Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Fell, Mr.
Hamilton and Mr. Dodsley.” The first three of whom were the editors of ‘The Middlesex
Journal’, the ‘Freeholder’s Magazine’ and ‘Town & Country Magazine’ respectively.
These three editors published Chatterton’s modern social/political prose and poems and his
social sketches. These were written under the pseudonyms such as Decimus, C, and D.B.
Since Chatterton met with these editors then they would have known of his identity as
Decimus, C, D.B. etc and consequently his modern works would have been widely
recognised as his own. Since these works were modern and admitted as his own and were
new and original pieces then there could not be a charge of ‘forgery’ against such works.
The works were admittedly in the styles of other writers such as James Macpherson
(Ossianics), Junius (political prose letters) and Charles Churchill (satirical poems) but they
could not be in any way considered ‘forgeries’ because of the way that Chatterton dealt with
the subject matter which was in a manner that was a personal expression of his own very
personal views and opinions. In summary any charge of ‘forgery’ against Thomas
Chatterton for his modern work must surely be completely without foundation.
I do not believe that there has ever been any literary critic that has pronounced Chatterton’s
modern work as ‘forgeries’ – they have rightly never been considered as such and there is no
reason to do so. The quasi-medieval work is a very different matter.
Let’s return to item 1. Quasi-medieval poems and prose.
1, Quasi-medieval poems and prose – Analysis
1.a. Why Thomas Rowley?
Why did Thomas Chatterton write quasi-medieval prose and poetry in the guise of Thomas
Rowley?
In order to answer that question, at least in part, we need to look no further than his
parentage, his early years and his environment.
Thomas Chatterton was born, three months after the death of his Father in a tiny cottage
within sight and sound of St Mary Redcliffe Church in Bristol. The cottage was the writing
master’s house, (and came with the job), for the adjacent Pile Street School, where his father
was the school master and Chatterton later attended. He was born at approximately 6.00pm
on 20th November 1752.
It is possible that the first earthly sounds that Chatterton heard on his arrival into the world,
apart from the voices of his Mother and Sister were the ringing of the bells of St Mary
Redcliffe Church. Chatterton’s father was a lay clerk at the nearby Bristol Cathedral and the
Chatterton family have a history with St Mary Redcliffe Church of over with a hundred years
dating back to 1643. Some of the Chatterton family are believed to have been sextons at the
church. Chatterton’s father, Thomas Chatterton Snr pilfered old folios and leases, often
medieval from the muniments room above the north porch of St Mary Redcliffe Church to
cover school books and bibles, whilst Chatterton’s mother used them for sewing patterns. So
we see that medievalism via his father, family and St Mary Redcliffe Church was deeply
ingrained in the young and fertile brain of the precocious child Chatterton.
Furthermore his time at Colstons School from the age of eight through to his life as a
scrivener with John Lambert the Bristol attorney commencing at fourteen years of age were
days of toil and drudgery in a philistine mercantile Bristol.
Rowley was a means of escape from this drudgery and to return to a Romantic chivalrous
past. His venture into self-education (with limited assistance from his mother and sister) was
initiated by the inspiration of the medieval illuminated characters of an ancient folio.
Chatterton found, within the walls of St Mary Redcliffe Church, his needed Hero, his Father
substitute: William Canynge. Canynge (c 1399 – 1474) was a wealthy Bristol cloth shipping
merchant and five times Mayor of Bristol. Canynge was of great interest and influence upon
Chatterton, as he was a patron of the arts and restored St Mary Redcliffe Church at his own
expense with a workforce of one hundred workmen. There are two tombs to Canynge within
the church. Amongst Canynge’s associates was a Thomas Rowley, merchant and sheriff to
whom there is a brass in the nearby St John’s Church in Bristol. In Chatterton’s young
creative mind, Rowley morphed from the merchant and sheriff that he was in reality, into the
poet-priest of the boy’s imagination – presumably Rowley morphed into Thomas
Chatterton’s alter-ego.
When the Rowley Muse was ascendant, Rowley was Chatterton and Chatterton was
Rowley; in his mind, they were one and the same.
William Canynge was perhaps Chatterton’s substitute father to ‘replace’ his true father who
had died.
It is perfectly plausible that the loss of his father, particularly being before he was born, was
one of the greatest psychological factors influencing Chatterton in taking over the persona of
Thomas Rowley. Perhaps Chatterton, being at so young an age, had little or no control over
his adoption of the Rowley persona; it is well known amongst creative people that they have
little control over where their inspiration comes from. It is widely recognized that
Chatterton’s greatest genius lay in the Muse of his Rowley poems. When perceived from the
psychological standpoint above, I can see no valid foundation in calling the Rowley works
‘forgeries’. Certainly Chatterton tried to pass off as medieval, that that was modern and
written by himself, but this is an imposition or a misrepresentation not a forgery.
1.b The Nature of the Rowley Poems

The Rowley poems caused such an enormous controversy over whether they were written by
Rowley or by Chatterton. They were first published in 1777 (seven years after Chatterton’s
death) under the title: ‘Poems, Supposed to have been written at Bristol, by Thomas Rowley,
and Others, in the fifteenth Century; the Greatest Part now First Published from the Most
Authentic Copies, with an Engraved Specimen of One of the MSS. To which are added, a
Preface, an Introductory Account of the Several Pieces, and a Glossary.’ edited by Thomas
Tyrwhitt, a Shakespearean scholar. The poems were modern in metre and the Rowley stanza
was based on the Edmund Spenser (1552-1599) stanza of three rhymes on nine lines, whereas
Rowley is four rhymes on ten lines. The ten line structure was used by Mathew Prior (1664-
1721) which Chatterton adopted.
The Rowley stanza is written in iambic pentameter (ten syllables) with the last line often an
alexandrine (twelve syllable iambic). The poems contained errors in some of the ‘old’ words
used that Chatterton had reproduced in his innocence from errors in standard antiquarian
dictionaries and texts and his work contained references to things that did not exist in the
fifteenth century such as knitting. Furthermore the Rowley poems showed clear influences of
poets later than the fifteenth century such as Shakespeare, (c. 1564-1616) Spenser (1552-
1599) and John Dryden (1631-1700).
Furthermore, Chatterton created some of his own words and spellings that were not of any
century whatsoever, further belying the notion that the works were ‘forgeries’ – rather they
were the artistic creations of a very fertile young creative mind.
However, the structure of the poems is not the primary concern here. The primary concern is
their originality of content and style.
Chatterton wrote amongst perhaps the best English Eclogues of the 18 th Century (Eclogues
the First, Second and Third), the classical epic poem (Battle of Hastings II), the almost
flawless and first heroic verse drama (Ælla), perhaps the finest martial lyrics (The Ode to
Freedom Chorus in Goddwyn), and possibly the greatest piece of onomatopoeic writing in the
language (the storm scene in An Excelente Balade of Charitie). He was the first poet to use
the forces of Nature as a metaphor for war. Thomas Chatterton’s masterpiece is the rhymed
play ‘Ælla’ (a rhymed poetic-play) of 1,365 lines that stands alone in his century, and any
other. There is nothing quite like it in the English language. The metre in Chatterton’s ‘The
Mynstrelles Song’ contained in Ælla is new and unique to Chatterton. Chatterton’s poetry
was rich, experimental, fresh. He adopted new ways with poetry including his new emphasis
upon Nature. These new ways with poetry were adopted by Coleridge and others and passed
on to future generations of poets. Chatterton is amongst the spiritual-poetic line of descent
of: Chaucer, Spenser, Chatterton, Coleridge, Keats, Tennyson, Morris…
How is it possible to assign the term ‘forgeries’ to such great work – it is surely absurd to do
so?
1c. The Nature of Thomas Rowley

Thomas Rowley as explained above was merchant and sheriff at Bristol. There are no
historical records of him writing one poem in his entire lifetime. If Rowley had been known
as a poet, then if Chatterton wrote poems under his name, then there might perhaps be some
grounds for the accusation of ‘forger’. However, Thomas Rowley was not known for poetry,
Chatterton merely took on his name as a persona and pseudonym for his own writing.
There were no original Rowley poems for Chatterton to ‘forge’; none existed – the ‘Rowley’
poems were new and unique to the creative mind of Thomas Chatterton. Again, in this
context, how is it acceptable to assign the name of ‘forger’ or ‘forgery’ to Chatterton’s work?
1d. Chatterton’s Admissions of Rowley

Chatterton admitted on a number of occasions that he was the author of Rowley. Of one of
his first Rowley poems ‘Bristowe Tragedie or the Dethe of Syr Charles Bawdin’, a beautiful
piece, he said to his mother “I found the argument and versified it.” On another occasion he
presented George Catcott and William Barrett with his ‘Battle of Hastings II’ and Catcott
commended Chatterton on the “regularity of the verse, and the many beautiful similies with
which it abounded”. Chatterton on receiving such praise, then admitted that he wrote the
poem. Battle of Hastings I is in a metre very similar to the Rowley metre but with five
rhymes on a ten line stanza and totals 564 lines.
Furthermore he admitted to his sister Mary that he wrote ‘Onn oure Ladies Chyrche’ which
is a twenty line poem contained within ‘A Brief Account of William Cannings from the Life of
Thomas Rowleie Preeste.’ As shown above, Chatterton freely admitted his Ossianic pieces.
Also in his piece that he sent to Horace Walpole entitled ‘The Ryse of Peyncteynge, yn
Englande’ in a letter dated 25 March 1769 it interestingly contained an Ossian piece (in
Rowleyesque language) relating to a painter named Afflem who was captured by the Danes.
Here is another admission of authorship albeit tangentially. Indeed Horace Walpole stated in
a letter “I then imagined and do still, that the success of Ossian’s poems had suggested the
idea”.
The “idea” being that of writing in the guise of a “poet” of many centuries ago (Thomas
Rowley), as was Ossian purported by James Macpherson to be of the 3rd Century.
A further admission of Chatterton was that of the ‘ageing’ of parchments. A Mr Edward

Gardner was a friend of Chatterton’s who used to walk the streets of Bristol together. In a
meeting with Chatterton, in early 1770, Gardner saw him rub a parchment in several places in
steaks of yellow ochre, then rub it several times on the ground, which was dirty, and
afterwards crumple it in his hand. “That was the way to antiquate it” Chatterton affirmed, but
that “He could do it better were he at home”.
Surely any charge of ‘forgery’ must be discounted in the light of Chatterton having made
these admissions both of the writing of the quasi-medieval poems and the ‘antiquating’ of
parchments.
At this point, it is pertinent to quote directly from Meyerstein:
“Chatterton’s “originals” [parchments] are not strictly forgeries, i.e. the hand is not an
imitation of a pre-existing hand; though they are undeniably attempts to pass off something
new as something old.
All are childish bunglings, [Chatterton was fifteen years when he first introduced Rowley]
such as any very young person, if left alone, might accomplish with a bit of parchment, some
glue, gum, or varnish, watered ink, and yellow chalk. As one looks at them in their sad array
it is difficult to credit that they were ever seriously intended to deceive. The heads of kings
and popes… are little more than scrawls. The penmanship is that of no age or country,
though, when legible, it can be made out as a huddled and rounded form of Chatterton’s
normal hand.”
Meyerstein then quotes Thomas Butler and eighteenth century expert:
“We remarked some of the Letters to have been written in 4 or 5 different manners; so that
the Writer evidently went upon no principles, had previously formed to himself no Alphabet;
had a very imperfect guess at the old Alphabets, & was incapable of imitating any of them
truly.”
The two quotations above show an exceptionally creative energetic mind lost in reverie under
The Muse, not a ‘forger’ with deliberate, alternative intent.
1e. Chatterton’s Admission Enigma

When Chatterton made his admissions no one believed that he could have written the works
of such beauty and brilliance. Not his family nor his friends nor Catcott nor Barrett not
anyone, believed that the fifteen year old, self-educated, charity school boy could have
written such poems.
So perhaps Thomas Chatterton sought refuge back in the myth of his own creation and
disappeared back into his Rowley alter-ego and his father substitute William Canynges; there
to remain, to his dying day.
1.f Thomas Chatterton’s Poetic Influence

Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote a monody to Chatterton which he commenced when thirteen
years of age and worked on for the rest of his life.
As Meyerstein states:
“This, and this alone, is fame, to live continuously thus in the heart and mind of a great
man.”
Further influences of Chatterton upon Coleridge may be seen in the echoes of ‘The
Tournament or the Unknown Knyght’ found in Coleridge’s ‘Cristabel’. The influence of
some of Chatterton’s modern work viz. ‘The African Eclogues’ can be seen in Coleridge’s
‘Kubla Khan’. Further still, Chatterton’s influence may be seen on the early “antiquating” of
Colderidge’s ‘The Rime of the Ancient Mariner’.
Wordsworth paid homage to Chatterton in his ‘Resolution and Independence’:
“I thought of Chatterton, the marvellous Boy,

The sleepless soul that perished in his pride.”
William Wordsworth’s ‘Resolution and Indepedence’ is written in the same metre as

Chatterton’s ‘Elinoure and Juga’ and ‘An Excelente Balade of Charitie’ and the moral of
‘Resolution and Indepedence’ is the same as Thomas Chatterton’s in his ‘An Excelente
Balade of Charitie’. It is based on the Biblical parable of ‘The Good Samaritan’.
Wordsworth also expressed his desire to erect a monument to the memory of the “Poet
Chatterton”. This particular method of remembrance was eventually left to others.
Lord Byron spoke of Chatterton: “Chatterton is never vulgar” and a term used in
Chatterton’s ‘Goddwyn’: “gore-faced” is found in Byron’s ‘Childe Harold’.
The octosyllabic measures used by Sir Walter Scott were an emulation of those first
popularised by Chatterton in his ‘The Unknown Knyght or The Tournament’.
John Keats wrote a sonnet to Thomas Chatterton with echoes of Chatterton’s 1,365 line
verse-play masterpiece ‘Ælla’. In Keat’s ‘Epistle to George Felton Mathew’ he interestingly
juxtaposes Thomas Chatterton and William Shakespeare:
‘O Mathew lend thy aid

To find a place where I may greet the maid-
Where we may soft humanity put on,
And sit and rhyme, and think on Chatterton;
And that warm-hearted Shakespeare went to meet him
Four laurell’d spirits, heaven-ward entreat him.’
The ‘heaven-were’ or ‘heaven-ward’ term is used by Chatterton in his ‘Goddwyn’ and in his
‘The Parlyamente of Sprytes’.
In the lines above:
And that warm-hearted Shakespeare went to meet him

Four laurell’d spirits, heaven-ward entreat him.
Who is Keats referring to as the “Four laurell’d spirits”?
Placed next to Shakespeare, perhaps they are: Chaucer, Milton, Spenser and Shakespeare?
As well as Thomas Chatterton, worthy fellow ‘forgers’ all, no doubt?!
In 1818, almost half a century after Thomas Chatterton’s death, the original inscription in
Keat’s epic poem ‘Endymion’ was:
“INSCRIBED,
WITH EVERY FEELING OF PRIDE AND REGRET
AND WITH “A BOWED MIND”
TO THE MEMORY OF
THE MOST ENGLISH OF POETS EXCEPT SHAKESPEARE,
THOMAS CHATTERTON”
On the day Keat’s copied out his ‘Ode to Autumn’ he wrote in a letter: “I always somehow
associate Chatterton with autumn.”
Influences upon Percy Bysche Shelley may be seen from Chatterton’s ‘An Excelente Balade
of Charitie’ upon Shelley’s ‘Prometheus Unbound’ and from ‘Brystowe Tragedy or The
Dethe of Syr Charles Bawdin’ on Shelley’s ‘Queen Mab’. Shelley’s homage to Keats –
‘Adonis’ contains a stanza to Chatterton.
Dante Gabriel Rossetti, the Pre-Raphaelite painter and poet was a very vocal enthusiast of
Chatterton and like Keats, wrote a sonnet to him.
William Blake was influenced by Chatterton as seen in Chatterton’s ‘Godred Crovan’ upon
Blake’s ‘Gwin King of Norway.’
Influences upon Alfred Lord Tennyson may be seen from Chatterton’s ‘The Tournament, An
Interlude’ on Tennyson’s ‘Harold’.
I see no signs of the term ‘forger’ being in any way applicable to these poetic influences of
Thomas Chatterton upon those later poets, some considered Greats in our language, upon
whom he had a direct poetic and writerly influence. Nor am I aware, of any references by
these distinguished poets, to Chatterton being a ‘forger’. They all had the highest regards,
respect and reverence to him as poet and writer.
1.g. The View of the Poets
John Keats
“The purest writer in the English language.”
William Wordsworth
“the marvellous Boy”
Samuel Taylor Coleridge
"O Chatterton! that thou wert yet alive!

Sure thou woulds’t spread the canvas to the gale,
And love with us the tinkling team to drive
O’er peaceful Freedom’s undivided dale;
And we, at eve would round thee throng,
Hanging, enraptur’d, on thy stately song, [Highly complementary!]
And greet with smiles the young-eyed Poesy
All deftly mask’d as hoar antiquity.”
Percy Bysche Shelley
“Far in the Unapparent. Chatterton

Rose pale - his solemn agony had not
Yet faded from him.”
William Blake
“All his efforts prove this little boy to have the greatest of all blessings, a strong imagination”
Robert Browning
"…being, as such a genius could not but be, the noblest-hearted of mortal."
Thomas De Quincey
“I have a pity even love for Chatterton, if it is possible to feel love for one who was in his
unhonoured grave before I was born."
Dante Gabriel Rossetti
"… He was an absolute and untarnished hero…"
"...Shakespeare's manhood at a boy's wild heart..”
“..the true day-spring of modern romantic poetry..”
Sir Walter Scott
"His poetic achievements were colossal in relation to his youth…temperament

approaching insanity accompanied his genius."
Robert Southey
"'T’was a joy in my vision / When I beheld his face”
[On Chatterton:] “Whose mind was impregnated with indisputable and almost
unlimited genius”
John Clare
"What a wonderful boy was this unfortunate Chatterton."
Oscar Wilde
“One of our greatest poets”
“Founder of the English Romantic School”
How can the terms ‘forger’ or ‘forgery’ possibly, in any way whatsoever, be reconciled with
the quotations above from some of England’s most esteemed poets? The short answer is that
they cannot.
1.h. The View of the Critics
Biographica Britannica 2nd Edition - 1852
"The person of Chatterton, like his genius, was premature: He had a manliness and
dignity beyond his years"
Bishop Thomas Percy – Editor of “Reliques of Ancient Poetry”
“…considering his early youth and disadvantages of his Education,…one of the

greatest Geniuses that ever existed in the World.”
John Davis
“It is a matter of astonishment with what facility he versified a literal prose

translation of the fifth and nineteenth odes of the first book of Horace”
Ernst Penzoldt
“There are angels, Thomas Chatterton could have been one, one of the wingless
angels, those beings half real and half unearthly who have kept the faces, some of the
faculties (the ones that torment them here), and the longing, (for flight perhaps), from
the other world.”
William Hazlitt
“I cannot find in Chatterton’s works anything as extraordinary as the age at which

they were written. They have a facility, vigour and knowledge, which were prodigous
in a boy of sixteen.”
Thomas Carlyle
"…his marvellously precious Poetry…Poor Boy: poor, erring, struggling vainly

soaring brother mortal…”
Sir Herbert Croft
“No such human being as this boy, at any period of life, has ever been known, or
possibly ever will be known”
W W Skeat
“In originality of thought, Chatterton, if the early age at which he began to compose
be taken into account, stands before any poet on record.”
Edmund Malone
“[I]..do indeed believe him to have been the greatest genius that England has
produced since the days of Shakespeare..”
Horace Walpole – Earl of Orford
“For Chatterton was a gigantic genius and might have soared I know not whither.”
Dean Milles
“The soliloquy of Celmonde [in Ælla] is indisputably one of the most distinguished
passages in the play for its lofty ideas, powerful imagery, and poetic expression; nor
is it, in point of reasoning, unlike or unequal to Shakespeare. How far does
Spenser’s description of Hope fall short of our poet’s [Chatterton’s] image!”
Thomas Campbell
“..a genius which Nature had meant to achieve works of immortality. No English
poet ever equaled him at the same age.”
Thomas Warton
“Chatterton was a prodigy of genius, and would have proved the first of English
poets, had he reached a maturer age.”
Anna Seward
“…the greatest genius, his early extinction considered, which perhaps the world ever
produced.”
G Gregory D.D.
“The eclogues are to be accounted some of the most perfect specimens among the
poems of Rowley. Indeed, I am not acquainted with any pastorals superior to them,
either ancient or modern.”
Dr Vicesimus Knox
“We have many instances of poetical eminence at an early age; but neither Cowley,
Milton nor Pope, ever produced anything, while they were boys, which can be
compared to the poems of Chatterton.”
W. P. Grant [Editor]
[Referring to Chatterton’s Battle of Hastings II stanzas 39 to 46:] “may compete with

almost anything in English poetry.”
Charles Edward Russell
“Of all the poets that have sung in English this is most truly the poet for poets; of all
the poets that have sung in English, Shakespeare alone accepted, this [Chatterton] has
had upon what is distinctly the modern structure of the art the most stimulating
influence; and of all the poets that have sung in English Shakespeare alone excepted,
this had the greatest gifts and surest inspiration.”
[On Ælla]: “In that age [that it was written] it shines like a diamond in an ash-heap.
Nothing comparable with it had been written since Milton…”
Donald Taylor
“Ælla stands head and shoulders above most of the tragedies of Chatterton’s own
century and stands confidently with Restoration heroic plays.”
Dr Samuel Johnson
"This is the most extraordinary young man that has encountered my knowledge. It is
wonderful how the whelp has written such things."
How can the terms ‘forger’ or ‘forgery’ possibly, in any way whatsoever, be reconciled with
the quotations from the esteemed critics above? The short answer is that they cannot.
1.i. Thomas Chatterton’s Creative Influence

Thomas Chatterton’s creative influence has been enormous and those writers and artists
who have made a direct creative response to Chatterton spread throughout Europe and
include poets, novelists, composers of dramatic and musical works, painters. They include:
Poets:
Percy Bysche Shelley, Lord Byron, William Wordsworth, John Keats, Samuel Taylor
Coleridge, Robert Southey, William Blake, Alfred de Vigny, John Clare, Robert Browning,
Alfred de Musset, Thomas Dermody, George Sand, Sir Walter Scott, Edgar Allen Poe, Dante
Gabriel Rossetti, Rudyard Kipling, Seigfreid Sassoon, Oscar Wilde….
Novelists:
Peter Ackroyd, Sir Herbert Croft, David Masson, Hermann Melville, Ernst Penzoldt,
Gertrude Stein…
Composers of Dramatic & Musical Works:

Mathew Arnold, Heinrich Blau, Albert Chevalier, Michele Cuciniello, Ruggiero Leoncavallo,
Alfred de Vigny, Vita Sackville-West, Krystan Josef Ostrowski…
Painters & Other Artists:

Thomas Gainsborough, William Hogarth, Max Ernst, Henry Wallis, Mrs Edward Mathew
Ward, Samuel J Loxton…
Why would such diverse and highly regarded poets, writers, composers and painters such as
those listed above each make direct creative responses to a ‘forger’?
The question is surely nonsense.
I believe that the accusation of Thomas Chatterton being a ‘forger’ may be readily dismissed
by the arguments presented and information in 1.a. to 1.i. above.
This brings the broader questions of why did Chatterton write quasi-medieval poetry
(partially answered above) and why has he been saddled throughout history with the false
yoke of ‘forger’? (Mixed metaphors aside.)
3. Quasi-Medieval Poetry – External Influences
Apart from the psychological ‘internal’ influences upon Chatterton to write poems in the
guise of a fifteenth century “poet-priest” discussed above, there are also readily identifiable
external influences.
There were three such external influences:
As mentioned above, James Macpherson published from 1761 to 1763 various works
including 'Fingal' in six books and 'Temora' in eight books. They were supposed translations
of Gaelic poetry by a 3rd century bard who he named 'Ossian'. Initially, in order to promote
the poems, he approached Earl Walpole who was taken in by the work and in part assisted in
bringing them to public notice.
They were repudiated as modern by Dr Samuel Johnson and were in fact apparently written
by Macpherson himself but nonetheless, their deep appreciation of natural beauty and their
mystery as legend made the works an extraordinary success. By 1764 Macpherson was rich
and famous and secretary to the Governor of Pensocola, Florida in the USA.
The second influence was from Horace Walpole himself:
Walpole published 'The Castle of Otranto' - heavily influenced by his gothic mansion
Strawberry Hill in Twickenham and supposedly printed in Naples in the black letter in 1529
written by a Canon of the church of St Nicholas at Otranto. Published in 1764 it was a huge
success and on publication of a second edition in 1765 Walpole admitted authorship.
The third influence was Thomas Percy:
In 1765 Thomas Percy published 'Reliques of Ancient English Poetry' a collection of ancient
ballads supposedly taken from an old folio found in a friend’s house. It was beautifully
illustrated in title and frontispiece and some modernised works were introduced.
So Chatterton’s strategic model was Macpherson with his Ossian, who was assisted by
Walpole and had become rich and famous with his Ossian works. The link with Chatterton
and his work and his Macpherson styled approach to Walpole is clear. The primary difference
was in the material, Macpherson’s Ossian was written in the modern idiom whereas
Chattertons’ Rowley was written in his own quasi-medieval literary costume.
4. Why was Chatterton saddled with the ‘forger’ misnomer?

To answer this question we have to look first in Bristol. During the Rowley controversy that
raged after Chatterton’s death, George Catcott published in the ’Monthly Review’ in 1777 a
letter that stated: “Chatterton went to London, carried all his treasures with him, applied to
Horace Walpole – met with little or no encouragement and soon after in a fit of despair he
put an end to his life.” What was going on in the Bristol pewterer’s mind (assuming one
present) to make such a preposterous allegation only he will ever know. The
Chatterton/Walpole correspondence had taken place approximately eighteen months before
Chatterton’s death and a full thirteen months before Chatterton left for London!
See Figure 1. The Thomas Chatterton Canon 2014 v II 2018.
To Horace Walpole’s enormous detriment this unfounded allegation was repeated almost
word for word in the far more authoritative and reputable ‘History of English Poetry’ by
Thomas Warton. Now this allegation was in the world of reputable literature.
Thomas Warton was Oxford educated and was appointed Professor of Poetry at the university
in 1757. He held this professorship for ten years. In 1778 the ‘Miscellanies in Prose and
Verse’ by Thomas Chatterton, The supposed author of the poems published under the names
of Rowley, Canning &.’ was published. It was reviewed in ‘Gentleman’s Magazine’ in
September 1778 and contained yet a third attack on Horace Walpole. Walpole made his
response early in 1779 by publishing 200 free copies of his ‘Letter to the Editor of the
Miscellanies’ and distributed them to the London and elsewhere literati. It was in this letter
that Walpole damned Chatterton but equally damned himself.
In the four monthly editions of ‘Gentleman’s Magazine’ from April to July 1782, now twelve
years after the death of Thomas Chatterton, Walpole’s letter was published in full and
therefore available to the general public. The Rowley controversy was now at a peak.
Walpole’s letter stated:
"All of the house of forgery are relations, and though it is just to Chatterton's memory to say,
that his poverty never made him claim kindred to the richest, or most enriching branches, yet
his ingenuity in counterfeiting style, and I believe hands, might easily have led him to those
more facile imitations of prose, promissory notes."
For Horace Walpole, who misrepresented his ‘Castle of Otranto’ as the work of a medieval
cleric, to make such an assertion as ‘forgery’ against Thomas Chatterton, is an astonishing
hypocrisy. To further suggest that that such practices as Chatterton undertook: “…might
easily have led him to those more facile imitations of prose, promissory notes" is a staggering
insult to a charity school, self-educated boy of seventeen and author of ‘Ælla’ – a work
unparalleled in English literature; with Chatterton dead for twelve years and unable to defend
himself. No one called Horace Walpole a ‘forger’ for claiming ‘Castle of Otranto’ as
medieval and written by an Italian cleric. The cause of the ‘forger’ misnomer motif does not
lie wholly on the shoulders of Horace Walpole, however his aggressive and unfair use of the
term certainly significantly contributed to it. There were other contributory factors. In the
late 18th Century it was a common term for such literary practises as writing in the guise of an
ancient bard and was probably used as a ‘blanket’ term without due regard to specific
inapplicable cases such as Chatterton’s.
Further, Thomas Chatterton, even as a child, was aware of his superior powers and this
coupled with his lack of regard for the reputation of others and their station in life and his
apparent ability to fool grown men of high stature in society (Walpole was initially
completely fooled) as well as the learned antiquaries, seemed to give rise to a contempt for
others. The self-educated seventeen year old ragamuffin Chatterton, having fooled many of
England’s leading antiquaries, scholars and socialite/literati of the day with his ‘Rowley’
would have been conveniently put to rest, twelve years after his death, with the self-
congratulatory, (we found him out!) deprecatory and convenient term ‘forger’. The
convenient accusation term of ‘forger’ would allow many very red and blushing societal
faces to subside quickly to a more appropriate salon pallor. A further reason is that the initial
interest was primarily in whether they were ‘Rowley’ or not, rather than whether they were
great poems.
The attention was focused on the inner structure of the material and not on the poetry and its
rare beauty and music. So when Chatterton was denounced as a ‘forger’ his work, and its
true value, suffered unfairly also. It was not until Chatterton was read by Coleridge,
Wordsworth, Southey, Keats, Shelley, Byron, Blake and others that his work was fully
appreciated for its poetry rather than as some historical philological curiosity. Chatterton
significantly influenced all of these poets. Robert Southey published the ‘The Works of
Thomas Chatterton’ in three volumes in 1803 by subscription from such luminaries as:
Countesses, Duchesses, Bishops, Princesses, Majors, Lieutenants, Knights of The Realm and
one S. T. Coleridge and a W. Wordsworth. None of these persons was known for their
enthusiasm for ‘forgery’!
As an aside, the controversy over Rowley versus Anti-Rowley (or Chatterton) was essentially
resolved on the internal evidence alone by Edmund Malone a Shakespearian scholar in his
‘Cursory Observations on the Poems Attributed to Thomas Rowley’ and ‘Enquiry into the
Authenticity of the Poems attributed to Thomas Rowley’ by Thomas Warton (both published
in 1782). Both of these publications endorsed Warton’s view, previously held in his ‘History
of English Poetry’, that the work was wholly Chatterton’s.
It is pertinent to point out here, that the controversy was ’Rowleians’ versus ‘Anti-Rowleians’
rather than ’Rowleians’ versus ‘Chattertonians’ which is indicative of the lowly status that
Chatterton the “vulgar, uneducated stripling” (per Samuel Johnson) had in the opinion of the
controversy combatants and the great ‘creative’ ‘genius’ Samuel Johnson author of a hugely
creative endeavour - a Dictionary! A critic rather than a creative. Or a “pensioned muse” as
he was described by Chatterton.
A further reason why the label of ‘forger’ was convenient for certain persons lay in
Chatterton’s caustic satirical poems, many published in London journals, satirising many
leading literati, and government figures of the day. Additional fuel to this particular fire was
Chatterton’s political prose letters, many published in the London Journals, in particular the
‘Middlesex Journal’, again highly critical of leading government figures and the monarchy.
The use of the term ‘forger’, against a dead person unable to defend himself, would
aggrandise and redeem the accusers and denigrate Thomas Chatterton. What honourable
gentleman would heed the remarks of a mere boy who was a ‘forger’?
Thomas Chatterton’s supposed suicide was another factor that would not have improved his
posthumous reputation. The evidence supporting a different form of death to suicide is, on the
balance of probabilities, stronger than the evidence that supports the view that Chatterton
deliberately took his own life. This is demonstrated in ‘Thomas Chatterton and The Myth of
The Romanticist Suicide’ M Doble Dec 2013.
However, during the years after his death, the terms ‘forger’ and ‘suicide’ would not have
endured him to polite literary and political society and any legitimate claims that Thomas
Chatterton may have had, (he had many) in his highly critical writings against the
Government, the Monarchy and leading figures of the time, could be readily dismissed, if so
required, by the use of the terms ‘forger’ and ‘suicide’.
5. Conclusions – If Thomas Chatterton was not a ‘forger’ – what was he?

Thomas Chatterton wrote in many forms both in Bristol and in London: the quasi-medieval
‘Thomas Rowley’ poems and prose, modern poems, plays, musicals, political letters, satire,
social sketches.
No English poet or writer not Milton, Keats, Coleridge or Wordsworth, indeed nor any other,
achieved as much as Thomas Chatterton did at his age. Thomas Chatterton was the first poet
to understand that poetry touches music with one hand and painting with the other.
Chatterton presented a new, revolutionary way with poetry.
His allusions to Nature and Beauty and his many differing uses of measure (metre), his
beautiful painting with words with such rich melody, music, resonance and sound were fresh
to the 18th century. He wrote in many poetic measures, some of essentially his own design
of application. He wrote the first volume of Romantic poems (Rowley), the earliest quasi-
medieval English Eclogues (Eclogues the First, Second and Third), the first native classical
epic (Battle of Hastings I) the first heroic verse tragedy (Ælla), perhaps the finest martial
lyrics (The Ode to Freedom Chorus in Goddwyn), possibly greatest piece of onomatopoeic
writing in the language (the storm scene in An Excelente Balade of Charitie).
He was the first poet to use the forces of Nature as a metaphor for war and one of the first
writers to write poetry against slavery and the oppression of the British Colonies (i.e. Heccar
and Gaira. An African Eclogue) and prose against slavery in his letters against The
Establishment published in the London Journals.
Commensurate with the views of the Poets and Critics above, the achievements summarised
in this paragraph and his significant influence on the poetry of Coleridge, Wordsworth,
Southey, Keats, Blake, Shelley, Byron, Clare, Sir Walter Scott and many others amongst the
Romantic Circle – it leads to only one conclusion:
Thomas Chatterton was a great poet and a very accomplished writer and the Forefather of the
English Romantic Movement.
Perhaps this quotation from William Wordsworth is a useful summary:
‘His Genius was universal; he excelled in every species of composition; so remarkable an

instance of precocious talent is quite unexampled. His prose was excellent; and his power of
picturesque description and satire great.”
Wordsworth does not use the term ‘forger’ to describe Thomas Chatterton.
May we perhaps, hopefully, hear no more of it!
Michael Doble BSc (Hons) AMInstLM

Chairman, The Thomas Chatterton Society
November 2018
END OF ESSAY PAPER

TC Paper January 2014 V II 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC Paper January 2014 V II 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Case for Thomas Chatterton – Poet & Writer or Forger?

A New Enquiry into the Work & Legacy of Thomas Chatterton

Michael Doble BSc (Hons) AMInstLM

The Life of Thomas Chatterton - A Brief Introduction

Thomas Chatterton was born posthumously at approximately 6.00pm on 20 th November 1752

A Definition of ‘Forger’ and ‘Forgery’

‘Forgery’ – the action of forging a banknote, work of art, etc

from the Oxford English Dictionary.

The Thomas Chatterton Canon

1. Quasi-medieval poems and prose

1. Quasi-medieval poems and prose - Background

2. Modern work - prose, poems, letters, musical pieces - Analysis

1, Quasi-medieval poems and prose – Analysis

1.a. Why Thomas Rowley?

1.b The Nature of the Rowley Poems

1c. The Nature of Thomas Rowley

1d. Chatterton’s Admissions of Rowley

A further admission of Chatterton was that of the ‘ageing’ of parchments. A Mr Edward

At this point, it is pertinent to quote directly from Meyerstein:

Meyerstein then quotes Thomas Butler and eighteenth century expert:

1e. Chatterton’s Admission Enigma

1.f Thomas Chatterton’s Poetic Influence

Wordsworth paid homage to Chatterton in his ‘Resolution and Independence’:

“I thought of Chatterton, the marvellous Boy,

William Wordsworth’s ‘Resolution and Indepedence’ is written in the same metre as

‘O Mathew lend thy aid

In the lines above:

And that warm-hearted Shakespeare went to meet him

Who is Keats referring to as the “Four laurell’d spirits”?

As well as Thomas Chatterton, worthy fellow ‘forgers’ all, no doubt?!

1.g. The View of the Poets

“The purest writer in the English language.”

“the marvellous Boy”

Samuel Taylor Coleridge

"O Chatterton! that thou wert yet alive!

Percy Bysche Shelley

“Far in the Unapparent. Chatterton

Dante Gabriel Rossetti

"… He was an absolute and untarnished hero…"

"...Shakespeare's manhood at a boy's wild heart..”

“..the true day-spring of modern romantic poetry..”

Sir Walter Scott

"His poetic achievements were colossal in relation to his youth…temperament

"'T’was a joy in my vision / When I beheld his face”

"What a wonderful boy was this unfortunate Chatterton."

“One of our greatest poets”

“Founder of the English Romantic School”

1.h. The View of the Critics

Biographica Britannica 2nd Edition - 1852

Bishop Thomas Percy – Editor of “Reliques of Ancient Poetry”

“…considering his early youth and disadvantages of his Education,…one of the

“It is a matter of astonishment with what facility he versified a literal prose

“I cannot find in Chatterton’s works anything as extraordinary as the age at which

"…his marvellously precious Poetry…Poor Boy: poor, erring, struggling vainly

Sir Herbert Croft

Horace Walpole – Earl of Orford

[Referring to Chatterton’s Battle of Hastings II stanzas 39 to 46:] “may compete with

Charles Edward Russell

1.i. Thomas Chatterton’s Creative Influence

Composers of Dramatic & Musical Works:

Painters & Other Artists:

3. Quasi-Medieval Poetry – External Influences