A study of the biographical treatmentsof the character of Thomas Chatterton

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors McDonald, Lawrence Larange, 1929-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.

Download date 04/06/2018 08:16:48

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/319236

A STUDY OF THE BIOGRAPHICAL TREATMBNE OF THE GHAMGT1R OF

THOIE GHATT1RTOM

■by

Larry. IfcDonald H&JknaiiLj i_awT^Mce. Lara,v\^e.

..A. ThesiS';. ,

submitted t© tk© f aeulty. of th@

Department o f English

in p a rtia l fu lfillm en t of th e requirements for the degree of

W T 1R QF m&~

in the Graduate 0oll@ge9 University of Arizona

19 §1

» W W J L J .t o a t T /

ApprovediD ireetor of Thesis

/ & S 7^ " 7

ACKHOIiL'iSD G U H 'B

1 wish to express my s in c e re g r a t i tu d e f o r th e a s s is ta n c e and

encouragement which has been g iven to me by D r0 Melvin To S o lv e .o f th e

Department o f E ng lish in th e p re p a ra t io n o f t h i s t h e s i s 0 I would a lso

l i k e to extend my thanks to th e members of th e s t a f f o f th e U n iv e rs ity

l i b r a r y and to Miss 5B.rga.ret Thompson and Mrs <, O lara G laborne of th eO'

Copper Queen L ib ra ry a t Douglas f o r t h e i r generous c o o p e ra tio n in secur== . ' ' -

in g .needed re fe re n ee so

L arry tfcDonald

219188i i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

C hapter

lo INTRODUCTION, , . , , > . , 1

Aeknowledgmeat of Previous R esearch , , , , , 1S ta tem en t of th e Problem * , , , « , , , 1Value of th e S tudy , , « , , , , , , 4% e L ife of Thomas C h a tte r to n , , , , » <> . , 4

I I , TE1 UiSYBFAlHETIC BI0CRAPHI1S, . » . . 13

to e Coat rev e rsy , , , , , , , . 13C h a t te r to n ?s P ro f lig a c y , , , , , , , , 15A S urvey of Various U nfavorable S tu d ie s , , , , %%

S i r H orace Walpole and W illiam B a r re t t , , , 2 2Joseph C o ttle and S i r W alter S c o t t » , , , 26Alexander Chalmers and John B r i t to n , , , , 27The Reviews of Dix an d ■ of S k e a t 's e d i t io n , , , 30David la sso n , , , © , , , , , 32Donald Sm alley , , , * , , , , , 35

I I I , THE SENTIMENTAL VIEW OF CHATTERTON 37

In tro d u c tio n = , , , , , , , « » « 37P o e try , , , , , , , , , ® ® ° 37Drama, , , , , , , ® ® » , ® , 41PrOS 6 o o e. o e e o o o o o o o 43

S i r H erb ert C ro ft and Vieesimus Knox , , , , 43Thomas Campbell » , , = « , , , , 47John Dix , , , o , o , © © o © 40Robert Browning , , , © © © » « » 51Minor B iographers © © © © © © © © , 56C harles B© R u sse ll , © © © © © » © 61E rnst Penzo ld t © , , , © © © » « 65B ertrand H. Bronson © * © © © , © » 68

IV© THE BIOGRAPHIES OF THE lEDDLE GROUND© © © © © . 69In tro d u c tio n © © » « © © © » © © © 69The O b jec tiv e S tu d ie s from 1789 to 1869 © © » © 69

George Gregory © © © © © © © • » 69Robert Anderson and John Davis © © © © © 71K h o r S tu d ie s © © © © » © © » » « 74C © Bo W ill COX, © o e © a © © © © 76Other Minor S tu d ie s © © © © « « © » 80S i r D an ie l Wilson© © © © © © » © © 83

i i i

Ghapt e r Page

Hie O b jec tiv e S tu d ie s from 1870 to th e P resen t Day 0 8 8Wo Hieodore Watts’fBunton = . e 0 « . 8 8Sdward B e ll and o th e rs . .. . . ' .. • » 89 .John Ho Ingram . • . 0 . = ■ » o . 92Maurice Svan Hare and Charles Kent = o » 95% th e r P ark er U l in g e r . o » o o = o . »97So Ho Wo M eyerstein . « o o o » . » » 99Wo fe e n e ile Dixon and Hoxie Heale F a i r c h i ld . o . 106John Cranstoun H ev ill .. . . . . ' . . 107

f o GOHGLISlOHo o . o » . p o ' o . o o o . o ' o o o 112

BIBLIOGR&PHT o . . . . . . . . 116

SUPPLSMSHTMT BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . .. . 121

iv

CHAPTER 1

XMTRODUGTIO!

AQkaowlQdgmQat Qf, P revious Res earchg T&e id e a of making a~study ©f

th e v a r io u s . M o g ra iM e a l treatmeaats of th e e h a rae te r- of th e e ig M eea tii”

eentury, l a g l i s h ' g o e t» Thomas G h a tte r to n » was. o r ig in a l ly su g g ested to me hy

a reading., of Donald S m a lle y 's hook» Browning 's % sav on G h a tte r to n , which

was p u b lish ed in 19.48o In t h i s volume S m i l e y $, in an a tte m p t to shew what,

o th e rs b e s id e th e V ic to r ia n poet had w r i t t e n about ’i th e m arvellous boy,"

devotes some te n pages t o a su rv ey of G hatSepienian b iographys in c lu d in g

q u o ta tio n s from th e more im portan t s tu d ie s » The d iv e rg en ce of b io g ra p h ic a l

view points, su g g ested by S m alley ’s rev iew a lo n e $ to g e th e r w ith th e l a s t in g

in t e r e s t which th e boy-poet seems to have h e ld f o r b io g r a p h e r s s h o u ld ) i t

a p p e a rs 9 ap p ea l to th e researcher. But upon f u r th e r in v e s t ig a t io n I found

th a t o n ly th e 1930 b iography of th e poet by ®0 EL W. M eyersteiii s eem to

o f f e r a m ore.com plete coverage of G h a tte r ta n ia n b iography th a n does S m a lle y ’s

s tu d y 9 and even in M eyerstain some of th e o u ts ta n d in g c o n tr ib u tio n s made

a f t e r 1800 a re g iven me more th a n p ass in g .m en tio n in a fo o tn o te ., B efore

Heyersteim we must go back as f a r as G0 B= W illc o x ’s memoirp pub lished in

■1842g to f in d a s tu d y which makes copious— and a c c re d ite d — use of th e s t a t e ­

ments of p revious b io g ra p h e rs„

S ta tem en t of th e Problems The remark i s made in an a r t i c l e on G h a tte r to n

in Tfae..Quarterly ■Review t h a t “to a ttem p t a com plete c a ta lo g u e of a l l h is

b io g rap h ers and c r i t i c s would be a t a s k 9 compared to which Mr. G aston’s

♦History, of Human E r r o r e would /be th e d iv e rs io n o f a summer’s dayo*^ A

g lan ee th ro u g h th e 43 pages o f F ran c is Mams H yett and th e Bev0 Canon

B azeley.’s 1914 M blio g rap h y . of G h a tte r to n ia sa would s e rv e to s u b s ta n t ia te

t h i s o.hs©rvation= Consequeatly> th i s th e s i s does no t in any re sp e c t p u rp o rt

to he a com plete coverage of what has been w r i t t e n about G hattertono B ather

i t i s an a ttem p t to rev iew b r i e f l y . t h e o u ts ta n d in g c o n trib u tio n s .t@ th e

p o e t’s b io g rap h y so as to o b ta in some in d ic a t io n of th e g e n e ra l tren d s in

th e 180 years s in c e th e y o u th ’s death? and of th e . p re se n t view of inform ed

though t tow ards th e , p o e t ’s c h a ra c te r , \

Ih e b io g ra p h ic a l s tu d ie s of Thomas O h a tte r to n nay be d iv id ed in to th r e e

groupso The f i r s t of . th e s e I have chosen to c a l l " th e unsym pathetic b io ­

g ra p h ie s ," These o r ig in a te d in th e w ritin g s o f th e e i^ i te e n th -c e n tu ry

Bowl e lans @ such as Jacob Bryant and Jerem iah # 1 1 es ? who a ttem pted to prove

th a t G h a tte rto n in bo th c h a ra c te r and a b i l i t y was unequal to th e p ro d u c tio n

o f th e Rowley p o em , Even a f t e r O h a tte r to n ’s a u th o rsh ip was w e l l - e s ta b l i s h e d ?

th e y o u th 's c a re e r con tinued to have c o n s id e ra b le i n t e r e s t as an o b je c t le s s o n

fo # am bitious young men? .and th e somewhat d id a c t ic to n e of D r0 George Gregory’s

1789 biography, encouraged th i s in t e r p r e ta t io n . This unsym pathetic b io g rap h ica l

a t t i t u d e reached i t s apex of ap p aren t m alice w ith th e p u b lic a tio n of A lexander

Chaims®’s memoir in 181 0 .(a d a te supposed ly w ith in th e Romantic period of

S n g lish l i t e r a t u r e ) and th e r e a f t e r sssbb to have lo s t w hatever fo rc e i t

a c tu a l ly hado S i r D aniel W ilson 's sy m pathetic and s e h o la r ly . b iography o f

1869 gave d e f in i t e a u th o r i ty to a c o n tra ry p o in t of view ,

lh a t S m i l e y c a l l s th e Romantic t r a d i t i o n of G h a tte r to n has d isp lay ed

f a r more v ig o r and p e rs is te n c y th a n has any m alic ious o r d id a c t ic a t t i t u d e ,

1 , " Them# G hatt e r t on ?" The Q u a rte rlv Review? GL {Ju ly and O ctober ?1880)? 79 ,

th e f a e t t h a t O h a tte r ten died# am unacknowledged genius 9 hy. h is own h an d ,

a t th e e a r ly age of s event sen * made him an id e a l s u b je c t f o r p o e try ; and

p o e tic eu log ies 9 which began ap p earin g alm ost im m ediately a f t e r h is d e a th 9

have come fro m .th e pens o f such n o ta b le s as Samuel f a y lo r C oleridges John

K e a ts» and l a a t e G ab rie l B@ ssettle In drama th e Romantic t r a d i t i o n fa s

fo s te re d by A lfred de Vigny in h is 1835 p lay G M iiertons. and in p rose i t

o r ig in a te d w ith th e b io g ra p h ic a l t r i b u te s of S i r H erb ert G roft in 1780 and

o f Vicesimus Knox in 1782« Whereas " th e unsym pathetic sch o o l" was a lre a d y

lo s in g ground a t th e beginning, of th e n in e te e n th c e n tu ry 9 th e se n tim e n ta l

View o f G h a tte rto n rece iv ed i t s most n o ta b le ex p ress io n in a lo n g ,s e r io u s

b iography when C harles SL B u sse ll p u b lish ed h is memoir of th e poet in 19©8o

S rn s t P e n z o ld tas b io g ra p h ic a l n o v e l9 t r a n s la t e d in to E n g lish in 1931, re v e a ls

c le a r ly t h a t even tw e n tie th -c e n tu ry m a te r ia lism has n o t com pletely crushed

th e rom antic ap p ea l of th e poet "s h i s to r y .

As. m ight be a n t ic ip a te d 9 howeverg most of th e s tu d ies, of G h a tte rto n

have sought a_m iddle ground in t h e i r c h a r a c te r i s a t io n of th e p o e t. G regory 's

memoirs p robab ly th e most i n f l u e n t i a l G h a tte r to n ia n b iography ever w r i t t e n »

d is c lo s e s a r a th e r p u r i t a n ic a l ou tlook bu t comes to th e cone It® ion th a t

G h a tte rto n was no t so bad as th e Bowl e lans had though t = W ilsons who. pub­

l is h e d th e n ex t r e a l ly a u th o r i t a t iv e biography.j in c lin e s tow ard a s e n tim e n ta l

view o f G hattertonp but h is s c h o la r ly o b je c t iv i ty keeps h is judgment w e ll-

balanced «» B e y e rs te in 's b iog raphy , th e t h i r d and by f a r th e most ex h au s tiv e

o f th e th r e e a u th o r i ta t iv e s tu d ie s .» c a l l s " th e v is io n (o f G h a tte rto n 'as he

l i v e d ') h a rd ly a p le a s in g -o n e ? n and expresses th e b e l i e f t h a t th e r a th e r

h a rsh judgment o f th e e ig h te e n th cen tu ry concern ing th e y o u th ’s p e r s o n a li ty

2 B Bo Be W. le v e r s te in ? A L ife , of. Thomas G h a tte r to n , p., x iv .

3"was ©a the whole oo rre# to " Thus w ith th e Bowley co n tro v e rsy long s in c e

decided and th e n in e te e n th -c e n tu ry , lo s ian tie goets lo n g s in c e d ead s w h ile

a c tu a l m alice has d isap p eared from G h& ttertonian hiographyg th e rom antic

t r a d i t i o n of th e poet has now been confined la r g e ly to f i c t i o n a l trea tm en tso

Value of. th e S tu d y 8 The v a lu e o f th i s s tu d y l i e s n o t so much*, $ % h a p s ,

in i t s s p e c i f ic c o n tr ib u tio n to G h a tie r to n ia n a as in i t s i l l u s t r a t i o n of th e

e rro rs and excesses whioh may p e r s i s t in b iography even over a pe rio d o f a

cen tu ry ©r more, ©noe 6h a tte r to n % a u th o rsh ip of th e Rowley poem was e s ta b ­

l is h e d 9 th e known f a c t s of th e poet ’s l i f e seem to have been f a i r l y w e ll

agreed upon3 y e t th e in t e r p r e ta t io n of th e s e f a c ts has v a r ie d from th e de­

p ic t io n of a noble and te n d e r -h e a r te d m arty r o f democracy to th a t of a th o r ­

oughly u n p rin c ip le d im postero And w h ile th e l a s t th r e e o u ts ta n d in g biographies

o f G h a tte r to n re v e a l a growing o b je c t iv i ty ) even th e y show th e c lin g in g

in f lu e n c e of p revious b ia sed s tu d ie s and seem to in d ic a te t h a t th e l a s t word

has n o t y e t been s a id reg a rd in g th e c h a ra c te r of th e poet Thomas C h a tte r to n .

The. L ife o f ghomas, G h a tte rto n

G h a tte r to n 9 th e son o f Thomas and S a rah G h a tte r to n 9 was born in B r i s to l

©a Movember 20 9 17520 His f a t h e r 9 who d ied th re e months b e fo re th e b i r t h o f

h is song had been a sch o o lm aste r a t a B r i s to l c h a r i ty s c h o o l. There rem ained

in th e fam ily a f t e r th e e ld e r Ghatt e r to n 's de%th th e poe t "s mother 9 h is o ld e r

s i s t e r f e r y 9 and h is grandm other. Of h is very e a r ly ch ildhood l i t t l e i s

known except f o r a l e t t e r w r i t t e n in 1778 by h is s i s t e r to h is f i r s t b io ­

g rap h er 9 th e Rev. S i r H erb ert G ro ft. In th i s l e t t e r sh e d esc rib e s , h e r b ro th e r

as e x h ib itin g , an e a r ly " t h i r s t f o r grehem ince ( s l e . )" and p re s id in g ,o v e r h is

5

playm ates as t h e i r n ® ste r0*

The young. G h a tte r to n was ta u g h t to read from a b lack l e t t e r B ib le and

a t th e age o f s even was e n ro lle d as a e h a r i ty s tu d e n t a t C olston 's Hes'pita-l:g

w here h e was g iven a eommereial ed u ea tion and was s t r i c t l y in d o c tr in a te d in

th e te n e ts o f th e Church of England<, M C o ls to n 's C h a tte r to n remained u n t i l

Ju ly 1# 17679 when h e feas a p p re n tice d f o r seven years to Mr* John Lambert 9

a B r is to l a tto rn ey o

Even b e fo re h is a p p re n tic e s h ip h e i s known to have w r i t t e n th r e e r e l i ­

g ious poem and two p o e t ic a l s a t i r e s p and he may a lre a d y have composed a

"number of th e Rowley, poems 0 I t was n o t 9 how ever9 u n t i l O ctober 1? 1768s

t h a t he f i r s t b rought h is a n tiq u e p roductions to p u b lic n o t ic e . Cm th a t

d a te th e r e appeared in F e lix . P a rle y °s B r i s to l Journal, a pros e d e s c r ip tio n s

p u rp o rted ly , ta k e n from am o ld m anuscrip t? of th e form al opening of th e o ld

b rid g e a t B r is to l? which had re cen tly , been re p la c e d » ’When th e a r t i c l e was

tra c e d to C h a tte r to n 9 th e boy a f t e r some te r g iv e r s a t io n s a id th a t he had

copied th e d e s c r ip t io n from a m anuscrip t which h is f a th e r had d isco v ered

in an o ld c h es t in th e muniment room of th e Church of S t , Ifery R ed c liff „

Svem though he o ffe re d no o r i g i n a l § h is s t o r y was accep ted? and thus th e

y o u th fu l G h a tte rto n was launched in. what came to be known as th e "Rowley

d e c e p tio n ,"

From th a t tim e u n t i l h is d ea th n e a rly .tw o years l a t e r th e boy-poet

chose to p re sen t h is o u ts tan d in g .co m p o sitio n s to th e w orld as t r a n s c r ip t io n s

o r o r ig in a ls from th e w ritin g s of v a rio u s m edieval l i t e r a r y f ig u re s ? n o ta b ly

a f i f te e n th - c e n tu r y p r i e s t 9 Thomas Rowley? who w rote? acco rd in g to G h a tte rto n ?

under th e . p a tronage of W illiam Ganynge? an h i s t o r i c a l mayor of B r i s to l , I t

4-0 H erb ert C ro ft ? Love and # d n e s s ? DP, 143-147,

sesmg alm ost in c r e d ib le now th a t C h a tte r to n wag ever 'b e liev e d 9 and , eg :p ee ia lly 9

t h a t h ie erade- im itations of a n c ie n t parehaem ts were aee sp ied as gennime;

h u t h is s to ry , had some background of fa c to The muniment room of S t* Ifery

R e d e lif f r e a l ly co n ta ined s i x o r seven o ld c h es ts $ one o f which was a c tu a l ly

known as "Me*© Gaaynge’s Cofreo" This had been broken open some tim e in th e

1720 "s to o b ta in access to some t i t l e deeds and had been l e f t u n p ro tec ted

from depredation© Among, th o s e who p i l f e r e d parchments from th e eh es t was th e

poet "s f a th e r * whos e un c le was s e x to n of St© te.ry Redeliff© Some of th e

papers were p reserved in a box in th e G h a tte r to n home? b u t o th e rs came to be

used as book covers and sew ing papers© Young G h a tte r to n n o t on ly d isco v ered

th e s e o ld parchments in h is own home? b u t he l iv e d v ery n e a r th e o ld church

and had f r e e access to t h e muniment room i t s e l f .

Ghief Among th e B r i s to l patrons., of C h a tte r to n in h is r o le of d is c o v e re r

of a n c ie n t h is to r y and l i t e r a t u r e were W illiam B a r r e t t ? a surgeon? and George

G a te o ti? a pewterer© The form er was e s p e c ia l ly in te r e s t e d in o ld m anuscrip ts ?

f o r h e was engaged in w r i t in g a voluminous h is to r y of B r is to l? and th e y e l ­

lowed parchments w ith which C h a tte r to n appeared from tim e to tim e provided

him w ith what h e a p p a re n tly though t to be v a lu ab le m a te r ia l f o r h is research©

These parchments C h a tte r to n produced w ith th e a id of ocher and a eangle? and

covered w ith crude draw ings and im ita tio n s of a n c ie n t handwriting© Cat co t t

f i r s t became in te r e s t e d i n C h a tte r to n as one from whom B a r re t t might o b ta in

m a te r ia l f o r h is h is to ry ? b u t th e p ew tere r l a t e r re ta in e d some of th e manu­

s c r ip t s f o r h im se lf and became in a way. a r i v a l of B arrett© -Neither th e

surgeon n o r C a teo tt? however? seem s.to have g iven C h a tte r to n much pecun iary

com pensation f o r h is supposed a n t iq u i t i e s ©

O utstand ing among th e presumed dupes o f C h a tte r to n was C a te o t t ’s p a rtn e r?

Henry Burgum© To him th e poet gave a p ed ig ree e n t i t l e d th e nAccount of th e

Fam ily of th e Be Berghans from th e Horman Conquest to th i s time*’— an im pres­

s iv e document endowing th e humhle gewfcerer w ith a nob le a n c e s try but d is ­

c r e e t ly ending in th e re ig n of James I I . Conspicuous among th e pew terer es

a n c e s tre s s e s was th e daugh t e r of one B a d c lif f de G h a tte rto n of C h a tte r to n .

According to th e poet *s s a t i r i c ” W ill9“ w r i t t e n in A prilg 17709 Burgum

rewarded him w ith a crowns which was c e r ta in ly as much as th e p ed ig ree was

r e a l l y w o rth . The sum w as9 in fa c ts , a crown mors th a n G h a tte r to n was a b le

to o b ta in from th e d is t in g u is h e d S i r Horace W alpoles though th e poet succeed ­

ed in te m p o ra rily d ece iv in g him as w e ll .

During th e w in te r of 1768-1769 G h a tte r to n w rote a t l e a s t two l e t t e r s

to th e famous London b o o k s e lle r and p u b lish e rs James D odsleys th e second

in c lu d in g an e x tra c t from The Tragedy o f A e lla & b u t th e r e i s no reco rd o f

h is re c e iv in g any answ er. However9 e a r ly th e fo llo w in g s p r in g (B irch 27)

he address ed a l e t t e r to W alpoles th e p a tro n g o f Jam es. Bcphersrpn w ith h is

O ssian poeas and a u th o r of The C a s tle of O tran to ( f i r s t p re sen ted as a t r a n s ­

l a t i o n from an o ld m a n u sc rip t) ; and from th i s famong gentlem an he rece iv ed

a most encouraging re sp o n se . G h a tte rto n *s f i r s t l e t t e r in c lu d ed an essay^ • 1 -

on "She R yse.of P eyncteynge .ym by Thomas Rowleys o ffe re d as a

c o n tr ib u tio n to any f u tu r e e d i t io n of W alpole’s Anecdotes o f P a in tin g .

Rowley was d e sc rib e d as th e a u th o r of poems o f such v a lu e th a t - th e Person

under whose Patrongge. th e y may. appear t o th e World, w i l l la y th e Englishm an,

th e A ntiquary $ and th e Poet 9 under an extrem e o b lig a tio n .® ^ Walpole re ­

sponded w ith " a thousand th an k s” and an o f f e r to p r in t Rowley’s poems.®

8

She safestasace o f th e l e t t e r c o n ta in in g G h a tte r to n ”s answer has feeen

m u tila te ig a g p a re n tly fey th e g eet •.■himself $ feat W alpole summarised i t as

fo llow s 8

G h a tte r to n 9 in answ er3 inform ed me t h a t he was th e .s o n of a poor widows who supported him w ith d i f f i e u l t y i t h a t he was e le rk o r a p p re n tic e to an attorney® feut had a t a s t e and tu rn f o r more e leg an t s tu d i e s ; and h in te d a w ish th a t I would a s s i s t him w ith my i n t e r e s t in emerging out of so d u l l a p ro fess ion® fey p ro eu riag him some p lace? in which he could pursue h is n a tu r a l feent. He a ffirm ed th a t g re a t t r e a s u re s of a n c ie n t p o e try had feeen d isco v e red in h is n a t iv e c ity ? and were in th e hands of a person? who had le n t him th o se he had t r a n s ­m itted to me; f o r he now se n t me o th e rs? amongst which was am a b so lu te modern p a s to r a l in . d ia lo g u e? th in ly .sp r in k le d w ith o ld words J

This re v e a lin g l e t t e r caused Walpole to show th e poem t o h is f r ie n d s? S i r

Thomas Gray and W illiam Bison? who pronounced them f o r g e r i e s «

W alpole re p o r ts t h a t he th e n 81 w ro te him (G h a tte r to n ) a l e t t e r w ith as

much k indness and ten d e rn ess as i f I had feeen h is guard ian?" u rg ing him

" th a t i n d u ty and g r a t i tu d e to h is mother? who had s t r a i t e n e d h e r s e lf to

breed him up. to a p ro fess io n ? he ought t o lab o u r in i t ? t h a t in h e r o ld

age he might ab so lv e h is f i l i a l debt?*’ and su g g es tin g t h a t "when he shou ld

have made a fo r tu n e he might unbend h im se lf w ith th e s tu d ie s consonant to

h is i n c l i n a t i o n s H e a lso inform ed th e young poet t h a t " b e t t e r judges® * «,

were fey no means s a t i s f i e d w ith th e a u th e n t ic i ty of h is supposed ©So” ®

To th i s G h a tte rto n answered?

I am no t a b le to d is p u te w ith a person of your l i t e r a r y character® I have t r a n s c r ib e d Bowley.’s poems ?. &Qo from a t r a n s c r ip t in th e p o sse ss io n of a g e n tle m n who is a ssu red

7» Horace Walpole? The: Gentleman % fegazine?. I l l ( ®hy 1782) ? 247-248®

8 ® Horace Walpole? "E x tra c t of a L e t te r from i t 6® W alpole to Hr® W® B0c o n ta in in g th e N a rra tiv e promised in our l a s t ? p . 195?” The.-G entleaam 8s ■Ifagazine-® LXI ( fev 1782 ) ? 248. . . .!

o f t h e i r auW ia& tie itsy . o»».o2he MS8 e have le a g beea i a th e hamds of th e p re sen t p o ssesso rs which i s a l l I know of them ."-Though I am b u t s ix te e n years of ag@s 1 have l iv e d long, enough to se e th a t p o v e rty a tte n d s l i t e r a tu r e o I am o b lig ed to you? s i r ? f o r your advice? and w i l l go a l i t t l e beyond i t ? by. d e s tro y in g a l l my u se le ss lumber of l i t e r a t u r e ? and nev er u s in g ay pen a g a in but in th e law<.®

Two f u r th e r l e t t e r s from C h a tte r to n to Walpole a re ex tan t? th e f i r s t

be ing a p o l i t e re q u e s t and th e second an angry demand f o r th e r e tu rn o f h is

poemso Both th e l e t t e r s and th e poems were f i n a l l y re tu rn e d e i th e r in August

o r i n O ctober a f t e r Walpole had come back from a t r i p to France* At any r a t e

w ith t h e i r r e tu rn th e in te rc o u rs e between W alpole and th e poet ceased .

The n ex t s p r in g G h a tte rto n was enabled to go to London in person to seek

a pa tron? f o r he was re le a se d from h is in den tu reso On th e whole O h a tte rto n

seems to have been a q u i te s a t i s f a c to r y a p p re n tic e . B is d u tie s ? c h ie f ly

th o se o f copying? were com parative ly l ig h t? i f te d io u s? and appear to have

l e f t him c o n s id e ra b le tim e f o r com position . His m aster re p o rte d him l a t e

only once? when he was atohome w ith h is m other. On th e o th e r h&nd? he qu ar­

re le d w ith Lambert "s s e rv a n ts and showed resen tm en t a t hav ing to re s id e and

a s s o c ia te w ith them .

Furtherm ore? th e boy had a p p a re n tly become a d e i s t ; about in h is pocket

he c a r r ie d " A r tic le s of B e lie f?" which inc luded? " t e a t i t m atte rs no t w hether

a Man i s a Pagan Turk Jew o r C h r is tia n i f he a c ts a cco rd in g to th e R e lig io n

h e p ro f esses.o" And e a r ly , in th e y ea r 1770 he "made th e f i r s t of two w r i t t e n

th r e a ts o f s u ic id e . Lambert found on h is a p p r e n t ic e ’s desk a l e t t e r to th e

p o e t ’s f r ie n d Michael G la y fie ld s t a t i n g t h a t when G la y fie ld re ce iv ed i t ?

C h a tte r to n would be dead . The a t to rn e y s e n t th e l e t t e r to B a r re tt? who gave

9 . le y e r f te in ? op. e i to ? p . 263 .

10

th e boy a fa th e r ly , le c tu re o In answer to t h i s G h a tte rto n w ro te a re v e a lin g

l e t t e r to th e surgeons

S i r 9Upon reeo lleetion # ..I i o n ’t know how W® O layfielig e o u li

eoxne by h is L etter , as I in ten d ed to have g iven him a l e t t e r but d id n o t In reg ard to my Wtiv.es f o r th i s supposed ra s h n e s s »I s h a l l ©bs erve t h a t I keep no w erse Gempany th a n m vself g I never d rin k to Excess $> and hav e , w ith o u t V anity a to o much S ens e to be a tta c h e d to th e m ercenary r e t a i l e r s of I n iq u i ty .—= Hoo I t is my P r id e , my damn"d$ n a t iv e , uneomquerable P r id e , t h a t plunges me in to Bis t r a c t io n — You must know th a t th e 19/S@th of my Composi­t io n i s P r id e I . must, e ith e r , l i v e a S la v e , a S e rv a n t? t o have no W ill o f my own, no S entim ents of my own which I may f r e e ly d e c la re as such? o r B ie— P erp lex in g A lte rn a tiv e ^ bu t i t d i s t r a c t s me to th in k of i t — I w i l l endeavor to le a r n H u m ility , bu t i t cannot be here® What i t may c o s t me in th e T r ia l Heaven knows'— I am

Yr. much ©bliged. unhappy, h b le S e rto T0 Go11

I t was n o t long a fte rw ard s t h a t G h a tte rto n made h is second and more

im p ressiv e th re a to Qn A p ril 14 Lambert d isco v e red on h is desk a "L ast W ill

and Testam ent" announcing th e boy % In te n t io n of com m itting s u ic id e on th e

fo llow ing, d ay , & s t e r SundayB The "W ill" s a t i r i z e s Burgum and G a te o tt?

co n ta in s d ire c t io n s f o r i t s own p r in t in g and f o r an e la b o ra te monument §

and in c lu d es a su c c e ss io n of s a r c a s t i c le g a c ie s , such as h is "V igor and

F i r e of Youth to Mr George G ateo tt be in g s e n s ib le he i s i n most want of

i t o " ^ Lambert had had enough of such a s tra n g e a p p re n tic e s G h a tte rto n

was g iven h is freedom®

0m th e 24th o f A p ril G h a tte rto n l e f t B r is to l f o r London by coach to

t r y h is luck in a new environm ent. He had a lre a d y e s ta b lis h e d connections

of a s o r t in th e c a p i t a l e ity o In a d d it io n to h is pseudo-m edieval compo­

s i t io n s he had w r i t te n a number o f modern p ieces in p ro se and v e rs e , m ostly

11, E s th e r P ark er 1 1 1 in g e r, Thomas. G hatterton? The Sfe.rv9 lo .113 Boy, fa c e p , 34 . '

I S . M everste in ,. o p , e i t , , p.- 342,

11

s a t i r i e a l o Some of th e se s in c lu d in g s e v e ra l a tta c k s oa th e c o u rt in su p p o rt

o f John W ilk es 's re p u b lic an p a rty ? were p u b lished under v a rio u s pseudonyms

i n London p e r io d ic a ls 0 C h a t te r to n 's s i s t e r in h e r famous l e t t e r to C ro ft

r e c a l l s t h a t h e r b ro th e r "a few months b e fo re he l e f t B r i s t o l » 0 « w ro te

l e t t e r s to s e v e ra l b o o k se lle rs i n London I b e lie v e to le a r n i f th e re was .

any g r o b i l i ty ( s i c . ) o f h is g e t t l a g an employment th e r e

The young p o e t ’s . f i r s t lo d g in g in London was i n B h o reS iteh a t th e home

of a p l a s t e r e r namM W alm ley , where a ls o re s id e d a Mrs = Ballancesi who was

a r e l a t i v e o f C hattertom o In h is f i r s t l e t t e r home he re p o r ts c a l l in g upon

fo u r p u b lish e rs th e f i r s t day— # . Edmunds? th e p u b lis h e r of th e Middles.ex

Jo u rn a l: Iro H am ilton» th e p r in t e r and p ro p r ie to r of fh e Town and Country

lfe.gazlne: E e l ls th e p u b lis h e r of th e F ree h o ld e r 's fe g a a in e <r a W ilkesian

p u b lic a tio n s and B odsley . C on trib u tio n s by C h a tte r to n had a lre ad y appeared

in th e th r e e m agazines» His second l e t t e r ? w r i t t e n Hty 6 th ? p ic tu re s him

as a lre a d y w e ll e s ta b lis h e d in th e L o n d o n .l ite ra ry w orld and even p lann ing

to w r i te a h is to r y of Ehgland. "Good God'” he ex cla im s? ”how s u p e r io r i s

London to t h a t d e sp ic a b le p la c e B r i s t o l o " ^ On l ih y 14th he w rite s th a t he

would have been engaged as a companion to th e Duke of Morthumberland i f he15had known some fo re ig n languages o CM May 30th he w rite s , to M s s i s t e r

. t h a t he i s going to l i v e w ith th e b ro th e r of. a S co tch lp r d 0 But in s te a d

he went to l i v e in a room in a sacque-m aker’s house in B ro o k e .S tree t?

Holborno

l#o ' C ro ft? 6 do c . i to ? p . 146o

14e M eyerstein? op. c i t o ? p , 360.

15 . I b i d . , p . 363.

16 . IMd.o ? p o.. 3 T l o

Desg&te th e eheerfal aad o p tim is t ie to n e of M s l e t t e r s home9 G h a tte r to a

was not p rospering , in hemSea# He reeeiveS f iv e guineas f o r a 'bmrletta#

The Hevenges hu t aooerd ing to h is notebook h e reee iv eS no rem unera tion f o r

many of h is eontrib .u t.ioas t o t h e 'p e r io d ic a l s » among whieh were inc luded a

number o f v i tu p e r a t iv e a t ta c k s upon th e a d m in is tra t io n . On Ju ly 24th he

a ttem pted to se c u re th e p u b l ic a t io n •of a Rowley poem? " in E xce lan te Balade

of G h a ritie ?" in The Town and Country Ifegazine b u t w ith o u t su e e e ss . P robably

w ith th e money from th e b u r l e t t a he s e n t g i f t s to h is mother? s i s t e r , and

grandm other| and on Ju ly 2 0 th he w ro te t o h is s i s t e r ?

‘ Almost a l l th e n ex t Town and Country I&gazime i s mine. I have an u n iv e rs a l a cq u a in ta n ce ; my company is co u rted everywhere; and? could I humble m yself? to go in to a compter? cou ld have tw enty p laces b e fo re now; b u t I must be among th e g r e a t ; S ta t e m atte rs s u i t me b e t t e r th a n com m ercial. '

This l e t t e r proved h is l a s t to h is fa m ily . On August Ig th in a l e t t e r

to George G a teo tt he expressed th e v a in hope th a t B a r re t t would g ive him a

recommendation as a su rg e o n ’s mate.^® Twelve days l a t e r th e poet committed

s u ic id e in M s room? acco rd in g to th e c o ro n e r ’s ju ry by sw allow ing a rs e n ic

in w a te r ; and on August 28th he was in te r r e d in th e b u r ia l ground o f Shoe

Lane workhouse. Ih en h e d ied? he was sev en teen years and n in e months of a g e .

CHAPTER I I

TH1 IESY1PATHETIG.BIOGRAPHIES

Sueh a f ig u re as t h a t of G h a tte rto n was alm ost p re d e s tin e d to a reas ©

co n tro v e rsy i f h is name was to be known a t a l l . The d is p u te which d id

break o u t soon a f t e r h is d ea th was nots, howeverj eoneeraed d i r e c t l y w ith

h is c h a ra c te r bu t r a th e r w ith th e a u th e n t ic i ty of th e Bowley poems=

Bo Ho Wo te y e r s te in in th e n in e te e n th c h a p te r of h is eminent b iography

prov ides ra thorough s tu d y of th i s controversy* which extended over a t

l e a s t a q u a r te r of a c en tu ry and invo lved some of th e le a d in g l i t e r a r y

f ig u re s of Englando

“ The d i f f i c u l t y of th e Bowl elans was* a t bottom* a p sy ch o lo g ica l one*” 2-

Meyers te im b e lie v e s? and hence th e q u e s tio n of in te r p r e t in g Chat t a r t on gs

c h a ra c te r came to be more and more in v o lv ed , Jacob Bryant in h is Qbs e rv a tlo n s

summarized th e sk e p tic ism o f th e Bowl e lans s

I f a young la d o f l i t t l e o r no p r in c ip le shou ld f in d a t r e a s u r e of o ld poetry* and put i t o f f f o r h is own? I shou ld n o t much wonder. But t h a t such a p erson should compose to th i s amount* and th e n g iv e th e c r e d i t of i t to another* i s p a s t my com prehension,. I t i s repugnant to n a tu re* and c o n tra ry to a l l e x p e r ie n c e ,3

The la ck of p r in c ip le which Bryant f in d s in th e poet see m to have been a

f a v o r i t e theme among th e Bowl e la n s , Dean Jerem iah M ile s in a l e t t e r o f

1 , B, H,J:Wo le v e r s te ln * A L ife of Thomas C h a tte r to n , p , 471,

2 , Jacob Bryant *. O bservat ions upon th e po esn of Thomas Bowl ey * in which th e A u th e n tic ity of those-Poems i s A scerta ined* p , 502, C ited by M eyersteia* on, c i t . , * p , 471, (O r ig in a l so u rc e n o t a v a i l a b le ) .

1ft

5 eptem ber 30$, 1780s w ro te to. George C a te o t t$, 11 Though I must, acknowledge

upoa th e a u th o r i ty of a l l h is f r ie n d s t h a t he was a most s u r p r is in g G enius9

y e t when I eons id e r how he abus ed th a t Genius $, & re b e lle d by h is P r in c ip le s

6 conduct a g s t t h a t g re a t and .good Being weh gave him h is Faculties.® th e

b e s t th in g I could w ish f o r h is c r e d i t i s t h a t ye Remembrance of him and

h is v ices was b lo t te d o u t of ye minds of mankind; f o r so young and so g re a t

a r e b e l to God and R e lig io n has r a r e ly been s§ en 0M

But th r e e years b e fo re Bryant p u b lish ed h is books Thomas Warton in h is

H is to ry of . S a g l ls h P oetry o f f ered a poss ib l e - ex p lan a tio n f o r Ghatt e rto n "s

m otives in h is d e c e p tio n . “ I t w i l l be askedg" he p r e d ic t s 9 “For what end

o r purpose d id he c o n tr iv e such an im p o stu re ! I answer.$, From lu c r a t iv e

views f o r p e rh a p from th e p le a su re of d ece iv ing , th e w o rld | a motive w hich ,

i n many m inds, o p e ra tes more p o w erfu lly th a n th e hopes of gaim 0 He p robab ly

prom ised h im e l f g r e a te r emoluments from th i s in d i r e c t mode of e x e rc is in g

h is a b i l i t i e s ; o r , h e might have s a c r i f i c e d even th e v an ity , of ap pearing in

th e c h a ra c te r of an applauded o r ig in a l a u th o r , to th e p r iv a te enjoyment o fA

th e 's a c e e s s of h is in v e n tio n and d e x te r i ty o n

Thomas T yrw hitt $, th e f i r s t e d i to r of th e Rowley poem g to h is th i r d

e d i t io n , a lso p u b lish ed in 1778$, added an appendix in which he a ttem pted to

prove by. in te r n a l evidence th a t th e Rowley poena were a c tu a l ly mod a m . He

made no m oral judgment on G h a tte rto n bu t expressed a wonder s im i la r to t h a t

f e l t by th e B ow lelans: “ The g re a t d i f f i c u l t y is to conceive th a t a youth

l i k e G h a tte r to n , shou ld ever have formed th e p lan of such am im p o stu re , and

3 o I b i d l F onT 474-475.

4s Thomas W arton, H is to ry -o f E n g lish P o e try 9 I I , iSSo C ited by M eyerstejil, p p . c i t . g p 0 464» (© rig in a l so u rc e not a v a i l a b le ) .

IS

shou ld have executed I t w ith so much pw geveranee and ia g e n u i ty ,1'^ Four

years l a t e r l a a V lm dloa tloa : of. h is appendix $ T yrw hitt e la b o ra te d upon

Warton"s c o n je c tu re s

I t is. more n a tu r a l to supposes t h a t h is f i r s t essays i s fo rg e ry were f o r h is own p r iv a te amusement5 th e su g g es tio n s o f a s a c t iv e i r r e g u la r minds eking ou t th e sca n ty su p p lie s of knowledge9 which came w ith in i t s r e a c h 9 by invention® In th e

. p u r s u i t of am bitions i t has been s a i d $> a man s e v e r goes so f a r 9 as when he knows no t w h ith e r he i s go ing ; and I su sp e c t t h a t th e same may be s a id of forgery®

John B roughton9 an o th er a n ti-B o w le lan 9 in a p re fa c e t o h is e d i t io n o f

G h a tte r to n ‘s M se e llan lm - chided T yrw hitt f o r f a i l i n g p ro p e rly to p ra is e

" th e e x ce lle n ce of h is a u th o r9"^ -shorn Broughton c a l l s " th e l i t e r a r y phenom­

enon of th e tim es ® ® « whose genius 9 i f i t . had been p ro p e r ly fo s te re d and

encouraged9 m ight have c a r r ie d E ng lish l i t e r a t u r e to as h ig h a p itc h as any

a u th o r l a th e p re se n t century®"® G h a tte r to n 's genius 9 th e e d i to r e x p la in e d 9

was debased because th e poet was "com pelled to obey th e mandates of th e

d ir e c to r s (sic.®) of ou r monthly pub lica tions® "^

G hatt a rto n "s P ro f lig a c y

But B roughton 's h ig h o p in ion of G h a tte rto n as a l i t e r a r y f ig u r e d id

not s o f te n h is judgment o f G h a tte r to n 's character® He le v e le d a charge

5® fhomas Rowley and o th e rs 9 Poem 9 Eunoos ed . f o . Have Been W ritten . a t B r i s to l in t h e .F if te e n th G enturvs.p® 333®

6 ® fhomas T y rw h itt9 k V in d ica tio n of th e Appendix to the-P oem c a lle d RewlevVo o® 143. G ited by M eyerst©in9 0 0 ® clt® 9 p® xviii®( O rig in a l so u rc e n o t av a ilab le )®

7® Thomas G hattertonp M see llan les- -in P rose and Verse? p® xviii®

8 ® I b id ® a pp® xvi«=xvii®

9 ® Ib id ® 9 p® xvii.®

16

a g a in s t th e p o e t9 th e t r u t h of whieh has remained c o n tro v e rs ia l to th e

p re se n t days "He p ossessed a l l t& e .v ise s and i r r e g u l a r i t i e s of y o u th , and

h is p ro f lig a c y w as, a t l e a s t , as conspicuous as h is a b i l i t i e s oM ' In a id i=

t i o n to t h i s charge of im m orality Broughton c r i t i c i z e d th e boy f o r h is

a v e rs io n to th e law , th e p ro fe s s io n f o r which he was t r a i n i n g , and f o r h is

acrim onious a t t i t u d e tow ard W alpoleo^v

Broughton°s judgment of th e y o u th ’s c h a ra c te r seems to have been , o r

to have become, f o r a t im e , th e common oneo In th e appendix to h i s l l e t t e r

to B roughton, f i r s t w r i t te n in 1778 and p r in te d in fo u r numbers o f The

G entlem an’s Ifegazine in 1782, W alpole agreed th a t ’’h is ( G h a tte r to n ’s )

y o u th fu l passions were indu lged to excess In 1786 C ro ft complained

in h is " l o v e - l e t t e r biography" of G h a tte r to n , " E ith e r mean envy of C hatterton’s

e x tra o rd in a ry g e n iu s , o r manly abhorrence o f h is d e te s ta b le d e a th , lead s

alm ost every p e rso n , who ta lk s o r w rite s about th i s boy, to t e l l you of h is*| O

shocking p ro f lig a c y and h is t o t a l want of p r in c ip le o " In th e f i r s t p a r t

of th e l e t t e r C roft appears to adm it G hatterton*s p ro f lig a c y and to a s c r ib e

i t to youth and to la c k of f r ie n d s However, tow ards th e end o f th e l e t t e r

h e s ta t e s f l a t l y t h a t G h a tte rto n "was n o t p r o f l ig a te ," as " h is p ro f lig a c y

c o n s is te d i n q u i t t in g th e a t t o r n e y ’s o f f i c e , and penning A e lla — ’when he

should have en g ro ssed o ’!

1© 0 I b ld o , Po x v i i i ,

11o Ib id o s pp0 x v i i i - x ix o

1 2 o H orace W alpole, " C onclusion of W alpole’s A eoolnt of G h a tte r to n ,” Ih e G entlem an’s ife.gazine8 I I I f Ju ly 1782), 348*

13o H erb ert C ro f t , lo v e and Shdness,. Bo 132<■

14, I b i d , , p p . 132-133o

150 I b id o, p 0 226,

G raft "s p a r t i a l i t y tow ards th e poet wqs probably, to o obvious s f o r i t

was Br<, George Gregory who p ro v id e d -th e model fo r : f u ta r e b iographers im

t h e i r tre a tm e n t of th e p o e t ’s p ro f lig a c y im h is b iography of G h a tte r to n ,

pn b lish ed in . 17S9= D rs Gregory expressed th e b e l ie f th a t Broughton and

o th e rs who had Ms ta l l ie d th e youth of G hattertom w ith th e im p u ta tio n of

e x tra o rd in a ry v ices o r i r r e g u l a r i t i e s " had based t h e i r assum ptions upon a

s tu d y of some of h is acknowledged works r a th e r th a n upon an a n a ly s is of th e

b o y 's a c tu a l l i f e 0 She -dangers-'to s e l f - d i s c i p l i n e o f r e l ig io u s i n f i d e l i t y

sueh as t h a t rev ea led by G hattertom a re v e ry g re a t 9 th e b io g ra p h e r p o in ts

o u t; bu t as Lambert prov ided " th e most re s p e c ta b le ev idence in fa v o r of

th e r e g u la r i ty of h is co nduct2" th e youth must have been re s t r a in e d by th e' ' ' 16

"v ir tu o u s h a b i t s ” acq u ired th rough ” a s t r i c t and o rd e r ly ed u ca tions”

th o u g h " i f he can be proved g u i l ty of th e l ic e n tio u s n e s s which i s by some

l a i d to h is c h a r g e h i s i r r e l ig io m would fu rn is h a ready e x p la n a tio n s^

B obert Anderson in h is B r i t i s h Poets echoed Gregory v ery n e a r ly word

f o r word; b u t S i r W alter S c o t t i n h is rev iew of Robert S ou they and Joseph

G o t t le 's 1803 e d it io n o f G h a tterto m ’s w orks9 in which G regory 's l i f e of

t h e poet was r e p r in te d 9 f e l t th a t G hattertom evidenced "a c e r ta in looseness

of m o ra lity which- approaches to p ro fligacy® ” ^® A fte r th e p u b lic a tio n of

G regory 's biography* however* even th e most unsym pathetic b iog raphers o f

G hattertom f a i l to make a d i r e c t charge of o u ts ta n d in g se n su a l p ro f l ig a c y «

A lexander Ghalmers conceded t h a t " i t does not ap p ea r t h a t he was more

p r o f l ig a t e in th e in d u lgence of th e g ro s s e r passions th a s o th e r young men

16o The Works o f Thomas G h a tte r to n * I s x lv -x lv io

17» I b id . 9 pp. Ix x v -lx x v io

18o " Ghatt e r to n % Works, by S outhey and C o ttle 9" The H ia b u rg h Review* o r G r i t l e a l Jo u rn a ls IV ( A p ril 1804-Ju ly 1804)* 218.

who v e n tu re on th e g a y e tie s o f l i f e a t am e a r ly agso""^ In M s review of

John S i x ’s b iog raphy ; John F o s te r ag rees t h a t G h a tte r ten le d " a rem arkably

re g u la r and so ber" l i f e in B r is to l bu t p o in ts out t h a t th e b o y ’s m o ra lity

26in London i s unknown amdhhas been q u e s tio n ed <> And S , Re J& itlaad^ one o f

th e l a s t Rowleians 9 in a n 'e s sa y on 6h s ,t te r te n in 18S7 w ro te ; ” Ih a t he w as»

in one sen se o f th e word; p ro f l i g a t e — , i s , th a t he was., a h a b i tu a l and

gross l i a r $ and n o t r e s t r a in e d by any r e l ig io u s o r moral p r in e ip le from

say in g o r w r i t in g t h a t which he knew to be f a l s e , f o r th e sak e of g a in ;—

i s to o c l e a r ; b u t th a t he was p r o f l ig a te as th e word i s used w ith re fe re n c e

t© se n su a l im m o ra lity 9 a t l e a s t in sueh way as should account f o r pecun iary

d i s t r e s s ; I do n o t b e lie y e o ”

Meanwhile; th e sy m p ath e tic b iog rap h ers s tau n c h ly defended S h a tte r to n

on th i s s c o re . John Dix s t a t e s ; "T here is 'a b u n d a n t ev idence to prove th a t

G h a tte rto n was n o t th e c h a ra c te r (i<> So; th e l i b e r t i n e ) some have re p re se n te d

him to have beem *"^ Go Bd W illeox in h is e d i t io n of G hatt e r to n ’s works say s

th a t th e poet had no tim e to be p r o f l ig a t e ; and t h a t ; fu r th e rm o re , h is s t ro n g

pass io n s were su b lim ated by "h is lo v e of l i t e r a t u r e and h is d ev o tio n to

study*1— a th e o ry f i r s t su g g ested by Gregory when he surm ised th a t Ghatt e r to n 's

19 o A lexander Ghalmers ( e d i to r ) ; The Works . of th e E n g lish .Poets 9 XVs.3 72~373 o

26o Jo F o s te r ; " The L ife of Thomas G hatt e rto n 9 Inc lu d in g h is IM oublis h ed Poens and G orr^ n o n d en ce ;" The E c le c t ic Reviews I I I (May. 1838); 539=54©.

21 o S . Ro B ii t la n d ; Ghatt e r to n ; , A n lb s a y ; p . 47« G ited by D an iel W ilson; G hatt e rto n 8 A B io a rao h ica l .8 tu d v s p0. 204» (O rig in a l so u rc e -not a v a i l a b le ) .

22 o John BiX; The L ife of Thoms G hatt e r to n , in c lu d in g His Unpublished Poegs and C orrespondences p« 250.

23o The P o e tic a l fo rk s of Thomas G h a tte rto n w ith N otices of h is L ife ;I ; lXo

19

. .

nQXilj preservatives,, * 0a g a in s t th e eom tagion of viae** e o n s is te d of " th e

enthusiasm of l i t e r a t u r e , and th a t d e lic a c y of sen tim en t which t a s t e and

read ing , in sp ire o " ^ ^ i s f o r th e poet ’s eenduot in London9 W illoox s ta t e s

em p h atica lly t h a t C h a tte r to n d u rin g h is res id en ee a t Walimleys ’ " l iv e d

p u re ly and v ir tu o u s ly " d e s p i te " th e s tro n g and ungovernable passions of

th i s c h ild of i m p u l s e ; " b u t W illoox o f fe rs no more ev idenee on th i s p o in t

th a n had prev ious b iog rapherso In 1869, how evers a u th o r i t a t iv e s u b s ta n t i ­

a t io n was p rovided f o r G regory’s views when S i r D an iel W ilson in h is eminent

b iography of th e poet agreed w ith th e judgment of th e e ig h te e n th cen tu ry

b iographer., A ssuring h is re a d e r of " th e su b se rv ien cy of th e p h y s ica l to th e

i n t e l l e c t u a l and moral n a tu re of th e boys’1®® W ilson c i t e s evidence of th e

y o u th ’s tem perance and re g u la r hours and exp lains t h a t "he s y s te m a tic a l ly- 27

ahoided w hatever tended to impede th e f r e e p lay of th e m ental f a c u l t i e s <>”

Thus i t appeared t h a t th e w eight of ev idence on th e s id e of th e defend­

ers of a n o n " p ro f lig a te C h a tte r to n had won f o r them th e caseo But even

b e fo re W ilson w ro te , David Masson had p laced a f l y in th e o in tm en t. In a

b iography .of C h a tte r to n inc lu d ed in a volume of C o llec ted % sava in 1857

and p u b lish ed in a re v is e d e d i t io n in 1899, B isson says f l a t l y th a t " a g re a t

d e a l of nonsense has been w r i t t e n on th e q u e s tio n of C h a t te r to n 's moral

c h a ra c te r ;" and th a t " th e w r i te r s o f some more re c e n t n o tic e s have c e r ta in ly

made o u t , in fav o u r of th e . m arvellous b e y , ’ a c e r t i f i c a t e of good behav iourOQ

to which h e was not e n t i t l e d , and f o r which he would no t have thanked them®"

24o The Works o f Thomas Q h a tte r to n , I , Ixxvi®

25. The P o e tic a l Works of Thomas:C h a tte r to n w ith H otices of h is . L i f e ,I 9 e x x x iiio

26® W ilson, QPo c i t ® , p . 204®

27® I b id ®» p® 216® •

9fi- Tloirlil WheeAi*« Cb/attarteM s A. Bieffrabhv® "D® 93®

In a d d it io n to c i t in g th e low moral to n e of most o f th e poet "s n o n -an tiq u e

w ritin g s and B a r r e t t ’s le c tu r e to G h a tte r to n on th e h o y ’s had company$>

Wesson in tre d u e e s a l e t t e r which see m t o have been p re v io u s ly overlooked

o r ignoredo Concluding w ith? " I f you a r e going to th e D-=- I w ish you a good

Goneryv" i t i s an angry n o te from a s e m i - i l l i t e r a t e g i r l who appears to he

a d isca rd e d g i r l f r ie n d of th e poet 0 G h a tte r to n ’s :answ er on th e hack. M ss on

d esc rib e s as be ing 8! in th e shape o f a few extrem ely im p o lite and not a t a l l

q u o tab le H u d ib ra s tic l in e so "

M ason made th e most of th i s l e t t e r ; bu t u n t i l 1930 no o th e r m ajor

b io g rap h e r even quotes i t * Edward B e ll speaks of G h a tte r to n ’s ^ p a r t i a l i t y

f o r th e s o c ie ty of r e s p e c ta b le women0" John H<, Ingram b e lie v e s th e re i s

no t " th e s l i g h t e s t b a s is f o r . „ 0 th e su g g e s tio n th a t G h a tte rto n was le a d in g

a d is s ip a te d l i f e o " ^ Faurice . Evan Hare a t ta c k s " th e a ttem p t to re p re se n t

him ( G h a tte rto n ) as a s o r t of p ro v in c ia l Bon Ju a m ;"^ and C harles Kent in

The D ic tio n a ry of N a tio n a l Biography a ssu re s th e re a d e r of G h a tte r to n ’s..non-

l ic e n t io u s l i f e i n London.,^

At l a s t ; 74 years a f t e r i t was p re sen ted in th e Sbsays s Ms s o n ’s t e s t i ­

mony was r e i t e r a t e d by E0 He Wo M eyerste in 3 who f e l t t h a t G h a tte rto n p robab ly

29o Ib ido o PBo 96=97o

30o The P o e tic a l Works of Ihomas G h a tte rto n w ith am ESsay on th e Rowley Poens bv th e RsVr, W alter W0 Skeat-a L x tt o B0 9, Llo Ro And a. Memoir .by Biward B e l l ; Mo Ao ( The A ldine E d itio n of th e . B r i t i s h P o e ts ) o I? xcw iiio

31=, John Ho Ingram ; The True. G h a tte r to n ; t?q 203ow ?„~*aeaocs5*-.;msBOmeir i ->■■,■■1 " ; , mm n ~ """ -A --

32» Thomas G h a tte r to n , The Howlev Poem H enrin ted f rom T yrw hitt °s.T h ird % i t i o n , M u rie e Evan H are , e d i t o r , 'p :0 x x r iio

33o C harles K en t, " G h a tte r to n , T h o m a s The B lc tio n a ry of N a tional

11 conformed to th e e ig h te en th cen tu ry s ta n d a rd of y o u th ’s v ag a rie s His3S " ■a t te n t io n s were p rem iseueus* B ey ers te in say s 1 ' he c u l t iv a te d g i r l s c h ie f ly

t f o r purposes o f p u b l ic i ty ” and d isp la y ed in h is tre a tm e n t o f them a " h e a lth y

e ig h te en th -ee n tp rjr b r u t a l i t y i s ev idence of th i s " b r u ta l i ty " th e b io ­

g rap h er o f fe rs th e l e t t e r , quoted by Ifesson and an o th e r l e t t e r from an E b th e r

Saunders w ith th e fo llo w in g endorsement by G h a tte rto n s 11 This A ffa ir began .

la .r0 19th 70 & broke o f f A p ril 9 th 70— & e Young Lady wants to be m arriedof? .

and o a n ’t keep her. own S e c re ts — <>M Meyers t e i n even su g g es ts ? on th e b a s is

of a memorandum by th e Bev. S r 0 t te h a e l L o rt $, an e a r ly in v e s t ig a to r of th e

p o e t ’s h is to r y § t h a t a p o s s ib le re a so n f o r C hatt s r to n “s s u ic id e was p h y s ic a l

torm ent from v e n e rea l d is e a s e 0^® M eyerstein was th e f i r s t b io g rap h er of

C h a tte r to n to m a k e .s u b s ta n t ia l<> a c c re d ite d use of L o r t ’s memoranda8 in c lu d in g

th e o b se rv a tio n ( th e p ro b ab le b a s is f o r B roughton 's s ta te m e n t ) 8 " P ro f lig a c y

equal t o h is a b i l i t i e s

3hs f i n a l word on C hatt e r to n ’s p ro f lig a c y may have been provided by

John Grans to u n H e v ill in h is re c e n t b iography <, Though C hatt e r to n " g r e a t ly

fa n c ie d h im sb lf in th e r d l e of a l o c a l Don Juans"*® th e t r u e p ic tu re o f th e

poets H e v ill b e lie v es 9 l i e s "about midway between B r0 L o r t ’s d en u n cia to ry

34o M eyersteins on* b i t »g p« 78o

35e I b id as fo 9 6 o

36» Ib iC es p o 9 7 o

37= Ib ldo s 9.8^99 o

38* I b id ,s pp= 441-442o

39= I b id = a p= 77=

40= John C ranstoun H e v ills Thomas C h a tte r to n = p= 166=

22

th u n d e rb o lts and J , H«, Ingram ’s m ilk -and-w atery halOo”^ G h a tte r to n ’s a e ts

of d is s ip a t io n were merely, "symbols of d i s s a t i s f n o t io n ! w f o r " G b a tte rto n

took h is p leasu re s where h e found them?, as d id e th e r a p p re n tic e s of h is age

and s t a t i o n ; b u t he was never enslaved by them? never doubted t h e i r tran =

s c ie n c e o r th e s t a l e t a s t e th ey l e f t behind? and? above a l l th in g s? he n ev er

a llow ed them to i n t e r f e r e w ith th e two s e r io u s p reoccupations of h is ex istence?

h is work and h is e a r e | r 0

A Survey of Various U nfavorable S tu d ie s

S i r H orace Walpole and W illiam B a r r e t t : Among th e contem poraries of

G hatterton? S i r Horace W alpole has received'" more censu re f o r h is tre a tm e n t

o f th e poet th a n has any o th e r p e r s o n H e a lo n e f e l t c o n s tra in e d to

p u b lish a v in d ic a t io n o f h im s e lf" -a defense? in c id e n ta l ly ? which d id M s

re p u ta t io n f a r mere harm th a n good and prov ided f u e l f o r numerous a t ta c k e rs =

P r in te d in 1782? th i s v in d ic a t io n appeared in The Gentleman.*s Magazine in

th e form of an open l e t t e r to th e e d i to r o f G h a tte r to n ’s M iso.ellanies <> As

a b io g ra p h ic a l s tu d y th e " L e tte r" i s h ig h ly lim ited .? b u t i t p rovides most

in te r e s t in g evidence of W alpo le’s s t a t e o f mind concern ing G hatterton,,

A pparently th e a u th o r and l i t e r a r y conno isseu r? w r i t in g under a c o n s id e ra b le

s t r e s s of mind? s h i f t s s t a r t l i n g l y from condemnation to p r a is e of G h a tte r to n .

W alpole begins w ith an a ttem p t to show th a t he was com pletely j u s t i f i e d

i n h is r e je c t i o n o f th e p o e t. He com plains t h a t he "sh o u ld be more j u s t l y

41« Ib id o'? po 169 o

42* I b id o s Do 173o

43o M eyerstein a ttem p ts to redeem th e d i l e t t a n te ? b u t even H e v ill p o rtray s W alpole in a d ec id e d ly u n fav o rab le l i g h t .

23

rep ro ach ab le f o r hav ing c o n tr ib u te d to ih e r i s b an Im p o s te ra tkan» « 0 f o r

hav ing a c c e le ra te d h is f a t e ; " and th a t he has "been "©ensigned to judgment

f o r not having heen made a fo o l o f B u t he a lso expresses r e g re t th a t

h e never saw G h a tte r to n , as h is "poor pa tro n ag e might have saved him ( th e

p o e t) from th e abyss in to which he p l u n g e d , H e d e sc rib e s th e po st as

" v a in ly hoping to g r a t i f y h is am bition by a d u la t io n t o s o r s a t i r e s on, a l l

ranks and p a r t i ^ of men;" and as f a l l i n g " v ic tim to h is own ungovernable

s p i r i t s and to th e d e p lo ra b le s t r a i t s to which he had reduced h im s e lf o " ^

Yet h e a ls o p ic tu re s G h a tte rto n b e fo re h is dea th as a youth who "p re se rv ed

d ig n i ty in d e sp a ir si" and who was " in d ig n a n t a lo n e a t th e d e lu s io n s of h is

own g e n i u s .

On th e d u b je c t of G h a tte r to n ’s fo rg e ry Walpole seeim th e most s e l f -

c o n tra d ic to ry and most in ju re s h is own. r e p u ta t io n . He says s a u c i ly t h a t

G h a tte rto n "was fo n d e r o f in v e n tin g g re a t b a rd s , th a n o f be ing one" and

compares h im se lf i n r e je c t in g th e works of G h a tte rto n w ith a banker who

r e je c t s a fo rg ed n o te 51 f o r " a l l of th e hous’eco f fo rg e ry a re r e l a t io n s ,

I n c o n tra s t w ith th e many b iog rap h ers who have f e l t t h a t G h a tte rto n showed

44» Horace Walpoles "A L e t te r to th e E d ito r of th e K s c e l la n ie s of Thomas G h a tte r to n ," The G entlem an’s Ifegazines L II ( A p ril 1782)$ 191-192,

45 , H orace W alpoles " E x trac t of a L e t te r from Mr, W alpole to B tv B,c o n ta in in g th e N a rra tiv e promised i n our l a s t , p , 195," The Gentleman gs M agazine, L I I ( ^ y 1782) s 248,

. 46o. W alpole, eo , c i t , , A p r i l , p , 191,

47, I b id , , po 194,

48 , I b id o 3 po, 191-192,

49, " A ll of th e house o f fo rg e ry a re r e l a t i o n s ; and though i t i s j u s t to G h a tte r to n 's memory to s a y , t h a t h is p o v e rty never made him c la im k in d red w ith th e r i c h e s t , o r most e n ric h in g b ra n c h es , y e t h is in g e n u ity in c o u n te r­f e i t i n g s ty le s g and , I b e l ie v e , hands might e a s i ly have le d him to th o se more f a c i l e im ita t io n s of p ro s e , prom issory n o te s ," I b i d , , p , 194,

24

a g re a t pro mis e v/Meh-.vmaM have been re a l iz e d i f he had l iv e d 9 Walpole

expresses th e b e l ie f t h a t i f th e poet had l iv e d lo n g e r and p reserved th e

’’p roofs of h is fo rg eries® which proofs he d estro y ed in h is rag e (an ap p a ren t

re fe re n e e to th e so raps of paper re p o r te d ly found in h is room a f t e r h is

d ea th ) e U 0 h is name might now, be only reeorded as t h a t o f an areh im postero” ^®

Leaving h im e l f ©pen to r id i e u le by th o s e aeqm ainted w ith th e to n e of h is

f i r s t l e t t e r to C h a t te r to n 9 Walpole s t a t e s 9 ” I, th e n (when he reee iv ed th e

f i r s t l e t t e r from th e p o e t) im agineds and d o , s t i l l 9 t h a t th e suoeess of

6 s s ia n ° s poeBB had su g g es ted th e id ea (o f th e Bowley d e c e p t io n )* " ^

Sueh examples of ap p aren t d e e e i t and m alioe in W alpole’s .review o f h is

r e la t io n s w ith G h a tte r to n h a v e been amply, p u b lie iz e d by th e p o e t 's b io g ra p h e rs»

bu t th ey p re se n t only p a r t of th e t r u e pietur@ e 33ae no ted lo rd ? seem ingly

w ishing, to t r e a d a m iddle way whieh might s e rv e b e s t to redeem him? appears

to have f a l l e n f i r s t on one s id e and th e n on th e o thero He re p e a te d ly p o r­

t ra y s G h a tte r to n as a fo rg e r b u t a ssu re s th e r e a d e r3 " I do n o t mean to m e

th e te rm fo rged in a h a rsh sen se?” ^ and he eonoedes t h a t 3 $ was no ’’g rave

crim e to have fo rg ed f a l s e no tes of hand th a t were to pass c u rre n t only in

th e realm of Parnassus .a” Though he. su g g es ts th a t G hatt e r to n might have

become? in tim e? a c r im in a l fo rg e r? he s t a t e s t h a t th e poet a c tu a l ly "n ev e r

a ttem p ted to defrauds c h e a t5 ro b , u n p p e t ie a l ly 0” ^ And of th e fo llo w in g

M eyerstein says r a th e r d ra m a tic a l ly 9 “ There can be few poets w orth th e

name who would n o t welcome n e g le c t and contum ely d u rin g t h e i r l iv e s ? on th e

- Ibid^ J Po 193.

51o Ib x d os p o 247 0

52, I b id * a Po 192=

53e Walpoles op. c i t . 3 H&y# po 248=

54 o W alpole9 ©pa c i t » 9 A p ril 9 p0. 194» .

25

c o n d itio n of w restin g esu ch aa epieed© from th e personage smppesed re s p o n s ib le£) S '

th e re fo re " “ I t i s th a t f i e r c e and untam eable s p i r i t 9 t h a t conscious mess

of s u p e r io r a b i l i t i e s 9 th a t in a t te n t io n to. w o rld ly d is c r e t io n and i t s paths 9

th a t sco rn o f owing s u b s is te n c e o r re p u ta tio n , to any th ing , b u t th e e b u l l i t io n s

of g e n iu s » th a t I r e g r e t no t having, known? t h a t I lament, no t having c o n tr ib ­

u te d to re sc u e from i t s e l f o11

O u tstand ing among th e a c tu a l a s s o c ia te s of O h a tte rto n who have been

censured by th e p o e t ’s b iog raphers i s W illiam B a r r e t t 0 U nlike W alpole9 how­

e v e r , B a r r e t t d id no t come in f o r h is s h a re of c r i t i c i s m u n t i l many years

a f t e r h is d ea th i n 1789g th o u g h .th e in c lu s io n of th e Bowleian m a te r ia l in

h is h is to r y o f B r i s to l brought him d e r is io n as a credu lous dupe0 Aside from

p r in t in g th e boy ’s c o n tr ib u tio n s , th e su rgeon d ea ls v ery c u r t ly w ith Ghatfcerton

in h is h i s t o r y | f o r he d e sc rib e s th e poet as an u n b e lie v e r who was " le d a s t r a y

by th e f a l s e g la re of a s tro n g im agination , and f l a t t e r i n g p r id e of s u p e r io r

u n d e r s ta n d in g ," ^ and who " c a r r ie d h is l i b e r t i n e p r in c ip le s w ith him" to

London, where th e y re s .u lted i n h is su ie id e o

55* M eyerete in , pp . elt< , , p 0 278=,

56o W alpole, oPo -Pit a, A p r i l , p . 194„

57o "W hether th e y { c e r ta in Bowleian co m positions). a r e o r a re n e t a u th e n t ic , w hatever a l t e r a t io n s in th e form o r words have been made, and a d d itio n s and in te rp o la t io n s in s e r te d by O h a tte r to n , th e y .a r e h e re f a i t h ­fu lly , p re sen ted to th e re a d e r to form h is own judgment upon them ; w h ils t th e au th o r cannot bu t lam ent th e unhappy f a t e of th is , m isguided y ou th , who le av in g th e good p r in c ip le s in which he was ed h ea tad , and le d a s tr a y by th e f a l s e g la r e o f a s tro n g im ag in a tio n and f l a t t e r i n g p r id e of s u p e r io r u n d e rs tan d in g , reasoned h im se lf out of a l l . th o u g h ts o f a f u t u r i t y , and f o r g e t t in g he was a be ing acco u n tab le f o r h is a c tio n s to h is Maker and h is Judge, pu t a period to h is e x is te n c e , and com m itting a murder upon h im se lf rushed o u t o f l i f e in to th e p resence of h is Maker, w ith o u t a d e s i r e of atonem ent o r fo rg iv e n e s s , w ith o u t any b e l i e f in o r r e l ia n c e on a Redeemer." W illiam B a r r e t t , The H is to ry and A n tiq u it ie s of th e C ity o f B r i s to l , p 0 6460

58= Ibi.d.e 9 0 = 547 =

26

Joseph S o t'tle aad S i r W alter S e o i tg - In 1803 Bobert S outhey and Joseph

C o ttle e d ite d a th ree-vo lum e e o l le e t io n of G h a tte rto n 's works § th e proeeeds

from which were to go. to th e poet es s i s t e r » The b iography co n ta ined i n t h i s

e d it io n was- t h a t of 'D r. Gregory; b u t in th e in tro d u c tio n to th e De Bergham

ped ig rees inc lu d ed in th e second Tolume9 -.Settle -him self makes a r a th e r shrewd

o b se rv a tio n on C h a tte r to n "s c h a r a c te r ; " % e ingenu ity , a ls o which C h a tte r to n

w i l l have d isco v e red in a d o p tin g and ap p ly in g q u o ta tio n s 9 from, languages

which he d id n o t understand? w i l l be very o b se rv ab le , and shew th a t he n o t

o n ly p ossessed no o rd in a ry s h a re of p e rsev e ra n ce , bu t a power of assem bling

th e p lausib le .? and i t may be added, a lo v e , a very PASS IQH f o r im posing on

th e c r e d u l i ty of e th e rs

In h is anonymous rev iew of th i s 1803 e d i t io n S i r W alter S e o t t d iscu sse s

th i s ifp a ss io n ” mentioned by O o ttle and o f f e r s an e x p lan a tio n in Hth e S to i c a l

p r id e o f t a l e n t , which f e l t nourishm ent in th e s o l i t a r y con tem plation of

s u p e r io r i ty over th e dupes who f e l l in to h is t o i l s The r a t i o n a l i t y of

th i s in t e r p r e ta t io n i s o f f s e t , how ever, by th e p u r i t a n ic a l to n e of much of

th e rem ainder of th e a r t i c l e . L ike Gregory and s e v e r a l o th e r b io g ra p h e rs ,

S c o t t f e e ls t h a t G h a tte r to n ’s l i f e provided a v a lu ab le o b je c t le s so n —acco rd ­

in g to S i r W alte r, a w a rn in g ,th a t " i t i s b e t t e r to p re fe r o b s c u r i ty , th a n to

a t t a i n , by th e crooked pa th of l i t e r a r y fo rg e ry , th e ambiguous re p u ta t io n of

an ingen ious im pgs& er."6^ An " i l l - r e g u la t e d im ag in a tio n "6^ combined w ith- _ .

"unconquerab le and haughty perseveranoe ” ®3 r e s u l te d in a poet whose "impudence

59. The Works of Thomas G h a tte r to n , X I, 460.

60o " G h a tte r to n ’s Works by S outhey and S e t t l e op., c l t . , p . 2240

61. I b i d . 9 p . 238.

62 e Lo g o cxt_o

63o I b i d . j p . 221.

27

SMat. .have been a t l e a s t equal t© his. stupendous a b i l i t i e s 9" un less he a c tu a l ly

b e liev ed in h is oura d e e e p t io n o ^ Yet S e o t t j l i k e W alpole, was no t unaware

o f th e o th e r s id e of th e y o u th ’s c h a ra c te rs in expressing , th e w ish th a t

Southey o r C o ttle had w r i t t e n h is own b iography of th e p o e t9 th e noted a u th o r

e x p l a i n s F o r when we c o n s id e r th e s tra n g e am biguity o f C h a t ta r to n ’s eharae»

t e r , h is a tta in m en ts under ©ireurnstanoes in c a lc u la b ly d isadvan tageous 5 and

h is w ish to d is g u is e them under th e name o f an o th ers h is h ig h s p i r i t of

independencej and th e ready v e r s a t i l i t y w ith which he s tooped to th e meanest

p o l i t i c a l o r l i t e r a r y d ru dgery ; th e am iab le and in te r e s t in g a f f e c t io n which

h e d isp la y s tow ard h is fam ily? w ith a c e r ta in looseness of m o ra lity which

approaches to p ro f lig a c y ? we cannot bu t r e g re t t h a t a s u b je c t? u n it in g so

s tro n g an a l t e r n a t io n of l i g h t and shade? had no t been sk e tch ed by. th e hand

o f a m aster.*’^ • .

A lexander Chalmers, and John B r it to n s One of th e most unsym pathetic

tre a tm e n ts which O h a tte r to n rece iv ed a t th e hands of any b io g rap h er was t h a t

g iv en him by A lexander Chalmers i n h is . 1810 e d it io n of E n g lish p o e tic a l

workso Chalmers q u estio n s th e h ig h q u a l i ty of th e y o u th ’s p o e try ; and o f

th e poet h im se lf he s t a t e s ? “ A ll h is decep tio n s ? h is p re v a r ic a tio n s ? h is

p o l i t i c a l te rg iv e r s a t io n ? &e0 were such as we should have looked fo r i n men

of an advanced ag$$? hardened by e v i l a s s o c ia tio n s ? and soured by d isappo in ted

p r id e o r 'a v a r i c e .”®® 1 ©armings early .’t h e a r t of d e c e it ?” ^ a t t e r t o n ? acco rd ­

in g to Chalmers ? showed th roughou t h is l i f e "h is u t t e r contem pt f o r t r u t h a t

an age viien we a re ta u g h t to expect a d i s p o s i t io n open? ingenuous ? and

64 o JM do? p . 229 o

65 . I b i d . ? p . 218.

6 6 . Chalmers? eo . e i t . ,. p.. 373.

©aadid*"®® I b LoBdons f o r example, he was an Mm nprineip led yotmg man"

whom n e i th e r p a r ty could trusto®®

Ihe n in e te e n th cen tu ry e d i t o r ’s unsym pathetic a t t i t u d e i s f u r th e r

rev ea led by h is tre a tm e n t o f G h a tte rto n *s d ea lin g s w ith W alpole and of th e

p o e t ’s r e l ig io u s i n f i d e l i t y <, Ih e form er he regards as in d ic a t in g th e boy

was hoping to exchange h is a p p re n tic e sh ip f o r an e a s ie r p o s i t io n as a

l i t e r a r y l e a d e r ’s p ro te g e and never fo rg av e Walpole f o r d e te c t in g h is

f o r g e r y ; ^ w h ile th e l a t t e r , Chalmers s u g g e s ts , may s im p ly have been a

means " to g e t r i d o f th e o b lig a tio n s which s to o d in th e way of h is p a s t71. -o r f u tu r e schem a a" The b io g rap h e r does adm it th e poet ’s tem perance

and h is a f f e c t io n f o r h is fa m ily , bu t expresses th e o p in io n th a t to o much

has a lre a d y been made o f . th e l a t t e r v i r t u e .

The obvious p re ju d ic e , w hatever i t s o r ig in , of t h i s b io g ra p h ic a l t r e a t ­

ment appears to have p reven ted i t from hav ing much in f lu e n c e on l a t e r b io g ra ­

ph ies o th e r th a n to p ro v id e a ch a llen g e to th e poet ’s d e fe n d e rs . .A ssuring

h is re a d e r th a n " th e d e cep tio n was n o t in ten d ed to SeSraud or injure me human

b e in g , and might most a s su re d ly have been begun and con tinued w ithou t th e

s l i g h t e s t s en se of c r im in a l i ty in G h a tte r to n ," Robert S ou they d e sc rib e s

th e memoir as " w r i t te n i n th a t s p i r i t of p h a r is a ie m o ra lity which b lin d s

th e u n d ers tan d in g as much as i t hardens th e h e a r t" and s t a t e s th a t Chalmers

" t e l l s th e h is to r y of th e Rowley papers j u s t as a p le a d e r would have to ld

29

i t a t th e Old B ailey i f C h a ite r to n had been upon t r i a l f o r fo rg in g a b i l l of

73exohange," M eyerste in ; on th e o th e r hand 9 w ith o u t g iv in g any reason f o r

h is s ta tem e n ts e a l l s i t " th e soundest p ie ce of. G h a tte r to n ia n biography we

have between 1789 and 1869 o " ^

Although John B r i t to n was la r g e ly unsym pathetic in h is essay on. th e

poetj, he paid t r i b u t e to Ghatt e r to n ’s a b i l i t y to th e p o in t o f c a l l in g him75an " e x a lte d genius* and o th e rw ise p re sen ted a more balanced p ic tu re th a n

th a t of Chalmerso B r i t to n d e sc rib e s th e poet as th e v ic t im of misguided 76p r id e and co n jec tu re s t h a t "h is v ic es and h is e rro rs were th e n a tu ra l r e ­

s u l t of a rd e n t p a s s io n s » u n c o n tro lle d by any r e s t r a i n t b u t convenience$ un­

d ire c te d by any m otive b u t th e immediate g r a t i f i c a t i o n of th e pass in g h o u r0

77L ike Ghalm ers9 B r i t to n speaks of G h a tts r to n as "pyene to a r t i f i c e ? " g iven

to s a c r i f i c in g p r in c ip le to ad v an tag e 9^® and u n re s tra in e d "by any rev e ren ce

f o r t r u t h " — a l l c h a r a c te r i s t i c s w hichs acco rd in g to th e e s s a y i s t 9 encouraged

him in h is d ecep tio n o r ig in a t in g from th e b e l i e f t h a t h is poems would be

d esp ised i f t h e i r r e a l a u th o r were I f Ghatt e r t on had liv e d to

m atu rity ? B r i t to n i s c h a r i ta b le enough to say? h is genius would undoubtedly

73 o "Chalmers ’s E n g lish Poets a" The Q u a rte r ly Review? XI (J u ly 1814) ?493o ■ , ,

7# 9 I# y e rs te in ? 0 Po c i to 9 p* 496o

7So "He u n ite d th e a s s id u i ty of th e s tu d e n t? w ith th o se h a b its of r e ­f le c t io n ? which g ive l i f e and beau ty to th e .m a te r ia ls on which th ey o p e ra te ; and combined th e p r id e of conscious s u p e r io r i ty ? th e am bition th a t anim atesto th e p u rs u it of g re a t and arduous o b je c ts? and th e p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t y andp erseverance? th a t a re n ecessa ry to s u s ta in th e f l i g h t s and em bellish th e labou rs of th e most ex a lted geniuso" J» B ritto n ? An H is to r ic a l and A rchi­t e c t u r a l % say R e la tin g to R e d c lif fe Church9 B r i s t o l ? p 0 59o

76o I b id ? ? p? 6 6 b 7io Ib id o ? p? 69?

77» I b i d . ? p 0 60o 79. I b id . ? p.. 61.

3§

have m d e him exchange "a v a in d isp la y , of i n t e l l e c t u a l independence1' f o r

more “ momentous i n te r e s t s o " ^

• The Reviews of Dix and of S k e a t 's I d i t i o n s John F o s te r » a elergpeEua

and e s s a y is ts in h is rev iew of John Dix "s v e ry sy m pathetic memoir o f

O h a tte rto n den ies any d e s i r e to q u a rre l v io le n t ly w ith th e p a r t i a l i t y of

th e biographys bu t c a l l s i t h is du ty " to p ro te s t a g a in s t th e p e rn ic io u s

fa lla c y o 0 0 o f su sp en d in g 9 and a l l bu t a b ro g a tin g $ in fa v o u r of men of

g e n iu s 9 th e most e s s e n t ia l laws of m o r a l i ty * " ^ He m ain ta ins t h a t G ia tterton

"b e tray ed a t th e l e a s t a g re a t in d if f e r e n c e to th e moral p r in c ip le " in h is

" s e t t l e d com plicated sy stem of d e c e p tio n ," and in h is p o l i t i c a l w r it in g

" in th e c h a ra c te r and on th e c a lc u la t io n of a mere l i t e r a r y a d v e n tu re r9"

who9 acco rd in g to L o rt and W alpoles w ro te bo th f o r and a g a in s t herd ih y o r

W illiam Beckford on th e same d a y B e c a u s e he re se n te d h is p o s it io n o f

a p p re n tic e sh ip and th e inadequacy of h is recompense from h is B r is to l p a tro n s?

O h a tte r to n 3 F o s te r b e lie v e s 9 ob ta in ed " a m alic ious g r a t i f i c a t i o n i a making

• fo o ls of p e o p le * " ^

As. might be expected of a clergyman? F o s te r d ea ls r a th e r h e a v ily w ith

th e q u e s tio n of O h a tte rto n "s a p o sta sy and expresses th e f e a r t h a t th e y o u th 's

" sn e e rs and sarcasm s le v e l le d , , , a t what fo l ly ? hypocrisy? o r mere can o n ic a l

ceremony have o d io u s ly connected w ith r e l ig io n , , , b e tra y ? by im p lic a tio n ?

a d is re g a rd ©f r e l ig io n i t s e l f , "84 This " d is re g a rd ? ” to g e th e r w ith h is p rid e ?

80, I b id , , p , 70,

81, F o s te r? op, o i t , , pp , 543-544,

83, I b i d , s pp, 531=532.

83 . I b id , , p , 540. ,

84, .I b i d ,o p , 532,

31

le d O h a tte r te a to a su ie j.d e which F o s te r j te rm ing i t th e end o f an " even t­

f u l » wayward» i l l - d i s e i p l i n e d 9 unhonoured3 bu t eminemtly capab le” l i f e ,

m e lo d ram atica lly p ic tu re s f o r th e re a d e r i n such a way as to a rouse a f e e l -

in g of p ity 8h a rd ly r e c o n c ila b le w ith th e c r i t i c 's h a rsh s ta tem e n t concern ing

th e s u ic id e s "That a c t i t s e l f , committed on a f a r too d e l ib e r a te determ ine

a t io n to a llow th e p le a o f in s a n i ty , in any such sen se as to suspend respon­

s i b i l i t y , comes to com plete th e m oral s p e c ta c le , in a c h a r a c te r to which o u r

sym pathies a r e f a i n t l y and r e lu c ta n t ly g iv en ; and induces a w illin g n e ss to

l e t C h a tte r to n r e t i r e tow ard o b liv io n * "

The g e n e ra l im p ression g iven by F o s te r 's a r t i c l e i s th a t th e w r i te r was

more concerned w ith g iv in g h is read e rs an o b je c t le sso n th a n w ith p ro v id in g

e i th e r an o b je c t iv e s tu d y of th e p o e t 's l i f e o r a com prehensive rev iew o f

Dix *s biography* As a m a tte r o f f a c t , t h e r e i s a t l e a s t one reco rd o f th e

l i f e o f G h a tta r to n 's be ing used as th e s u b je c t of an a c tu a l sermon from th e

p u lp i t * A ccording to th e G lo u c e s te rsh ire Hotes and Q u e rie s , on th e one

hundred and n in e te e n th a n n iv e rsa ry of th e poet 's d ea th a Bev* B% W illian s .

of Hackney, England, o ffe re d th e c a re e r of C h a tte r to n as a w arning to c le v e r

young men. Lacking co n sc ien ce and f e a r of God, th e p o e t , s a id W illiam s,

ended “ a l i f e o f l i t e r a r y d e c e it and f ra u d ” w ith an a c t o f " d e l ib e r a te

in f id e lity * "® ^

F o r some re a so n , perhaps th e co n serv a tism of th e p u b l ic a t io n s , p e rio d ­

i c a l review s o f n in e te e n th cen tu ry b io g rap h ie s of C h a tte r to n appear to be

n o tab ly u n fa v o ra b le , n o t only to th e b iography but to th e poet as w ell*

Another example i s th e anonymous rev iew o f th e Rev* Dr* W alter W* Skefct ”s

85 * Xbxd-*>9 p * 538^539 *

86 * I b id * , p* 533*

87* B r i s t o l i e n s i s , " The Death of Thomas C h a tte r to n ," G lo u c e s te rsh ireMotes and Queries-.. IV (1890) * 472=473 „

32

e d it io n o f th e works o f Thomas G hatt a r t on , In which Edward B e ll "a l i f e o f

th e po4$t was in c lu d e d « The c r i t i c ag rees t h a t G h a tte r to n ’s d e c e i t reg a rd in g

th e Rowley poenB was n o t th a t "o f th e v u lg a r im p o ste r who aizts only a t th e

p o ck et;" hu t i t was$ he b e l ie v e s 9 s u f f i c i e n t l y m ercenary to be a g re a t d e a l88more th a n th e t r i c k of a "m ischievous schoolboy*" W hile G h a tte rto n %

unusual p rid e? " in a boy* 0 o som ething, a l to g e th e r unwholesome and abnormal

may have p reven ted th e poet from c o n fe s s in g .h is d e ce p tio n and from a c c e p tin g

f r e e meals? i t a p p a re n tly d id no t? th e rev iew er p o in ts out? keep him from

making money, by d ish o n es t means o®®

" The w o rst f e a tu r e in h is c h a ra c te r? " th e w r i te r? n e v e r th e le s s? s t a t e s ?

"— a s tra n g e a n d 'p e c u l ia r ly odious f e a tu r e in th e c h a ra c te r of one so young

—was h is in g ra t i tu d e ? " which was so pronounced th a t " to co n fe r on him a

b e n e f i t seems bu t to. have made of. him an in s t a n t and a b i t t e r enemy<,11

i s am example th e rev iew er provides th e c ircum stance of th e Be Bergham

ped ig ree? which? he says? was p re sen ted tb e th e pew ter o r w h ile Ghatt e r t on

was s t i l l : a c h a r i ty s tu d e n t . "Thus?" he concludes? ta k in g a s la p a t th e

Romantic t r a d i t io n ? " l iv e d and d ied Thomas G hatterton? th e v ic tim no t o f .

a co ld and h e a r t le s s w o rld ? but of h is own i l l= r e g u la te d and devouring

p a ss io n s . The world? i t i s tru e ? den ied him bread? b u t i t was h is own

unsound and m alic ious d iA pdsitloA W his own m s p laced p rid e? h is own d i s -

' 91to r t e d am bition? t h a t darkened th e w orld *s f a c e a g a in s t h im ."

Bavid Massong One o f th e most p u z z lin g and? on th e whole? d isa p -

. 880 " Thoiias G hatt e r t on?" The Q u a rte r ly Review? GL (^ u ly 1880)? 107.

89o I b i d . 0 pu. 108-109. *

9 0 . I b i d . ? p . 89.

91• I b i d . 3 o . 1 0 8 ..

§2p o ia t la g m ajer M ograph ies of Ibomas G h attsrtoa . i s t h a t of David fess.oae

A lthough fe s s o a was a p ro fe s so r of E n g lish l i t e r a t u r e a t IM iv e rs i t j C o lleg e 9

Londons h is s tu d y of th e poet seems to be lack in g , in o r ig in a l s c h o la rsh ip s

w ith th e n o ta b le ex cep tion of th e p u b lic a t io n of th e n e g le c te d l e t t e r s

and to be in c o n s is te n t i n - i t s c h a ra c te r p o r tr a y a ls Im h is n a tiv e B r i s to l

S hattertom appears alm ost un ifo rm ly in an u n fav o rab le l i g h t | bu t when he

d ep a rts f o r London9 he becomes f i r s t a r a th e r m a je s tic and th e n a p a th e t ic

and eonssien© © -stricken f ig u g e s oppressed by an environm ent which Ib s se a

d e lin e a te s w ith m eticulous d e t a i l ,

^ f o r tu n a te ly ; f o r th e p o e ts - th e e a r l i e r G h a tte r tsn , seems th e more

believab le= —" a young a tto rn e y *9 a p p re n tice ^ ©f proud and s u l le n tem per?

d isco n ten te d w ith h is s i tu a t io n s am bitious 9 conscious o f genius 9 y e t t r e a t ”

ed as a boy and m enial s e r v a n t S h l i k e th e lo m a t i e b iographers B isson

b e lie v e s t h a t G hattertem was not j u s t i f i e d in h is s a t i r e s on B r is to l and

i t s in h a b ita n ts b u t was sim ply g e t t in g revenge f o r h is d is r e s p e c tf u l t r e a t ­

ment and h is la ck of m o n e y a ^ L ike Chalmers $ B sso n h e a r t i l y defends

W alpole in h is d e a l i n g w ith th e y o u th » c a l l in g , th e condemnation, of S i r

lo r a e e "u n reaso n ab le” and ex p ress in g th e o p in ion th a t W alpole p robably

behaved b e t t e r i n th e a f f a i r th a n most peop le would have done i f s im i la r ly

imposed upon®

Hie problem, of O h a tte rto n 's m o tiv a tio n in th e Rowley d ecep tio n B s s o n

a tta c k s w ith .a n o b je c t iv i ty which makes h is d is c u s s io n of th e s u b je c t ,

92« But § e y e rs te in d e sc r ib e s th e 1856 essay as a “b r i l l i a n t b io ­g ra p h ic a l n o v e le t te " and " th e most au d ac io u s ly s u c c e s s fu l ( tre a tm e n t) s in c e Love-and B in e s s a " M oversteim, o#s c i t . 9 pp0 51T-51S,

though r a th e r unsyznpathatio 9 one of th e most ra tlo m a l in G h a tte r to n ia n

biography,. L is t in g fo u r reasons f o r th e j o u i h ’s i e e i s io n —"m alloiousm ess

tow ard in d iv id u a ls " g rav in g f o r n o to r ie ty ^ " nd e l ig h t in m islead ing

p eo p le ," and " want of money’8-= lfe.3 son s t a t e s ,

Y ie ld in g to th e te m p ta tio n G h a tte r to n re so lv ed to tu r n %hat sas :'best and m o s t o r ig in a l i n h is genius $, h is en thusiasm f o r th e a n tiq u e ,' in to th e s e r v ie e of h is w orst propensitiess> In o th e r words.9 .he re so lv ed to adopt w ith c e r ta in v a r ia t io n s and a d a p ta tio n s t o h is own c a s e , th e t r i c k o f jf&ephersono®

$h£ d id G h a tte r to n p e rsev e re in h is decep tion? _Maseeh a lso answered

th a t q u es tio n s " B iere was th e p le a su re of th e j e s t i t s e l f | th e r e was th e

s e c r e t s en se of s u p e r io r i ty i t gave him ; th e r e was i t s advan tage as a

means of hooking h a lf-c row ns out of p e o p le 's p o c k e ts ; and l a s t , though

no t l e a s t , th e r e was th e im p o s s ib i l i ty of r e t r a c t in g w ith o u t being knocked

down by B a r re t t f o r damaging h is h i s to r y o r k icked by th e G atco tts f o r

having;m ade fo o ls of th e m o "^ Ihsson concedes t h a t G h a tte r to n was a " d u a l

phenomenon0 0 o composed of a mania f o r th e a n tiq u e , and of th a t g e n e ra l

assem blage of more o rd in a ry q u a l i t i e s and p re ju d ic es which c o n s t i tu te d th e

b u s t l in g young Englishm an of h is e r a o " ^

In London G h a tte rto n began his. c a re e r w ith " courage and se lf -a ssu ra n c e

but " im petuous, s to rm y , in d u s tr io u s , and e n e rg e tic as h e w as, th e re was

s t i l l i n him an elem ent of weakness in what he c a l le d h is ’p r i d e , $ as w e ll

as in h is open contem pt f o r a l l th e commoner forms of m oral p r in c ip le o 1* ^ ^

ithsson makes a g re a t d e a l o f G h a tte r to n ’s s ta tem en t in h is f i n a l l e t t e r to

35

George G a tco tt $ "Heaven s end. you th e coiaf o r ts o f C h r is t ia n i ty I I re q u e s t

them no t § f o r I am no C h r is t ia n 3" and expounds th e u su a l th e o ry th a t

h is i n f i d e l i t y encouraged th e youth, to . con tem plate M s s e lf -d a s t r a c t io n „

But hy th e tim e th a t fe sso n has moved h is c h a ra c te r to Brooke S t r e e t .

he has changed from th e cunning and m ercenary B r i s to l a p p re n tic e to th e

p a th e t ic f ig u r e so a p p ea lin g to th e Romantic poets — except t h a t , acco rd in g

to Prof ess ©r, la s so n , G h a tte r te n was. d riv e n to in s a n i ty and s u ic id e no t "by

th e w o r ld ’s n e g le c t a lo n e bu t a lso by a g u i l ty conscience,. Haunted by th e

"hideous o ld face" of Rowley, th e you th i s to r tu r e d by. th e " re c o l le c t io n s

of p a s t l i e s and d e c e its w ith which he had burdened h is co n sc ie n ce , so as

to d e p riv e h is c h a ra c te r of h a l f i t s n a tu r a l forceo"^® ^ When " th e D ev il

was abroad" on th e n ig h t of August 2 4 th , h e paid a long v i s i t a t th e houseX03of Mrs o A ngel, th e s.acque-m aker0 However in a c c u ra te la s s o n ’s l a t e r

C h a tte r to n m y b e , he is c e r ta in ly d ram a tic .

Donald Small®ys One o th e r name might be m entioned among th o se w r i te r s

who have emphasized th e d a rk e r s id e o f th e b o y -p o e t, though Donald S m alley

c e r ta in ly a ttem pted n o th in g l i k e a com prehensive b iography of C h a tte r to n .

R ather he was concerned w ith showing th a t w h ile Robert Browning p ro fessed

to be making a f a c tu a l and o b je c t iv e s tu d y of t h e p o e t, t h e famous "Victorian cs

anonymous essay in th e J u ly , 1842, is s u e o f fh e F o re ig n Q u a rte r ly Review was

r e a l ly a t a l e of moral trium ph fo rm ula ted acco rd ing to th e a u th o r ’s p re ­

d i le c t io n s in a manner s im i la r to t h a t employed in th e com position of The

101 o. Ib id p o .p. 245 o

102, I b i d , « pp, 855*256.

103, I b i d , , pp . 262-263,

S B a iley quotes from vario u s C h a ite r to n ia n M o g raph iss conta.in ing i n t e r ­

p re ta t io n s a t v a r ia n c e w ith Browning "s 9 p o in ts ou i i i s e rep an c ie s between th e

accep ted f a c ts of th e p o e t ’s l i f e and Brow ning’s account $ and makes s e v e ra l

conclusions re g a rd in g th e poet in o p p o s itio n to th o se of Irewningp “ Ihough

G h a tte r to n undoubtedly sp en t a p a r t of. M s tim e w ithdrawn from S o c ie ty

dream ing of Rowley/ 1 Sm alley* r e f e r r in g to th e ImBBral to n e of much of th e

poet 8s modern w ritin g s and th e cunning rev ea led in h is d ece p tio n s p o in ts

ou t th a t h e "showed p re c o c ity in more th a n p o e t r y a n d th a t " th e re i s

no r e a l ev idence to show th a t G h a tte rto n a t an y -tim e g r e a t ly r e g re t te d h is

im postures o r was much concerned about th e moral im p lic a tio n s of h is work"

«=-a s ta tem e n t which might be used to c r i t i c i z e B isso n ’s b iography as w e ll as

Browning’s study<> "Probably*" w rite s Sm alley* "G h a tte r to n fo rsook Rowley

no t because he was s t r u g g l in g tow ard th e ways o f T ruth * b u t because London107e d ito rs showed no g re a t in c l in a t io n to p u b lish B r is to l a n t iq u i t ie s o "

But on th e q u e s tio n o f G h a tte r to n ’s motives. S itB lley seenm to ag ree w ith

everyone; f o r he says* " P r o f i t * fame* a p a ss io n a te lo v e o f p o e try and of

m edieval lo re * an e x tra o rd in a ry d e l ig h t in Im posture f o r i t s own sake a l l

seem to have im p e lled th e M arvellous Boy in h is c a r e e r / ’

104. Gf. ppo51-5& p o s t .

105o Ronald Sm alley* Browning’s I s s a y on G h a tte r to n s- p . 41.

106 o Ib ido» p . 41*542 o

CHAPTER I I I

THE SENTIMENTAL VIEW ©F 0HATT1RT01

IntTOdxiet I qb .

One of th e most s u r p r i s in g co n clusions to be reached from a su rv ey

of C h a tte r to n ia n b iography i s t h a t 9 a lthough th e v a s t m a jo rity of b iography

i c a l tre a tm e n ts o f th e poet a r e of an openly sym pathetic n a tu r e 9 a t l e a s t

h a l f o f th o s e w r i te r s who re v e a l a k in d ly a t t i t u d e tow ard G h a tte rto n seem

to have regarded th e m elves v i r t u a l l y as lo n e defenders „ From S i r H e rb ert

C r o f t ’s l i f e of G h a tte r to n up in to th e w rit in g s of th e p re se n t c e n tu ry 5 th e

s tu d e n t of C h a tte r to n ia n a re p e a te d ly encounters s ta tem en ts to th e e f f e c t

t h a t as G h a tte r to n had been so h a rs h ly d e a l t w ith in o th e r b io g rap h ies 9

t h i s a u th o r f e l t c o n s tra in e d to p u b lish a l i f e h i s to r y more t r u t h f u l and

more sy m p a th e tic 0 B efore th e appearance of Dr„ George G regory’s b iography

i t i s t r u e t h a t c o n s id e ra b le m a te r ia l of a p re ju d iced and u n favorab le c h a r­

a c te r was p robably in c ir c u la t io n * b u t th e in f lu e n c e of th e 1 7 # b iography

and o th er* more fa v o ra b le b io g rap h ies he lped to make such a tta c k s as th o s e

of A lexander Chalmers and So R, la . i t land c le a r ly th e exceptiono In r e a l i ty *

th e o u ts ta n d in g weakness of Chatt e r to n ia n b iography i s n o t th e much-publiei zed

p re ju d ic e a g a in s t th e poet but r a th e r th e e la b o ra te defenses o f th e youth

which s a c r i f i c e r e a l i s t i c p o r tr a y a l f o r maudlin g l o r i f i c a t i o n .

P o e try

Dying a s u ic id e on th e very eve of th e Romantic R evolu tion in E ng lish

poetry* G h a tte rto n provided th e Romantic poets w ith an id e a l m arty r.

” G h a tte rto n was f o r o th e r rom antics and l a t e r f o r S h e lle y th e h i s t o r i c

example of* « 0 th e rom antic n o tio n of th e poet as a s e n s i t iv e so u l out o f

. 1sympathy w ith h is environm ents" s t a t e s Newman l a W hite; and Donald Sm alley

speaks of " th e t r a d i t i o n o f a G h a tte rto n to o nob le f o r th e w orld % p o sse ss -

iago"^ Thomas G h a tte r to n had been dead only two months when th e f i r s t of

many G h a tte r to n ia n e le g ie s 9 t h i s one hav ing been w r i t te n by th e poet 's

f r ie n d Thomas Gary s appeared in The To’>m and Gountry fegazineo Gary was

under a g r e a te r hand icap in h is etilogy th a n l a t e r p o e ts | f o r be ing a Bow-

1 e lan $ h e could p r a is e only G h a tte r to n 's . modern w ritin g s as th e p o s t ’s own*

As most of th e s e w ere c h a ra c te r iz e d by a n o ta b ly low m oral to n es to g e th e r

w ith an unusual amount of sp lee n s G ary’s l in e s re v e a l commendable courage

and lo y a l ty to h is s u b je c ts

The p u b lic good was ever in h is v iew .His pen h is l o f t y sen tim en ts bespoke.Nor fe a re d he v ir tu o u s freedom to pursued

S harp v is a g 'd S a t i r e own’d him as h e r lo r d .E x c lu siv e of h e r hand-maid in h e r t r a i n ,1 1 1 - n a tu r e , c u r s t a t te n d a n t of th e board Of th o se who s t ig m a tis e mankind f o r gain*

Not so ’ i r i th him —he p a in t# each re ig n in g v ic e In s t ro n g e s t co lo u rs o f t h e i r genuine h u e ’Sweet 'ming t h e b i t t e r d raugh t w ith sav 'ry s p ic e ,The moral p ic tu re r e l i s h in g th e view»^

A 1794 e d i t io n o f th e Bowley poens in c lu d ed a "Monody on th e Death of

G hatterton" by Samuel T ay lo r C o le rid g e 0 "Sublim e of Thought and c o n fid e n t

o f Fame," th e dead poet i s consig n ed , i n accordance w ith p o e t ic a l t r a d i t i o n ,

to Heaveno A "F rien d to th e f r i e n d le s s , t o th e s ic k man H e a l t h t h e human-

lo Newwu Io Whit@ ( e d i t o r ) . The B est of S h e l le v , p e 470.

2o Donald S m alley , Browning’s lb say on G h a tte r to n , p . 250

3d Thomas G h a tte r to n , M se e lla n ie s in P rose and V erse , pp0 243=244.

39

i t a r i a n G hatt e rto n

0 0 0 where th e g o r r o w - s h r iv s l l8d C aptive l a y 9 Pours th e b r ig h t B laze of Freedom 's aoon= tide Rays And now in d ig n a n t grasps th e p a t r io t s t e e lAnd h e r own iro n rod he makes O ppression feel* .^

G h a tte rto n committed s u ic id e ? says Coleridge® because of " th e keen I n s u l t’ ' 8 o f th e u n fe e lin g H eart $ th e dread Dependence on th e low -bred @.nd."

ff il l ia m Wordsv/orth in M s "R eso lu tio n and Independence9" w r i t te n in

1802s p rovided in two l in e s both a co n c ise b iography of th e poet and a

p o p u la r e p i t h e t ;

1 th o u g h t of G h a tte r to n 9 th e m arvellous Boy?The s le e p le s s S o u l th a t p e rish ed in h is pride*

John K eats d ed ica ted Endymion to G h a tte rto n and a lso w ro te a sonnet to th e

poet* L ike O o le rid g e 9 Keats p laces Ghatt e r to n "among th e s t a r s of h ig h e s t

Heaven;" and to " th e in g r a te world" he says p o in ted ly ?

The good man bas e d e t r a c t io n bars 7From th y f a i r name? and w aters ' i t w ith te a r s*

Percy Bysshe S h e lle y in h is Adonais inc lu d ed Ghatt e r to n w ith S idney and

Lucan among " th e in h e r i to r s of u n f u l f i l l e d r e n o w n a n d Robert Southey in

h is A V ision of Judgment p laced th e poet f i r s t among th e " e a r ly lo s t and

deplored* * 0. youths whom th e Eases marked f o r th e m e lves a t, birth® " w ith

4* Thomas Rowley® Poem Supposed to Have Been W ritte n a t B r is to l i n th e 15th Century® p . xxvi*

5* I b id o ® p . x x v iii* Gf* p , 1 5 , ante*

60 W illiam Wordsworth® "R eso lu tio n and Independences" The P o e tica l. Works ~of W illiam W ordsworth9 1 * de Selim court® editor® II® 236*

7 . John K eats ® "Sonnet to C hattertoa® " Complete Poem and S e le c te d Letters.® C larence De W itt Thorpe® editor® p* 8 *

-8 * Percy Bysshe Shelley® "Adonais ®" The Complete Works of Percy Bysshe S h e lle y ( The J u l ia n E d i t io n s ? Roger Ingpen and W alter % Peek® e d ito rs )fd l$ e r4 0 2 * "

t h e added comment t h a t "n o t to h ie a f f e c t io n a te s p i r i t could th e a c t of mad­

ness in n a te f o r g u i l t be accounteda"^

Southey and Joseph G o t t le % e d i t io n of G h a tte r to n ’s works co n ta ined a

number of G h a tte r to n ia n odes and e le g ie s of v a ry in g q u a l i ty . John S c o t t 9

" th e fu se o f A jw ells" d e sc rib e s th e poet as “ conscious and proud of m erit

h ighs" bu t lam ents s

Ah’ why f o r Genius * h ead stro n g rag e Did V irtu e 8s hand no curb p re p a re d

The most b io g ra p h ic a l was B*So Robins on *s " # n o d y to th e Memory of C h atte rto n "

Too proud f o r p ity ? and to o poor f o r praise<, 0 «Yet w h ile p o e tic a rd o u r n e r v ’d each th o u g h t,And Reason s a n c t io n ’d what Ambition tau g h t s

. He s o a r ’d beyond th e narrow s p e l l s th a t b ind The slow p e rcep tio n s of th e v u lg a r mind;The f i r e once k in d led by th e b re a th of. Fames Her r e s t l e s s p in ions fam n’d th e g l i t t ’r in g f la m e 5 Warm’d by i t s rays 9 he th o u g h t each v is io n j u s t ;F or conscious V irtu e seldom f e e ls D i s t r u s t 0

F r a i l a re th e charms d e lu s iv e Fancy shows.And s h o r t th e b l i s s h e r f i c k l e sm ile b estow s;Yet th e b r ig h t p ro sp ec t p leas ’d h is dazz led view , .Each Hope seem ’d r i p e n 8d 9 and each Phantom t r u e ;F i l l 'd w ith d e l ig h t 9 h is un su sp ec tin g mind W eigh'd no t th e g ro v ’l in g tre a c h 'r ie s of m ankind;F or w h ile a n ig g ard boon h is wants s u p p ly ’d?And M ature 's claim s subdu ’d th e v o ice of P rid e %His t i mid t a l e n t s own’d a borrowed name9 And g a in ’d by F ic t io n what was due to Fame.

In 1858 T a lt* s Edinburgh Magazine p u b lish ed a monody by "Wo B. B0 S .

which might be c i te d as a w arning t© th o se who d e s i r e to be remembered in

p o e try . O h a tte r to n "p ra y ed 9“ th e w r i te r a ssu re s us $ b u t q u ic k ly adds 9

9 o Robert S o u th ey 9 ” A V ision of Judgm ent9” The P o e tic a l Works of R obert S^quth^y^g- X9 241—BAB.

1 0 o The Works of Thomas G h a tte r to n a 1 9 Ix z x ix .

41

o o s (Deem n e t f o r p i t y 9 f o r M s h e a r t was a l l to e proud To seek sympathy from any of th e lu c re - lo v in g erowd) 0

L a te r th e r e a d e r 9 lam en tin g ; f in d s 9

T i l l s d e s p a ir in g , low er s in k in g , he had bowed h is haughty head ;

To w aste h is y o u th fu l s t r e n g th on ta sk s whioh would no t . b r in g him bread

In c o n tra s t s Dante G ab rie l w ro te about- 1 8 8 0 ^ what i s p robab ly th e most

b e a u t i f u l p e e tie t r i b u t e ever pa id to G h a tte rto n s

With Shaks peare #s manhood a t a boy % w ild h e a r t Through Hamlet "s doubt to Shaks peare n e a r a l l i e d 9 And k in to t t l t o n th rough h is S a t a n ’s p r id e s —*At D eath 's s o le door he s tooped and craved a d a r t ;And to th e d e a r new bower of In g la n d 's a r t , —W en to t h a t s h r in e Time e ls e had d e i f i e d ?The u n u tte re d h e a r t t h a t so a red a g a in s t h is s id e s — Drove th e f e l l p o in t , and sm ote l i f e ’s s e a ls apart®

Thy n e s te d home-loves 9 nob le G h a tte rto n ;The an g e l- tro d d e n s t a i r th y y so u l could t r a c e Dp R e d c l i f f e ’s s p i r e ; and in th e w o rld 's armed space The g a l l a n t " sw ord-play §—th es e to many an one Are sw eet f o r e v e r; as th y grave unknown And love-dream of t h i n 9 unrecorded faoe®14

G h a tte r to n has a lso been th e s u b je c t of a number of d ram atic works =

The o u ts ta n d in g and b e s t known of th e s e is A lfred de Yignv *s Ghatt e r to n 9

which was w r i t t e n i n "1835. B iis p la y s which i s f i c t i o n a l i n i t s p lo t $ i s

r e a l ly more concerned w ith p re se n tin g a d e fen se of th e p o e t ’s M le in .

1 2 ® W® Bj B® S . , "The Death of G hatt e r to n —a Fragment 9” T a l t ’sEdinburgh feagazlneo n® s ® 9 XX? (F eb ru ary 1858}9 S I -82® .

13o E® H® W® M ey ers te la9 A L ife of Thomas G h a tte r to n s p® 515®

14® Dante G ab rie l B o sse tti,, "ffioaas G hattertom ," The P o e tic a l Works. o f Dante G ab rie l R o s s e tt is p® 323®

4g

s o e ie ty th a n w ith p ro v id in g an a c c u ra te p o r tr a y a l of G hatterton= The h e r ©$

an o u tc a s t regarded, w ith sc o rn ; as th e t r a d i t i o n a l Romantic poet must

always "be® c r ie s to unhearing hum anity t h a t he speaks f o r them and th e n

k i l l s hims e l f in desp a ir* Like th e r e a l G hatterton? however; h is p re ­

dominant c h a r a c te r i s t i c i s h is p r id e 9 combined» a t l e a s t in th e case of de

Vigny V G h a tte r to n ; w ith m elancholia* Says C* Wesley B ird in h is s tu d y of

d e .V ig n y ’s p la y .

Any f a l s i f i c a t i o n of th e c h a ra c te r of th e poet found in V igny's in te r p r e ta t io n r e s u l t s from an emphasis upon G h a tte rto n • th e in t r o v e r t who harbored s e c r e t grudges a g a in s t contem porary p o l i t i c ia n s * This s id e of th e poet was s c a rc e ly known to th e p u b lic * Vigny d id no t emphasize G hatt e rto n th e e x tro v e r t ■> an e s s e n t ia l ly weak c h a ra c te r who committed s u ic id e in a London g a r r e t a f t e r h is l i t e r a r y hoax fa i le d * This s id e o f th e poet had a lre a d y been to o w idely p u b lic iz e d

In 1884 a o n e -ac t p lay "G hatt e r to n s." w r i t te n by S i r H= A. Cones and

H» Herman; was p re sen ted ih London w ith W ilson B a r re t t i n th e t i t l e rd le*

W rites a rev iew er o f th e p la y ;

I saw a boy-man b e fo re me; p a s s io n a te ; p roud 9 s e n s i t iv e ; q u ix o t ic 9 and morbid* I understood th e p o s s ib i l i t y of a G h a tte rto n l i k e t h a t ; a r e s t l e s s 9 i l l - d i s c i p l i n e d wayward genius 9 a youth who would c ry one m inu te; laugh th e next 9 s to rm th e n e x t; and so on u n t i l he exhausted h im self* I saw a n eg lec ted Ghatt e r to n — a man w ith a g re a t h e a r t ; s h u t out from th e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f lo v e 9 a man wM had s tu d ie d women9 and h a d 'n e v e r r e a l iz e d th e com fort of them; an e a rn e s t 9 p lead in g and a f f e c t io n a te n a tu re th a t was p in in g f o r an u n s a t i s f ie d d e s i r e and y earn ing f o r th e f r u i t i o n of am alm ost im p o ssib le hope*-®-®

Probably th e l a t e s t dram atic a d a p ta tio n of th e l i f e o r c h a ra c te r of

G h a tte r to n i s Corns of Age; a th r e e - a c t p lay by R ichard Addins e l l and

-15* G* Wesley B ird ; A lfred de V igny's G hatt e r to n g A C o n trib u tio n to th e S tu d y o f - 'i ts G enesis and Sources , pp. 153=154* De .Vigny a lso d e a l t w ith G h a tte r to n in a n o v e l9 S te l lo *

16* Clement S c o t t ; "G hatt e r to n ;" The T h ea tre ; n« s * 9 IV (Ju ly 1 9 1884);38*

43

Glemence Dane p u b lished in 19340 At th e b eg inn ing of th e p lay th e e ig h teen th ”

cen tu ry C h a tte r to n persuades Death to a llo w him to l iv e and. love u n t i l he

becomes of age . With no memory of h is p revious e x is te n c e s he th en l iv e s ou t

h is ad o lescence in tw e n tie th -c e n tu ry lew York C ity 9 where, he leads a poet •s

t r a d i t i o n a l e x is te n c e in a g a r re t ap artm en t. Though of th e h i s t o r i c a l

C h a tte r to n he says? "He had to o mad a p r id e s " -^ th e modern C h a tte r to n d i s ­

p lays much of th e same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . Involved in a lo v e a f f a i r w ith a

s o c ie ty woman tw ice h is age$ he is c a p r ic io u s 9 p rouds and somewhat a r ro g a n t .

He f i n a l l y co n v en ien tly ends th e a f f a i r by dyings as p re d e s t in e d g on h is

tw e n ty - f i r s t b ir th d a y .

Pros© -

The’Romantic t r a d i t i o n of C h a tte r to n as th e "poet % poet" which has

been tra c e d i n p o e try and drama was a lso r e a d i ly d is c e r n ib le in th e pros®

s tu d ie s o f th e p a s t 9 though g e n e ra lly g iven more r e s t r a in e d ex p ress io n .

S i r H erbert C roft an d ' Vieeslmus Knoxs The f i r s t of th o se who might be

c a l le d " th e over-sy m p ath e tic b iog raphers of G hattertonS was th e Rev. S i r

H erb ert C ro f t. O ther b iog rap h ers have defended C h a t te r to n ’s im posture? bu t

few have a rd e n tly admired i t as C roft s e e m to have. "Sfest re a d i ly I adm it

th a t? i f C h a tte r to n be an im poste r (1 . ©.? th e w onderful human Being I

f irm ly b e lie v e him) 9" C ro ft w rite s ? "he impos ed upon every s o u l who knew

him . This w ith , me? i s one t r a i t of h is g r e a tn e s s ." '^ L ik e a fond p a re n t

b o a s tin g of M s. p recocious ch ild ? C roft p o in ts out how C h a tte r to n a t an age

I f . B ichard M d in s e l l and Glemence Dane? Come of Age? o . 42.

18. H erbert C roft? Love and Jhdness ? p . 140.

44

"when o th e r c h ild re n a re alm ost a f r a id to he l e f t a lo n e s" planned and exe-

eu ted h is schemes ’’n e i th e r odious n o r c r i m i n a l w i t h o u t o b ta in in g a s s is ta n c e

from o r co n fid in g in a n y o n e H e compares th e poet w ith a g en e ra l who

keeps s i l e n t about m i l i t a r y s e c r e t s —a com parison which seems n o t e n t i r e ly

a p p r o p r i a t e O n th e q u e s tio n o f C h a t te r to n 6s motives in h is d e c e p tio n ,

C ro ft says f l a t l y , “ I n e i th e r know nor e a r s b u t h e c i t e s a number o f

examples of s im i la r im p o s itio n s , in c lu d in g th o se of James IVacpherson and of

H orace W alpole, and su g g es ts th a t C h a tte r to n may sim ply have enjoyed t r y in g

to convince people of th e r e a l i t y of som ething h a hims e l f knew to be imag=

in a r y 0

C roft i s w ill in g , to adm it th a t C h a tte r to n w rote f o r bo th p o l i t i c a l

s id e s and on in d ecen t s u b je c t s , b u t excuses th e poet on th e b a s is th a t he

w rote “ to p rocu re bread f o r h im s e lf , h is mother and h is s i s t e r * " That

t h e " bo y ’s re l ig io u s p r in c ip le s were abom inable," C ro ft lik e w ise agrees |

bu t he p laces th e blame upon th e la ck of p roper guidance and upon th e w r i te r s

of i r r e l i g io u s b o o k s T h e in f lu e n c e of th e p o e t 's i n f i d e l i t y upon h is

g e n e ra l m o ra lity and h is u lt im a te s u ic id e C roft f a i l s to dw ell upon$ r a th e r

h e expresses th e id e a th a t C h a tte r to n may have d ied " to s e a l h is s e c r e t " ^ ^ t e r

The Town and Country fe g a z in e seem ingly q uestioned th e e x is te n c e of Rowley

when i t r e je c te d "An Ix e e le n te Balade of Chariti® *"

C roft quotes G h a tte r to n 's l e t t e r accompanying th e p re sen ts to M s fam ily

as ev idence th a t h is " a f f e c t io n more th a n kep t pace w ith h is v i l l a in y " — an

19* I b id *, p* 142* 23* I b ld ^ , p* 157*

20* Xipa ©. cat^* 24* I b i^ * , p* 197*

21* I b id * , p* 209. 25* I b id * , p* 185*

22* I b id * * o p * 133-134*

. ■ ■ 45

ap p aren t' i r o n ic re fe re n c e t© John Broughton % s t a t e me n t » The o le rg y m n

o ffe rs no evidence? however? f o r h is exclam ation? made in connec tion w ith

an u n ex p ec ted ly -in tro d u ced enum eration of th e A frican s la v e s sh ipped to

Europe, and Americas "How must th e genius, of Rowley have f i r e d a t such a

sum t o t a l of fe llo w c re a tu re s ? giade b e as ts of burden? o n ly because th e*>17

common C rea to r had made them of a d i f f e r e n t c o lo u r ’ C ro ft seems to

have been seconded in t h i s s u p p o s it io n on ly by E» H0 W« M eyerstein? who

eeapares th e A frican Edlosues of G h a tte rto n w ith W illiam B la k e ’s "The L i t t l e

Black Boyo" 2 8

The co n clu s io n is a l l b u t in e sc a p ab le t h a t C ro ft ? clergym an th e tg h he

was $ tro d on r a th e r th in moral i c e in h is s tu d y of C hattertono V ir tu a l ly

r e l ie v in g th e boy qf a l l in d iv id u a l r e s p o n s ib i l i ty ? he s e t a dangerous

p receden t f o r th o se defenders of th e poet who might w ish to s i le n c e t h e i r

opponents w ith an ap pea l to " th e u n iv e rs a l f oibl.es of youth-,"2® I f C h a tte r -

te n was s u f f i c i e n t l y m ature to w r i te h is p o e try and to execu te h is decep tion?

th en i t h a rd ly seems u n ju s t to suppose t h a t he was a lso m ature enough to be

conscious of th e moral im p lic a tio n s of h is own a c t io n s , The c h ie f v a lu e of

C ro ft ’s memoir? i t appears ? l i e s not in i t s c h a ra c te r e v a lu a tio n but in i t s

c o l le c t io n of s ta tem en ts from a c tu a l a s s o c ia te s and r e la t iv e s of Ghatterton-.®®

The ReVo Dr* Vieesimus Knox in h is Ifesavs f e r a l and L i te r a ry made a

more clumsy a ttem p t th a n C r o f t ’s to ex o n era te G h a tte r to n , W rites D r, Knox?

26, Gf, p . 16? a n te ,

27, C ro f t? op. G it ,? p , 224,

28, Meyers ta in ? op , c i t , ? p , 358= &£_<> p , 103? p o s t ,

29= C ro ft ? op, c i t , ? p , 136 =

30= The t i t l e Love and Badness d e riv e s from th e f a c t th a t th e b iographywas in c lu d ed in L e t te r XLIX of a number of love l e t t e r s suppos e d ly £w r i t t e n by James Hackman? a clergyman? to th e m is tre ss of Lord Sa.ndwich? fihrtha Reay=

46

In th e gloomy momenta of despondency* I f e a r th o u h a s t u t te re d impious and. blasphemous though ts * which none can defend* and which n e i th e r th y youth* nor th y f i e r y s p i r i t s * nor th y s i tu a t io n * can excuse* But l e t th y more r i g i d censors r e f le c t* t h a t thou w ast l i t e r a l l y and s t r i c t l y bu t a b o y * ^

In th e f i r s t sen ten ce th e e s s a y is t t e l l s th e re a d e r t h a t G h a tte rto n "s youth

cannot excuse th e p o e t ; in th e second he appeals to G h a tte rto n "s censors to

ta k e in to account th e boy ’s youth*

D esp ite th e f a c t t h a t G h a tte rto n has c e r ta in ly been accused of both

im m orality and d ishonesty* Knox s t a t e s in reprim and* "The s p e c u la t iv e e r ro rs

of a boy who w ro te from th e sudden su g g es tio n s of p ass io n o r despondency*

who i s no t co n v ic ted o f any Immoral of d ish o n e s t a c t in consequence of h is

sp e c u la tio n s* ought to be consigned to o b l iv io n * " ^ " Of th e p o e t ’s su ic id e *

Which Knox in te r p r e ts , as in d ic a t in g t h a t G h a tte rto n " th o u g h te s t i t b e t t e r to

d ie* th a n to su p p o rt l i f e by t h e f t o f v io le n c e *11 he w r i t e s » “ Wen h is - death*

u n fo r tu n a te and wicked as i t was * d isp la y ed a h au g h tin ess of soul* which urged

him to sp u rn a world* where even h is e x a lted genius could n o t v in d ic a te him

from contempt* ind igence* and contumely*” The “g e n e ra l and in v e te r a te

d i s l i k e to th e boy, e x c lu s iv e ly of th e p o e t ,” Knox a t t r i b u t e s to “t h a t in ­

so len c e and envy of th e l i t t l e g rea t* which cannot b ea r to acknowledge so

tra n sce n d e n t and commanding a s u p e r io r i ty in th e humble c h ild of want and

o b scu rity * " • Although George Pryee c a l l s th e essay “a b e a u t i f u l summary

81* Ticesim us Knox* ”% say 144 ,” Is sa v s lo r a l and L ite ra ry * O ited byRobert Andehson ( e d i t o r ) , The Works of th e B r i t i s h Poets *- XI* 321* ( O rig in a lso u rc e no t a v a ila b le * ’)

38* h o c , c i t *

33* hoe* c i t *

34= hoc* c i t*

47

of th e c h a ra c te r of G hattertong” ^^ i t might, he more f a i r l y judged as an

o v e r-se n tim e n ta l bu t r a th e r e loquent ap p ea l f o r fo rg iv en ess f o r th e p o e t,

P o s s ib ly so th a t th e m ourners. of G hattertom might do t h e i r weeping

more s t y l i s h l y <. a G h a tte rto n h an d k erch ie f was p r in te d about 1782e I t con­

ta in e d a re p re s e n ta t io n of th e poet w r i t in g in h is low ly g a r r e t rooms t o ­

g e th e r w ith p rose and v e rse t r i b u t e s , The p ro se t r i b u t e concedes th a t

G h a tte r to n ’s "p ass io n s were to o impetuous but jo in s w ith th e p o e tic a l

in condemning th e u n fe e lin g w orld f o r n e g le c tin g th e l iv in g G h a t te r to n ,^

Thomas Campbell s Thomas Campbell "s l i f e of G h a tte r to n cannot r e a l l y

be f a i r l y in c lu d ed among th o se b ieg rap h ied which re v e a l a s in c e re i f over­

balanced enthusiasm f o r th e p o e t9 as Campbell "s memoir seems to be la c k in g

bo th in a w e ll-d e f in e d p o in t of view and i n s c h o la r ly o b je c t iv i ty . I t

appears 9 in f a c t , to be c h ie f ly a c o l le c t io n of im press ions d e riv ed from th e

h a s ty read in g of p revious b io g ra p h ic a l s tu d ie s . The p o e t ’s d is c u s s io n of

th e Rowley d e cep tio n is ? however? t y p ic a l ly Romantic? though s u p e r f i c i a l .

L ik e many o th e r Romantics Campbell was im pressed by th e rem arkable im a g in a - .

t i o n of G h a tte r to n ; f o r he. w rite s 9 " th e n we conceive th e in s p ire d boy t r a n s ­

p o r tin g h im se lf in im ag in a tio n back to th e days of h is f i c t i t i o u s Rowley?

embodying h is id e a l c h a ra c te r? and g iv in g to a iry , n o th in g a. " local h a b i ta t io n

and a name? 0 we may fo rg iv e th e im p o ste r in th e e n th u s ia s ts and fo rg iv e th eon r

fa lseh o o d of h is r e v e r ie f o r i t s beau ty and in g e n u ity ," A fte r condemning

th o se who have ranked G h a tte r to n ’s im p o s itio n w ith p ecun iary fo rg ery ?

— — — — ------— ---------

35 , George Pryce? Memorials of th e Canvnges 8 Fam ily and T heir Times 9p , 309, v

36 , M eyerstein? op , c i t , 9 fa c e p , 476,

37, Thomas Campbells Specimens of th e B r i t i s h Poets 9 VI$ 156-157,

Gamp’b e l l g ra n ts th a t th e ” Bowleian fo rg e ry must indeed he pronounced

im proper by th e g e n e ra l law which condemns a l l f a l s i f i c a t i o n s o f h is to r y

bu t p o in ts out t h a t " i t dep riv ed no man of h is fames, i t had no s a c r i le g io u s

in te r f e r e n c e w ith th e memory of d ep arted genius $> i t had n o t , l i k e L au d e r’s

im p o stu re , any m alignant m otive , to rob a p a r ty o r a c o u n try , of a name«2 O

which was i t s p r id e and. ornam ent»” Thus w h ile Campbell t r i e s to exon-

e ra t e G hatt a r t on , he makes no a ttem p t to ex p la in what m otivated th e poet

in h is e la b o ra te d eco p tio n =

Though h is o b se rv a tio n s on th e d a rk e r s id e a re c e r ta in ly not o r ig i n a l ,

Campbell d id no t overlook G h a tte r to n 's f a u l t s . He m ain tains th a t th e poe t

"w as‘ exemplary f o r s e v e re s tu d y , tem perance, and n a tu ra l a f f e c t io n ;" y e t he

a lso f in d s th a t G h a tte rto n "s "unformed c h a ra c te r e x h ib ite d s tro n g and con­

f l i c t i n g elem ents o f good and e v i l ." ^ ^ G h a tte r to n 's a lle g e d s ta tem en t to

h is f r ie n d James T h is t le th w a ite th a t he in tended to become a M ethodist

p reach e r i f he could no t l i v e by w r i t in g , Campbell regards as re v e a lin g

"an o b liq u ity of d e s ig n , and. a contempt of human c r e d u l i ty th a t i s no t v e ry

a m i a b l e , j u s t , as th e p o e t 's a lle g e d l e t t e r in commendation of Lord

N o rth 's r e je c t io n of Lord Mayor B eck fo rd ’s re p u b lic an rem onstrance d is c lo se d

a " le v i ty " which was not t h a t "o f an ingenuous b o y ." ^ Also in d e fia n ce of

th e Romantic t r a d i t i o n Campbell says of W alpole, "The id e a of ta x in g h i m

him w ith c r im in a l i ty in n e g le c tin g him (C h a tte r to n ) was m a n ife s tly u n ju s to " ^ :

49

Campbell conforms to Bomantie -precedents n e v e r th e le s s? in h is em phasis‘‘©m

th e prom ise r a th e r th a n th e p e rfo rm an c e"^ when he w r ite s ? “But had he

been spared? h is p r id e and am bition would have com e.to flow in t h e i r

p roper c h a n n e ls ; h is un d ers tan d in g would have tau g h t him th e p r a c t ic a l\ '

v a lu e of t r u t h and th e d ig n i ty of v ir tu e ? and he would have desp ised

a r t i f i c e ? when he had f e l t th e s t r e n g th and s e c u r i ty of wisdomo11 ^

John Dixg John D ix ’s b iography of G hatterton? though i t may be s a id

to be th e most im p ress iv e produced d u rin g th e f i r s t h a l f of th e n in e te e n th

cen tury? has been c r i t i c i z e d as be ing in a c c u ra te ? and even d ish o n es t? in

i t s s c h o la rs h ip by le y e r s te in ? Donald Sm alley? C harles So R u sse ll? and

o t h e r s A p a r t from c o n s id e ra tio n s of s c h o la rsh ip ? th e b ia s of S i x ’s

l i f e i s such as to p reven t th e re a d e r from o b ta in in g a ba lanced p ic tu re

of th e poet? as f a c ts u n fav o rab le to G h a tte rto n a re e i th e r unemphasized

o r ignored* Some w arning of th is p re p o sse ss io n is g iven by th e P reface?

where Dix -voices th e f a m i l ia r com plaint th a t previous b io g ra p h ic a l s tu d ie s

"have h e ld up th e shadowed s id e of h is b r ie f l i f e to p u b lic ob serv a tio n * "^^

Dix r e a l ly makes no a ttem p t to re p re se n t G h a tte r to n ’s d ecep tio n as

an y th in g more in n o cen t th a n what i t w as; bu t l i k e G roft he seems co n ten t?

as S m alley p o in ts o u t ? ^ to adm ire th e boy f o r h is r a th e r d e v i l is h in g e -

• - 1 -

43o E ey ers te in ? on* c i t *? p» x i i i 0

44* Campbell? op* c i t * ? p* 161*

45* M eyerstein? o£» c i t* ? p* x ix . . Donald Sm alley? Browning % Is s a y on G h a tterton? p* 26* C harles Mward R u sse ll? Thomas G h a tte r to n ? pp* 232- 233* W alter ihornbu&y? “ John Dix? th e B iographer of G hatterton?" Motes • and Q ueries ? 4 th s e r ie s ? IX ( A p ril 13? 1872) ? 294=296*

46* John Dix? T he-L ife of Thomas G h a tte r to n 9 in c lu d in g His Unpublished Poem and C orrespondence? p* v i i* -

47* Sm alley? op* c i t* ? p* 27*

n u ity and la r g e ly to d is re g a rd th e m oral im p lic a tio n s = The ex p lan a tio n which

Dix o f f e r s f o r th e d ecep tio n i s th e one now g e n e ra lly aecep ted by (S hatter-

to n ia n s c h o la rs s to w i t , t h a t G h a tte rto n p re fe r re d th e more c e r ta in and more

ra p id fame of a t r a n s c r ib e r of supposed a n t iq u i t i e s to th e d o u b tfu l fame o f

a modern poet w r i t in g in an a n tiq u e sty leo^® D ix even re -echoes C o ttle -s

judgment of th e s ig n if ic a n c e of th e D.e Bergham p ed ig ree® ^ But when he

m e ticu lo u s ly d e sc rib e s C h a tte r to n 's sy stem of d ecep tio n and t e l l s how B arrett

p r in te d th e p o e t ’s p s e u d o -h is to r ic a l w ritin g s "as from th e pen of ’Thomas

Rowley» th e gode p r i e s t s ’ from behind whose cowl th e p re ten d ed young t r a n ­

s c r ib e r sm iled a t th e dupe of h is in g e n u ity 9” D ix ’s to n e i s h a rd ly t h a t o f .

censure®

In reg a rd to th e " lo o sen ess of d ie t io n ” found in much of C h a t te r to n ’s

s a t i r i c a l and p o l i t i c a l w r i t i n g s Dix cau tio n s th e re a d e r to "remember t h a t

such language was p a r t i a l l y , t o l e r a t e d in th e tim es in which th e y were

w r i t t e n a n d a sc r ib e s th e seem ing "venom" to "a consciousness of d e sp ised

a b i l i t y a c tin g upon an excess of anim al s p i r i t " p h r a s e which looks l i k e

an exculpation® C e r ta in ly D ix ’s tre a tm e n t of th e W alpole ep isode i s in th e

Romantic trad itio n ® The b io g rap h e r begins by a s su r in g h is re a d e r th a t

G h a tte r t on e i th e r "desp ised " th e b e n e f i ts of pa tronage o r "o n ly used them

as s tep s in th e la d d e r of h is am bitions" th e n goes on to condemn W alpole

48® DjXs op® c i t ®g pp® 52-53.

49® I b id ® 0 p® 24. Gf® p® 28$ a n te®

50o Dix? op® 0 i t ® 9 pp® 61=62®

51® I b id ®s p® 251®

52® I b id ® 9 p® 296® '

53® Ibid® a p. fl®

a t le n g th and w ithou t res ervatiozio T yp ical of h is charges a g a in s t th e

l i t e r a r y le a d e r i s 9 # M*e W alpole, who had h im e l f a ttem p ted to dece iv e th e

w o rld , eonld not h ea r t h a t one so humble as G h a tte r to n should d ece ive Mae*®*

C h a t te r to a ’s d ecep tio n in th e m a tte r is th u s g ra n te d , b u t no a c tu a l blame

i s p laced upon him*

P acing d e a th , th e poet goes down n o b ly , "h is n a tiv e unconquerable

p rid e" p reven ting , him "from in c u rr in g o b lig a tio n s" d e s p i te h is "extrem e«5 ■ . . -

ind igenceo" Whenever G h a tte r to n 1,s rom antic defenders f in d them selves a t

a lo ss f o r r a t io n a l means of ex o n e ra tio n , th e y c i t e e i th e r th e poet es y o u th ,

l ik e Knox, o r h is p rom ise, l ik e Gampbell, ind so i t i s w ith D ixi "W hatever

may have been th e f a u l t s of G h a tte r to n , l e t i t be remembered th a t he was b u t

a boy*"5 6 .

Robert Browning % Robert Browning's anonymous c o n tr ib u t io n to G h a tte r -

to n ia n b iography was a p p a re n tly no t g e n e ra lly recognized as be ing M s u n t i l

194®, when Ronald Smalley, p r in te d th e essay to g e th e r w ith c r i t i c a l n a t t e r

r e l a t in g i t to o th e r of Browning.% works The b io g ra p h ic a l s tu d y was

o r ig in a l ly p u b lished in 1S42 in The f o r e ig n Q u a rte rly . Review -as- a review

o f G onisetures and Researches concerning: th e love fedness and Imprisonm ent

o f Torquato Tasso by R ichard Henry Wilde® i s e x te rn a l ev idence of BrowningS

a u th o rsh ip of th e essay S m alley quotes, an e n try in th e d ia ry of E d ith Cooper

concern ing a v i s i t to Browning’s s i s t e r S a r ia n n a , d u rin g which th e y " read

’th e Old ’s ’(B row ning’s ) a r t i c l e on Tasso and G h a tte r to n in th e fo re ig n

54® Ibid.®, p® 8 8 ®

55® I b i d ®5 p® B89o

58® Ib id® , p® B97d Of® p® 46 , ante®

57® The b ib lio g rap h y G h a tte r to n ia n a (1114) does not in c lu d e th e rev iew , nor does M eyerstein m ention i t i n h is biography®

Q u a rte r ly Review f o r J u ly 1 8 4 2 i s in te r n a l evidence S m alley compares

th e def ens e of C h a tte r to n in th e rev iew w ith t h a t of S h e lle y in Browning ‘s

acknowledged essay on th a t poet and th e moral in te r p r e ta t io n .of h i s to r y w ith

th a t found in The Bing and the . Books He a lso t ra c e s s t r i k i n g s im i l a r i t i e s

between th e moral development ©f C h a tte r to n as he appears i n th e essay and

th e moral development of th e heroes of The R eturn of th e Druses and Wk «

S lu d e e s . 11 The iedlumg11 ' v

As seefis to have been th e u su a l ease w ith n in e te e n th ” cen tu ry "rev iew s 9"

Browning spends very l i t t l e tim e w ith h is p ro fessed s u b je c t , W ilde 's book,

and hasten s on to a d is c u s s io n of C h a tte r to n ” -w ith th e ex p lan a tio n th a t th e

E ng lish p o e t 's careerTwas com parable to t h a t of T asso , and th a t th e memoir

by Co Bo W illeox , which th e rev iew er had re c e n t ly re a d , was "on a s u b je c t

no t v ery d i f f e r e n t from Ifo W ilde’s , bu t on which th e s e r v ic e he has so u g h t1

t o re n d e r to th e memory of Tasso has no t h i th e r to been a ttem p ted f o r a memory

more f o u l ly o u tra g e d * " ^ A pparently ig n o rin g o r o v erlook ing C ro f t 's and

D ix 's memoirs, Browning thus echoes th e f a m i l ia r com plain t of th e Romantic

b iographero The moral i n t e r p r e ta t io n which he g ives to C h a t te r to n 's l i f e

goes even beyond th e Romantic t r a d i t i o n , however„ W rites Browning,

In a w ord, poor C h a tte r to n 9s l i f e was not th e L ie i t i s so u n iv e r s a l ly supposed to have been ; n o r d id he " p e r is h in th e p rid e" of re fu s in g to su rre n d e r Falsehood and e n te r on th e waysof Trutho We can show, we th ink ;, and by some such process as

W ilde adopts in reg ard to T asso , t h a t he had a lre a d y en tered on th o se ways when he was l e f t , w ith o u t a h e lp in g hand , to s in k and s ta r v e as he m igh t. And to th i s s in g le p o in t we s h a l l as f a r as p o s s ib le r e s t r i c t ourselves,® ®

. 58. S m a lle y , op , e x t , , p , 7 ,

.59. Ib id c , pp , 108-109.

.60. I b i d . , pp. 109-110.

The r e s u l t o f t h i s aim is th e re p re s e n ta t io n of a k ind of C h a tte r to n

who has a p p a re n tly appealed to no o th e r b io g ra p h e r , p robab ly because f o r

th e sak e o f moral purpose Browning s a c r i f i c e d th e p o r tr a y a l of th o se

q u a l i t i e s which s e rv e to make a t r u e p o e t<, C ro ft and D ix , however b ia se d

th e y might b e , p ra is e d C h a tte r to n f o r what he w as, ju s t as Chalmers blamed

th e poet f o r what he w as| bu t Browning, u n w illin g to blam e, f i r s t emascu­

la te d and th e n p ra is e d . L ike a c h ild m auling a k i t t e n , Browning k i l l e d

C h a tte r to n w ith a f f e c t io n . The m arty r of th e Romantic p o e ts—th e boy-poet

who deceived a l l of B r i s to l , went to London to f in d fam e, and , f a i l i n g i n

th e q u e s t , d ep arted proudly from th e s ta g e of l i f e —was exchanged f o r an

u n re so u ree fu l youth who f l e d , l i k e F ran k e n s te in from h is m onster, to London

to escape Rowley and d ied when he found th a t he could n o t su p p o rt M bs e l f

w ithou t " th e g o d lie p re e s te ."

B ro w Browning goes to g re a t pains to im press th e re a d e r w ith th e f a c t t h a t

in i t s in c e p tio n th e Rowley im postu re was no t on ly in n o cen t b u t commendable.

The V ic to r ia n ’s argument i s th a t as "gen ius alm ost in v a r ia b ly begins to

develop i t s e l f by im i ta t io n ," and as C h a tte r to n es genius rev ea led a p e c u lia r

ben t tow ards th e a n tiq u e , hence th e n a tu r a l form of ex p re ss io n f o r C hatterton 's

im ita t io n was in th e f a b r ic a t io n of a s to r y about th e d isco v e ry of some o ld

parchm ents in a muniment r o o m . T h e s e n s a t io n a l c h a ra c te r of th i s s o r t of

im ita t io n invo lved th e budding genius in a web of accep ted fa n ta sy com parable,

acco rd ing to Browning, to th e S t . Anna dungeon of T asso , and so complex th a t

th e poet sp en t th e r e s t of h is l i f e t r y in g to escape from i t S a y s Browning,

54

He is to th e p re se n t day viewed as a k ind o f Psalm anazar o r lacphers on $ p roducing d e l ib e r a te ly h is f a b r ic a t io n s to th e w orld and c h a llen g in g i t s a t t e n t io n to them. A view f a r from th e t r u t h . Poor C hattertom never had th a t chance<, B efore th e w orld could be appealed to ? a few untoward eireunB tanoes seem to have e f f e c tu a l ly determ ined and g iv en s t a b i l i t y to what e ls e had no t im p o ssib ly proved a mere b o y ’s fa n c y 9 d e s tin e d to go as l i g h t l y as i t came and le av e no t r a c e 9 sav e in a f r e s h e x e r tio n of th e o ld means to a new and more commensurate end.

Browning p laces s p e c i f ic blame upon th e f a c t t h a t th e d e s c r ip t io n of

th e opening of th e Old B ridge was valued on ly f o r i t s a n t iq u i ty ; but as th e

d e s c r ip t io n was p re sen ted as an item of h is to r y w r i t t e n i n prose? i t seens

u n lik e ly t h a t C h a tta r to n could have reaso n ab ly expected i t s read ers to v a lu e

i t o th e r w is e .^ That C h a tte r to n may have o b ta in ed some g r a t i f i c a t i o n from

h is im p o sitio n ? Browning concedes; f o r he w rite s ? *Im company w ith th e

T h is tle w a ite s ( s i c . ) and Burgums? he must o f te n have f e l t a c e r ta in power

h e had? ly in g dormant th e re ? of tu rn in g t h e i r n a tu re s t o h is own a c c o u n t ."8 5

At any r a t e Browning seem to be convinced th a t C h a tte r to n could not escape

th e consequences of h is d ecep tio n by s im ply a d m ittin g h is au th o rsh ip s

"C onfessions a t th e m ark e t-c ro ss a v a i l no th ing? and most in ju r e th o se to

whom th ey a re unavoidably made."®® The only way to g e t r i d of Rowley was

to le a v e B r i s to l . "For th i s and no o th e r motive?" s t a t e s Browning?"—to

break th rough h is s la v e r y - - a t any s a c r i f i c e to g e t back to t r u t h —he came

up to London®” ^

C h a t te r to n 's l e t t e r s to W alpole and James Bodsley and th e o th e r London

b o o k se lle rs Browning in te r p r e t s as a ttem p ts to end "a cou rse of d is s im u la tio n

he would f a in d is c a rd fo re v e r— on t h e i r success In th e correspondence

6 6 . I b ld o » p= 1 2 0 .

67 . I b i d . ? o. 128.

68o Ib id a ? p« 121.

6 3 o Loco Ox l o

64o I b i d . 9 p . 116o

65. I b i d .a p . 129.

55

w ith W alpole th e V ic to r ia n f in d s "no new fa lseh o o d " bu t on ly “an u n a v a ilin g

and most a f f e c t in g e f f o r t to g e t somehow f r e e from th e o l d t h o u g h $ Browning

complains $ “ i t never seems to have been adm itted

The V ic to r ia n poet makes no a ttem p t to id e a l iz e C h a t te r to n ’s a c t i v i t i e s

i n London but r a th e r d e sc rib e s them as "drudgery" to which th e sweeping o f

s t r e e t c ro ss in g s might have been p r e f e r a b l e . ^ But in d e fen se of th e se

a c t i v i t i e s he w rite s?

There m igh t,be p le n ty of fa lseh o o d in th i s new course? as he would soon have fo u n d ; bu t i t seemed as t r u t h i t s e l f ? compared

.w ith th e o ld expedien ts he had escaped from . The p o in t is ? Mo more Rowlevo^l

The "new course" brought? however? only d e s p a ir and d e a th . Ehking dram atic© .

use o f th e to rn and? of course? u n id e n tif ie d papers found in th e p o e t’s room

a f t e r h is death? Browning expresses th e b e l ie f t h a t th e poet f i n a l l y decided

to w r i te some more Bowleian m a te r ia l ; bu t "no so oner is th e i n t e l l e c t u a l

e f f o r t made th an th e moral one succeeds? and d e s tro y in g th e s e poems he d e te r ­

mined to k i l l M.bb e l f o” 72 As th e Rowley poems re p re se n t C h a t te r to n ’s h ig h e s t

a r t i s t i c achievem ent? i t may be d i f f i c u l t f o r th e lo v e r of l i t e r a t u r e to

sh a re Browning's commendation of th e b o y 's supposed m oral trium ph .

Browning a r r iv e s a t h is r a th e r s t a r t l i n g i n te r p r e ta t io n of C h a tte r to n 's

c a re e r by a process which he o b lig in g ly o u tl in e s f o r th e read er? but which?

as Sm alley p o in ts out? he does not c o n s is te n t ly fo llow s “ I t i s needless,

f o r us h e re to in te rp o s e t h a t our whole argument goes ? no t upon what Chatterton

.69. I b i d . ? p . 122=

70. I b i d . , PP. 130-131.

71= I b i d . , p . 132. . .

72= I b i d , ? p. 129=

56

s a id , bu t what he d id s i t is p a r t of our proof to show t h a t a l l h is d i s t r e s s

a ro se out of th e im p o s s ib i l i ty of h is say in g any th in g to th e r e a l purposeew

On th i s b a s is Browning expresses doubt even as to G h a tte r to n 8s i n f i d e l i t y ,

f o r th e poet may have been disavow ing C h r is t ia n i ty to p rov ide c o n tra s t

w ith th e r e l ig io u s s p i r i t of h is Rowleian m a te r ia ls This th e o ry is o ffe re d

only in a fo o tn o te , how ever, p robab ly because such h y p o crisy would su g g es t

an unscrupulous d ecep tio n h a rd ly in keep ing w ith Browning’s ex p lan a tio n o f

th e Rowleian im postu re = G h a tte r to n fs "b rav e l e t t e r s " to h is fam ily Browning

c i te s as evidence th a t th e poet w as, "as such a genius could n o t but b e ,

th e n o b le s t-h e a r te d of m o r t a l s ^ bu t th e evidence co n ta in ed in* them which

i s in o p p o s itio n to h is th e o ry of G h a tte r to n 's purposes i n London he ig n o res 0

In b r i e f , as a f i c t i o n a l tre a tm e n t com parable to de Vigny *s p lay

Browning’s s tu d y of G h a tte rto n is in t e r e s t i n g , but as a s e r io u s essay i t

i s n e i th e r s c h o la r ly no r co n v in c in g 0 I t i s , p e rh ap s, fo r tu n a te th a t Browning

p u b lished th e rev iew anonymously; f o r i f h is name had accompanied i t , i t s

in f lu e n c e might have been g r e a te r on succeed in g b io g ra p h ic a l s tu d ie s «

Minor B iographers i Browning ’s essay is a t l e a s t d is t in g u is h e d by a

w e ll-d e fin e d p o in t of view ; John Richmond’s memoir of G h a tte r to n , on th e

o th e r hand , f a i l s r e a l l y to defend th e p o e t, but r a th e r s im ply mentions on ly

th e more fa v o ra b le a sp ec ts of h is c h a ra c te r and makes no a ttem p t to ex p la in

th e Rowley deceptiono The r e s u l t is more co n v en tio n a l and le s s impressive®

Richmond q u ic k ly id e n t i f i e s h im se lf w ith th e rom antic b io g ra p h e rs , how ever,

by s t a t i n g s ig n i f i c a n t l y , "Around h is p e r s o n a l i ty th e r e c lin g s a ha lo of

73• Ib id 0 9 p . 128,

74* I b id *9 o* 131*

romance which somewhat obscures our view by i t s d i s t r a c t i n g glow®” ^^ in

case th e re a d e r remains in any doubt as to th e b io g rap h e r "s sym pathies 9 he

f in d s 9 "H is i s a name which i n s t i n c t iv e ly draws from us fe e l in g s of ten d e r­

as t sympathy and p i ty — fe e lin g s such as no poet 9 saves perhaps 9 K eats has

ever insp iredo"^®

Richmond is a lso ty p ic a l ly rom antic in h is condem nation of W alpole’s

" c u r t r e fu s a l of a id s " ^ in h is ex p lan a tio n of C h a t te r to n 's r e l ig io u s skep­

t ic i s m as being th e r e s u l t of th e la ck of p ro p er t r a in in g and guidance

and in h is id e a l iz a t io n of th e poet ’$ London c a r e e r <> d u rin g w hich 9 aeeo rd ih g

to Richmond $ "he s tru g g le d a g a in s t a d v e r s i ty and made th e b e s t of h is m is-

fo rtS n es even to th e e x ten t of pu rchasing p re sen ts f o r h is fam ily in

" a tou ch in g in s ta n c e o f h is k in d ly a f f e c t io n and t o t a l in d if fe r e n c e to selfo"® ®

And th e b io g rap h e r in h is w ish fu l th in k in g —"had h is (C h a t te r to n ’s ) a s s o c ia te s81 - <

been men of le a rn in g and dep th"— is c e r ta in ly n o t new®

In f a i rn e s s i t must be s a id t h a t some of Richmond’s judgments on

C h a t te r to n ’s c h a ra c te r appear rem arkably sound® Both th o s e who have c a l le d

th e poet a fo u l-m lis te B l i b e r t i n e and those.w ho have p ic tu re d him as a m ystic

might heed Richmond ’s w arnings "To t r y and a sc e rta in - th e c h a ra c te r of

C h a tte r to n from h is works w ere as v a in as to s tu d y S hakespeare w ith a l i k e

o b j e c t I h o u g h w ith " a lo v in g d isp o sitio n ^ * ’ th e poet? as Richmond de-

75® Thomas C h a tte r to n 9 The P o e tic a l Works of Thomas Ghatterton® With a P re fa to ry N otices B io g rap h ica l a n d ;G r i t ie a ls by John Richmond ( She Ganterbury. Poets? ■.William Sharp? e d ito r )? p® 7®

s c r ib e s h im 9 ’’was of a proud and independent s p ir i t® " y e t he rev ea led

”g re a t powers of s e lf-re s tra in to "® ® And h is n e g le c t of th e problems 6 on=

n e s te d w ith th e Rowley d e cep tio n Richmond p a r t ly redeems by one p e rsp i­

cacious o b se rv a tio n s "His l i f e ’s d e s i r e was l i t e r a r y fame® and i t was

on ly eq u alled by h is lo v e of effect® which le d him to weigh h is a c tio n s

by t h e i r probab lp r e s u l t upon o th e r s - - a p ractice® no doubt® re sp o n s ib le

f o r th e c o n f l ic t in g n a tu re of th e te stim o n y re g a rd in g him 0w

Henry A0 Beers in h is H is to ry o f Ik g l i s h Romanticism in th e Si'ffateenth

C entury9 perhaps out of lo y a l ty to h is subject® adopts th e rom antic a t t i t u d e

tow ards C hattertono Conceding t h a t th e y o u th ’s l e t t e r s and modern w ritin g s

g iv e "an u n p leasan t im p ressio n of h is character® " he n e v e r th e le s s ® l i k e

Knox9 rem o n stra tes t h a t " i t would be h a rsh to urge -any such impress ion

a g a in s t one who was no more th a n a boy when he perished® and whose b r ie f’ 84:c a re e r had s tru g g le d th rough cold o b s tru c t io n to i t s b i t t e r end®” Beers

o ffe rs th e f a m il ia r ex p lan a tio n of th e Rowley d ecep tio n t h a t " im ita tio n s of

o ld E n g lish poetry® however clever® would- have had sm a ll success®" and th e n

goes beyond th i s r e a l i s t i c ex p lan a tio n to s t a t e f la tly ®

The q u e s tio n i s one of l i t e r a r y methods r a th e r th a n of e th ic so o o o The a r t i s t ’s purpose i s to c r e a te a c e r t a in impression® and th e ch o ice of means b u s t be l e f t to himself®

Beers was c e r ta in ly no t th e f i r s t th u s to suspend th e laws of e th ic s in th e

f i e l d of l i t e r a t u r e | bu t w h ile th o se who w ish to s tu d y th e Rowley poems from

83o Ib ido $ p . 28=

84-o Henry JL Beers® A H is to ry of E n g lish Romanticism in th e E ig h teen th Century® p= 353=

59

a p u re ly l i t e r a r y v iew poin t might applaud h is a c tio n ? th e Rowley problem

seeHB d e s tin e d to rem ain p r im a rily a moral one*

Among th e G reat H is te rs of L i te r a tu re ? a book p u b lish ed a t th e v e ry

dawn of th e tw e n tie th cen tu ry? proved even more c o n c lu s iv e ly th a n B ee rs ’s

t h a t th e Romantic concep tion of G h a tte r to n was not y e t dead* P ic tu r in g th e

poet * ly in g 'd e a d s" W alter Rowlands exp la in s s '" th e proud and co n fid en t s p i r i t

which had en te red th e g re a t c i t y but fo u r s h o r t months b e fo re had f a i le d ?86and could n o t lo n g e r endure th e ru in of i t s ho p es;" b u t ? " I f th e proud?

m isguided boy? s tu b b o rn ly re fu s in g any h e lp th a t h in te d a t c h a r i ty , could

have rece iv ed but a t i t h e of th e sum sp en t f o r p r i n t e r ’s in k in th i s ’b a t t l e

o f th e books6 ( th e Rowley co n tro v e rsy )? England might have added an o th e r

g re a t name to h e r g r e a te s t o nes*"^

This b r ie f t r i b u t e by Rowlands W illiam How itt i n h is Homes and Haunts

of th e B r i t i s h Poets expanded upon th re e years la te r* In h is de fen se of

th e Rowley d e cep tio n H ow itt was as f i e r y as any previous w r i te r s

What? then? was t h e i r (G h a t te r to n ’s and M acpherson’s )s tra n g e crim e? That they would rob th e te e lv e s o f t h e i r owni n t e l l e c t u a l r ic h e s ? and d e p o s it them on th e a l t a r of t h e i rc o u n try 's g lo r y ? 8 8

"Ho?" i s h is answer* 11 The r e a l crime* * * which G h a tte rto n committed was?

no t t h a t he had a ttem pted to palm o f f upon th e world h is own productions as89Rowley’s? bu t t h a t he had succeeded in ta k in g th e knowing ones in ."

How itt? n e v e r th e le s s? adm its th e d isco v e ry o f "o c c a s io n a l symptoms of a

86* W alter Rowlands ? Among th e G reat f e s te r s of L i te r a tu r e ? p* 145*

87* I b id * ? p* 147=

8 8 * W illiam H ow itt? Homes and Haunts of th e B r i t i s h P o e ts ? p* 172*

89= I b i d . ? p* 173. Of* p* 87? p o s t*

60

s u f f i c i e n t want of t r u t h and h ig h p r in c ip le i n h is l i t e r a r y hoaxes 9 espee

d a i l y i n f o i s t in g f i c t i t i o u s m a tte r in to grave h i s to r y 0 e „ because he had

no adequate f r ie n d and counsello rs"^®

W alpoles acco rd in g to Howitt@ " tu rn e d h is back on a g re a t p o e t» when

he s to o d b e fo re him b la z in g l i k e a s t a r of th e f i r s t m agnitudes and s u f fe re d

him to p e r i s h |M but G h a tte r to n "dared to make one grand e f f o r t $, one g re a t

and f i n a l ap p ea l a g a in s t th e f i a t $ in th e fa c e of th e whole w o rld » and i n

th e h e a r t of th e B r i t i s h m etropo lis Says H ow itt of th i s "appeal

" Ih e y o u th 9 who, w ith o u t f r ie n d s o r pa trons in th e g re a t m etropo lis? could

s e t out w ith a sm all fund borrowed a t th e r a t e of a g u in ea ap iece fro m 'h is .

acq u a in tan ces? to make h is fo r tu n e and fam e§ and th e re ? in th e m idst of th e

u t t e r wreck of a l l h is august v is io n s and s o a r in g h o p es; in th e dep th of

n e g lec t? contem pt? and th e most g rin d in g ind igence? could is s u e s a t i r e a f t e r

s a t i r e ? and launch J u n iu s - l ik e l e t t e r s from th e news papers a t th e h ig h e s t

personages of th e land? no t sp a r in g even th e crowned head? can? however we

might e s tim a te such p roductions in an experienced a d u lt ? only be regarded

w ith th e most profound and unmixed w oader0M®*

This i d e a l i s t i c p o r tr a y a l of G h a tte r to n ’s c a re e r in London H ow itt

clim axes w ith a c o n tra s t between W alpole l iv in g " in g re a t b o d ily com fort"

and G hatterton? " th e n o b le s t genius l i v i n g 0 » » s ta lk in g on s te r n ly th ro u g h

th e s t r e e t s of p i t i l e s s London? to fam ine and d e s p a i r ."^3 "Such?" w rite s

H o w itt? "was th e h i s to r y of th e l i f e of one of England *s g re a te s t poets ?

who p e rish ed by h is own hand ? s tu n g to th e so u l by th e u t t e r n e g lec t of

SO. I b id o ? p . 176. \ 9iB&. I b i d . @ p . 109.

91. I b i d . , p . 175. 93. - I b i d , , p . 177.

61' . . ■

h is c o u n try 9 and to o proud to re c e iv e t h a t b read from com passion -@hieh th e

read in g p u b lic of g re a t B r i ta in re fu sed to his, p o e tic lab o u rs

C harles So Russ e l l g Hie f u l l - l e n g th s e r io u s b iography in E n g lish

which p robab ly most t r u l y expressed th e Romantic t r a d i t i o n was pub lished

not d u r in g 'th e f i r s t q u a r te r o f th e n in e te e n th cen tu ry bu t r a th e r d u rin g

th e f i r s t decade o f , th e tw en tie th * This b iography was C harles Edward

R u s s e l l 's Thomas C h a tte r to n i The Marvelous Bov— a w e ll-w r i t te n and q u ite

convincing bu t th o ro u g h ly s u b je c t iv e s tu d y of th e poet* L ike Browning in

h is e s s a y 9 Russ e l l s earns to have c re a te d a c h a ra c te r to p leas e M bs e l f $

but R u sse ll claim ed more freedom Bn h is p o r tr a y a l of th e poet th a n d id

Browning* S ta t in g t h a t h is purpose i s " to c le a r .f ro m calumny and unde­

served rep roach th e memory of one of th e g r e a te s t minds and sw ee te s t so u ls

th a t ever dw elt upon th i s e a r t h ^ ^ th e tw e n tie th -c e n tu ry b io g rap h er o f fe rs

th e r a th e r amazing th e o ry th a t " a l l of th e s e s la n d e rs had no o th e r o r ig in

th a n th e p e t ty m alice o f a s p i t e f u l and v in d ic t iv e o ld man" w ith th e added

e x p la n a tio n 9 "F or I deem i t im p o ssib le to come from any im p a r t ia l and f i r s t ­

hand in v e s t ig a t io n o f th e s e m atte rs w ith o u t th e c o n v ic tio n th a t Thomas

G h a tte r to n would never have been c a l le d a L i te r a ry F o rg e r3 would never have

been a moral w arning to th e young nor an o u tc a s t among th e men o f . l e t t e r s $

i f he had not o ff ended H orace S a lp o l e <> E a rl of O rford*"^^ Thus w ith every­

th in g un fav o rab le to th e poet in e f f e c t ru le d o u t , R u sse ll proceeds to p re se n t

h is b iography of " th e w onderfu l boyg whose days were so u n u tte ra b ly sad and

lo n e ly and whose h e a r t was so i n f a l l i b l y k ind”— an id e a l youth who "was n o t

9 4 / I b id . , p /1 6 7 ,

95 , Russ e l l s op, e i t . s p , x i i i . y -

96. I b i d . , p p . X iM -xiV o.

a l i b e r t i n e 5, was n o t d is s o lu ts p was not v e n a lg and was n o t a L i te r a ry

Forger#" and who "p a id th e p e n a lty f o r a t ta c k in g p r iv i le g e .and championing

th e cause of mankind0"®^ .

Russ e l l es d e s c r ip t io n of th e poet when a young c h ild as " a t once

exceed ing ly s e n s i t iv e and exceed ing ly p r o u d a f f e c t i o n a t e and moody"

seeEB th e most convincing, of any in th e book. L ike most of th e modern

b io g rap h ers of G h a tte r to n 5 R u sse ll reco g n ises th e ap p aren t d u a l c h a ra c te r

of th e p@et~~" on one s i d e 0 .» 0 dream y9 a f f e c t io n a te s a feo rb ed in ro m n t ie

sp e c u la tio n ? a c i t i z e n of a i r y c loud-land# on th e o th e r s id e a reaso n in g

o b serv er of h is f e llow men?., d i s i l lu s io n e d and s k e p t i c a l ," He goes beyond

m ost? how ever? in p ro v id in g a re a so n a b le ex p lan a tio n in th e r ig id eommer=

c i a l t r a in in g , which th e boy. re ce iv ed a t Go Is to n gs sch o o l

R u sse ll a ls o o f f e r s th e p u r i t a n ic a l r e l ig io u s d o c tr in e s preached a t

C o ls to n 's as th e reason f o r O h a tte rto n "s sk ep tic ism s th e poetg he su g g es ts?

" re v o lte d a t th e id e a of b e in g tak en by th e th r o a t and crammed w ith dogma?

and n a tu r a l ly he sp ran g away, to th e o th e r extreme*?*®® Ihougk he thus

adm its G h a tte r to n ls i n f i d e l i t y ? Russ e l l ? basing , h is s ta te m e n t on ly on some

evidence th a t G h a tte r to n gams^money to beggars ? w r ite s ? " A k in d e r h e a r t

never b e a t ; a t any. s ig h t of d i s t r e s s he ra n w ith te a r s and c r ie s - of te n d e r ­

ness to helpo16" ^

R u s s e l l 's ex p lan a tio n of th e Rowley d e cep tio n i s c h ie f ly an a ttem p t to

ex o nera te G h a tte r to n v i i r tu a l ly as. f a r as th e fa c ts w i l l p o s s ib ly admit* % e

d ecep tio n began?, according, to R u sse ll? in th e y o u th 's d e s i r e f o r h is medieval

peera to have ”a s e t t in g , of t h e i r ewa t i m e s . - o " T h e blame f o r th e con­

sequences of th i s d e s i r e th e b io g rap h e r p laces c h ie f ly upon o th e r s = He

c i te s two in s ta n c e s w herein a r c h i t e c tu r a l and a rc h a e o lo g ic a l in fo rm atio n

o r ig in a l ly .su p p lied hy f h a t t e r to a 's a a a u a e r ip ts was l a t e r v e r if ie d - , and

expresses th e op in io n t h a t most of th e documents which G h a tte rto n g are to

B arn e tt, were g en u in e9, and t h a t the. su rgeon was a w i l l in g accom plice. in th e

in c lu s io n of th e sp u rio u s documents in ..h is h is to ry ^ I f th e poet r e a l ly

duped B a r r e t t , R u sse ll b e l i e v e t h a t he d id so to o b ta in f u r th e r access to

th e surgeon *s l i b r a r y and to p ro v id e a means of a id in g ,h is mother and M s

s i s t e r 0 That G hatt e r to n knowingly deceived George G a te e tt 9 Russ e l l r e a d i ly

c o n c e d e , bu t ex p la in s t h a t th e p ew terer ’’was of t h a t open-mouthed and

c h i ld is h f a i t h t h a t w ith h is p re te n s io n s and a rro g an ce afboy of G h a tte r to n "s

s u p e r io r mind and c y n ic a l w it could h a rd ly w ithstand .; th e t eap t a t io n to fo o l

him flM.l;®3 Henry Burgum. Rms e l l c a l l s "am ig n o ra n t v a ia m ®^ man and t r i e s t o

d iv e r t a t t e n t io n from G h a tte rto n 9s c u lp a b i l i ty in th e m a tte r of. th e Be

Bergham p e d ig ree by. accu sin g Burgum Of defraud ing , h is p a r tn e r 0

R u sse ll (n o t a lo n e among th e poet cs b io g rap h ers in t h i s a ttem p t) s t r i v e

i n t h i s manner to excuse G h a tte r to n ’s f a u l t s on th e b a s is of th e weaknesses

of h is v i c t i m , blames th e la ck of sy m p ath e tic t r a in in g , a t C olston ’s 9 and

p o in ts ou t t h a t " th e men he fo o le d th o u g h t th e y were fo o l in g h im ," ^ ^ But

R u sse ll seems to sen se th e d e f ic ie n c ie s in h is a ttem pted ex cu lp a tio n 1 f o r

h e sayp. s. r a th e r lam e ly 9

64

As a m a tte r o f fac ts, G k a t te r to a ’s r e la t io n s w ith th e su rgeon and th e pew terer (G a te o tt) a re ju s t as im p o rtan t m th e number of tim es some o th e r boy p la y e d . t r u a n t <, His a r t means much more th a n h is weakness-^

W en th e more sy m pathetic efi G h a tte r to n ’s b iog raphers have regarded

th e p o e t ‘s s a t i r i c a l and p o l i t i c a l w ritin g s e i th e r as m isguided a ttem p ts to

conform to th e l i t e r a r y ,p r e e e d e n t i of th e tim e o r e ls e as tem porary expe­

d ie n ts to o b ta in money o r fame 9 Base e l l » p o s s ib ly ta k in g h is cue from Howittg

t r e a t s of th e w rit in g s • as th e c le a r e s t in d ic a tio n s of th e y o u th ’s brave and

urns e l f i s h c h a r a c te r „ G hatt ert© na he w rite s $> " th rew h is s e l f $ a mere boy bu t

w ith th e most pow erful pen and o r ig in a l genius in England .9 in to th e f i g h t f o r

libertyo**^®^ G h a tte z to n ’s d e p a r tu re f o r hondon B u sse ll p o rtray s in , a lm ost

as h e ro ic t e r r a as th o se used by Browning, when th e iw en tie th = cen tu ry biogragAer

d e sc rib e s th e ”b ra v e 8 coo l s p i r i t , f u l l of th e courage t h a t comes of w eighing

causes and reaso n in g of foundation, matters.»” who "looked w ith unconcern upon

th e d e sp e ra te chances of t h a t v e n t u r e . " ’Though B u sse ll com plains. ( r a th e r

s i g n i f i c a h t l y , th e re a d e r m y th in ^ ) t h a t “th e re c o g n itio n due him (C h a tte r to n )

has always been denied,'^® ® he p ic tu re s th e poet "s London c a re e r as a trium ph

over th e tem p ta tio n s of w ealth and p re f erment o ffe re d by su p p o rt of th e

monarchy to endure th e " s t a r v a t io n p i t ta n c e and th e danger of p rosecu tion"

a s so c ia te d w ith " a t ta c k in g p r iv i le g e and championing th e cause of m an k in io "^ ^

" F o r9" R u sse ll s t a t e s d ra m a tic a l ly , " in more ways th a n one th i s boy has been -

a m arty r of democracy, and no one may doubt t h a t i f he had fough t fo r absolutism

106» Ibid . 9 Bo 85=,

107o Ibids 9 p. 94o

108o Ib id co p.. 183 c

109o Ibxdo 9 p . 162o

HOo LeCo c a t o

1 1 1 o I b i d o 9 g o x i V o

65

as f i e r c e l y as he a tta c k e d i t 9 th e re would now be no. need to defend h is

re p u ta t io n „ **112

L ike Brownings R u sse ll appeal^ to have done h is re se a rc h in an a lm ost

p u re ly d ed u c tiv e manner. A ll f a c ts fa v o ra b le to th e poet a re eag e rly le a p t

upon and expanded fiar beyond th e u su a l s ig n i f ic a n c e g iven to them . In

giving, p re sen ts to h is fam ily th e poet® according , to M s b io g ra p h e rs “w ith

a g re a t-h e a r te d g e n e ro s ity f o r which he has never had c r e d i t 0 « * u t t e r l y

d is re g a rd ed h is own p o s s ib le needs to g iv e p le a su re to o th e rs th e f a c t

th a t C h a tte r to n "s pocket-book con tains, two e n tr ie s of loans made in August 9

1770$ R u sse ll i n te r p r e t s as in d ic a t in g t h a t th e poet Mfro n te d th e w orld

w ith unshaken courage and a h e a r t as te n d e r as b r a v e , F a c t s u n fav o rab le

to th e poet a re n o t m entioned o r e ls e a r e ex p la ined away. A memorandum o f

th e poet showing f in a n c ia l g a in from Lord Jfeyor Beekford #s d ea th R u sse ll

p re se n ts as an a ttem p t by G h a tte rto n to keep up h is s p i r i t s in th e fa c e of

" th e m isfo rtu n e of Beekford V d e a t h / * a n d th e m anuscript, approving th e

r e je c t io n of th e Lord Mayor 's p e t i t io n th e b io g rap h er b e lie v e s to have

e x is te d only in th e e v i l mind of W alpole.

E rnet ■ P e n s o ld t: The y e a r 1988 saw th e p u b lic a tio n in Germany of E rn s t

P en ze ld t *8 book P er Arms C h a tte r to n s © esohiehte. Eines W underkinder$ which

was t r a n s la t e d in to E n g lish in 1931 by John J . T ro u n stin e and E leanor W oolf.

112 . Ib id o a -. op'. ..xi v-xvo

113. I b id . $ p . Bid-.

l id ." I b id . . p . 220.

115. I b id o$ p . 20d.

116. I b id . $. pp.. 2d5=2d6 .

117So Ho Wo M eyerstein c a l l s th i s tre a tm e n t o f th e poet “ a nove l i1* and on ly

as suehg r a th e r th an as a biography.) can th e work be f a i r l y jtadgedo I t

might be even more a c c u ra te ly d e sc rib ed as a s o r t of f a i r y t a l e s f o r i t s

atm osphere of u n r e a l i ty is. quit® a l i e n to th e to n e o f th e u su a l modern n o v e l9

even th e h i s t o r i c a l novelo Penzoid t seem , t o have t r a n s f e r r e d to p rose th et„ ■ -

p o e tic c re a t io n of Dante S a b r ie l B o sse tti^ ® "= a boy who always hovered

between heaven and e a r th 0 ' 1.

S t at®? th e "A fterw ord” g " Thomas Q h a tte rto n (1752=1770) 9 t h e . w onderfu l

c h ild of B ris to l.) belongs, among th e im m ortals s w ith F ran co is V il lo n , Cyrano

de B erg erac , C h r is tia n Sunth-efj among th o s e who le d a t r u l y fabulous l i f e ,

who were p o e ts .an d p o e try i n one person! th o se who c re a te d th e e te r n a l f ig u r e

of th e o v e rly proud 9 U n d isc ip lin e d a u n s tead y , and in c re d ib ly uncom fortable

poetoH3*19 S t as indeed a “ fabu lous l i f e " t h a t Peazeldt- t r a c e s » ■ © la t te r to n

i s p ic tu re d as a b r i l l i a n t b u t o v e r - s e n s i t iv e la d who r e t r e a t s from th e fo u l

sm ells and d is g u s t in g s ig h ts i n h is n a t iv e town in to a m edieval w orld of

fa n c y , which he t r a n s f e r s to p a p e r ;in such a conv incing way as to dece iv e

a l l of B ris to l* He i s f a r to o o th e rw o rld ly f o r any co n v en tio n a l p ro f lig a c y !

bu t when a young, noblewenmn, one E lea n o r, kidnaps him w ith th e a id of h e r

b lack Moor, he spends a n ig h t of p a s s io n w ith h e r and th e n leaves h e r l i t e r a l l y

to d ie of a broken h e a r t *

Ihcap in g from h is in d en tu res to th e v i l la in o u s Lam bert, G h a tte rto n goes

to .L ondon , where he amuses h im e l f by. c re a t in g c o n f l ic t in th e j o u r n a l i s t i c

and p o l i t i c a l w o rld s , and su p p o rts h im se lf by w ritin g , p a n eg y ric s„ The b e s t

IM a rs fe v e rs te im s lgWa c i t * , Oo 520*

118* Of * Po 4 1 , a n t e*

119o . E rn st P e n z o ld t, Ih e • fe rv e llo u s Bov, John J= T ro u n stin e and E leanor W oolf, t r a n s l a t o r s , p* 271*

67

t h a t he earn do w ith th e Rowley poem i s th e p re s e n ta t io n of A e lla in a

puppet show, h u t he i s about to o b ta in th e patronage of Lord la y o r Beekford

when he d isco v e rs th e good man dead in h is o f f i c i a l c h a i r 0 Ih is h o r r ib le

experience encourages th e poet to seek h is. own d ea th s he ©ommits s u ic id e ,

and h is body i s c a r r ie d back to B r is to l by h is r e l a t i v e , th e s e x to n , t o be

buried®

Laden w ith a g re a t d e a l of im aginary m a te r ia l l i e s what appears to be

a s e r io u s a ttem p t to p re sen t a c h a r a c te r iz a t io n of. G h a tte r to n and h is

a s s o c ia te s $, to g e th e r w ith an a c c u ra te d e l in e a t io n of e ig h te e n th -c e n tu ry

B r is to l and London® th e re does seem to be some v a l id i t y i n th e p o r tr a y a l

o f G h a tte r to a as a daydream ing youth whose dreams become so c o rp o ra l t h a t

h e i s a t once d isg u s te d w ith th e . c re d u li ty , o f h is tow nspeople and h o r r i f i e d

a t t h e m agnitude of what he had c re a te d and th e growing, im p o s s ib i l i ty of any

re tra c tio n ® B a r re t t appears in th e book as. a k in d ly b u t credu lous fe l lo w ,

who re fu se s to b e lie v e th e ev en tu a l c o n fe ss io n of th e boy who has g iven him

m a te r ia ls f o r h is h i s to r y out o f a somewhat p e rv e r te d , th e re a d e r may th in k ,

sen se of g ra titude® Henry Burgua i s p o rtray e d as a r a th e r pompous B a b b i t t ,

f o r whom G h a tte r to n p rov ides a ped ig ree a p p a re n tly s im p ly because th e you th

though t t h a t th ey p ew te re r seeded on©® W alpole i s u n m e rc ifu lly c a r ic a tu re d .

as. a s tu p id and extrem ely, e g o t i s t i c a l d i l e t t a n t e , who b e lie v e s even in

alchemy® '

The touches of crude re a lism which a re in fu se d from tim e to. tim e th ro u g h -

out th e book, s e rv e c h ie f ly , to puzzle th e r e a d e r , f o r th e B r i s to l of Penzeldt 's

t r a n s la to r s seems not f a r removed from Hamelim Town® I t i s on ly th e w onderfu l

rev eries , o f G hatt e rto n which seem r e a l ; and because of them th e book, r i d i c ­

ulous as i t i s in many r e s p e c ts , is s t r a n g e ly haunting®

68

B ertrand ,Ho BronsGas Wrote T ineen t S t a z r e t t .i a . 2,9409 "T here earn be

only sympathy f o r Thomas G h a t t e r t o h . i " a n d he was fo llow ed im 19.49 b y

B ert r a n i E 0. Irom oBg who. says f l a t l y 9 wlow G hatt e r t on 9 i t i s '($lear> w ro te

h is Bowleiam poetry , n o t to d eee iv e bwt in respons e to th e d eep est prompt­

ings of h is beingjo”^ ^ Among t h e s e ” prom ptings” Bronson in c lu d es th e

poe t 8s d e s i r e f o r a f a th e r j f o r whom he fo.nmd a s n b s t i t n t e im W illiam •12?Gamymgs in th e same way th a t th e yonth I d e n t i f i e d h im e l f w ith Bowleyo

So com plete was th i s id e n t i f i e a t i o n th a t " a r t i s t i e s e l f - p r e s e r v a t io n

depended on h is p e rs is te n o e in th e @reat " The q u e s tio n of decep­

t i o n 9M Bronson b e lie v e s s "was fundam entally i r r e le v a n t g Bowley was gemti.Be>c?

But th e only, way h e could w in a f a i r h e a r in g in th a t tim e and th a t p lace

was th rough d e c e i t

U nlike Russ@11$ Bronson f in d s in G h a tte rto n °s London p o l i t i c a l c a re e r

no evidence of com viction b u t only o f " a g e n e ra l h o s t i l i t y , which f la r e d to

a b r ig h te r in t e n s i ty when i t s f u e l was some known p e r s o n a l i ty , ," ^ ^ That

th i s b leak c a re e r ended w ith th e y o u th 's s u ic id e Bronson p a r t ly a t t r i b u t e s

to th e f a c t t h a t G h a tte r to n a s s o c ia te d d ea th w ith th e "good l i f e " because

h is f a th e r was deads and h is most rom antic a s so c ia tio n s , were connected w ith

th e tombs in S t = Shry R e d e lif f Bronson 's b r ie f b io g ra p h ic a l s tu d y o f

th e poat $, though i t does not p re se n t an ex trav ag an t p o in t of views c l e a r ly

in d ic a te s t h a t th e R o m n tie a t t i t u d e has p e r s is te d alm ost l i t e r a l l y to th e

p re se n t day,. . _ ' y ■■ ■ - - ,

120o T ine e a t S t a r r e t t $. Books H i v e s p 0 148o

1 2 1 o B ertrand Ho Broasong "Ihomas G hatt e r t on TheA ge of Johnson* p@ 24&

122 e. Xbxd o s.. Po 239 o 12B» ^^^d» g p6 352 o

123.0 Ibad o s> Po 249 o 126» ib id o @ PPo 239—24®o

12.4o l^^do.g Po 248o

CHAPTER I f

3HB BIOSRAPHISS OF SHI MEDDLE GBOUHD

iHtredaetlesi

IL ea an ia te l l ig js a c e t e s t i s ad m ia is te re d t@ a la rg e group of sub­

je c t s 9 a sm all p e rcen tag e f a l l a t one, end of th e curve and a s m l l p e r­

cen tage a t th e o th e r $1 b u t g e n e ra lly most of them a re found in th e middle

of th e curveo A com parable s i t u a t io n is d isco v ered in C h a tte r to n ia n

b iography $ a number of b io g ra p h ic a l s tu d ie s a re alm ost w holly unsym pathetic

a.somewhat l a r g e r group a r e b ia sed in fa v o r of th e p o e t» b u t th e g r e a te r

number l i e between th e two extremes <> That i s 9 most re v e a l an honest

a ttem p t to draw t h e i r conclusions ..from, an o b je c t iv e s tu d y of th e f a c ts ®

This is no t to say th a t th e w r ite r s of t h e l a t t e r group of b io g rap h ies

were eq u a lly s c h o la r ly $, t h a t th e y had an equal q u a n tity of f a c ts to work

w ith , o r t h a t th e y reached th e same o r even s im i la r c o n c lu s io n s 0 In many

eases th e l i n e must be t h i n l y drawno Some of D r. George Gregory 's ©bser=>

v a tio n s (1709) on C h a tte r to n a re alm ost as p u r i t a n ic a l as th o se of

A lexander Chalmers (1810)§ w h ile , on th e o th e r s id e , S i r D an ie l W ilson

(1869) and John BL Ingram (1910) were as s y m p a th e tic a lly in c lin e d tow ard

th e p o e t , p ro b ab ly , as was Charles !U B u s s e l l , bu t th e y were more s c h o la r ly

I n t h e i r a t t i t u d e th a n was th e 1908 b io g ra p h e r„

The Qb.i a c t iv e S tu d ie s f rom 1789 t e 1869

G eorge-G regery3 S ta te s $ 0 H0 W« E eyersteim eoncernim g th e f i r s t

o b je c t iv e b iography o f C h a t te r to n 9 11 i s an s i x t e e n t h c en tu ry u n sen tim en ta l

view o f th e poetg G regory 's L ife* s h o r t and r e s t r i c t e d as i t i s ». mast' always-

command respeeto;"^ ih e in f lu e n c e of Gregory, on l a t e r M o g ra p h iea l tre a tm e n ts

o f th e s u b je c t of G h a tte r to n ’s p ro f lig a e y has a lre a d y been n o ted 0^ I n a t

l e a s t th r e e o th e r re sp e c ts ? however? G regory’s in f lu e n c e upon C h a tte r to n ia n

b iography was n o t so f o r tu n a te . F i r s t ? th e b io g rap h e r d e c lin ed to ta k e a

s ta n d on th e Bowley q u e s tio n but co n ten ted h im e l f ? i f n o t h is read er? w ith

l i s t i n g . t h e arguments on each s id e . Secondly? he re p re se n te d th e p o e t 's

c a re e r as an o b je c t le s s o n " to young, persons of b r i l l i a n t and l iv e ly ta le n ts "

w arning them a g a in s t " th o s e d e lu s iv e hopes of success founded upon, th e

consciousness o f genius and m erit? which le a d them to n e g le c t th e -o rd in a ry3 :means o f .a c q u ir in g eompetence and independene@0" L ikew ise? Sregory

prov ided f u tu r e b iog rap h ers w ith a ready; e x p lan a tio n f o r a l l of G h a tte r to n %

f a u l t s when he c a l le d th e y o u th 's r e l ig io u s i n f i d e l i t y " th e p r in c ip a l s i r -

cunstanee which has invo lved h is name and c h a ra c te r i n d isg ra ce ? and whichA

c e r ta in ly d ep rived th e worlds p rem atu re ly o f h is e x c e lle n t a b i l i t i e s " and

dw elt a t le n g th upon th e p robab le consequences of h is d i s b e l i e f » Gregory

n e v e r th e le s s v en tu re s th e o p in io n t h a t "had G h a tte r to n l iv e d and been

fo r tu n a te enough to f a l l in to s e t t l e d and so b e r h a b its of l i f e ? h is ex­

c e l l e n t understand ing , would? in a l l p ro b a b il i ty ? have le d him to .s e e th e

1®. Bo/Ho I® Mevers te im ? A L ife o f Thomas: C&att e r t on 3 p® 485®

2 ® Gf® ppq 17=19? ante®

3 ® . H ie fo rk s of Thomas G h a tte rto n ? I? xxxvii®

. f a l l a c y of th o se p r in c ip le s o'*®

Where G h a tte rto n appears on th e h a s is o f th e f a c ts to be d ese rv in g

of p r a i s e 9 Gregory i s not# how ever9 to®, p u r i t a n ic a l to a c c o r d . i t » He pays

due re s p e c ts to C h a t te r to n 's tem perances to h is . a f f a b i l i t y , to h is "h igh

sen se of d ignityg"® and to h is " g e n e ro s ity and a ttachm ent to h is mother and$7

re la t io n s o " "She l i s t o f h is virtues.»* Gregory w r i t e s 9 " s t i l l appears t o

exceed th e ca ta lo g u e of h is fa u ltso "® Again reco g n iz in g i n th e poet what

has"‘ been .co rro b o ra ted by numerous su cceed ing b io g rap h ers $ th e clergyman

observes th a t "a quickness of resen tm ent appears th rough l i f e to have been

one of h is most d is t in g u is h in g c h a r a c te r i s t i c s t h a t " p r id e was th e

ru l in g p ass io n of G h a t t e r t o n a n d t h a t " th e d e s i r e of l i t e r a r y fame* 0 &

absorbed h is whole a t t e n t i o n . I t i s u n fo r tu n a te t h a t G regory 's fen ce”

s i t t i n g on th e Rowley is s u e dep riv ed h is read e rs of s im i la r ly s e n s ib le

comments upon C h a t te r to n 's m o tiv a tio n i s h is d e ce p tio n .

Robert Anderson and John Davis & Robert Anderson s eens l i t e r a l l y # t i n

h is Works, of th e B r i t i s h P©ets 9 to have cop ied most o f h is s tu d y of th e poet' o ■ -from G regory 's b iog raphy . He does, d i f f e r from h is model in s ta t in g , d e f i n i t e l y

th a t G h a tte r to n w rote th e Rowley, poem 9 . bu t he avoids com ple tely th e moral

i s s u e th e re b y r a is e d . In h is c en su re of th e poet he goes somewhat beyond

Gregory to say th a t d u rin g , C h a tte r to n 's London c a r e e r 9 " h is t a s t e f o r d i s ”

T2

s ip a t io n seems to have kep t paee w ith th e in c re a s e of h is v a n ity

Anderson coneludes M s “Id f e ” w ith a long q u o ta tio n from Yicesimus Knox’s

essay on th e p o e t^ ^ - a q u o ta tio n q u i te out of keeping w ith th e r e m in d e r

of th e b io g ra p h ic a l s tu d y hu t in c lu d e d 9 .p ro b a b ly 9 beeause Gregory quoted

i to

Donald S m i le y G alls John Davis ’s l i f e of Thorns. G h a tte r to h ”m erely

a h a ck ’s g a rb lin g of G roft and G regory, s e a re e ly a t t a in in g a p o in t of view

of i t s emto”**' Shis seems unduly h a rsh e r i t i e i s ia s th e b io g rap h y , w h ile i t

i s c e r ta in ly not of e s p e c ia l ly h igh q u a l i ty s i s as o r ig in a l and o b je c t iv e

as th e averag e s tu d y of th e poet<, Ih o se weaknesses of judgment th a t i t

does re v e a l in c l in e tow ard th e sy m p ath e tic "extravagances of H erbert C ro ft

r a th e r th a n tow ard th e d id a c tic is m of Gregory«

& ny of D a v is ’s comments upon th e c h a ra c te r of G h a tte r to n a re sound ,

b u t h is tre a tm e n t of th e Bowley d e cep tio n i s h ig h ly u n s a tis fa c to ry o " I

t h i n k h e w r i te s , " th e r e i s no more harm i n fo rg ing , poem f o r a p r i e s t o f

th e f i f t e e n t h co n tu ry ( s i c . ) , th a n th e r e would be in w r i t in g a s a t i r e on

th e c r e d u l i ty of M i l e s and B r y a n t ; " a n d goes on t© re m o n s tra te , " In d e­

pendent of th e b eau ty of h is p o e try , th e f l e t i o n produced a co n tro v e rsy

which has eh ligh tended (s iC o ) 9 th e human miada"^^ D av is , u n fo r tu n a te ly ,

f a i l s to e n lig h te n h is re a d e r as to why th e B r is to l yhuth o r ig in a l ly eon-

1 2 » Robert Anderson ( e d i t o r ) . The Works of th e B r i t i s h P o e ts , X I, 3060

13o Gf» PPo 45 -47 , a n te ,

14o Donald S m i l e y , Browning’s % sav on G h a tte r to n , ppc 25-26o

1.5 o Gf_o pp0 13 -14 , an t eo

16o John D av is , The L ife of Thomas G h a tte r to n , po 38o

eeived and executed. M s f ic t io B ? u n less we a re to i n f e r an ex p lan a tio n i n

th e fo llo w in g .s ta te m e n ts “He d esp ised d i s c r e t i o n , a v i r t u e a l l i e d to many

m eannesses, and in th e p la ce of w o rld ly p rudence, a t t e n t io n to p ro posa ls of

economy, and ideas of a r e g u la r p ro fe s s io n , he s u b s t i tu te d h is a n t ic ip a t io n

Of im m o rta lity

Throughout th e b iography Davis emphasizes th e more fa v o ra b le a sp ec ts

of G h a tte r to n ’s c h a r a c te r , b u t i n o c ca s io n a l a ttem p ts to p re sen t bo th s id e s

of th e q u e s tio n he seems u n w ittin g ly t© c o n trad ic t.h im se lf® In ap p aren t

adherence to th e Romantic t r a d i t i o n he ho lds up th e poet as "a p a t te r n to

mankind" in h is fam ily a f f e c t io n s , p ra is e s h is te m p e ran c e ^ and. unparalleled

in d u stry ,^® accep ts Ih ry G h a tte rto n Newton's d e s c r ip t io n of h e r b ro th e r as

"a lo v e r of t r u th ," ^ ^ and c a l l s th e poet an " e x a lte d gen ius"^^ whose b re a s t

23glowed w ith a p ass io n f o r d is tin c tio n ® " But Davis a ls o m ild ly reproves

G h a tte rto n f o r r e v e a l in g .“an in v in c ib le contempt" f o r th o s e “sons and

daugh ters of Bkmmon," th e in h a b ita n ts of B r i s to l , because th e y "were in ­

s e n s ib le to th e beau ty of Rowley’s muse;“^^ and a lth o u g h he a t f i r s t speaks

o f G h a tte r to n ’s “ z e a l f o r h is country ,"^® he l a t e r adm its t h a t “ G h a tte rto n

w rote n o t from p r in c ip le bu t f o r e m o l u m e n t a n d on bo th sides® Davis

a lso p a in ts a r a th e r u n fav o rab le p ic tu re o f G h a tte r to n ’s n o n - p o l i t ic a l

modern w r i t in g s , f o r h e d e sc rib e s th e poet as engaging in p lag ia rism s “to

74■ . . " a

answ er th e c a l l o f M s p a tro n 81 and. as be in g "s ometimes in d is c r im in a te in

h is censures" as i n h is t t i t i r l z i n g of James Boswell and O liv e r G oldsm ith«^

T Biough Davis ch ides Ihom asW arton f o r having jo in ed in th e condem nation

, of OhattertoB-!^® he ends h is b iography w ith a' long quo ta tion , from W arton9

who o f fe rs a f a i r l y convincing, i n te r p r e ta t io n of th e Rowley d e e e p tio n 0

Ghatterfcons says W arton9 "had vowed e te r n a l f i d e l i t y ” to h is s e c r e t ; and

even when he saw th a t h is poems were regarded as fo r g e r ie s $ h is p rid e

caused him to p re fe r " to escape th e c h a ra c te r o f . falsehood® th a n to c la im

th e m erit o f poetry.o The problem remains s however g as to w hether

G h a tte r to n r e a l l y had an y th in g to g a in by c o n fe ss io n .

M nor S tu d ie s : The s h o r t l i f e of Thomas Ghatt e r to n in c lu d ed in Robert

W alsh9 J r . "s Works of th e B r i t i s h Poets p la g ia r iz e s from A lexander Ghalmers 9s

ithsym pathetic s tu d y of th e poet but succeeds in im proving upon th e o r ig in a l

to p re sen t a f a i r l y convincing and o b je c t iv e p o r tr a y a l of a precocious 9

w o rld ly wise® and r a th e r unscrupulous young g e n iu s . To add to th e o b je c t iv e

i t y of h is s tu d y 9 Walsh quotes from bo th Horace W alpole and Thomas Cam pbell.

A fte r re co u n tin g th e in c id e n t of th e De Bergham p e d ig re e 9. Walsh makes

th e r a th e r shrewd comment® " In th i s manner G h a tte rto n c o n tr iv e d to impose

on men who had no means of a p p re c ia tin g th e v a lu e of what he communicated®

and were w i l l in g to b e l ie v e w hat9 f o r one reaso n o r other® th e y wished to be

t r u e . " ^ Ghatt e rto n ’s s o - c a l le d " p a t r io t ic c a ree r" in London Walsh d ism iss es

27= I b i d . 9 p . 133. 39 . I b id . » p . 137.

28. Lee, c i t . 30 . I b id . 9 pp. 148-149.

31 v "B ie L ife of Thomas Ghatt e r to n 9" Th.e Works of th e B r i t i s h Poets 9 w ith Lives of th e Authors . "R obert Walsh 9. J r . 9 e d i to r $ XXIX® 122-123.

75

' 32w ith th e s ta tem e n t t h a t money was th e p o e t 's "o n ly o h je e t0"

I f i t were a llo w ab le f o r one who p ro fesses to w r i te th e l iv e s of E ng lish poets to pass th e name of C h a tte r to n in s ile n c o y I shou ld th in k th e l i t e r a t u r e ©£> our coun try more honoured by th e coneealm eat of h is f a t e th a n by th e reeo rd ©f h is geniuso Yet from h is b r ie f s to r y th e young w i l l le a rn th a t genius i s l i k e ly to le ad them in to mis e ry a i f i t be notaccompanied by som ething th a t i s b e t t e r th a n genius § and men*whom b i r t h and s t a t i o n have rendered em inent, may d isc o v e r th a t th e y owe some du ty to th o se whom n a tu re has made more th a n t h e i r equals =33

Thes e .sen ten ces a re th e p re fa c e to a r a th e r sym pathetic s tu d y of th e poet

which was p r in te d anonymously in th e London Ifegazine in 1824» two years

a f t e r th e p u b lic a t io n o f Walsh*s volume» .

As might be su sp ec ted from th e opening s ta te m e n ts » th e essay i s con-

earned c h ie f ly , w ith G h a tte rto m % r e l ig io u s i n f i d e l i t y and makes l i t t l e

a ttem pt to p re se n t a com plete p ic tu re of th e p o e t, The Rowley d ecep tio n is

d ism issed w ith th e su g g e s tio n t h a t C h a tte r to n may have been in flu en ced by

th e examples of W alpole and James B aep h e rs 'o a .^ But th e on ly a sp ec t of th e

y o u th 's c h a ra c te r d e a l t w ith a t any le n g th , h is i r r e l i g io u s is f a i r l y and

s e n s ib ly tre a te d * I t i s given? c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y 9 as th e reaso n f o r h is

su ic id e ? y e t i s c h a r i ta b ly d e sc rib ed as "not* 0 * so much th e o f f sp r in g o f

v ic io u sn ess re fu s in g , th e curb of m oral r e s t r a i n t (an ap p aren t r e f u ta t io n of

C halm ers's su g g es tio n ) as Qf p r id e u n w illin g to be tram m eled by th e

op in ions of th e m u ltitu d e?" and as " r a th e r th e f lu c tu a t in g o f a mind th a t

32 * irbxdy ? p* 1 2 S *

33* ” 2he L ife of Thomas C h atte rto n ?" The. London Ih g a z ln e *. IX (Jan u ary to June 1824)? §31* J

34* Ib id * ■> p* 632*

35* p* 28? a n te *

76

had l a s t i t s ho ld sa t r u t h f o r a tim es th a n th e s k e p tic ism of one confirm ed

in e r ro r o'"

In h is Lives of Eminent and I l l u s t r i o u s Englishm eno George Godfrey

Gunningham observes p e rs p ic a c io u s ly t h a t G h a tte rto n " ex h ib ited e 0 o an

a s to n ish in g com bination of knavery and genius*' in h is l i t e r a r y d e c e p tio n s ,^

and p re d ic ts th a t " p o s te r i ty s w h ile i t d ep reca te s th e frauds> w i l l ever award

th e due meed of praas-©#"?® But in s t a t i n g th a t G h a tte r to n was "much f l a t ­

te re d " by th e a t te n t io n s of h is B r is to l p a t r o n s .G u n n in g h a m s earns g r e a t ly

a t v a r ia n c e w ith th e custom ary in te r p r e ta t io n of G h a tte r to n 's c h a r a c te r«

Go Bo W illco x :. C e r ta in ly one of th e more s ig n i f ic a n t b io g rap h ies of

G h a tte r to n produced d u rin g th e n in e te e n th .c e n tu ry was t h a t of G, B0 W illeox

i n th e 1842 e d it io n o f th e y o u th 's p o e t ic a l com positions „ This - " L ife " —i f

i t can b o ast no o th e r d is t in c t io n - -w a s th e work whose p e ru sa l led Browning

to w r i te an essay o f h is own on th e poate*® In th e P re fac e to h is b iography

W illeox prov ides a k e y .to much of i t s s t r e n g th and to much of i t s weakness

as w e ll when he w rite s of th e poet 9 "His f i e r y passions $ h is prem ature y e t

manly i n t e l l e c t | h is p la s t i c im ag in a tio n ; h is a f f e c t io n a te n a tu re ; h is dark

d e s t in y ; h is p e rp e tu a l s t r u g g le s ; h is b r i e f bu t g lo rio u s c a r e e r 9 and th e

solemn agony and t e r r i f i c g randeur o f h is d e a th , re n d e r him a t once a sub lim e

360 " I h e ’L ife o f Thomas G h a tte r to n ," on. c i t s , p. 638.

37o George Godfrey Cunningham ( e d i t o r ) . Lives of Eminent and I l lu s t r io u s

3§o I b id o a Wo 74<,

39 . I b id o, p . 73o

40 . Cf_0 p s S3, an t

s tu d y f e r th e p o e t? and a c h a ra c te r of th e most ab so rb in g in t e r e s t to th e

p s y c h o l o g i s t T h e inS luence of th e Somoatie t r a d i t i o n is. obv ious, bu t

th e r e i s a ls o evidence in th i s s ta tem en t of a deeper s c h o la r ly i n t e r e s t

i n th e r e a l C h a tte r to n th a n was u su a l among th e Romantic 'w r i te r s » The

re a d e r of W illeox*s " L ife 11 i s im pressed by th e w r i te r" s d e s i r e to produce

a r e s p e c ta b le biography? even to th e e x ten t of in c lu d in g in h is numerous

fo o tn o te s len g th y q u o ta tio n s from previous b iog rap h ers who d isag reed w ith

h is conclusions o But W illeox a lso re v e a ls a d is tu rb in g tendency to g iv e

to com parative ly minor in c id e n ts and e h a r a e te r i s t ic s an undue s ig n if ic a n c e s

and th e u lt im a te e f f e c t of h is b io g ra p h ic a l s tu d y is to le a v e h is re a d e r

both puzzled and amazedo

Probably th e most v a lu a b le c o n tr ib u tio n o f W illeox to G h a tte r to n ia n

b iography was th e i is t im e tio m which he. made in d e a lin g w ith th e Rowley de­

cep tio n between C h a tte r to n th e d e ce iv in g poet and C h a tte r to n th e d ece iv in g

h i s t o r i a n . W illeox forgives., th e youth h is f a b r ic a t io n of " th e .m ere poem

of Rowley" because "a© one was in ju re d ? no one was d e frau d ed . 18 v 88But a

wide d i f f e r e n c e ?*8 th e b io g rap h e r p o in ts out? l i e s "betw een th e pseudo-poet

and th e p re tended h i s to r i a n . H e a r t ily ? f o r th e f a i r fame of Thomas C hatterton#

i s i t to be w ished th a t he had never met w ith B a r re tt? o r t h a t B a r re tt? as he

a fte rw ard s d id? had offended him a t th e f i r s t o u t s e t . " ^ C h a tte r to n % im­

p o s it io n upon Henry Burgum W illeox a lso condemns as th e " f a b r ic a t io n and

41 . The -P o e tica l Works of Thomas C h a tte r to n w ith H o tices of h is Life-s I? i i . ' - •" ' .

7§

; , 4 4f a l s i f i c a t i o n of h i s to r y f o r peoaniaryym otivas* '' "B u t9" he eo ae lu d es>

" l e t us he s p a r in g of blam e, a t le a s t? t i l l we have r ig h t ly u n rav e lled th e

m y steries of h is e h a ra e te r? and have seen how f a r th e p a ss io n of im posing

upon th e c r e d u l i ty of h is fe llo w s made up th e L ife? th e Being (w ithou t which

he could no t he) of t h i s e x tra o rd in a ry boyo"*® As Donald Sm alley o b s e r v e s ^

W illeox h e re s e ts f o r h im se lf a ta s k which he never q u ite accom plishes«

A pparently th e f i r s t h u t c e r ta in ly n o t th e l a s t to do so? he tak es

re fu g e in th e id e a o f a d u a l ch arae te r= « Mi n t h a t u n i t of a body0 „ o two

so u ls " ^ -= a n d ta lk s on hoth s id e s of th e q u est io n . 5 ta i* tl in g ly . enough?

W illeox a e ta a lly : rebukes G h a tte rto n f o r h is correspondence w ith W alpoles

"What d id he th e n c u rry in g p a t r ic ia n fa v o u r 1 and rebuking th e d iv in e o ra c le

t h a t had made i t s tem ple w ith in himf"^® W illeo x ? indeed? w ith adm irable

o r ig in a l i ty ? converts th e whole s to r y of G h a tte rto n in to a trag ed y of

c h a ra c te r r a th e r th a n th e ©usternary rom antic tragedy, of circum stanceo

According to t h i s b io g rap h e r th e poet " p e r ish e d m iserab ly? because he

could no t see" t h a t h is "o n ly means of e x e r tio n and re d re ss" la y in h is

own s o u l r a th e r th an in " r e l ia n c e upon another<,"49 The clim ax of th i s

" re lia n c e " was reached in th e poet "s d e p a r tu re f o r London? " th e g re a t

H o Logo ©xto

45= Loe= e i to Gf= p= 26? a n te s

46o S m a lley? @p= e i t o ? p» 28=

47 o The. P o e tic a l Works of Thomas G h a tte rto n w ith Hot ic e s of his: .L i f e ?I? Ixxxiio " ■

480 I b id «? Pq c v i i io

40 o LOCo QXt o:

• ?9

Noah °s a rk of where in h is hack jo u r n a l i s t i c work G h a tte rto n was

changed from " a s p i r i t ? f re e ? uncompromising? in te g ra l? in to a c h a ra c te r ,

compromised? f a c t io n a l? and s la v is h

But W illcox "s tra g e d y o f c h a ra c te r f a i l s to reach th e co n clu sio n which

th e re a d e r expects of i t . In th e end th e Romantic t r a d i t i o n seems to have

a s s e r te d i t s e l f . Few c h a ra c te r ev a lu a tio n s , i n C h a tto rto n ia n Biography have

more appearance of soundness th a n th e fo llo w in g s ta tem e n t concern ing th e

poet *9 p o l i t i c a l w ritin g s s "There was more of l e v i ty th a n l ic e n tio u s ness

i n h is conduct | more of th e d e s i r e —s i l l y and low enough f o r him who could

c re a te as w e ll as sc r ifcb le—to show w ith what f a c i l i t y th e c h ild of sev en teen

could prove a p o in t one day and r e f u te i t th e n e x t | more of th e acu teness of

th e s p e c ia l p le a d e r th a n t h e ap o sta sy of th e s ta te sm an ; and? to f in i s h th e

clim ax? more of sco rn f o r h is employers? and f o r mankind g e n e ra lly ? we fe a r?

than a n x ie ty f o r e i th e r th e good o r th e had eauae."® ^ Yet W illcox perm its

th e t estim ony of N rs, B allanee t h a t G h a tte r to n kep t r e g u la r hours a t Wains ley s e

and th e f a c t t h a t th e poet s e n t g i f t s home to h is fam ily to le ad him o f f on

a ch a in of eulogy which seens to h ea r l i t t l e r e la t io n s h ip to th e character™

iz a t io n th a t th e b io g rap h e r had h i th e r to a ttem p ted , G h a tte r to n suddenly

becomes “ a b r ig h t and b e a u t i f u l example of th e id e a l C re a to rf knowing no

d e s i r e which genius d id no t hallow ? and pbssessed of a h e a r t which kept pure

th e ho ly forms >of young im a g in a t io n ," ^

This b u rs t of o ver-en thusiasm d ie s down? however; and th e o r ig in a l

G h a tte rto n of th e d ua l c h a ra c te r reappears when W illcox w r ite s ? "He was tru e ?

501 I M d ? p, c x x v i i i , 52 , Ib id , ? n, e x v i i ,

51," I b id , ? p , e x x i i , 53, I b id , ? pp, cxxxiil™ cxxxiv,

80

to a c e r ta in e x te n t , to th e p r in c ip le s of h is own n a tu re? and g e n e ra lly

s in c e re in th e e v o lu tio n o f . th e good? and in h is subm ission to t h e i r gu id an ce ;

bu t he could not c le a r ly d is t in g u is h th e d iv in e v o ic e from th e sM an ic w hisper?

and he to o o f te n obeyed th e su g g es tio n s of th e e v i l h e a r t? when he was s e l f =

deceived in to th e b e l ie f , th a t he was fo llo w in g th e o ra c u la r in tim a tio n s o f th e

good eonseieneeo"® ^ W illeox is not? on th e o th e r hand? co n ten t to c lo se w ith -

a - 55o u t v o ic in g th e f a m i l ia r and f r u i t l e s s prediction? ’"Had G h a tte rto n l iv e d

longer? he would d o u b tle ss have come to a f u l l knowledge of th e tru th o ” '^

O ther Minor S tu d ie s ? Robert Chambers in h is C yclopaedia of E ng lish

L i t e r a t u r e ? pub lished in 1844? recoun ts some of th e g e n e ra lly accep ted f a c tsL

of. G h a tte r t on *s l i f e bu t makes l i t t l e a ttem p t a t any new in te r p r e ta t io n ?

W riting of th e p o e t ’s c a re e r in London? Chambers d e sc rib e s th e youth as hav ing

“ e a s t o ff th e r e s t r a in t s of r e l ig io n ” and as having “no s te a d y p r in c ip le s

5s!to gu ide him? un less i t was a s tro n g a f f e c t io n SSf h is mother and s i s t e r 016

G h a tte r t on "s s u ic id e th e noted p u b lis h e r exp la in s on th e grounds of "h is

c o n s t i tu t io n a l melancholy" aggravated b y "h ab its of intem perance?"^®

fen years la te r George Pryce in h is Memorials of th e Canvnges8 Fam ily

and f h e i r Times prov ided a co n sid e rab ly more s ig n i f i c a n t b io g ra p h ic a l

tre a tm en t? which i t s au th o r summarizes i n th e s ta tem en t? " I t was h is

" ' 540 I b id o s ppo cx lv ^cx lv io

55o O rig in a tin g a p p a re n tly w ith G regory. Cf0 pp. ?0=71? a n te .

56t I b id o ? p . ex lv io

57. Robert Chambers ( e d i t o r ) ? C yclopaedia of E n g lish L i t e r a tu r e s I I ? 82. -

' . . 058. Loc. e i t .

. f ■ : . s i

( 1& a t t e r t o n ’s ) w ish to l iv e in th e fiat a re though he immolated h im se lf on'

th e a l t e r of t h e p res e a t—to he as so e la te d w ith th e g re a t in an undying

ee leb rity ® though he l o s t h im se lf in a c q u ir in g th e o b je c t he sough t—and to

he remembered in. a f t e r tim es as "the wondrous h o y 1 by admiring_ p o s te r i ty g

th o u ^ i he found an e a r ly grave in ach iev in g th e o b je c t of h is most a rd e n t

a m b i t i o n .>“59 The Rowley poem Bryce does not s earns how ever9 to in e lu d e as

ah example of th e poet ’s “ im M latiom ;" f o r of them he w rite s s " F o r t h e i r

ju v e n i le a u th o r th ey have earned a w orld-w ide renown^-an o b je c t he appears

to have eo n sid ered paramount to a l l o th e rs —and to o b ta in w hichg he regarded

no s a c r i f i c e to o e o s t iy 0M® And.g d e s e r ib in g J B a r re t t as “ ig n o ra n t»" he

wonders “which to blame most—th e frau d p ra c t is e d by th e deceivers> o r th e

d r i a in a l g u l l i b i l i t y of th e decsivedo"

P r in c ip a l ly ; Bryce appears to la y th e blame f o r G h a tte r to n ’s u n fo r tu n a te

f a t e upon th e y o u th 's in c re a s in g "want of s t e r l i n g p r in c ip le 9“ exp lained fey

h is i n f i d e l i t y ; which "underm ined h is moral c h a r a c te r 9 and su b je c te d i t t o

th e governance o f motives unworthy of h im .”52 Th%g la ck of p r in c ip le was 9

acco rd ing to B ryce9 most ev id en t in th e p oe t 's im scrupu low s a t i r i c a l w r i t ­

ings which " g r a t i f i e d h is v an ity " and ’f o s te r e d th a t in n a te p r id e of h is

h e a r t f o r which ho was so rem arkab le ..,"^ This p r id e , to g e th e r w ith " h is

d i s t r e s s e s $" u l t im a te ly drove th e youth to s u ic id e .,54 , •

59o Greorge Bryces Memorials of the Oamvngos8 Family and Their Times » pp. 275-276. " " V . ‘ ’ '

60a I b id . s n . 275'. S3. I b id . o o . 307.

61 . Ib id . .a p. 285a • ■ 64 . Ib id . , p . 288.

62. I b i d . s P. 306.

82

D esp ite t i l l s u n u su a lly r e a l i s t i e s tu d y of COaatterten"s p o l i t i c a l ca­

r e e r $ Pryee a lso pays h is re sp e c ts to th e Romantic t r a d i t i o n by a ssu r in g

h is re a d e r t h a t th e poet was "possessed of th e warmest fe e l in g s of g r a t i ­

tu d e , and was ever s u s c e p t ib le of th e l o f t i e s t and most te n d e r sen tim en ts

o f f r i e n d s h i p g ' * a n d d e p a rts s t r i k in g ly from th e c h a r a c te r iz a t io n a c tu a l ly

p re sen ted by h is s tu d y of th e poet to s a y , mS eldom9 i f e v e r , have th e most

to u ch in g q u a l i t i e s of th e poet been more s t r i k in g ly b lended w ith th e s t e r n e r

v i r tu e s of th e ph ilosophe:r0“^ Thus George Pryce adds h is name to th e l i s t

o f n in e te e n th -c e n tu ry C h a tte r to n ia n b iog rap h ers who by th e in c lu s io n of

g round less eulogy mar th e o b je c t iv i ty of t h e i r works and le av e t h e i r read ers

bew ilderedo

Some of th e most o u ts ta n d in g b io g rap h ies of G ha tterto n ? such as th o se

of W illcox and of Edward B ell? a re in c lu d ed in e d itio n s of th e poet ’s w orks |

bu t most of such memoirs a re m erely rehash ings of p revious more, ex ten s iv e

b io g rap h ies and a re la r g e ly v a lu e le s s » F a i r ly c h a r a c te r i s t i c of th i s l a t t e r

group i s F re d e ric k E h rtin "s study" of th e poet inc lu d ed i n th e 1865 e d i t io n

o f th e p o e t ’s w orks» In th i s memoir? which lacks com pletely any d i s t i n c t i v e

p o in t of view? th e Rowley d e cep tio n is exp lained? r a th e r n a iv e ly ? as a way67

th a t G h a tte rto n found to g r a t i f y h is am b ition and to occupy h is tim e? and

th e " A r tic le s of B e lie f" a re d e sc rib e d as “w ild b u rs ts of skepticism "~=

evidence th a t th e poet v a in ly sought*'Sod* "There is . no d o u b t9" B t r i in

6 5 o Xbid .0 # p o 2 81 o

- 6 S 0 Xbxd o & P'o 309 o

67 o Thomas Ghatt e r to n 9 Poem, w ith a Memoir, by F re d e r ic k f e r t i n ^ Po xxi*

6 8 0 Xbxdo p po .xxxxxxc , -

83

a s s e r t s j " th a t i t was M s ’’unconquerable p r id e 1 whiek k ep t d ragg ing Mm on

in to darkness and d esp M re”^ .

S i r D an iel IT ilso n ;. H eyerste in in th e in tro d u c tio n to M s voluminous

and very s c h o la r ly b iography s t a t e s r a th e r condescendingly, t h a t S i r D an ie l

W ilson ’s b iography "must rem ain th e s ta n d a rd oneo"?® W hether o r mot i t i s

a c tu a l ly e n t i t l e d to such c o n s id e ra tio n s W ilson ’s study@ w r i t t e n by a no ted

Canadian ed u ca to r and a rc h a e o lo g is t who was th e p re s id e n t of Toronto Univer=

s i t y f o r e leven y e a r s 9 is p robably th e o u ts ta n d in g c o n tr ib u tio n of th e n in e ­

te e n th cen tu ry to C h a tte r to n ia n b iog raphy 0

The P re fa c e 9 howeverj does l i t t l e to su g g es t th e o b je c t iv i ty and common

sen se which c h a ra c te r iz e th e m ajor p o r tio n of th e work; b u t , r a th e r 9 to th e

re a d e r f a m il ia r w ith th e p rose exp ressions of th e Romantic t r a d i t i o n of

C h a tte r to n j g ives prom ise of an o th e r e la b o ra te d e fen se of th e "poor dead

n ig h tin g a le o " W ilson d e sc rib e s h im se lf as making "an ap p ea l a g a in s t th e

judgment pronounced on him ( th e p o e t) by in te r e s te d o r v in d ic t iv e contempo-

r a r i e s a " ^ and proceeds to inve igh? w ith some j u s t i c e , i t must be g ra n te d ,

a g a in s t th e b io g ra p h ic a l s tu d ie s of P ro fe sso r David B isson and th e Rev0 D r0

72 "So FL B i i t la n d 6 "W hile d e a lin g te n d e r ly , 18 W ilson c o n tin u e s , " I have sough t

to d e a l t r u t h f u l l y w ith th e f a i l in g s as w e ll as th e v i r tu e s of th e boys

b ea rin g always i n remembrance, what i t s e e m to me has to o f re q u e n tly been

73l o s t s ig h t of a th a t he was b u t a boy;— a boy, and y e t a poet of ra re powere"

.••69o Ib id o s po xxxv o

70o Hey e r s t s in 8 op0 c i t 9 9 p 0 x iio «:

71o D an ie l W ilson9 O h a tte rto n s A B io g ra p h ic a l.S tu d y 9 p» ix«

7 2 o I b i d o 9 P o x i i o O f 0 p p . 1 8 = 2 0 , a n t g o .

73o W ilson, ©p0 © ito 9 p 0 x i i io Cfo p , 4 6 9 a n te o

84

An e n t i r e ch ap te r W ilson devotes to th e Be Bergham pedigreeg. which he

b e lie v e s to have been th e b e y ’s f i r s t d ecep tio n in th e f i e l d of th e an­

tiq u e ? and to which he g ives a g r e a te r s ig n if ic a n c e th a n any o th e r prom­

in e n t b io g ra p h e r . Though th e hoax was a t th e tim e. i t was committed on ly

"a ro g u ish experim ent on th e c r e d u l i ty o f th e pew tererg1*1 i t proved

u ltim a te ly ? acco rd ing to S i r D aniel? of f a r g re a te r im portance . E xplains

Wilson?

. I t was th e m is fo ^ u n e of G hattertom to bb brought l a co n tac t? a t a very e a r ly age? w ith v a in credulous mem? so g r e a t ly h is in f e r io r s in i n t e l l e c t t h a t he was tem pted by t h e i r amazing f o l l y to p e rsev e re i n d ecep tions which t h e i r c r e d u l i ty had su g g es te d . Nor can i t be doubted t h a t h is success on th i s occasion? when n o t more th a n fo u r te e n years of age? was c a lc u la te d to confirm th e tendency to m ystery and d e c e p t io n ,^

W ilson l a t e r o f fe rs t h i s a s s o c ia t io n of th e poet w ith i n f e r i o r i n t e l l e c t s

as a lso an e x p la n a tio n .o f h is s a t i r i c a l a t t i t u d e ,

U ltim ate ly? l ik e v i r t u a l l y every im portan t b io g rap h e r a f t e r W illeox?

W ilson concludes t h a t G hattertom ’’appears? as i t were? two beings s th e

moody? self-com m uning poet? l iv in g in a p a s t of h is own c re a t io n ; and th e

c le v e r? p e r t? saucy youngster? lo o k in g w ith p ro fane contem pt on c iv ic and

church d ig n i ta r ie s ? e ld e r ly c i t iz e n s ? and a l l who in any way seemed to

c la im s u p e r io r i ty o ” ^ I t i s th i s f i r s t ”being” who c re a te s th e c h ie f

problem in o b je c t iv e Ghattertom iam biography? and W ilson c le a r ly recog­

n izes th i s f a c t , ”We a re reminded?’’ he w rite s ? “of th e boy and th e

74= Wilson? op, , c i t , s p , 59,,

75, I b i d . ? pp. 61-62 ,

76, I b i d . ? p , 70,

77, Ibxdo? p , 69,

85

v is io n a ry dream er9 in th e m idst of h is most, e la b o ra te f i e t io n s $> t i l l i t

becomes a p y zz le to de term ine how much of s e lf -d e c e p t io n and of a c tu a l

b e l ie f were blended w ith - th e humour of th e je s to 1’^®

Onee G h a tte rto n had begun h is d ecep tio n s th e youth was v i r t u a l ly

tra p p e d 3 W ilson opines 5 f o r "every advance he made tow ard co n fess in g him­

s e l f to be th e t r u e Rowley was re p e lle d w ith th e same lu d ic ro u s f a i t h in

i t s im p o s s ib i l i ty , ," ^ W ilson was n o t so nagve, how ever, as to im agine

th a t th e boy o b ta in ed no s a t i s f a c t i o n from h is hoaxes =- R e fe rrin g to th e

y o u th ’s d ecep tio n of B a r re t t 9 th e b io g rap h e r r e f l e c t s 9 "How th e a n tiq u a r ia n

dupe must have g lo a te d over h is p r iz e s s w h ile th e adep t laughed in h is

s le e v e a t th e a i r s assumed by h is condescending p a tro n J” ®® But th a t G h a tte r-

to n 's motives were m ercenary W ilson d e c la re s to be c o n tro v e rte d by "ev ery

w e ll-a s c e r ta in e d facta"®-*-■

" G h a tte r to n ’s m asking5," W ilson decid es? "began as an innocen t dream

of th e c h ild -p o e t and appears to have been ch erish ed to th e l a s t as an id e a l

r e a l i ty o But i t in e v i ta b ly tended to become a d e c e p tio n , w ith more o r le s s

of s h e e r fa lse h o o d , when m ain tained w ith th e h e lp , of sp u rio u s m anuscripts

and f i c t i t i o u s d e ta i l s o f th e l i t e r a r y tre a s u re s p u rlo in ed from Oanymge’s

c o f f e r , n e v e r th e le s s th e s t r i k in g c o n tra s t between th e t ra n s p a re n t v e i l of

f i c t i o n which h is mother and s i s t e r were allow ed to look th ro u g h , and th e

im p en e trab le n y s te ry which was opposed to th e sea rc h in g eye of s tra n g e rs 9

78o I b id . 0 p . 65.

79. I b i d . o p . 109.

80. I b id . 9 p . 1 2 0 . Of. p . 50» a n te .

81. W ilsons •2 £ . b i t . , p . 1 2 2 .

must not be overlooked in judg ing of h is conduct in t h i s f a l s e p o s itio n o "

ih e r e a l d i s a s t e r in C h a t te r to n ’s moral c a re e r s e e m s aeco rd ing to

W ilsons to have been th e p o e t ’s r e je c t io n by W alpoles whieh b lig h te d h is

"schemes f o r em ancipation" and "h is o ld dream of a Ganynge w orthy of th e

t r u e R o w l e y a " S t a t e s Wilson# "His moral n a tu re had s u f fe re d a shock only

too p a in fu l ly t r a c e a b le i n th e b r ie f months of h is fe v e red l i f e th a t r e -

m aim ede"^ Ih e e f fe c ts of th i s shock were soon ap p aren t i n "passages in

C h atte rto n * s modern p ro se and verse# and a l lu s io n s in h is l e t t e r s # which

re p e l by t h e i r ir re v e re n c e # and a t tim es by t h e i r im purity#"® ”’ p a r t i c u la r ly

i n th e long poem# The E x h ib itio n s "w ith i t s evidence t h a t y o u th fu l p u r i ty

had been s u l l ie d # and th e precocious boy was only to o .c o n v e rsa n t w ith f o r ­

b idden th in g s o"®® That th e youth "s s a t i r e s were e n t i r e ly u n ju s t if ie d #

W ilson q u e s tio n s # howeverf f o r he b e lie v e s th a t C h a tte r to n p o rtrayed h is

p a trons i n .t h e i r t r u e c o l o r s „ Fur thermore# " in th o se h a s ty productions #

th e cuckoo n o te re -echoes th e to n e and sen tim en t of th e age# in s o c ia l

m anners# in p o l i t ie s # and in r e l i g i o n # " w h i l e # W ilson p o in ts out# "w hat­

ever evidence i s fu rn ish e d by modern poems of C hatterton# th a t he was cap ab le

of m atching th e l ic e n t io u s models of h is own day# only makes more s t r i k in g

th e p u r i ty and e le v a tio n of though t of t h a t a n tiq u e verse# which was th e

r e s u l t of d e l ib e r a te ch o ice and t a s t e i n h is h ig h e s t moods of in s p ira tio n # "

a lthough " th e moment he jo in ed th e men of h is own tim e $ th e s o c ia l elem ent

predom inated9 and tem pted’ him to oon&es©end to t h e i r t a s t e s 89 But W ilson

eonoedes t h a t " th e indu lgenee of th i s humour (o f s a t i r e ) ended in an in ­

d is c r im in a te r i d i e u l ’O of a l l th a t f a i l e d to commend i t s e l f to h is aeeeptameeo"^.®

Regarding C h a t te r to n 's r e l ig io u s b e l ie f s s W ilson says th a t they were .m

th e oommon d e i s t i c ones of th e a g e 9 s im i la r to th o se h e ld by A lexander Pope*

the poets he w rite s 9 "owned? indeed? a @od; b u t he had no r e l ia n c e on h is

d iv in e f a t h e r h o o d s " 92 d e s p i te th e f a c t t h a t " in c o n f id e n t ia l moments o f

p r iv a te in te rc o u rs e he would g iv e u t te ra n c e to th e devout a s p ir a t io n s of h is

b e t t e r aatm rpe*9 *

Although he i s 9 as he s ta t e s ? " d e a lin g te n d e r ly " i n h is s tu d y of th e

poe ts W ilsons u n lik e the . ty p ic a l rom antic b io g rap h e rs r a r e ly allow s h is

sym pathetic p re d is p o s i t io n to warp h is judgment in o p p o s itio n to th e e s ta b ­

l is h e d fa c ts o This makes a l l th e more s u r p r is in g h is v igorous condem nation

of w hat. he co n sid e rs to have been th e i n j u s t i c e of th e p revious tre a tm e n ts

o f G h a tte rto n s which he accuses of hav ing " r e i t e r a t e d th e echoes of h is f i r s t

t r a d u o e r s *"94 While th i s charge seoenB h a rd ly w ell-g rounded? W ilson’s ex­

p la n a tio n of th e o r ig in of th e s la n d e r as th e "wounded v a n ity of B r is to lSBpa tro n s" and th e i r e of deceived o r puzzled a n tiq u a r ie s , appears credible*.

The O b jec tiv e S ta d ia s from 1870 to th e Pres e a t Day

Vo Iheodore W atts°D untons S i r D an iel W ilson thus gave a u th o r i ty to

th e id e a of a C h a tte r to n w ith a d u a l ch a rac te rg hu t Wo Theodore Wa,tts-Dunton

in h is essay on G h a tte r to n i n T0 H=, Ward 's E ng lish Poets 9 a p p a re n tly a lo n e

among G h a tte r to n ia n b io g rap h ers i n so doing? s p e c i f i c a l l y a tta c k s th e

theory® W rites W atts-Bunton?

F or n e i th e r th e a s s a i la n t s no r th e defenders o f G h a tte rto n *s c h a ra c te r seem to see t h a t between th e s e two conclusions th e re i s no m iddle one® E i th e r G h a tte rto n was a born fo rg e r? having? as u s e fu l a d d i t io n a l endowments ? p o e try and d ram atic im ag in a tio n alm ost unmatched among h is contem poraries ? o r he was a bona a r t i s t ? who? b e fo re m ature v is io n had come to show him th e power and th e sac red n ess ©f moral con sc ien ce in a r t? was so dominated by th e a r t i s t i c conscience™ by th e a r t i s t ’s y earn in g to rep - re s e n t? th a t? i f p e r fe c t re p re s e n ta t io n seemed to him to demand fo rg e ry ? ' he needs must forge®®

W hile t h i s w r i te r in c l in e s tow ard th e l a t t e r view of th e poet? he ag rees

th a t such a c h a r a c te r iz a t io n "does n o t? to be su re ? excuse th e d e lin q u en c ie s

97th a t shocked th e ingenuous a u th o r of The C a s tle of G tran to?" but o f f e r s

th e fo llo w in g d efen ses " t h a t ? i f such a s tu d y were p rosecu ted? we shou ld

f in d th a t in m atte rs of l i t e r a r y fo rg ery ? b esides th e im pulse of th e mere

m ercenary im post e r—as G h a tte rto n appears to em p irica l c r i t i c s l ik e Wart on—

besid es th e im pulse of th e m asquerading in s t in c t? so s tro n g i n men of th e

I r e la n d and Horace W alpole type? th e r e i s an o th e r im pulse a lto g e th e r? th e

im p u lse of c e r ta in a r t i s t i c n a tu re s to re p re se n t ? such as we se e i n S i r

W alter S c o t t (when tam pering w ith th e h i s t o r i c a l b a l la d s ) ? and such as we

.see in G h a tte r to n when? s t ru g g l in g in h is dark g a r r e t w ith fam ine and d e sp a ir?

96® W® Theodore W atts-Bunt on? "Thomas G hatterton?" The E ng lish P oets? Thomas Humphrey Ward? e d ito r? I I I ? 404=405®

S9

he tu rn s from th e keek-work th a t a t l e a s t might win him bread? to w r i te

The B allad o f C harity? th e most p u re ly a r t i s t i c work perhaps of h is txmeo”?®

The aeeount g iv en of th e poet ’s l i f e i s ty p ic a l ly rom antic* The y o h th ’s

" m a s te rfu l p r id e ”®® is o ffe re d as th e re a so n f o r h is u n fo r tu n a te end :

He would no t s to o p to conquer? and th e tim e was come wheni t was n e ce ssa ry to stoop* To l i v e by l i t e r a t u r e th e n wasalm ost an im p o s s ib il i ty ? and he had determ ined to l i v e by l i t ­e ra tu re o r d ieo 1 0 0

Edward B e ll and © th e re I O utstanding among th e e d it io n s of C h a t te r te n ’s

p o e t ic a l works i s t h a t of 1905? which in c lu d ed n o t on ly th e Rev* W alter W*

5 k e a t ’s ess ay . on and n o tes to th e Rowley poens but a lso a memoir of th e poet

by Edward B ell? which? w h ile la c k in g any p a r t i c u la r o r i g i n a l i t y of tre a tm e n t?

seems to have g leaned th e b e s t from prev ious b io g rap h ies to p rov ide a remark­

ab ly r a t io n a l and im p a r t ia l s tu d y of th e youth* In i t s g e n e ra l p o in t o f view

and in many o f i t s s p e c i f ic o b se rv a tio n s th e " l i f e ” shows th e s tro n g in f lu e n c e

o f W ilso n ’s eminent biography*

In h is memoir B e ll o f f e r s one of th e most ex h au stiv e d iscu ss io n s o f th e

Rowley d e ce p tio n in G h a tte r to n ia n biography* B as ic a lly ? h is th e s i s i s t h a t

th e d e cep tio n was q u i te innocen t i n i t s o r ig in bu t l a t e r developed in to an

u n fo r tu n a te h a b it? encouraged by th e In ex cu sab le c r e d u l i ty o f tE e t|cS u th ’s

patrons* W rites B ell? "The s t r e n g th of G h a tte r to n ’s im ag in a tio n threw him

back s im i la r ly in to an o th e r id e a l l i f e ? and so fo rc ib ly ? t h a t a t tim es, we

may w e ll b e lie v e th e com pleteness of h is s e l f - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w ith th e p o e t-

•priest R o w l e y T h o u g h based on such an image o f an id e a l l i f e ? th e

5 3 . 98* I b i d . ? n . 408. 100* I b id * p* 407*

99= Loc* e i t *

101 * The P o e tic a l Works o f . Thomas. G hatt e rto n w ith an Essay on th e Rowlev Poem by th e Rev* W alter W* S k e a t A n d a femoir. by Edward B e l l ( Ik e Aldine. E d itio n of t h e B r i t i s h Poets ') ? I? civ*

d e ce p tio n in tim e , B ell b e lie v e s s "had i t s bad e f f e c t on M s c h a ra c te r and

c o n tr ib u te d to th e f a t a l te rm in a tio n of h is s h o r t career," 1 0 2 when "he saw

in each new acq u a in tan ce an a d d i t io n a l o p p o rtu n ity o f t e s t i n g th e proba­

b i l i t y of h is s u c c e s s " I n th e p ro d u c tio n of p seu d o -an tiq u e w ritin g s 9

he appears n e i th e r to have acknowledged nor f e l t any moral r e s p o n s ib i l i ty

what ever B e ll s t a t e s o “ la e only excuses which can be urged 9 a re M s

youth and in e x p e r ie n c e , and th e b lin d c r e d u l i ty of th o s e who allow ed them™

se lv e s to be deceived by himo"!®^

Like W ilson and many o th e r b io g rap h ers B e ll observes t h a t in th e case

of G h a tte r to n “innocence and p u r i ty o f th o u g h t were e a r ly l o s t ? ” as shown

by h is s a t i r i c a l w ritin g s , 1 ®® and th a t in th e s e s a t i r e s : th e poet “allow ed

M s powers to c a rry him f u r th e r th a n h is own judgment i n calmer- moments ap=

p r o v e d B u t t h i s b io g rap h er l ik e w ise p o in ts out t h a t “ th e g r e a te r num­

b e r o f th e p e r io d ic a ls he c o n tr ib u te d to were re s p e c ta b le re p re s e n ta t iv e s o f

th e c u rre n t l i t e r a t u r e , and t h a t th e s t y l e of h is w ritin g s was not i n f e r i o r

to t h a t san c tio n ed by th e g e n e ra l t a s t e o f th e p e r i o d T h e s e w ritin g s

B e ll co n sid e rs " th e f r u i t s of t h a t r e s t l e s s s p i r i t o f em ulation which

c o n tin u a lly urged him s in c e h is in fa n t days to ta k e preem inence amongst h is

compeers a1*"*1®® And th e b io g rap h e r urges h is re a d e r no t to fo rg e t th e o th e r

s id e o f G h a tte r to n 8s c h a ra c te r as exem plified by " th e dream y, but a f f e c t io n ­

a te c h ild --s u c h as we may p ic tu r e Mm when, s t i l l u n ta in te d by th e w o rld ,

106o Ib id , , po x e v ii io

107» Ib id o 9 p. Ix x iio

108o Ib id o, Po x e v ii io

109c Ib id o, pa x cv iio

102 o Ibido , p o CVo

1 0 3o Ibido,,Po xxxviiio

1 0 4 o Ibido., Po xliVo

1 0 5o Ibido, po CVo

91

he wandered a long th e s t a t e l y a i s l e s o f 5 to Ifery8s , c a l l in g up s tra n g e

f ig u re s o f fo rg o t te n t im e s 9" nor “ th e unwearying in d u s try and s t r i c t s e l f "

d e n ia l 3 w ith which h e s e c r e t l y p re ssed forw ard tow ards th e u n a tta in ed g o a lMOo f du ly acknowledged mer i t o” -

Remembering perhaps t h i s p le a o f B e l l9 Jo A0 P a r r e r i n L i te r a ry

F o rg e rie s says re g a rd in g C h a tte r to n $ “A gainst h is v a n ity and r e s o r t to

d e c e i t must be s e t h is in d e f a t ig a b le in d u s t ry , so t h a t a f t e r tw elve h o u rs ’

confinem ent in fire L am bert’s o f f ic e h e would o f te n , says h is s i s t e r , * s it

up a l l n ig h t and w r i te by a o o n l i^ i te ’ 1

Upon th e p u b lic a t io n of C harles B0 R u s s e l l ’s rom antic b iography of112G h a tte r to n , Ibntgom ery S ch u y le r employed th e pages o f The Bookman to

p o in t out w ith c o n s id e ra b le accuracy th e r a th e r obvious f a u l t s of

R u s s e l l ’s booko S c h u y le r ’s rev iew i s n o t m alignant tow ards th e p o e t, how­

ever 0 I t speaks r a th e r m ild ly of h is " im pish tendency to m isch ief and

c a l l s h is t r i c k on Henry Burgum, h is th e o lo g ic a l c o n tro v e rsy w ith th e Rev0

A lexander G a te o tt , and h is temporary, d ecep tio n of W alpole "pranks of which

no l iv e ly , boy would need to be ashamed a f t e r he had become a man and putI 3 O

away c h i ld is h th in g s Q uite j u s t i f i a b l y , i t brands as “ absurd" B u sse ll’s

c h a r a c te r iz a t io n of G h a tte rto n as "a m arty r o f democracy” and suggests

t h a t th e youth ’s " p o l i t i e s " were p a r t " o f h is g en e ra l d e s i r e to sm ite th em

P h i l i s t i n e s s and th e r e s u l t o f h is g e n e ra l tendency to speak e v i l of dignitieso”

12.00 Ib id ,08 po cvio

l l l o Jo" Ao Farr or, Literary Forgeri^ 9 p0 16 Oo

l l S o Ofo pp-e 61-65, anted

113o Montgomery S c h u y le r , “ R u s s e l l ’s G h a tte rto n a" The Bookman, XXVII ( J u ly 1908), 485o

114 o Loc o c i t p.

92

In 1910 th a t no ted voluminous a u th o r i ty The E ncyclopaed ia .B rita n n io a

d e a l t r a th e r k in d ly w ith th e problem o f th e Bowley d e e e p tio n 0. Expressing

th e b e l ie f th a t " h is (G k a tte r to n * s ) ingen ious romance had e i th e r to be ac­

knowledged as his. own c re a tio n s and so i n a l l p r o b a b i l i ty be t r e a te d w ith

contem pts o r i t had to be s u s ta in e d by th e m anufacture o f sp u rio u s an tiq u es s”

th e b r ie f essay on C hattertom p o in ts out th a t th e youth "found no d i f f i c u l t y

i n g u ll in g th e most le a rn e d of h is c redu lous dupes w ith h is parchments o"

John Ho Ingrams M eyerstein ranks John H. Ingram ’s The True C h a tte r to n

w ith C harles E0 R u s s e l l ’s b iography as " l i t t l e e ls e th a n f r e e fa n ta s ia s on1

th e ’poor boy9 m o t i f a n d Sm alley c i t e s th e same b io g rap h ie s as s tu d ie s- 117

keeping a l iv e " th e C h a tte r to n of th e Romantic poets o" “ O utside of th e

• fa c t t h a t i t d ea ls w ith B a r re t t and w ith W alpole in much th e same way th a t

R u s s e l l ’s b iography d o es , Ingram ’s s tu d y o f th e poet r e a l ly ? how ever, d i f f e r s

g re a t ly from i t s p red ecesso rs Hie l a t e r b iography i s f a r more s c h o la r ly in

th e p re s e n ta t io n o f i t s m a te r ia l and avoids th e ex trav ag an t s e n t im e n ta l i ty

which c h a ra c te r iz e s R u s s e l l ’s study* Ingram makes l i t t l e attempt® f o r

example® to whitewash C h a tte r to n % p o l i t i c a l career*

Ingram ’s d is c u s s io n of th e Rowley d e ce p tio n i s much more co n v en tio n a l

and co n s id e rab ly more b e lie v a b le th a n th a t o f R u sse ll . The 1910 b io g rap h e r

o f f e r s th e u su a l e x p lan a tio n th a t C h a tte r to n b e lie v ed th a t h is verses would

"o n ly be t r e a te d w ith contempt" un less th ey w ere "b rough t o u t as th e compo­

s i t i o n of a le a rn ed p r i e s t and h is a r i s t o c r a t i c a s s o c ia te s and i n

~ 115* " Ghatterton® Thomas The E ncyclopaedia B r i ta n n io a s 1 1 t h edition®V I, 11. . ■

116o' M eyerste in , op. c i t *, p* x i i i o •

117* S m a lley , op. o i t «* p 0 29»

118. John Ho Ingram , The True C h a tte r to n , p* 80*

93

ap p aren t d i r e c t c o n tra d ic t io n of Russ©11=, he s t a t e s t h a t "none of them

( th e parchm ents a c tu a l ly in th e c h e s ts ) eould have in s p ire d G h a tte rto n w ith

th e con cep tio n of h is Rowley rayth3 o r have fu rn ish e d him w ith any p o r tio n

o f th e co n ten ts of h is Rowley p ro d u c tio n s 9 a lthough th e y may have su g g ested

to him th e way i n which to c o n s tru c t and c a r ry out .h is scheme i n co n n ec tio n

w ith th e romaneeo*1 ®

Although Ingram concedes t h a t G h a tte r to n Mwas p repared to accep t th e1 91views of th e l iv in g in p re fe re n c e to th o se of th e dead" and t r i e d to ob­

t a i n pecu n ia ry advantage from h is poem ? l i k e o th e r sym pathetic- b io g rap h ers

he p laces much of th e blame upon th e p o e t ’s B r is to l p a tro n s 9 e s p e c ia l ly Dr?

B a rre tto D e sp ite th e f a c t th a t in h is P re face Ingram prom ises a "new i n t e r ­

p re ta t io n " of th e y o u th 's d ea lin g s w ith th e s u rg e o n ? -^ th e one which he

a c tu a l ly p rov ides c lo s e ly resem bles th a t of R usse ll? . S u g g es tin g th a t

G h a tte rto n gave B a r re t t sp u rio u s m a te r ia l f o r h is h i s to r y in r e tu rn f o r121access to h is l ib r a r y ? ingram w rite s?

flhat th e su rgeon wanted th e la d su p p lied ? I f n o t th e p r in c ip a l c u lp r i t? B a r r e t t was c e r ta in ly an a cc e sso ry b e fo re and a f t e r th e d e e d a ^ ^

In h is comments upon G h a tte r to n 's s p e c i f i c c h a ra c te r t r a i t s ? Ingram i s

la rg e ly sym pathetic? perhaps unduly s o . In c o n tra s t w ith R u sse ll? he s u s -

119 o Of o -tee o 62^-63 ? an te?

120o Ingram? op. c i t . s p . 6 ?

121e Ib x d oo p . 107o

122. I b id ? ? p 0 7 .

123o I b i d .? pp. 27-28®

124. I b id . 9 p . 131o

94

p ec ts t h a t th e youth became " f o r g e t f u l of h is nob le id e a l s ” in London

b u t h e b e lie v e s t h a t th e poet ’s l ic e n t io u s modern w rit in g s were m erely evi~

dence th a t " l i k e most men of a h ig h ly p o e tic tem peram ent0 «, 0 O h a tte rto n

n o t only to ld th e p u b lic h is deeds and th o u g h ts upon m a tte rs he should have

k ep t s i l e n t a b o u t» b u t . 0 0 he was a p t to exag g era te h is r e a l f a u l t s , and

confess h is g u i l t o f fa n c ie d m isdeeds, boasting , of crim es he had n ever

committed "The contempt Chat te u to n had g e n e ra lly f o r h is fe llo w "

c i t iz e n s i s s c a rc e ly to be wondered a t , ” Ingram o b se rv es , "when th e c ra ss

s tu p id i ty of th o se he came in c o n ta c t w ith i s s e e n . " ^ ^ And in th e d ea th

of th e poet ’s f r ie n d Thomas P h i l l ip s and th e f a i l u r e of h is correspondence

w ith th e b o o k s e lle r D odsley and w ith W alpole, th e b io g rap h e r_ fin d s a ready

ex p lan a tio n f o r th e f a c t t h a t th e youth "became soured in tem per and more

and more s a r c a s t i c in h is v e r s e o " ^ ^

O h a tte r to n , Ingram g r a n t s , "had a s p ic e of o rd in a ry human n a tu re in

h is d is p o s i t io n and could b rave i t ou t w ith o th e rs of h is k i n d H e was

a l s o , acco rd ing to Ingram , h ig h ly c h a n g e a b le .in tem peram ents "At one mo­

ment g u l l o f hops and f a i t h , he would speak and w r i te a c c o rd in g ly , and a t

a n o th e r h is words o r works would p o r tra y th e s h a rp e s t sarcasm o r th e d eep es t

d e sp a iro ”^ ® F or O h a tte r to n 's i n f i d e l i t y and th e y o u th ’s acq u a in tan ce w ith

th e seamy s id e of l i f e Ingram blames th e bad in f lu e n c e of B a r r e t t , who

ffd estro y ed th e l a s t remnants of h is boy ish innooenee and fa i th * " Ihongh

125 * - Xbxct o § p © 209* 129* 1 Xbxd * 9 p* 90 o 0f o po 0 0 g anu e *

126 * . Xbxd* 3 po 204?* 1S0* Xhiid<? 9 p 9 6 *

12T* Ib id * & p * 154ro 131* Xbxd * 9 Po -130 *

128* Ib id o 9 Po 180o

th e yeu th was " h e t - t e m p e r e d " a t i d ? underg tandah ly <, ’•sa lloB ” w h ile an ap=

p re n t ic e a t Lambert *89 he was a l s o s says Ingram 9 " sy m p a th e tic , warm­

h e a r te d and g e n i a l " a n d e x h ib ite d " p le n ty e f energy and h e a l th fu l

s t r e n g th i n h is young l i f e # ” which $ i f "allow ed to develop n a tu r a l ly 9"1«5

might have made G h a tte rto n es c a re e r very d i f f e r e n t <, Ingram c i te s

G h a tte r to n 's second l e t t e r home from London as evidence t h a t " th e l a d 's3B£h e a r t has n o t been deadened by h is i n t e l l e c t , p r id e , o r s e l f i s h p leasu res*

Maurice Evan Hare and Gharles...Kentg The b r ie f b iography of G h a tte r to n

in c lu d ed i n lfe.urice Evan H are 's r e p r in t of Thomas T y rw h itt 's t h i r d e d i t io n

of th e Bowley poems, i s n o ta b le c h ie f ly f o r be ing u n u su a lly soldo Even a

f ra n k ly unsym pathetic p o r tr a y a l of th e poet might be p re fe ra b le to th e

l i f e l e s s c r e a t io n of H are, a lthough h is memoir i s s u f f i c i e n t l y r a t io n a le

Hare; ag rees w ith Browning and a number of o th e r b io g raphers th a t

"G h a tte r to n could on ly produce p o e try i n h is f i f te e n th - c e n tu r y v e in ," f o r

"h is im ag in a tio n f a i l e d him in modern E n g lish ;" and su g g es ts t h a t " i f an

adequate aud ience had been secu red in h is l i f e t im e , G h a tte r to n would have

1S7rev ea led th e s e c r e t when i t had serv ed i t s purpose^" L ike Ingram and

B u s s e l l , Hare re v e a ls l i t t l e sympathy f o r G hatterton*s p a tro n s 9 whom he

describes- as " d u l la r d s , p e rh ap s , who condescended to c le v e r ad o lescen ce ,

whom G h a tte r to n c e r ta in ly mocked b i t t e r l y enough in s a t i r e s which he w ro te

a p p a re n tly f o r h is own p r iv a te s a t i s f a c t i o n , b u t whom he n e v e r th e le ss took

132« jyryde-,-' -P ° '-S6 o 135 0 Ibad*., p» .88 o-

133o I b i d o, p o 5 . 135o Xbxdo 2 P° SX1 o

134 p p p 13© p

13?e Thomas G h a tte r to n , The .Rowlev Poess R eprin ted from T yrw hitt % T h ird .M it lo n s Ifeurice Evan H are , e d i to r , p 0 xxvio

es

c o n s id e ra b le pains to c o n c i l ia te as be ing men of su b s ta n c e who could lend' ' ' lo o

books and now and th e n reward th e Ifase w ith f i v e s h i l l in g s a*1 -

G h a tte r to n ’s p o l i t i c a l w r i t in g H are9 who d e te c ts " th e in e v i ta b le p r ig ­

g ish n ess of a c le v e r boy" even in th e poet ’s " b e s t e o ld ly la b e ls

as " th a t k in d o f vague l ib e l lo u s r a n tin g which w i l l always s e rv e to v o ic e

th e d is c o n te n t of th e in a r t ic u la te ." ^ * ® Regarding, th e y o u th ’s f r e e -

th in k in g ? th e b iog rapher? however? s t a t e s very c h a r i t a b ly ? "G h a tte rto n

was too honest and to o i n t e l l i g e n t to a ccep t t r a d i t i o n a l dogm atics w ith o u t

e x a m i n a t i o n A n d on h is su ic id e ? which Hare b e lie v e s th e poet decided

142upon as an a l t e r n a t iv e to re tu rn in g a f a i l u r e to B r is to l? "He was v e ry

fa r - s ig h te d ? shrewd? hard -w o rk in g ? and p r a c t ic a l? f o r a l l h i s . im ag in a tiv e

dreaming of a n o n -e x is te n t p a s t ; and th i s a t l e a s t may be s a id ? th a t

C h a tte rto m ’s s u ic id e was th e lo g ic a l end to a very ..rem arkably c o n s is te n t

l i f e . " 1 4 3

C harles Kent in The D ic tio n a ry of R a tio n a l Biography o f fe rs a r a th e r

gloomy bu t sym pathetic p o r tr a y a l of th e young poet? who? he say s? "was em­

b i t t e r e d by th e rep u lse" of W alpole . ^ 4 Kent c a l l s th e y o u th ’s. "L ast W ill

and Testam ent" "a b i t t e r ex p ress io n of h is m isery? w ith s a r c a s t i c bequests

to h is a cq u a in tan ce ;"-*-4 3 b u t he no tes t h a t d e s p i te th e p o e t ’s m isfo rtune

138o I b id o? p 0 x io 141. Ib id o » p . x x v iio

139 o I b i d . ?. p . xxvo 142. I b id .? p . xxv .

140o I b id o a p . xxiv<, 143. Ib id . ? p . x x v i.

144. C harles Kent? "G h a tte rto n ? Thom s?" The D ic tio n a ry of N a tio n a l B iography? IV? 148.

145. L ee, c i t .

97

Ghat t a r t on i s d e sc rib ed by th o se who knew him as "w ell grown and manly,

hav ing a proud a i r and a s t a t e l y b earin g ;,"^®

B ather P ark er B1 l in g e r s Ifether P a rk e r S l l in g e r 's book Thomas G h a tte r to n s

The Marvelous Bov seems to belong more p ro p e rly to th e f i e l d of psychology

th a n t o . t h a t of b io g rap h y , f o r i t i s oeneeined m ainly w ith prov ing th a t

C h a tte r to n s u f fe re d from a n e u ro tic i n f e r i o r i t y complex. E ighty--eight

years b e fo re th e p u b lic a t io n of t h i s s tu d y C. B. W illeox had d e sc rib ed th e

poet as "a c h a ra c te r o f th e most ab so rb in g i n t e r e s t to th e p s y c h o lo g is t ,”^ ^

bu t S ll in g e r 's e e m s to s ta n d a lo n e 1in having provided what may t r u l y be

c a l le d a p sy ch o lo g ica l s tu d y . The v a lu e o f h e r c o n tr ib u tio n may, how ever,

be c a l le d in to q u e s tio n . The Year i s Work, i n . E ng lish S tu d ie s accus es th e. • - • ‘

book of " ta k in g th e ^ s t r a n g e 'h is to r y ' o f th e J&iarvello.us boy* a t i t s fa c e

v alueo”1^8 t-iot o n ly does th i s seem to be th e case b u t a ls o i t appears t h a t

such a c h a r a c te r iz a t io n was chosen c h ie f ly because i t f i t s i n w e ll w ith

A d le rian p sy ch o lo g ica l th e o r ie s .

W rites U l i n g e r ,

C h a t te r to n ’s re p u ta t io n has to o long endured th e c rim in a l rep roach of " fo rg e ry " . 0 o . The f a c t of C h a t te r to n 's genius remains u n d i s tu r b e d n e v e r th e le s s , in n e u ro s is w i l l p robably be found th e much-needed key to th e p u zz le o f h is p o e try , as w e ll as a p la u s ib le ex p lan a tio n f o r th e c re a t io n of Rowley h im s e l f . I 4® - ’ -

That "Rowley’s w orld was a d re a m -s ta te in which th e poet sought re fu g e

146o T b id o9 p 0 151.

147o Gfo p . 77 , a n te .

148o B dith Jo ib r l e y , "The E ig h teen th C entury ," The Y e a r’s Work in E ng lish S tu d ie s , F . S . B oas, e d i to r , XI (1 9 3 0 ), 290.

149. E s th e r P ark er S l l in g e r , Thomas C h a t te r to n s The, fe rv e lo u s Bov,p . 11 .

98

whenever r e a l i t y heeame to o d i f f i c u l t o r d isappoin ting*^^® does seem a

" p la u s ib le e x p l a n a t i o n b u t th e added su g g e s tio n th a t "R ow ley’s w orld» o o

fu rn ish e d him ( t h e p o e t) w ith welcome g i f t s f o r th e o ld e r f r ie n d s he wanted

to p le a se " 1^ appears alm ost lu d ic ro u s <,

In d e a lin g w ith th e p oe t *s tendency to s a t i r e ? S llim g e r seens to be

p roceed ing .on s a f e r ground? f o r h e re th e r e does appear to be d e f in i t e e v i­

dence o f what might be c a l le d m ental unbalance* This tendeney she te rn s

th e employment o f "n e g a tiv e methods of enhancing h is se lf-e s teem * * o w here­

by th e in d iv id u a l h e ig h ten s h is own f e e l in g of power and in f lu e n c e by de­

g rad in g and b e l i t t l i n g o th e rs As an o u ts ta n d in g example of th e poet ’s

u se o f s a t i r e as "an em otional v e n t ? " B l l i n g e r o f f e r s th e f i r s t com plete

p r in t in g of th e long s a t i r i c poem The E x h ib it io n -- a s e u r r i l o u s , lewd? and

r a th e r ju v e n ile a t ta c k upon B r is to l c le rg y and d o c t o r s A l t h o u g h

K L liager p o in ts out t h a t "h e re th e s a t i r e i s both re c k le s s and p a r t i c u la r ly

o d i o u s ?"15S q ^ q g eens to f e e l th a t th e s i tu a t io n s and d e s c r ip t io n s of th e

poem may have had some b a s is in f a c t ? and th a t th e men a tta c k e d were " i n

r e a l i t y bu t b a se r m etalo"^*^

Conspicuous among th e d e fe c ts o f B l l in g e r ’s s tu d y i s h e r sweeping

a ssu ran ce to h e r read ers concern ing th e p o e ts "Hot one o f h is rem arkable

t r a i t s bu t can be d e f in i t e ly a s s o c ia te d w ith some n e u ro tic abnorm ality?

ISO-o, Ibid o ? p® Ad® 152 o IbOLd* ? p® 89 o

151® Ib id ®? p® 4S® 153® Ibid®? p® 42®

154® Of® p* 86? ante®

155® B llin g e r* op® e i t ® ? pp® 42-43®

156® Ib id * ? p® 59®

w hether th e c h a r a c te r i s t i e i s p e rso n a l o r l i t e r a r y , " H i s p rideg h is

th r e a ts o f sai@ ide» h is a f f e e t io n f o r M s fa m ily , h is f i e t i t i o u s fam ily

p e d ig re e , h is rem arkable tem perance of d ie t« -= a ll a r e f i t t e d n e a tly in to th e

A d le rian p a tte rn ,, Ihen th e g e n e ra lly aeeep ted f a c ts of G h a tte r to n ’s l i f e .

le a v e a gap,.. SI l in g e r f i l l s i n " th rough a s tu d y of h is a r t i s t i c develop-

mento1 F o r exam ple, sh e makes a broad in fe re n c e from c e r ta in modern

p o e try o f G h a tte r to n th a t th e youth in December, 1769 s, experienced "a s w if t

and u n req u ited a f f e c t io n f o r some B r is to l g i r l " which " f u r th e r provoked

h is d i s t r e s s to m isan th ro p ic In t h i s rnannei? l l l i n g e r t r a n s fo rm

th e poet in to a somewhat too id e a l case study®

Bo Ho Wo M eversteing Repeated re fe re n c e has been made th roughou t t h i s

th e s i s to Bo Ho W, M ey ers te in gs b iography of G h a tte r to n » P ub lished in 1930,

th e same y ear th a t 11l in g e r es book ap p eared , t h i s b iography ranks as p robab ly

th e most ex h au s tiv e s c h o la r ly s tu d y of th e poet ever made® F iv e hundred

and e ig h ty - fo u r pages in le n g th , i t indeed "produces th e c o n v ic tio n th a t

th e au th o r has accum ulated and s i f t e d every a v a i la b le atom of evidenoe®"^

But thorough re se a rc h does n o t n e c e s s a r i ly a s su re f la w le ss judgm ent, and

th e s ta tem en t made i n The Year "s Work in B ng lish S tu d ie s t h a t Meyers t e i n %

"co n c lu sio n s about G h a tte rto n may be accep ted as alm ost c e r ta in ly c o rre c t"•j 6 1

i s questionable®

In th e in tr o d u c t io n to h is b iography Meyersteim ta k e s g re a t pains to

renounce th e Romantic t r a d i t i o n = S p e c i f ic a l ly he a t ta c k s what he c a l l s

th e '‘poor bey“ m otif as expressed by R u sse ll and Ingram ; and o n .th e s u b je c t

o f th e "n es te d home-loves"^®^ he s a y s » " Q h a tte rto n ?s fa m ily was bu t one

a sp ec t of h is p r id e ; h e was se rv in g i t » and as i s proved by th e w il ls o f

h is s i s t e r and n iece? h e f u l f i l l e d h is vaunt

M eyerstein makes no a t te m p t, however? to d is c a rd th e t r a d i t i o n a l two-

s id e d G hattertono A ssuring h is re a d e r th a t h e i s "n o t in th e l e a s t con­

cerned to d e s tro y th e p ic tu r e of th e rom antic c h ild whose day-dreams w ere

peopled by f i f t e e n th cen tu ry fa m il ia r s s" he s ta t e s ? " Ih a i i s no s e n t i ­

m ental a c c re tio n ? bu t a t r u t h Y e t he b e lie v e s t h a t th e y o u th 's own

" a g e ’s v is io n of him? as a p e rs o n a lity ? was on th e whole c o rre c t? " which

" v is io n " he f in d s to be " f a i r l y expressed in a b io g ra p h ic a l d ic t io n a ry

o f 1784s . 1

"'Ihis u n fo r tu n a te person? though c e r ta in ly a most e x tra ­o rd in a ry genius? searns y e t to have been a most ungracious eom ppsitiono He was v io le n t and impetuous to a s t r a n g e degreeo From th e f i r s t of th e ab o v e -c ite d l e t t e r s to h is s i s t e r ( la y 30? 1770) he appears to have had a p o r t io n of ill-h u m o u r and sp le e n more th a n enough .fo r a youth of 17o 5

" Ik e in te n s e d r e a r in e s s ? th e f i e r y egotism ? th e a b s tr a c te d and b i t t e r

m elancholy? f in d in g most r e l i e f i n im i ta t iv e s a t i r e ? .when th e garb of th e

im aginary monk was throw n by? th i s " a ff irm s Meyers te in ? " i s th e Thomas

G h a tte r to n whom B r is to l saw;? knew? and remembered? a being; whom we a re

162 c Gf o p o 41 ? ■ a n te o

163o M overstein? ouo e i t o ? p a x v i =

101

permitt©S. to re c a p tu re s th e o t3 |er i s in h e re n t in th e Rowley ey@le9 i t .

s c a rc e ly has an e x is te n c e o u ts id e ? and any e f f o r t to r e v iv i f y i t 9 un less

by a s o r t of s p i r i t u a l i n t u i t i o n , must r e s u l t i n lame o r shadowy recoB~

s tru c t i0 n > w ®®

Such an overwhelm ingly o b je c t iv e s tu d y as th a t o f B ay ers te in seem

to ^preclude d efin itio r ii yet in essence th is biography i s the story of a167youth who was " a p t to confuse p u b l ic i ty w ith fames" w ith u n usually d i s ­

a s tro u s consequences f o r h im selfo l a h is In tro d u c tio n le y e r s te in expresses

th e b e l ie f t h a t " G h a tte r to n 's ru l in g p a ss io n , t h i r s t f o r fam e, i s » o o

unmist afcabl© and in th e l a s t pages of th e book he makes th e fo llo w in g

o b se rv a tio n s " I f any. le s so n can be drawn from th e f a t e o f G h a tterton

beyond th e p la in t r u t h t h a t h o n esty i s th e b e s t p o lic y and th e w r i t in g o f

P o e try 9 i n most c a s e s , i t s own rew ard$> i t would seem to be t h i s s th a t th e

one l a u r e l which unencouraged g e n iu s , o r t a l e n t , can w rest from contem­

p o ra r ie s , i s doggedly and humbly to have p e r s is te d in l i f e , see in g th a t

fam e, th e s u re end o f m e r i t , i s , o f i t s v e ry n a tu re , a q u ie t and an im­

m a te r ia l th in g o "^ ®

This theme o f im p a tien ce f o r fame i s most ev id en t i n le y e r s te in *s

account of th e Rowley d e c e p tio n , in which th e b io g ra p h e r, on th e w hole,

d ea ls q u i te sy m p a th e tic a lly w ith G h a tte r to n . Regarding th e poet ?s hoax

in th e m a tte r of th e d e s c r ip t io n of th e opening of th e Old B rid g e , Hey e r ­

s t e in s t a t e s f l a t l y , "Leaving a l l excuses f o r boyish lo v e of m ystery and

d ecep tio n a s id e , we may be s u re t h a t G h a tte rto n l i e d in t h i s m a tte r

c h ie f ly because he wanted fame as soon as p o ssib leo " But he h asten s to

166o Ib x io , p .. Xvo 16S. X b iio , p . xv .

167o I b i d . , p . x v ii io 169= Ib id . , pp. 528-529.

ex p la in t h a t i f th e hoy had to ld th e tru th s , a l l i n t e r e s t among th e B r is to l

tow nspeople i n h is w ritin g s would undoubtedly have been lo s te ^ ® Likewis.es,

M eyerstein p o in ts out th a t th e 'y o u n g poet had well-known models of im ­

p o s tu re im lacphersong W alpole? and o th e r s ; t h a t "im posture? h i s t o r i c a l

and l i t e r a r y ? was a p a ssp o rt to hav ing one 8s name blown ab o u ti" and th a t?

"im m ediate n o to r ie ty as w e ll as l a s t in g fame being his. o b je c t iv e ?" h e would171have gained l i t t l e by e x h ib it in g h is-w ork f o r what i t a c tu a l ly was»

"The m isch ief was?" b e lie v e s Meyersteim? " th a t he could not? l i k e Blake?172f iv e y ea rs h is ju n io r? be co n ten t to escape th e cen tu ry a ltQ g e th e r0"

M eyerstein does n o t f a i l ? however? to p la ce c o n s id e ra b le blame upon

th e y o u th ’s own p e rso n a lity ^ Of C h a tte r to n h e says? " Except in d e sp a ir he

could n o t be frankp C o ls to n 's? a commercial environment? and h is p r iv a te

read in g had made an a r t f u l man of h im w e ll b e fo re h is t im e « " ^ ^ Although

C h a tte r to n made an a ttem p t th r e e tim es to t e l l th e t r u t h about h is a n tiq u e

verse? le y e r s te in b e lie v e s t h a t " th e b en t of h is mind? a c e r ta in p u e r i le

lo v e of m ystery and s e n s a tio n rem aining t i l l th e end? was always to g iv e- :■ ' 174

th e v a rio u s s e c tio n s of th e w orld what he though t each wanted a t th e tim e "

" Ih e poet was? indeed?" th e b io g rap h er concludes?"o . » n o t a cunning

fo rg e r a t a l l (h e had no need to be i n t h a t cen tu ry and t h a t m ilie u ) b u t

1 95an u n d is c ip lin e d Puckish B om aatieisto"

l e a r l y everyone who has w r i t te n about C h a tte r to n seems to have men­

t io n e d h is p rid e? and to t h a t c h a r a c te r i s t i c of th e poet M eyerstein a lso

g ives g re a t s ig n if ic a n c e ? though in a non-Romantic way0 D iscussing th e

i m

. b o y ’s re s e a t meat a g a in s t h is s i t u a t i o n a t L am bert’s , th e b io g rap h e r w r ite s 9

11 Here we have th e f i r s t unm istakab le s ig n o f th e ‘p r id e ’ t h a t was going f a r

to ru in him , and-=-=worse=-in most o f th e work which he acknowledged, to come

between Mature and h is a r t

But i t i s in G h a tte rto n 9s London c a re e r th a t Meyei’s t e i n f in d s th e most

evidence of th e excesses o f t h i s p r id e = According to t h i s b io g rap h e r th e

poet went to London “soured and e x asp e ra ted . * * by th e r e f u s a l of B r is to l

and W alpole to accep t him on h is i n t r i n s i c m e r i t s t h e y o u th ’s p r id e

hav ing by th e n become s p le e n .^ ^ ^ Once th e poet was a r r iv e d in th e c a p i t a l1*70

c i t y 9 “h is n a t iv e an g er d ire c te d i t s e l f a g a in s t a l l m ankind|“ and he took

f u l l advantage of th e p o l i t i c a l c r i s i s to g iv e ven t to h is “ acrim onious mood

of s e l f - a s s e r t io n ^ 1’^ ® " P a r ty -w r i t in g ,” th in k s I f e y e r s te in , '“ appealed n o t

m erely . . . to h is v a n i ty , by e le v a tin g him in to im m ediate n o t ic e , bu t to

h is s o u l , as a f fo rd in g a trum pet f o r t h a t th w arted and fam ished organ to

blew i t s g riev an ce a g a in s t th e e n c ir c l in g w alls, o f commercial in d u s try and

w orld ly p r u d e n c E v a l u a t i n g th e A frican Eclogues , M eyerstein o ff ers

th e o p in ion th a t " th e p o e t ’s i n t e r e s t in negroes a t t h i s p e r io d . . . i s p a r t

and p a rc e l of h is d is g u s t w ith th e only c iv i l i z a t io n - h e knew."

While May e r s t e in th u s regards G h a tte rto n *s s a t i r i c a l w rit in g s as e v i­

dences o f a cu te f r u s t r a t i o n , he does n o t c o n s id e r them as in d ic a t in g in san ity

o r extrem e n e u ro s is . " S t i l l , " he o b se rv es , " i f lo o se and s c u r r i lo u s , th e

to n e of h is p ro se work i s n o t m orbid, and except f o r a c e r ta in f ix e d h a tre d

176. i b i d on. 69 -70 . 180. I b i d . , p . 323.

177. Ib id .? p . 349. 181. I b i d . , p . 349 .

178. I b i d . , p . 322. 182= I b id . , p . 358.

179. I b i d . 9 p . 323./

104

of s a c e rd o ta lism ( in i t s e l f no symptom of in s a n i ty ) i t is hard to f in d in

th e G h a tte rto n o f 1770 any tra c e s of a mind u B h i n g e d C o n c e r n i n g - th e

poet 8s su ic id e ? though he had d e sc rib e d th e "W ill" as an aa ttem p t to , "make

a , s t i r in th e w o r l d M e y e r s t e i n s ta t e s ? "His c o n s t i tu t io n a l m elancholy?

ex asp era ted by la ck o f s le e p ? delays in payment ? and th e agony? a t t h i s

ju n c tu re w ith th e b u r l e t t a unperformed? of keeping up th e f a r c e of b r i l l i a n t

success which had run th rough a l l h is l e t t e r s home? d rove him to th is ? h o t

th e l e a s t among th e re g u la r o b jec ts of . b i s contem plationo*8 ^

M eyerstein is ? i n f a c t? no t n e a r ly as h a rsh in h is judgment as t h e .

w r i te r i n th e b io g ra p h ic a l d ic t io n a ry from which he quotes <> The modern

b io g ra p h e r 's o b je c tio n to t h e wtl^mfced hem e-lovesffm otif" i s not so g re a t as

to p rev en t him from f in d in g evidence in th e poet 5s l e t t e r s to h is fam ily

of a "proud? f ig h t in g h e a r t" and of " th e sangu ine d e te rm in a tio n to appear

v ic to r io u s a t a l l c o s ts ” which "compels en thusiasm .and perhaps regard

And though, h e speaks o f G h a tte rto n in h is correspondence w ith Walpole as*| GST

" a b o ld ? presumptuous decoy duck? on h is m e ttle?" he a sc r ib e s v i r t u a l l y

as much blame to B a r re t t as do Ingram and Russ e l l „ A ssuring h is re a d e r

th a t " th e r e was an understand ing? t a c i t ? i t may w e ll be? between th e p a i r

( G h a tte rto n and Barrett)?"^-®® Meyers t e i n says ? "One cannot r e s i s t th e

co n c lu s io n th a t B a r re t t i s th e r e a l v i l l a i n of th e p iece? an in d o le n t and

noeo curam te v i l l a i n i t i s tru e * 0 » one r e s ts unshaken in th e c o n v ic tio n

th a t i t i s no t Horace W alpole o r th e IBgazime E d ito rs? b u t G h a tte r to n ’s

183 o Ib id c V p7 414 o 186= XMd,»? p 0 377o '

184: o ^bii© ? p o ■ 34:4:o 187 o . JOmli,0 s p = 363 =

185o Ib x d o? ppo 437-438o 188 = Xbxd G po 143 =

105

p r id e and B a r re t t 's c o ld , easy-go ing v a n ity $ t h a t en g in eer th e e a ta s tro p h e i^ *

And few s ta tem en ts i n th e rom antie b io g rap h ies of th e poet e&oeed in d ra ­

m atic q u a l i ty t h a t made by M eyerstein i n a ttem p tin g to d isp ro v e th e th e o ry

th a t th e sc rap s o f paper found on th e f lo o r o f Q h a tte r to n 's room a f t e r h is

death con ta ined v a lu a b le w r i t in g s s " Ho» he d id n o t d e s tro y Rowley; he d ied

th a t Rowley might liyeo"*®® .

L ike many a b io g rap h er b e fo re him M eyerstein f in d s C h a tte r to n to be an q i

"d u a l phenomenon” s " Ih e re i s one s id e of th e p ic tu re —and lihsson saw i t

- - t h e Tom C h a tte r to n who conformed to th e e ig h te en th cen tu ry s tan d a rd of

y o u th ’s v a g a r ie s ; b u t who w i l l no t p r e f e r th e o th e r 8 th e Thomas Chatt e r to n 5

s h o r t and s to ck y in h is persons h is eyes greys bu t ex trem ely v iv id 9 h is to n e

of voice, very p ie a s in g , and sm ile fa sc in a tin g * , when c h e e r fu l ; bu t of a melan­

choly e a s t of minds and when in th a t humour q u ite oppressed w ith th e cheer­

fu ln e s s o f o th e r s ; of g re a t tem perance in e a tin g and d rin k in g s h is d ie t

c h ie f ly f i s h and t a r t s 9 t e a and w ateirf”^ ^

The c h ie f v a lu e of Meyers t e i n ’s b iography l i e s no t in i t s c h a ra c te r por­

t r a y a l , bu t in i t s u n p a ra lle le d assem blage of f a c ts about th e poet and h is

w ritin g s $ i t s e v a lu a tio n of th e Rowley poems $ and i t s c a r e fu l d e l in e a t io n of

th e poet V e ig h te e n th -c e n tu ry background o F or th e c a su a l re a d e r Meyers t e i n

o f f e r s h is g e n e ra l views on C h a tte r to n 's c h a ra c te r and th e Rowley d ecep tio n

in h is la tro d u e tio a o The re se a rc h e r see k in g an e la b o ra tio n of th o se views

189 o Ib id* s. p 0 141 *

190 0 Ib id * p p.* 446 „

191.0 Of o T)@o34i-a h te g .n t3 '

192o le y e r s te in , op* c i t * , p* 78o

106

wiie werks h is w a y th rough th e hundreds of pages 9 r e p le te w ith fo o tn o te s

and re fe re n c e s 9 i n th e end f in d s h is ta s k to he r a th e r unr aw arding«,

M eyerstein *s conclusions a re c e r ta in ly s e n s ib le and w e ll-c o n s id e re d 9 hu t

th e y o f f e r n o th in g r e a l ly new. ■

W. f e e n e i le Dixon and Hoxie Neale F a ir c h i ld g W. Ifecneile Dixon d i s ­

cuss ed G h a tte r to n in th e Warton L ec tu re g iv en b e fo re th e B r i t i s h Academy

in 1930; but h e had l i t t l e to say on th e s u b je c t of th e p o e t ’s c h a ra c te r .

R e fe rrin g to th e Rowley d e ce p tio n ; h e s t a t e d ;

We may condemn o r fo rg iv e th e fa lsehood ,. His extrem e you th ; h is continuous i l l - l u c k ; h is a f f e c t io n f o r h is mother and s i s t e r ; th e pathos of h is l i f e ; i t s e a r ly and t r a g ic co n c lu s io n ; a re c ircum stances which s o f te n our h e a r ts and

• d isarm our censures

He a lso compared G h a tte rto n w ith C h ris to p h e r Ifexlowe and found th a t " p r id e

and am bition were th e sp u rs o f b o th e”^®^I ' .

In 1942 P ro fe sso r Hoxie Neale F a ir c h i ld in h is R elig ious Trends in

E ng lish P o e try p rovided what had long been needed in G h a tte r to n ia n b iography

— a thorough s tu d y of G h a tte r to n ’s r e l ig io u s ex p ress io n in h is w ritin g s „

According to F a i r c h i ld ; G h a tterton"s p o e try showed two d i s t i n c t types o f

escape "from th e dullness* of B r i s to l”— th e f i r s t ; in th e Rowley p o em ; in to

” a r i c h ly im agined C ath o lic s o c i e t y ^ ^ ^ th e second ; in h is modern v e rs e ;

in to a f a n c i f u l c re a t io n who i s "a w i t ty ; s a t i r i c a l l i b e r t i n e ; a d e v i l w ith

th e la d ie s s a. th o rn i n th e s id e of th e respectable." '® '^^

193= Wo ih c n e i le Dixon; G h a tte r to n ; p . 14o

194* Wo K acneile Dixon; Aa Apology f o r th e Arts 9 p* 58*

195o Hoxie N eale F a i r c h i ld ; R elig ious S en tim en ta lism In th e Age ofJohnsons R elig ious Trends i n E ng lish P o e try 9 I I ; 3490

1960 I b id *; p* 352o

107

**U n fo rtu n a te ly ?" w rite s F a i r c h i ld 9 " th i s id e a l f i g u r e » u n lik e Rowley9

could "be Im ita te d is" r e a l l i f e as w e ll as im poetry*"^^^ Although he be­

l ie v e s t h a t G h a tte r to n in h is Rowley poens "may have w ished to escape not

m erely in to a w orld o f t h r i l l i n g rem oteness bu t in to a w orld of happy

f a i t h F a i r c h i l d f in d s th a t " th e s e n tim e n ta l l ib e r t in i s m of h is modern199

poems 9 though very h i s t r i o n i c 9 approaches h is a c tu a l op in ions more c lo s e ly 0"

,lIh e Rowley Poens a" h e co n clu d es , " a r e an a e s th e t ic re fu g e from th e in ­

adequacy o f l i f e , and G h a tte rto n i s c le v e r enough to g iv e th e figm ents o f

h is im a g in a tio n , in r e l ig io n as in o th e r a s p e c t s , . a good d e a l of d ram atic

v e r is im i l i tu d e 2 G0

John G ranstoun K e r l l l s S in c e 1930 only one m ajor b iography of G h a tte r to n

has appeared im E n g lish 0 This i s John G ranstoun l e v i l l ’s Thomas G h a tte r to n ,

p u b lish ed i n 1948® % s e n t i a l l y , t h i s s tu d y p re sen ts th e same c h a ra c te r por­

t r a y a l as does le y e r s te im V b iog raphy , b u t in a s h o r te r and more re a d a b le

form th an does th e e a r l i e r study® Bore c o lo r f u l ly w r i t t e n th a n th e 1930

b io g rap h y , H e v i l l ’s s tu d y , n e v e r th e le s s , a lso s u f fe r s from i t s very o b jec ­

t i v i t y s i t s s u b je c t never seems r e a l ly to come alive®

H e v i l l es d is c u s s io n of th e Rowley d e c e p tio n , though r e a l i s t i c , appears

e s p e c ia l ly inconclusive® That G h a tte rto n was not p a r t i c u l a r ly innocen t n o r

n a iv e , H e v ill goes beyond Meyerstelm in p o in tin g o u t :

But w hatever might be h is p r iv a te op in ion o f G a te o t t ’s e c c e n t r i c i t i e s , t h i s new connec tion o f th e b ro th e rs G a te o tt , th e

S m ith s , B a r r e t t , and Burgum, seemed to him a very i n f l u e n t i a l one, and , am b itio u s , q u i te f r a n k ly am o p p o r tu n is t , and trem en­dously in te n t on s e c u r in g a h e a r in g f o r th e Rowley poens, he

199® I b i d ®., p® 354®

200 o LoCp ex t o

197® hoe®' b i t ®

198® „ ^tod.®, p.® 351®

108

worked i t f o r a l l i t was w orth , 0 0 » He knew "by i n s t i n c t th e s o f t sp o ts of .h is v ic tim s 9 and could f l a t t e r as a d r o i t ly as he could f l a y a llv ee^ O l

L ike M eyerste in5 H e v ill emphasizes th e p o e t 's im p a tie n t t h i r s t f o r

fam e, C h a tte r to n g h e s a y s , "above a l l e l s e , , , longed to g a in p u b lic

re c o g n itio n f o r h is w o rk --th e one th in g he b e liev ed in and f o r which he

was w i l l in g to make any saerifie.ao"*'® ^ But whereas M eyerstein s ta t e s

t h a t " i t i s un ifo rm ly agreed th a t he was no t m ercenary;" H e v ill be=

l ie v e s t h a t th e youth a lso "longed to earn money q u ick ly f o r h im se lf ;"

and "co rru p te d maybe, , , by th e , , , commercial s p i r i t o f th e c i t y in

which h e l iv e d , , , he matched h is w its a g a in s t th o s e of h is a n ta g o n is ts

and fo u g h t them gamely on t h e i r own ground,

G hattertong su g g es ts H e v il l , soon found h in s e l f in a s i t u a t io n from

which he w ished to escape b u t could n o ts

He .had.become so invo lved in a fin e -d raw n system of f a l s e t r a i l s , b l in d - a l le y s $ and f a n t a s t i c f e a ts of legerdem ain in reg ard to Rowley and h im se lf s t h a t had h e been a hundred tim es more, a s tu t e th an h e w as, i t would have been alm ost im p o ssib le f o r him to e x t r ic a te h in s e l f . His one chance now was to s t i c k to th e road he had chosen , push h is way s tu b b o rn ly onw ards, and hope f o r th e b e s t .

On th e q u e s tio n of B a r re t t ’s c o m p lic ity in th e d e ce p tio n H ev ill seeizs

c o n tra d ic to ry , B ise u ss in g G h a tte r to n % co n fe ss io n to B a r re t t of h is own

a u th o rsh ip o f B a t t le o f H astings fa th e b io g rap h e r re p re s en ts th e surgeon

as no t w ish ing " to a llo w h im e l f to be made th e r e c ip ie n t o f any ember-

201, John Granstoun H e v il l , Thomas C h a tto r to n , pp, 59-60 ,

202, Ib id ., , o , 62,

203, ‘l e v e r s te in , op , o i l ,.;, p , 320=

. 204= H e v il l , op , s i t . , , p , 62,

205* Ib id o s pi 64, 206, Ibid,*, p, 76,

109

ra s s in g d is c lo su re s $ which might shake h is f a i t h in G h a tte r to n and n e e e s s i-207t a t e th e e lim in a tio n of c e r ta in a t t r a c t i v e in g re d ie n ts o f h is H is to rv o”

Yet l a t e r in d e a lin g w ith th e poet 's correspondence w ith Walpole? N e v ill

speaks of B a r re t t as hav ing M allow ed h im e l f to he p layed f a s t and lo o se

w ith ” and as having a ’’to o -c o n f id in g n a t u r e A p p a r e n t l y B e v ill i s sug­

g e s tin g th a t B a r r e t t ’s c r e d u l i ty was la r g e ly d e l ib e r a te %a& was i l l - a d v i s e d Q

In s t a r t l i n g c o n tra s t w ith th e Romantic t r a d i t i o n of G h a tte rto n *s

in te r c o u r s e w ith Walpole? H e v ill d e sc rib e s th e poet as see k in g a s o r t o f .

p a r tn e r in crime? as " a l l he could hope f o r now was such u n c e r ta in ly po ised

s e c u r i ty as might ensue from an a s s o c ia t io n w ith one who had e rred in th e

same d i r e c t io n as h im e l f T h e t o t a l e f f e c t of th e d e cep tio n upon

G h a tte r to n ’s. c h a ra c te r H e v ill b e lie v e s to have been h ig h ly u n fo r tu n a te s

" Y ie ld ing to t h e i r (h is p a tro n s ’ ) f l a t t e r i e s ? he had come h e a r to lo s in g

th e on ly p e rso n a l p o ssess io n s he h e ld in any esteem ; h is p ro p e r p rid e? h is9*1 A

freedom of a c tio n ? , h is independence of m ind,"

But l i k e Seyersteim H e v ill f e e ls t h a t G h a tte rto n rem ained tw o -s id ed 0

W rites th e b io g rapher? ”While he is engrossed by h is k n ig h ts and p r in c e ly

m erchant b en efac to rs ? h is Kings and p r i e s t l y poets ? h e i s c u r io u s ly p u r if ie d ?

e x a lted and rem ote ; and i t i s only when h e comes down from th e h e ig h ts in to

th e p e t ty f r e t s and a n x ie t ie s of a normal workaday e x is te n c e th a t th e m an tle

of l i g h t s l i p s ffom h is . sh o u ld ers ? and h e becomes ? in e v ita b ly ? an a s tu te ?

none to o scrupu lous youngster? s t ru g g l in g f o r a " f irm fo o th o ld on th e s l i p -

2®7 6 Ib id .,? p , 57 o

208o Ib id o s bo 92 , ■

209 o ? p 6 81 ©

210 © Ib id © ? p., 72 © Cf_© pp© 78-79? ante©

210

pery e a r th o1’^ ^

On th e wholes th e c h a r a c te r iz a t io n of C h a tta r to n p re sen ted by N a v ill

i s th a t o f a r a th e r u n p leasan t la d who had been made so by fo rc e of cireum-»

stances® th i s p o r tr a y a l resem bles i n many ways th a t of Ife ther Parker

B llin g e ro L ike h e r , M evill b e lie v e s t h a t "G h a tte rto n was always a t th e

mercy o f a n o t uncommon ty p e of i n f e r i o r i t y complex which made him outw ardly

a g g re ss iv e when he w as, inw ard ly l e a s t s u re of h im se lf <> as w e ll as re n d e rin g

him h y p e rs e n s it iv e to fa n c ie d s l ig h t s and r e b u f f s B u t he does no t sub-»

s c r ib e to th e view t h a t C h a tte r to n was in s a n e , a lthough he g ran ts t h a t th e

poet was " th e v ic tim o f c e r ta in tem peram ental i n e q u a l i t i e s <>" in c lu d in g

"an in g ra in e d m elancholy ," " a n a tiv e sk e p tic ism th a t made him sh a rp ly

su sp ic io u s of a l l easy and ready-m ade b e l i e f s a n d " a cu rious f a c u l ty

o f i n t e l l e c t u a l r ee ess io n „n 2113

C h a tte r to n , M evill f e e l s , was th e v ic t im of " s p i r i t u a l im patience

which caused him , f i r s t , to engage in a f r u i t l e s s oorrespondence w ith

Dodsley and w ith W alpole, second , to make an a b o r tiv e jou rney to London,

a n d t h i r d , to commit, s u ic id e when the" only a l t e r n a t iv e was to go c raw lin g

back to B r i s to lo ^ ^ l e t th e p o e t , acco rd in g to W ev ill, was "an im p o ssib le

c re a tu re to h e lp ," who had "about him a h a rd n e ss , a s u l le n n e s s , a la c k of

h u m ility t h a t checked in t r u s iv e sym pathy, however k in d ly m eant."

The p ic tu r e i s no t e n t i r e ly a b lack one, how ever; f o r " C h a tte r to n "s ,

from th e very o u ts e t , was a v i r i l e , s e l f = r e l i a n t , c u r io u s ly a d u lt person™

SlJjo Ib id q , p q 63 o 214: o I b id o , p. 72©

212 o Ib id ©, p © 39 © 215 © I^id^©, pp© 24:7™248 ©

213 © Ib id ©, p © 249 © 216© Ibid© , pp© 250=251.

Ill

a l i t y o " A n d w h ile H e v ill f in d s th a t in Bie E x h ib itio n “w ith th e w orst

k ind of schoo l-boy p ru r ie n c y <> th e church i s c a s t ig a te d w ith a la ck of r e ­

s t r a i n t t h a t borders on a n t i - r e l ig io u s m a n i a h e s e e m to be r a th e r

fa v o ra b ly im pressed by "The A r tic le s of B eliefo " Perhaps N e v ill o f fe rs

h is most balanced judgment of th e poet i n connec tion w ith h is d is c u s s io n

of th e s a t i r i c a l poem “ To W alpole” s

I t was fa te d t h a t l i f e shou ld g iv e G h a tte rto n few oppor- ' t u n i t i e s f o r develop ing th e g e n t le r and more a f f e c t io n a te s id e

of h is n a tu rea But i t provided him w ith a f e a r le s s s t r e n g th of c h a ra c te r? and an e x te r io r hardness t h a t were p roof a g a in s t most th in g so And i t c e r ta in ly succeeded in making him a good h a te r? once h is enmity was a rc us ed „

#317 o Ib id o !). p o BO o

218o Ib id l? p 0 196o

219 o Ib id og p 0 107 #,

CHAPTER V

COHGLiBIOl

L ite r a ry fo rg e ry c e r ta in ly d id no t o r ig in a te w ith C h a tte rto n s th e

"boy-poet had numerous p red ecesso rs as w e ll as s u c c e s s o r s N o r d id Chatterton

by h is d e cep tio n o b ta in la r g e sub® o f money o r d e a l a t r u l y se r io u s blow .

to l i t e r a r y o r h i s t o r i c a l s c h o la rs h ip . Hence9 i t i s h o t s u r p r is in g th a t

a c t iv e antagonism a g a in s t th e poet d ied Com paratively e a r ly . S i r Horace

W alpole and W illiam B a r r e t t 9 who seem ingly t r i e d to redeem them selves by

a t ta c k in g G hatterton? succeeded only in damaging t h e i r own eases? and th e

r a th e r m alignan t s tu d ie s of th e poet p u b lished by A lexander Chalmers and by

S o H, M aitland seem to have had no l a s t in g in flu en c e? o th e r th a n to b rin g

censu re upon t h e i r a u th o rs , Indeed? H aitland "s memoir? which appeared in

1857? was a p p a re n tly th e l a s t b iography c le a r ly to re p re s e n t th e p u r i t a n ic a l

v iew poin t? a lthough a Q u a rte rly Review a r t i c l e on W« W« 8 k e a t ’s e d it io n o f

G h a tte r te n 5s works gave th e a t t i t u d e posthumous e x p re ss io n . When Qgefefcertm *a

a u th o rsh ip o f th e Bowley poems was e s ta b lish e d ? a tta c k s upon th e youth "s

c h a ra c te r to show t h a t h e was in c ap a b le of hav ing produced th e a n tiq u e p o e try

.were? of course? te rm in a te d , d i a t t e r t o n % c a re e r con tinued? however? to be

regarded as a u se fu l o b je c t le s so n f o r am bitious young men, George Gregory

co n sid e red i t as such?^ and even S , . H, ¥ , i ie y e rs te ia concluded h is b iography

1 , A re c e n t case somewhat com parable to t h a t of G h a tterton? though in th e f i e l d of p a in tin g r a th e r th a n o f l i t e r a t u r e ? was th e fo rg e r ie s of Hans van Heegefsem? who s o ld a supposed Vermeer to a B otterdam museum f o r $250?000o S'ea th e New - York. Times . Magazine f o r December 23 ? 1945? pages 10 and 1 1 , -

113

w ith th e moral to he drawn from th e poet *s h is to r y ,^

That whieh was new in G h a tte r to n ’s c a r e e r was th e p o e t ’s amazing l i t ­

e ra ry p re c o c ity and h is e a r ly and t r a g ic su ic id e .. I f G h a tte rto n had w r i t te n

h is p o e try a t th e age of t h i r t y - s i x in s te a d o f s ix te e n ; and had d ied of o ld

ag e , he might conee ivah ly have passed in to o b liv io n . In s te a d , no t long

a f t e r h is d ea th th e youth became th e m arty r of th e Romantic p o e ts , who o f ­

fe re d him numerous v e rs e t r i b u t e s , w h ile th e noted French d ra m a tis t A lfred

de Vigny made him th e s u b je c t of a Romantic p la y . In th e f i e l d of prose

S i r H erb ert C roft and Vieesimus Knox were among th e f i r s t to be somewhat

c a r r ie d away by t h e i r ad m ira tio n f o r th e y o u th ’s genius and t h e i r sympathy

f o r h is u n fo r tu n a te h i s to r y . T heir sen tim en ta lism was reechoed by John Dix

in 1.837, by Robert Browning in 1842$ to a l im ite d e x te n t by S i r D aniel W ilson

In 1869, and n o tab ly by C harles Edward R u sse ll in 1908. The th e o ry of an

almost-rays t i c G h a tte rto n was su g g ested by Dante G abrie l R o s s e t t i ’s sonnet

a.nd g iv en h a u n tin g , i f somewhat p u e r i le , p ro se ex p re ss io n by E rnst P enzo ld t

in h is b io g ra p h ic a l novel of an o v e i'- im ag in a tiv e youth who liv e d m en ta lly

i n th e f i f t e e n t h c e n tu ry , M eyerstein and John C ranstoun N e v ill agree t h a t

such a concep tion c o n s t i tu te d one a sp e c t of th e p o e t ’s c h a r a c te r ; bu t w ith

o r w ith o u t s c h o la r ly c o rro b o ra tio n th e se n tim e n ta l ap p ea l o f G h a tte r to n ’s

t r a g ic l i f e to p o e ts , d ra m a tis ts and n o v e lis ts w i l l p robab ly co n tin u e . I t

a p p e a rs , how ever, t h a t R u s s e l l ’s book, which has rece iv ed much u n favo rab le

c r i t i c i s m , marked th e end of th e s e n tim e n ta l approach in supposed ly f a c tu a l

b iog raphy .

Remarkably enough, th e tre n d s in th e poet 's b iography seem to have

o p era ted to a g re a t ex ten t in d ep en d en tly o f th e l i t e r a r y p e r io d s . The th r e e

3. Cf o p. 101, a n te .

114

o u ts tan d in g ? com paratively o b je c t iv e c o n tr ib u tio n s —-S re g o ry ’s s tu d y of

1789? W ilson^s b iography of 1869? and M eyerstein "s volume p u b lished in

1930=—a l l belong to d i f f e r e n t l i t e r a r y p e rio d s $ y e t they s ta n d as land”

marks in a k ind of b io g ra p h ic a l c y c le . The judgment of Gregory was so£=

tened to t h a t of Wilson? who remained th e a u th o r i ty u n t i l ; Meyersteim p re s ­

ented again? though in a more sym pathetic manner? th e r a th e r u n favo rab le

p o r tr a y a l o f fe re d by G regory.

Twenty years have now passed s in c e M eyerstein p u b lish ed h is voluminous

s tu d y . The d u s t of th e Rowley con troversy? of th e Romantic poets? and of

th e se n tim e n ta l b iog rap h ers has c le a re d away; and i t i s p o s s ib le to say

w ith some accu racy what b io g ra p h ic a l s c h o la rs h ip has concluded about th e

c h a ra c te r of th e poet Thomas G h a tte r to n . A ctually? th e conclusions ap p ear

e s s e n t ia l ly th e same as th o se made by Gregory some 162 years, ago.. As r e ­

gards many o f G h a tte r to n 's s p e c i f ic c h a r a c te r i s t ic s ? n o ta b ly th o se o f p rid e ?

am bition? and re l ig io u s i n f i d e l i t y ? th e e ig h te e n th -c e n tu ry b io g ra p h e r 's

s ta tem en ts have been p la g ia r iz e d ? d i r e c t ly o r in d ir e c t ly ? ever s in c e th e y

w ere f i r s t p u b lish e d ; ap p aren tly , th e y a re d e s tin e d to s ta n d u n eo n tro v e rted .

But on th e q u e s tio n of G h a tte r to n 's m o tiv a tio n in th e Rowley d ecep tio n —

th e a l l- im p o r ta n t q u e s tio n of G hattertom ian biography— Gregory had l i t t l e

to o f f e r . And th i s q u e s tio n has rem ained c o n tro v e rs ia l to th e p re sen t day .

Tfhy d id G h a tte r to n w r i te a n tiq u e v e rse o f such h ig h s p i r i t u a l a n d l l i t e r a r y

q u a lity ? whereas h is modern verse? as w e ll as most of th e a c ts of h is l i f e ?

seemed so lack ing , i n s p i r i t u a l i t y ?

S i r W alter S c o t t no ted th e am biguity of G h a tte r to n ’s c h a ra c te r? ^ and

5G. Bo W illcox o ffe re d th e convenient th e s i s of a d ua l G h a tte r to n —an id e a

4 . Cfo p i 27 , a n te . 5» Cf. p . 78? a n te .

115

which was eag e rly se iz e d upon and r e i t e r a t e d by suedeed ing b iog raphers

from David Mbsson to M eyillo Wo Theodore W atts-Dunton s p e c i f i c a l l y a t ­

tack ed th i s concep tion of th e poets® and E s th e r P arker E l l in g e r decided

t h a t C h a tte re on "s p e r s o n a l i ty was un ifo rm ly n e u ro tic 5^ b u t M eyerstein

a ffirm ed th e d u a l character.,® A u th o rity th u s r e s t s w ith th e c h a r a c te r i ­

z a tio n of a tw o-sided O hatterton* Such a d e p ic t io n of th e youth seemss

n e v e r th e le s s 9 on ly an exped ien t refuge* Perhaps such an a t t i t u d e i s dog­

m atic s b u t i t appears to t h i s re s e a rc h e r t h a t e i th e r G h a tte r to n must be

regarded as a more o r l e s s n e u ro tic s p l i t p e rs o n a li ty — and Meyers t e i n

den ies any neurosis® — o r f u tu r e b iog rap h ers must sea rc h more deep ly in to

th e m ainsprings of th e p o e t ’s a c tio n s f o r an e n t i r e ly c re d ib le c h a ra c te r ­

iz a t io n * W hile both ' sen tim en ta lism and p re ju d ic e have been la r g e ly put

aside* a com pletely s a t i s f a c to r y and convincing p o r tr a y a l of th e poet

s t i l l aw aits th e e f fo r t s of some f u tu r e w r i t e r .

60 Ofo p« 889 an te*

7* Of. Pho 98-99* a n te .

8 . Of. p . l iS 9 a n te . .

9 . Of. on. 103-104-. a n te .-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

. Addins e l l 9 Pd.chard $ and Olemence Dane, Gome of Age New York $ Doubleday» Doran & Company9 I n c 0s 1934» 116 ppe

Anderson® Robert (ed ito r)® Ih e Works of th e B r i t i s h Poetso 13 v 0 Edinburghs Mundell and S p n 3 1795, Y o lo XI, 1249 pp0

B a r r e t t , W illiam , Ih e H is to ry and A n tiq u itie s o f th e C ity of B r is to l ; Corn-o ile d from O rig in a l Records and A uthen tic f e n u s c r io ts , in p u b lic o f f ic e s o r p r iv a te Hands; I l l u s t r a t e d w ith C opper-P la te P r in t s »- B r i s to l ; 1789o 704 pp. . •

B ee rs , Henry As , A H is to ry of E n g lish Romanticism in th e S jfehteenth Century <>' New Yorks Henry--Holt and Company, 1899. 455 pp. •

B ird , G„ W esley, A lfred de V igny 's C h a t te r to n s A C o n trib u tio n to th e S tu d y of I t s Genes i s and- S pure es . Los Angeles s Lymanhouse, 1941® 183 pp.

B r i t to n , J o , An H is to r ic a l and A rc h ite c tu ra l Bbsay R e la tin g to R e d c lif fe Church, B r is to ls I l l u s t r a t e d w ith P la n s , Views, and A rc h ite c tu ra l D e ta ils s In c lu d in g an Account o f th e Ebnuments, and Anecdotes of th e Eminent Persons In te r r e d w ith in I t s Walls 8 A lso , an Ib say on th e L ife and C h arac te r of Thomas C h a tte r to n , Londons Longman, H u rs t, Rees,Orme, and Brown $ e t a l , 1813 ® 72 pp .

Cam pbell, Thomas, Speciiaens of th e B r i t i s h P o e ts ; w ith B io g rap h ica l and C r i t i c a l N o tic e s , and an Essay on E ng lish P o e try . 7 v . Londons John h u rray , 1819, V ol. V I, 456 pp .

Chalm ers, A lexander ( e d i t o r ) . The Works o f th e E ng lish P o e ts , from Chaucer to Cowper; in c lu d in g th e S e r ie s H d ited , w ith P re fa c e s , B io g rap h ica l and C r i t i c a l , by D r. Samuel Johnson; and th e tb s t Approved Trans­la t io n s . 21 v . London; J . Johnson, e t a l , 1810, V ol. XV, 655 pp.

C hatt a r t o n , Thomas , M sc e lla n ie s in P rose and V erse. London s F ie ld in g and W alker, 1778. 245 pp.

C h a tte r to n , Thomas, Poems w ith a Memoir by F re d e ric k M artin . London; U haM ;eagG riffin and Company, 1865. 168 pp.

C h a tte r to n , Ihomas, The Rowley Poess R eprin ted from T yrhw itt % Third Edition* Maurice W an H are, e d i to r . Oxford s C larendon P re s s , 1911. 333 pp.

117

The Complete Works of Persy Bysshe S h e lley g The J u lia n .M itlo a a 9 RogerIngpen and, W alter E0 Peek? editors® 10 v® Hew York.: Charles S c r ib n e r *sS e n s , 1927o Vol® I I , 433 pp®

C ro f t, H e rb e r t , Love and fedness o Londons 0® H e a rs ly , 1780® 295 pp®

Cunningham, George G odfrey, ( e d i t o r ) $ Lives of Eminent and I l l u s t r i o u sEnglishmen® from A lfred th e G reat to th e L a te s t Times® on an O rig in a l P la n ® 8 v® Glasgow; A® F u ilis r to a & Co®, 1837, iol® 71 , 472 pp®

D av is , John, The L if e of Thomas % atte rto n ® London; Thomas Tegg, 1806®

D ix, John , The l i f e of Thomas. C h a tte r to n . In c lu d in g His Unpublished Poshb and C orrespondence® London; H am ilton , Adams, & Cbe> 1837® 336 pp®

Dixon, W® Ifecn e ile , An Apology f o r th e A r ts ® Hew York; Longmans, Green &Go®, 1944® 215 pp®

Dixon, 1® Ifecn e ile , C h atte rto a .® London s Humphrey M ilfo rd , 1930® 22 pp®

H Ilin g e r , E s th e r P a rk e r, Thomas C h a t t e r to a ; . The Marvelous Boy® P h ilade lph ia :H n iv e rs ity of Pennsy lvan ia P re s s , 1930® 75 pp®

F a i r c h i ld , Hoxie H gale, R elig ious Trends in E ng lish Poetry® 3 v® Hew York $ Columbia U n iv e rs ity P r e s s , 1942, Yol® I I , 406 pp®

F a r r e r , J® A®, L i te r a r v F o rg e r ie s ® Londons Longmans, G reens, and Co®,1907® 282 pp®

H o w itt, W illiam , Homes and Haunts o f th e B r i t i s h P o e ts® London; GeorgeR outledge and S o n s , L im ited , 1903® 642 pp®

Ingram , John H®, The True Chat t a r t on® London: T® F is h e r Unwin, 1910® 344 pp,

K e a ts , John , Complete Poena and S e le c te d L e t te r s , C larence DeWitt Thorpe, editor® Hew Yorks Doubleday, Doran & Company, Inc®, 1935® 6 6 6 pp®

jfessoh, D avid, C h a t te r to n : A B iography® . Hew.Yorks Dodd, Mead and Company?1899® 320 pp® / -

M eyerste in , 1® H® W,, A L ife of Thomas C h a tte r to n ® Londons Ingpen and G ran t, 1930® 584 pp®

H e v il l , John C ranstoun , Thomas Chatterton® Londons F re d e ric k S a ile r Ltd®, 1948® 261 pp®

P e n z o ld t, E r n s t , The Ifervellous Bpy, John J® T rou n stin e and E leanor W oolf, t r a n s la to r s ® Hew York s H a rco u r t, Brace and Company, 1931® 272 pp.

The Poetical-W orks of Dante G ab rie l R ossetti® Chicago and Mew Yorks B edford, C larke & Company, 18— . '336 pp®

118

Hie P o e t ic a l Works of Robert Southey a 1 0 v* B oston; L i t t l e s Brown and Oompanj s, 1863 $ X9 384 pp»

The P o e t le a l Works of Thomas G h a tte rto n w ith N otices of 'H is L i f e 8 H is to ry of th e Bpwley Controyersyo a S e le c t io n of His L e tte rs 8 and Motes C r i t i c a l and Ibcnlanatorvo 2 Vo Cambridges W. P. G ran t, 1842? 7ol= Is 320 ppo

The P o e tic a l Works of W illiam W ordsworth8 1» de S e l in e o u r t9 e d i to r 0 5 v 0 O xford; Clarendon P re s s » 1944s f b l 0 I I ? 537 pp«.

Pryces Georges Memorials of th e Canvases* Fam ily and T heir Times a T heirClaim: fo Be Regarded as th e Founders and R esto re rs of W estbury C ollege and R e d e llf fe Churchs C r i t i c a l l y Examined: To Which 2s Added, Ined­i t e d Memoranda r e la t in g to G h a tte r to n ; w ith Coloured I l l u s t r a t i o n a London§ H oulston and Stonemans 1854« 336 pp.

Rowlands9 W alters Among th e G reat f e s te r s of L ite ra tu re * Bostons Dana % te s & Company9 1900o 225 pp®

Rowleys Thomas s and o th e rs s Poems s Snnnosed To Have Been W ritten , a t B r i s to l in th e F if te e n th C en tu ryo Londons T0 Payne and S o n s 1778» 333 ppo

Rowleys Thomas, Poeas Supposed To Have Been W ritten a t B r i s to l in th e 15 thCenturvo Cambridge s Be Flow ers 1794« 329 pp«

Russ e l l s Charles Edwards Thomas G h a tte rto n g The Marvelous Boy, The S to ryof a S tra n g e Lxfes 1752=17700 Hew York s t e f f a t 9 Yard & Company3IDORo 389 pp„ - . -

Sm alleys Donalds Browning 8s lb say on C hattertono Cambridge 1 Harvard- U n iv e rs ity Press $ 1948*. 194 p p . . v

S t a r r e t t 9 V incents Books A l i v e o Hew Yorks Random Houses 1940* 360 pp0

¥igny» A lfred des C hattertono P a ris g Calmann=Levy, 1835a 81 pp0

Walshs R oberts Jr» ( e d i to r ) s The Works of th e B r i t i s h Poets 9 w ith L ivesof th e A uthorso 50 v . P h ila d e lp h ia 8 Samuel Fo B rad fo rd ? 1822s XXIX3 391 ppo .

W hite9 Hewman I , ( e d i to r ) 9 The Best o f S h e lle y a New York; Thomas Nelson and Sons 5 1932® 530 pp*

W ilsons D an iels G h a tte r to n ; A B io g rap h ica l S tu d y o London; Ivhcmillan andGo 0 $„ 1869 a 328 pp® -

The Works o f Thomas C h a tte r to n o 3 v„ London $ To N® Longman and 0 ® Rees s 1803$ Vola I s 361 ppoj'V ola I I s 536 pp»

119

S e r le s

C h a t te r to n , Ihomas 5 The P o e tic a l Works o f Thomea G hattertono With aP re fa to ry N o tic e «, B io g rap h ica l and C r i t ic a lo by John Biehmonds The C anterhury Poets » W illiam S h a rp <, e d i to r , London: W alter S c o t t 3Lim itedg 1885. 2.92 pp.

The P o e tic a l Works of Thomas C hatt e r to n w ith am Is s a y on th e Bowley Poem by th e R ef. W alter W. S k e a t9 L i t t . D ,9 L I. P . And a Memoir by - Edward B ella M. A,.* The A ldine J H i t io n of th e B r i t i s h P o e ts . , 2 v . Londons George B e ll and Sons 9 1905. V ol. I s 379 pp.

S t e l l o s Oeuyres Completes de A lfred de Vignyo E d itio n D e f in i t iv e .P a ris s L ib ra i r ie . B elagraves 1920. 360 pp.

Bronsons B ertrand H. g *’ Thomas C hatt e r to n 9W The Age o f Johnsons lb s. s. vs P res­ented to Chauncay B rew ster T in k er, lew Havens Tale U n iv e rs ity P r e s s ? 1949. Pp. 239-255.

Watts $ W. Theodores ” Thomas C h a tte r to n s1* The E ng lish Poets s Thomas Humphrey Wards e d i to r . 5. v . London and Mew York $ lfe.end.llan and Co $ 1891 g I l l s 400-408.

P e r io d ie a l. A rtic le s

Andersons D avid? " Old l& ste rs To O rders F orgery as a F in e A rts" The Mew -- York Times lifegazine. December 23$ 1945 9 pp. 10-11.

B r i s to l ! en sis $ "The Death of Thoms C hatt e r to n $" G lo u c e s te rsh ire Notes and Q ueries s I ? (1890)$ 472-473 .

"Chalmers 6s E n g lish Poets s" The Q u a rte rly Reviews XI ( J u ly 1814}s 480-504.

" C h a tte rto n "s Works by Southey and C o ttle s" The Edinburgh Reviews o r C r i t i c a l Jo u rn a ls IV (A p ril 1804)$ 214=230.

F o ste r$ J , $ " The L ife of Thomas C h a tte r to n , in c lu d in g h is Unpublished Poems and C orrespondence9" The E c le c t ic Reviews H I (ifey 1838) $ 529-544.

"The L ife of Thomas C hatt e r to n $" The London fe.gazlne9 IX ( January to June 1824)$ 631-638. _ ■

3 chuyl e r $ Montgomery $ " R u s s e l l ’s ’C h a tte r to n ’ $" The Bookmans XX?1I ( Ju ly 1908)s 484-486.

120

S e o i t , Clement g ” C h a tte r to n 9“ Ih e T heatres n . s »$ IV (J u ly 1 , 1884), 37=39o

n B iem s C h a tte r to n s” Hae Q u a rte r ly Review, OL ( Ju ly 1880) 3 78“110°

Iborniauryg W alter* M John D ix , th e B iographer of C h a tta r to n 9" Boies and Q ueries % 4 th s eri.es * IX ( A p ril 13 * 1872) 9 294=296 =

Walpole* Horace* ” C onclusion o f W alpole’s Account of G hatterton*” The Gent 1 eman’s Ifega z in e ■> L II (J u ly 1782) ? 347-348=

Walpole* Horace* " E x tra c t of a L e t te r from I&”. W alpole to IS* = We B= c o n ta in ­in g th e B a r ra tiv e promised in our l a s t* p= 195*” The- Gentlem an's Ife-gazine*- L II (l&y 1782) * 247-250 =

Walpole* Horace* "A L e t te r to th e E d ito r of th e M sc e lla n ie s of Thomas G h a tte rto n s'* Th e Gent 1 eman’s Jfagazine * L I I (A p ril 1782) * 189-195=

W= B= B» S = * "The Death o f G h a tte rto n — a Fragm ent»" T a it °s Edinburgh M agazine, n= s = * XXV (F ebruary 1858)* 81-82 =

P u b lic a tio n s of Learned S o c ie t ie s

E d ith Jo tb rley * "The E ig h teen th C en tu ry*” The Y ear's Work in E nglishS tu d ie s * Fo S o Boas * editor® London? Humphrey M lfo rd * 1930= V o l e

XI* p p = 288-2900

Encyclopaedia A r t ic le s

Chambers * Robert * "Thomas G hatterton*" C yclopaedia of E n g lish L i te ra tu re ?A H is to ry *. C r i t ic a l , and B io g ra p h ic a l* of B r i t i s h Authors * from th e E a r l i e s t to th e P resen t Times = 2 y.. Edinburgh 1 W illiam and Robert Chambers * 1844* I I* 81—87°

"G h atterto n * Thomas *" The. B hsvelopaedla B r i ta n n ic a , 11 th ed itio n * VI* 10-12 =

Kent * C harles * " G hatterton* Thomas*" The D ic tio n a ry of N a tio n a l B iography=22 Vo Oxford U n iv e rs ity Press * 1921-1922* IV* 143-154 =

B ib lio g rap h ie s

H yett* F ran c is Adam * and th e Rev0 Canon Bazeley * G h a tte r to n ia n a o G lo u ces te r ? John Bellows* 1914= 43 pp= „

S WPLBMENTARY BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

B e lls N e i l9 Cover His F a e e s A Novel o f th e L ife and lim es of XhomasG h a ite r io n o Torontos W illiam C o llin s Sons & Go? Ltd? 1943» 320 ppQ

B en n e tts James Ros The L ife o f Ihomas O ha tterto n s th e Poet „ Birminghams Jo Bowlers 0 ISSOo 35 pp®

B ry an tj Jacobs O tee r ra t io n s noon th e poqeb of Thomas Rowley* in which th e A a tk e n tio itv of~ th o s e Poems i s A seg rta ln ed s l f 81»

Ingrams John Hc$ G h a tte rto n and His Poetry^ Londons Go Go H arrop & Company$ 1916o 148 pfo

S h itlan d ? Rev, Samuel Roffey? C h a tte r to n i An I s s a y , Londons 1857,

M ile s s le a n Jerem iah ( e d i to r ) ? Poems Supposed To Have Been- W ritten by Thomas Rowley, a o w ith a Commentary & & by J , .M iles..? 1782 o

P en zo ld t t B r e s t» B er Arxae C hatt e r te n s G essh loh te Bines Wunderkimder* 1928. 229 pp. . ■ .

R ich te rs H elenes Thomas G h a tte r to n . L e ipz ig? W.. B raum ullers ,1900. 258 pp.

Tyrw hitt $ Thomas s A-V in d ica tio n of th e Appendix to th e Poems C alled Rowley *s . i n Reply to th e Answers of th e Bean of Bbokter. Jacob Bryant s % q u i r e . and a T h ird Anonymous W riter? w ith Some F u r th e r O bservations upon Those Poem and a n .Exam ination of th e Byjdence Which Has Been Producedin S upport o f T h e ir A u th e n tic i ty . London $ I . Payne and Son 9 1782.223 p p . . ; . •

Warner? C harles Budley? L ib ra ry o f th e World 's Best L i t e r a tu r e . 30 v®Hew Yorks R. S . P ea le and J . A. H i l l s 1897$ Vol. VI? pp. 3671-3574.

Wartons Thomas5 An Enquiry in to th e A u th e n tic ity of th e Posbb A ttr ib u te d to Thomas Rowley; in Which th e Arguments o f th e Bean of E x e te r , and Br. B ry an t9 Are Examined. Londons J . Bodsley? 1782. 125 pp.

Wart on s Thomas? The H is to ry o f E ng lish Poetry? from th e C lose of th eE leven th to th e Commencement of th e E ig h teen th C entury . 3 v . and88 pp. of V ol. IV . Londons 1774-1781? V ol. I I .

122

Knox9 Vicesimus s "E ssay 144?" % savs Iferal aad L i te r a r y » 5 th e d itio n s 2 v a Londons 1782.

Bass on? David ? *' C h a tte rto n s A S to ry of th e Year 1770 s" % s a y s . B io g rap h ica l and C r i t i c a l s C h ie fly on E n g lish Poets a Cambridges Macmillan and Co. s. 1856. Pp. 178-345.

P e r io d ic a l A r t i c l e

Ifebbotts Thomas 011ive» " Hotes on C h a tte r to n s An U ncollec ted Poems” Motes and Q ueries ■> CLXX1V ( January 15 j 1938) $ 45-46 .

Ifebbotts Thomas O llive* "Two' L e tte rs o f Thomas C h a tte r to n i n Americas"Motes and Q ueries . GLX ( l/hrch 7$ 1931)» 170-171.

. Ifessonj Davids "C h a tte r to n s A S to ry of th e Year 1770s” D u b lin U n ly e rs ity Magazines XXXVIII (1 8 5 1 ), 1 -1 7 s 178-192s and 420-435.

M eyersteinp 1 . H. W.9 "C h a tte rto n s C o leridge and B r is to l s 5The S acred R iver V" The Times L i te r a ry Supplem ents (August 2 1 , 1937), p . 606.

May erst e ia H. W6, "Chatterton % 33 Bristows Tragedie %” Hie Times LiterarySimplement. (August 5 , 1939) 9 p« 467 .

M eyersteins ®. H. We, " C h a tte r to n 's L ast Days” The Times L i te r a ry Supplements(June 28 , 1941), p . 316. . • .

Meyers t e i n , H. W,, “ C h a tte r to n 8s S p e l l in g o f B e lla s " Motes, and Queri es ,GLX (A p ril 11s 1931)» 262-263.

Meyers t e i n s 1 . H". W. 9 " Thomas C h a t te r to n ,” The Times L i te r a ry Supplem ent, (Ju n e 25 , 1931), p . 504.

T ay lo r, John , " G h a tte r to n ia n a ," The Athenaeum, (August 1 , 1891), pp. 158=159.

W atk in -Jones, A ., "B ishop P ercy , Thomas, Wart on, and C h a t te r to n ’s Rowley Poems." PiaAe L (Septem ber 1935), 769-784.

P@ )lI8ations o f Learned S o e ie t ie s

C la rk e , S i r E rn e s t , "Mew L igh ts on C h a tte r to n ," B ib lio g ra p h ic a l S o c ie ty , T ra n sa c tio n s , London, 1916. T o l. X II I , pp. 219-251. - -

123

ley ers te in j, B» 1® Wa9 nChatterton---His S ig n ific an c e To-Days*’ Ifesays by D iverse Hands@ Roval S o c ie ty of L ite ra tu re of th e United Kingdoms London5 1937. H. s .? XVI, 81-91.

A rtic le s

Gregory, George, "The L ife of Thomas G hattertoa,* ' 2nd e d itio n , IV, 573-619«

La B ritan n ica ,