these poems that were produced by Chatterton at different times; or, to use his own words, “there is often a material variation between the copy and the original, which never could have happened if he had been the author of both[1]. He must have known his own writing, and would not have deviated from his own purpose.”—Thus in one copy of the Song to Ella, which C. gave to Mr. Barrett, these lines were found:
“or seest the hatched steed,
“Ifrayning o'er the mead.”
Being called upon for the original, he the next day produced a parchment, containing the same poem, in which he had written yprauncing, instead of ifrayning; but by some artifice he had obscured the Ms. so much, to give it an ancient appearance, that Mr. B. could not make out the word without the use of galls.—What follows from all this, but that C. found on examination that there was no such word as ifrayning, and that he substituted another in its place? In the same poem he at one time wrote locks—burlie—brasting—and kennest; at another, hairs—valiant—bursting—and hearest. Variations of this kind he could have produced without end.—These commentators deceive themselves, and use a language that for a moment may deceive others, by talking of one read-
- ↑ So that an authour cannot revise or correct his works without forfeiting his title to them!—According to this doctrine, Garth was the authour of only the first copy of the the Dispensary, and all the subsequent editions published in his life-time, in every one of which there were material variations, must be attributed to some other hand.
