it bin to lett alone.

If more instances should be wanted, see H. 1. 396. 429. 455. H. 2.
306. 703.--p. 275. ver. 4.--p. 281. ver. 63.--p. 288. ver. 1.

In the same irregular manner the following verbs are used
_singularly_.

E. I. 10. Then _fellen_ on the grounde and thus yspoke.

H. 2. 665. Bewopen Alfwoulde _fellen_ on his knee.

P. 287. ver. 17. For thee I _gotten_ or bie wiles or breme.

H. 1. 252. He turned aboute and vilely _souten_ flie.

H. 2. 339. Fallyng he _shooken_ out his smokyng braine.

H. 2. 334. His sprite--Ne _shoulden_ find a place in anie songe.

AE. 172. So Adam _thoughtenne_ when ynn paradyse----

1136. Tys now fulle morne; I _thoughten_, bie laste nyghte--

Ch. 54. Full well it _shewn_, he _thoughten_ coste no sinne.

See also H. 2. 366. where _thoughten_, with the additional syllable,
not being quite long enough for the verse, has had another syllable
added at the beginning.

Ne onne abash'd _enthoughten_ for to flee.

And (what is still more curious) we have a participle of the present
tense formed from this fictitious past time, in AE. 704.

_Enthoughteyng_ for to scape the _brondeynge_ foe--

Which would not have been a bit more intelligible in the XV Century
than it would be now. _Brondeynge_ will be taken notice of below.

Many other instances of the most unwarrantable anomalies might be
produced under this head; but I think I have said enough to prove,
that the language of these poems is totally different from that of the
other English writers of the XV Century; and consequently that they
were not written in that century; which was my first, proposition. I
shall now endeavour to prove, from the same internal evidence of the
language, that they were written entirely by Thomas Chatterton.

For this purpose it will only be necessary to have recourse to those
interpretations of words by way of Glossary, which were confessedly
written by him[4]. It will soon appear, if I am not much mistaken,
that the author of the Glossary was the author of the Poems.

Whoever will take the pains to examine these interpretations will
find, that they are almost all taken from SKINNER'S _Etymologicon
Linguae Anglicanae_[5]. In many cases, where the words are really
ancient, the interpretations are perfectly right; and so far
Chatterton can only be considered in the light of a commentator, who
avails himself of the best assistances to explane any genuine author.
But in