NDEOUS. E. II. 24. _Furious_. Chatterton. BRONDED. H. 2. 558.
BRONDEYNGE. AE. 704. BURLIE BRONDE. G. 7. _Fury, anger_. Chatterton.
See also H. 2. 664. All these uses of _Bronde_, and its supposed
derivatives, are taken from Skinner. "Bronde, exp. _Furia_, &c."
though in another place he explains Burly brand (I believe, rightly)
to mean _Magnus ensis_. It should be observed, that the phrase _Burly
brand_, if used in its true sense, would still have been liable to
suspicion, as it does not appear in any work, that I am acquainted
with, prior to the _Testament of Creseide_, a Scottish composition,
written many years after the time of the supposed Rowley.

BURLED. M. 20. _Armed_. Chatterton. So Skinner, "Burled, exp.
_Armatus_, &c."

BYSMARE. M. 95. _Bewildered, curious_. Chatterton. BYSMARELIE. Le. 26.
_Curiously_. Chatterton. See also p. 285. ver. 141. BISMARDE.

It is evident, I think, that all these words are originally derived
from Skinner, who has very absurdly explained Bismare to mean
Curiosity. The true meaning has been stated above, p. 318.

CALKE. G. 25. _Cast_. Chatterton. CALKED. E. I. 49. _Cast out,
ejected_. Chatterton. This word appears to have been formed upon a
misapprehension of the following article in Skinner. "Calked, exp.
Cast, credo Cast up." Chatterton did not attend to the difference
between _casting out_ and _casting up_, i.e. _casting up figures in
calculation_. That the latter was Skinner's meaning may be collected
from his next article. "Calked for Calculated. Ch. the Frankeleynes
tale." It is probable too, I think, that in both articles Skinner
refers, by mistake, to a line of _the Frankelein's tale_, which in the
common editions stands thus:

"Ful subtelly he had _calked_ al this."

Where _calked_ is a mere misprint for _calculed_, the reading of the
MSS. See the late Edit. ver. 11596.

It would be easy to add many more instances of words, _either not
ancient or not used in their ancient sense_, which repeatedly occur
in these poems, and must be construed according to those fanciful
significations which Skinner has ascribed to them. How that should
have happened, unless either Skinner had read the Poems (which, I
presume, nobody can suppose,) or the author of the Poems had read
Skinner, I cannot see. It is against all odds, that two men, living
at the distance of two hundred years one from the other, should
accidentally agree in coining the same words, and in affixing to them
exact