n the
rest. The internal evidence is strong that they are all from one hand;
and external evidence there is none, that I have been able to meet
with, which ought to persuade us, that a single line, of verse or
prose, purporting to be the work of ROWLEY, existed before the time of
CHATTERTON.

[Footnote 1: I have chosen this _part_ of the internal evidence,
because the arguments, which it furnishes, are not only very decisive,
but also lie within a moderate compass. For the same reason of
brevity, I have confined my observations to a _part_ only of
this _part_, viz. to _words_, considered with respect to their
_significations_ and _inflexions_. A complete examination of this
subject _in all its parts_ would be a work of length.]

[Footnote 2: Of these varieties all, except the first, are more
properly varieties of _style_ than of _language_. The _local
situation_ of a writer may certainly produce a _provincial dialect_,
which will often differ essentially from the language used at the same
time in other parts of the same country. But this can only happen in
the case of persons of no education and totally illiterate; and such
persons seldom write. It is unnecessary however to discuss this point
very accurately, as nobody, I believe, will contend, that the poems
attributed to Rowley are written in any _provincial dialect_. If there
should be a few words in them, which are now more common at Bristol
than at London, it should be remembered that Chatterton was of
Bristol.]

[Footnote 3: It is not surprizing that Chatterton should have been
ignorant of a peculiarity of the English language, which appears to
have escaped the observation of a professed editor of Chaucer. Mr.
Urry has very frequently lengthened _verbs in the singular number_, by
adding _n_ to them, without any authority, I am persuaded, even from
the errors of former Editions or MSS. It might seem invidious to point
out living writers, of acknowledged learning, who have slipped into
the same mistake in their imitations of Chaucer and Spenser.]

[Footnote 4: This is a point so material to the following argument,
that, though it has never hitherto, I believe, been made a question,
it ought not perhaps to be assumed without some proof. It may be said,
that Chatterton was only the _transcriber_ of the Glossary as well
as of the Poems. If to such an attention we were to answer, that
Chatterton always declared himself the _author_ of the Glossaries,
we should be