A New Poem by Thomas Chatterton Author(s): Thomas Ollive Mabbott Source: Modern Language Notes, Vol. 39, No.

4 (Apr., 1924), pp. 226-229 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2914965 Accessed: 12/12/2010 12:29
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Modern Language Notes.

http://www.jstor.org

226

MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES

deserving only contempt and detestation. One may concludethat theAun story its tone,at least,fromGeatishrather than from got Swedishsources. What,then,was the development the story? The identificaof tionof great-grandfather great-grandson a and produced composite figure trulyprodigious of and becamethe 'longrevity, this longevity determining factorin the growth the tale. To accountforit, of a beginining made by greatlylengthening period of exile was the amongthe Geats. But sincethisdid not suffice, sacrifice the theme arose. At firstthe sacrifices were connectedwvith period of the exile,the only eventful period of Eanmunid's life (and niaturally thegreat-grandson, beingcloserat hand,fur-nished bulk,if lnot thle all, of the hiistorical material). But as timewent oln, Aun's great age came to dominate the storymoreand more,until his violent end was crowdedout, inconsistent it was with the conception as of him as a personwho had attainedextreme old age. Furthermore,the scene of action was transferred Uppsala-a veryold to man's properplace is clearly home,not abroad. The exile story at thuslost groundcontinually, in the Ynglingalingersas a surand vival,no longerin harmony withthetale in its developed form.
University of Mlinnesota. KEMP MALONE.

A NEW POEMI BY THOMIAS CHATTERTON Among the treasuresbequeathedto the Library of Columbia University Stephen by is iWhitneyPhoenix,1 a small oblongvellumboundnotebook, whichThomas Chatterton in wi-rote severalpoems in the autumnof 1769. The parchment coverbears Chatterton's name and severalrude heraldicdrawingssimilarto thoseon the "Rowley" docuiments.Of the originaltwventy leaves threehave beenlcut out, and on the stubsnothing legiblesave in one place is " "To Dr.... The remaining seventeen leaves conitainl several poems which Southen, publishedfromtranscripts supplied by T. Hill, Esq., wi-ho owniiedthe book in 1803, and in addition one uifinished and hitherto unpublished poem,wihich, the kind perby
'TThePhloenix Collection containsover5,000volumesmainlydevotedto travel and literature, and including some autograph irss.

A NEW POEM BY TH-OMAS CHATTERTON

227

missionof the Libraryauthorities, now give in full,with ChatI terton'scharacteristic epigramof comment. The subject of the elegywas probably Chatterton's teacher,T. Philips, but the poet later revisedthe firstthree lines for use in his Elegy on MIr. William Smith.2 The niew poemreadsas follows:
ELEGY OCT 29.

Muse ascend on Sorrowvssable Plune Soar like the heavn ascending Wing Of the great Bard you sing With twisted WVireath silverd Yew of Deck the laureld Poets Tomb, The bard wlhosetotal Soul was God. [Sickness prevents the grateful Lay I End unknowving what to say To speak his worth; my feeble Lyre Cannot to such a Pitch a.spire.]

A carefulexamination the Mis.revealsmanyerrors the verof in sionis Southeyprintedof the otherpoems (vol. i, 203-223) and a of study the textsof theRiverside Boston185a, the Aldine, edition, London 1890, and Roberts,London 1906, convinces me that all later versions base theirtext of thesepoemson Southey, and that all changesare misprints conjectures. I recordSouthey'sveror bal errors, in givinghis readingsin italics,and those of the Aris. parentheses. Chatterton made few changes,whenhe did change, he usually erased a faultyword with a pen-knife and wvrote over the space. Where the earlier reading is in any way legible, I recordit, like the errors. " I. The poembeginning Interest, thouuniversal god of men" -atthe head Chat'terton writesthe date "27 Oct[ober 1769]." Southey's titleFragmentis unhappy the poemis complete. for ERRRORS. L. 4 Jail.s(JTayl); 7 its(me); 1. 24 Chapman(Chap1. -men) 1. 28 (Friendship wvith ; equals only can 'be made); 1. 22 traffic (traffic &). CHANGES. T. 10 bed [First readingr illeg,ible, secondreading,] (girl) ; 1. 34 Turtle([sheri]ffs). II. Elegy writtenat Stanton Drew-dated in ms. "27 [Oc." toberl
2

Soiuthey,i, 355.

228

MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES

valERRORS. L. 3 Fool(foot); 1. 32 Coppice-valley(Coppic'd ley); 1. 38 Thee(thine). When (As). C}HANGES. L. 2f6 " III. The poem beginning Far fromthe reach of criticsand reviews" has no title in the MS.,but is dated " 27 Oct." Lines whichshouldbe regardedas 47-50 forman epigramof comment a kind of footnote, and before1. 51 is a second date, " 2,8 Oct." Thereis no reasonto call the poem a Fragment;it is complete. 1. ERRuORS. L. 33 Maro(Miaro's); 1. 41 medicine(medicines); 59 G-d(God). later,medicines(medicines CHANGES. L. 41 Anti was inserted lying); 1. 70 five(four); 1. 84 Hair(Air). IV. Elegy on T. Phillips. There are two versionsof this as poem,that in the ColumbiaMS. being an earlydraft, is proved and by the dates annexedby Chatterton,3 by a studyof the variants. Editors should printfromthe othercopy,or like Southey and Roberts, give both versions. Althoughprintedas one poem, parts. thecomposition falls into threedistinct an to (a.) Three heroic coupletsat the beginnling, invocation errors nor changes. the musewithout title. There are neither (b.) The elegy proper,called in the MS. simplyElegy, ani dated "28 [October]." 'This versionconsistsof 33 quatrains,of the followhas whichChatterton markedwith a crossfordeletion ing stanzas,in some cases adding his reasons,which I give-vii " Expunged as unconnected"; xv "Too plain" (?); xxvi "Exfor "; punged as too flowery grief xxxii; xxxiii. Beside xiv, 3-4 he wrote"alter." ERRORS. vii, 3 vallies(Valley); xxiii, 1 in(at); in xxvi, 4 in wrote" darkned," xxvii,4 " negromantic." Chatterton (ring); iv, 4 temnpest CHANGES. i, 4 string (Winter); xxiii, 2 Ill(Ills) ; xxv, 1 Here(Here . . .); xxxii, 4 Comfort(Comforts). which hitheAto, badly misprinted (c.) An epigramof comment reads as followsand is not signed" T. C."
3Southey, i, 22, and Roberts, i, 189; the latter gives the date December 5th to the other MS. This elegy is one of the best of Chatterton's modern poems and I cannot but think that some of the stanzas have influencedthe Ode to Autumn of John Keats.

REVIEWS
To THE READEIL. Observe in favor to an hobbling strain the Neat as Exported fromn Parent brain Are each & evry Couplet I have pend: But little labord & I never mend.

229

at of V. Then followsthe new poem giveni the beginniiig this article,-it showsno changesbut thepoet has drawnhis pen across it, as a markof cancellation. VI. The poem beginning" Herveniis, harping on the hackneyedtext" is headed in the Ais. " Suiiday 29 " whichseemsless a title than a date,for October29, 1769, fell on Sunday. That and not a Fragmentis shownby the ink the poem is complete, stainson the last page of 1iS. fromthe contemporary drawings on the back coverof the notebook. ERRORS. L. 16 in(a) ; 1. 39 There(Here) ; 1. 50 Corset's(Corslets). In 1. 31 the wordtheiris probably correct though not very in nor clear. In 1. 49 bel is quite distinct the Nis., do I agreewith one editor who says it makes nonsense,but believe Chatterton term. meant" bell" as an architectural CHANGES. L. 31 their(the).
THOMAS OLLIVE MABBOTT. Columbia University.

REVIEWS et FerdinandBrunot,La Pensee et la Langue, Methode, principes nouvelledu langageappliqueeau frangais, plan d'une the6orie Paris, Masson et Cie, 1922, xxxvi + 954 pages in 8?. I1 y a une belle virilite dans l'Introductiondu Doyen de la de Faculte des lettresde l'Universite Paris au volumede plus de a dans l'enseignement 900 pages qu'il consacre un plan de reforme de la langue. I1 est piquant de voir ce grand pontife'a Paris " universitaire et l'inertie contre " bureaucratie la s'elever gouvernementaleet les timiditesde diversconseils. " Mais quand il e'ut fallu imposer, elle [l'universite] tolerait. Elle acceptait une commeon pardonne une faute. Un moment a pu amelioration on espererque 1'ftat allait trancherdans le vif, que l'orthographe, allait etre reformee. Sur ce fleau de l'educationgrammaticale, la point essentielpourtant, peur de l'opposition, des coalitions et