It is astonishing to think that this mechanical imitation, with its harsh and forced rhythm, and its almost doggerel language, was regarded at the time as a successful reproduction of Chaucer’s manner and style. But probably before 1775, when Tyrwhitt announced his rediscovery of the secret of Chaucer’s rhythm, few eighteenth century readers suspected its presence at all. But the Chaucerian imitations were merely a literary fashion predoomed to failure. It was not in any way the result of a genuine influence of the early English poetry on contemporary taste, and thus it was not even vitalized, as was the Spenserian revival, by a certain vague and undefined desire to catch something at least of the spirit of the “Faerie Queene.” The Spenserian imitations had a firmer foundation, and because the best of them did not confine their ambition altogether to the mechanical imitation of Spenser’s style in the narrower sense they achieved a greater measure of success. It is significant to note that among the first attempts at a Spenserian imitation was that made by one of the foremost of the Augustans. This was Matthew Prior, who in 1706 published his “Ode, Humbly Inscribed to the Queen on the Glorious success of Her Majesty’s Arms, Written in Imitation of Spenser’s Style.”[135] We are surprised, however, to find when we have read his Preface, that Prior’s aim was in reality to write a poem on the model of Horace and of Spenser. The attitude in which he approached Spenser’s language is made quite clear by his explanation. He has “avoided such of his words as I found too obsolete. I have however retained some few of them to make the colouring look more like Spenser’s.” Follows then a list of such words, including “_behest_, command; _band_, army; _prowess_, strength; _I weet_, I know; _I ween_, I think; _whilom_, heretofore; and two or three more of that kind.” Though later in his Preface Prior speaks of the _curiosa felicitas_ of Spenser’s diction, it is evident that there is little or no real understanding or appreciation. Now began a continuous series of Spenserian imitations,[136] of which, with a few exceptions, the only distinguishing characteristic was a small vocabulary of obsolete words, upon which the poetasters could draw for the “local colour” considered necessary. In the majority of cases the result was a purely artificial language, probably picked haphazard from the “Faerie Queene,” and often used without any definite idea of its meaning or appropriateness.[137] Fortunately, one or two real poets were attracted by the idea, and in due course produced their “imitations.” William Shenstone (1714-1763) is perhaps worthy of being ranked amongst these, in virtue at least of “The Schoolmistress,” which appeared in its final shape in 1742. Shenstone himself confesses that the poem was not at first intended to be a serious imitation, but his study of Spenser led him gradually to something like a real appreciation of the earlier poet.[138]