[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 told perhaps, that with equal truth he always declared Rowley to have been the author of the Poems. But (not to insist upon the very different weight, which the same testimony might be allowed to have in the two cases) it has happened luckily, that the Glossary to the Poem, entitled "_Englysh Metamorphosis_," [See p. 196.] was written down by Chatterton extemporally, without the assistance of any book, at the desire and in the presence of Mr. Barrett. Whoever will compare that Glossary with the others, will have no doubt of their being all from the same hand.] [Footnote 5: Printed at London, MDCLXXI. The part, which Chatterton seems to have chiefly consulted, is that, which begins at Sign. U u u u, and is entitled "_Etymologicon vocum omnium antiquarum Anglicarum, quæ usque a Wilhelmo Victore invaluerunt, &c._"]