ness of the poems attributed to Rowley cannot be decided by any person, without a moderate at least, if not critical knowledge of the compositions of most of our poets, from the time of Chaucer to that of Pope.”
Thomas Warton, who followed him in a pamphlet in support of his original views, calls this “a sensible and conclusive performance.” Tyrwhitt, also, in a “Vindication” of above two hundred pages, reiterates his disbelief, and refers with commendation to Malone’s quotations of the opening lines of several old poems of that and subsequent dates, as certain evidence that the supposed Rowley had not caught either the language, versification, or manners of the time.
Volunteers rushed to the fight on either side. Burnaby Green, Dampier, Hickford, Rev. J. Fell, and others, in support of Milles and Bryant. On the other, we have Warton, Tyrwhitt, Steevens, Malone, Pinkerton, Chalmers, Scott, Southey, Croft, Jameson, and many more. Conviction could be scarcely doubtful where facts stood upon one side, and ingenious conjectures, added to a large store of belief, on the other. Even within a few months past the question has been revived; but life has not been breathed into it sufficient for critical resuscitation.
He wished the subject, however, as an interesting literary question, not to be forgotten. Everything written on it—tracts, reviews, magazines, and newsapers—was therefore collected, as his habit was on several other occasions, and bound together in volumes for reference. These, said to be complete on the subject, passed into the hands of a collector at the sale of his books in 1818.
