Chatterton's

Southey and Cottle. autograph is gone; but my uncle's copy lies before me, and he has made the H so like to the letters Fl, that I do not wonder at the error of the compositor, and so again of the other misprints.

Peter Smith was another bon compagnon, and incurred, by his irregularities with Chatterton, the displeasure of his father, so that he was most severely lectured; of which such was the effect, that he retired to his chamber, and set to his associate an example that was but too soon followed.

Richard Smith was my father, a gentleman of great abilities, who died the senior surgeon of the Bristol Infirmary in 1791, universally respected, beloved, and regretted by the whole city. At first, Chatterton and himself were good friends, but the unhappy affair of his brother Peter estranged them, as Mr. Smith attributed the wretched catastrophe to congenial opinions in morals and religion.

Scattered about his works, Chatterton every here and there casts a sneer at him. In a piece called "The Exhibition," a poem consisting of 444 lines, Mr. Smith is the prime mover. To show with what rapidity the youth wrote, I mention that he dates the first line on the 1st of May, and the last line on the 3rd, 1770! The subject of the satire is a frail professional brother, who was guilty of a misdemeanor, for which Mr. Smith arraigns him before all the physicians and surgeons of the day. It is filled with personal satire and abuse, in which the clergy partake largely; many of the lines, however, breathe all the fire of the author, and, to use Macbeth's term, "their spirits shine through them."

In the exordium or invocation Chatterton writes:

"With honest indignation nobly fill
My energetic, my revengeful quill;
Let me in strains which heaven itself indites,
Display the Rascals," &c.

He ended, and, as usual in his way,
Could in his long oration nothing say;
Empty, and without meaning, he display'd,
His Sire's loquacity in his diplay'd."

The piece closes thus

"He ended; and a murmer of applause [jaws. Dropt from each Carcass-Butcher's rotten All the rough gang to mercy were inclin'd; For now the clock struck three-and none had din'd!"

Mr. Le Grice will be pleased to hear, that that which is with him only a rumour, is with us a certainty. Nearly a hundred pounds have been subscribed for a monument, but as the coat must be cut according to the cloth, any one who may be pleased to help on the matter will be good enough to favour us with a donation paid at Messrs. Grote, Prescott, and Co. to the credit of Charles Bowles Fripp, Esq. of this city, through whose persevering indefatigable exertions the measure is accomplished. I mention, too, with satisfaction, that the monument will be erected at no great distance from the muniment-tower of Saint Mary Redcliff, where the eyes of the wonderful boy were first cast upon the triple- locked iron-bound chest, containing certainly valuable documents, although probably no poetry. I have a full recollection of the pleasure with which I myself contemplated "the ponderous and wooden jaws " of the chest, when about sixteen years of age. Some remains are yet in the room, but the "relic mania" has carried off the locks and chips of the wood in abundance.

Now for Mr. Le Grice's postcript. A friend of mine gave himself great trouble in endeavouring to find out the residence of Mrs. Angel, but without success; my uncle's letter to him, and Chatterton's autograph answer, are both before me; the former does not give the number of the house,

and is in all respects as printed, except a "Post paid 4d." The rumour respecting the removal of the body I consider to be quite apocryphal; certainly there is no memorial in Redcliff churchyard; and it is unlikely that, after incurring the expenses of a removal, the parties should have neglected to mark the spot, or to write a notice in the newspapers of the day.

Now, Mr. Urban, for one point more, and I have done: your Cornwall correspondent is glad to see the Portrait of Chatterton, and promises to make some remarks. I think it a duty therefore at once to put this matter to rights, least my silence may lead that gentleman, and perhaps others, into a useless expenditure of time and talent. Hearing of the forthcoming portrait, and that it was in the hands of Mr. Branwhite, who was making a small copy for the engraver, I called upon him in an eager fit of curiosity. That gentleman is an artist of first-rate talent, and he has executed his work in the same admirable style in which he finishes all that he undertakes. I was shown the painting, and determined to know, if possible, upon what grounds the authenticity was proved: the following is the result, being an answer to an inquiry :—

"Sugar House, Back-street, Nov. 23rd, 1837.

"My dear Miller,

"For a wonder, I did not come to town yesterday, or I would have re. plied to your note by the bearer. You therein ask me to state what I know concerning the Portrait of Chatterton lately published by Mr. Dix; I will tell you. About twenty-five years ago, I became impressed with the notion that I had a taste for pictures, and fancied, like all so impressed, that I had only to rummage brokers' shops to possess myself of gems and hidden treasures without number; which illusion a little practical knowledge soon

"dismissed with costs." It happened that a gentleman in whose house I then resided, being at that time a bachelor, became also touched with the same mania, and in one of his peregrinations picked up the picture you mention of a broker in Castle Ditch, at a house now the Castle and Ball Tavern. The broker's name was Beer; at the back of the portrait was written with a brush" F. Morris, aged 13," as well as I can recollect. The gentleman who purchased it, in a playful mood said, "This portrait will do for Chatterton," and immediately placed the name of Chatterton over that of F. Morris; what became of it afterwards, or how it came into the hands of the present possessor, 1 am quite ignorant of. While in the hands of the gentleman above mentioned, I showed it to Mr. Stewart the portrait-painter, who recognised it at once as the portrait of young Morris, the son of Morris the portraitpainter. This is all I know, and you are at liberty to make what use you please of it.

"I am yours truly, GEO. BURGE." Mr. Miller sent the above to the Rev. John Eagles, who gave the letter to me.

The boy of the picture has on a scarlet coat, which struck me at the time as rather odd and improbable.

The authenticity of the picture I now leave to the judgment of the reader; but it is needful for me to add that I am quite satisfied that the owner would never knowingly favour anything deceitful or untrue, being one of the most liberal-minded and honour

able men in this city. Indeed I know of no one to whom we are so much indebted for the preservation of countless quantities of every thing which concerns Bristol, both ancient and modern; the gentleman's name is Braikenridge.

Yours, &c. RICHARD SMITH, 38, Park Street, Bristol.

But I

passage Sub aureo vitem cœlo. find by the various readings at the end of old Elzevir that all the MSS. and an old edition of mine, have it Sub

* Lib. iii. c. 5. s. 30.

aureo uti cælo (one excepted, which for cœlo reads scœlo). This reading Vossius defends in his notes on Catullus, p. 199, 200. I am not of his opinion, and I will give my reasons. In the first place, I query whether the reading of Vossius be Latin; but, allowing it to be so, I am sure it is a flat and obscure expression, unworthy of Florus, who, though he wants the purity of the Augustan age, is remarkable throughout for spirit and perspicuity. Secondly, Vossius, in his notes upon it, supposes that this aureum cœlum, or vitis, which, says he, covered the sanctum sanctorum, was the very same meant by Josephus and Strabo (Ant. 14, 5.), by Pliny (L. 87. c. 2.), to whom I may add Seneca (Ep. 4.), and which was carried to Rome by Pompey. But this is certainly a mistake; for, first, how could Pompey see that in the temple which Josephus and Strabo expressly say was sent to him while he was in Coelo-Syria, before his arrival at Jerusalem? And I think Josephus is an authority beyond exception in all matters that relate to his own country; nor can I believe it was kept in the sanctum sanctorum; for all authors agree that nothing was there after the captivity. Josephus positively affirms that there

was

nothing in it in his time (Bell. Jud. L. 6. c. 14); for you know the consecrated vessels were lodged in the sanctum, or outer temple. Vossius, indeed, says it was there, not as a donarium, but as the cover or roof of the sanctum sanctorum, which (says he) was perforated to admit the light; and, after its removal, the temple lay open to the air. This is a strange conceit; and the contrary can be so plainly proved from Josephus and other writers, that I wonder a man of his wit and learning would advance such a paradox, on no better authority than Dio Cassius, a heathen writer, who lived a hundred years after the destruction of the temple. I don't believe this aurea vitis, which Vossius means, was ever in any part of the temple. Josephus says nothing of it, and plainly says it was adorned with the figures of animals-a thing expressly forbidden by the Jewish Law, and would not have been borne by that rigid and pharisaical age. It is in vain to urge the example of Solo

mon's twelve oxen under the brazen sea; for the Jews, and Josephus in particular, condemned that practicewitness Herod's golden eagle over the temple, which the Jews pulled down. Much less, had it been the roof of the sanctum sanctorum, would Aristobulus have been guilty of such a sacrilege as to remove it. I believe Vossius's vine was made by Alexander, father of Aristobulus, for an ornament of his palace, not of the temple.

If Pompey saw this aureum cœlum in the temple, as Florus says he did, what becomes of the authority of Josephus, who says (Ant. 14, 8. B. I. 1. 5.) that Pompey took nothing out of the temple? The same is affirmed by Cicero c. 28 (Pro Flacco), and if this had been the same vine which Pompey caried away and afterwards dedicated in the capitol, 'tis strange that Florus had not given us a hint of it by adding secum abduxit, transtulit, or the like.

I will not conceal two authorities which contradict what I have said. The first is Eusebius in his Chronicon, who says that Pompey plundered the temple: but Scaliger says the words were added by an ignorant hand, for the sense is entire without them; and Jerome, his translator, takes no notice of them in his version. The other is the nameless author of the Επιτομη Χρονων, printed with Eusebius, who says that Pompey, among other things, carried away the golden vine. But this writer is of a late date, and not worthy to be set into competition with the authority of Josephus and Cicero. I have done with Vossius, whose chief fault is his confounding the vine which Aristobulus gave to Pompey with that which Pompey saw, and (I believe) left behind him in the temple.

Capellus, whose opinion Mad. Dacier espouses, (and is so fond of that she mentions no other,) reads it as it is in the printed edition, sub aureo vitem cœlo; but, instead of untying the knot, he cuts it. Florus," says he, "having heard that Pompey dedicated a golden vine in the capitol, and that he had likewise entered the sanctum sanctorum, without more inquiry concluded he took it thence, and (withall) imagined this was the great arcanum of the Jews, because found

in that place; and Capellus must, of course, believe Pompey saw no vine at all in the temple." But I am not of this opinion. "Tis true I approve that reading; but I think Florus and Josephus may well enough be reconciled; for I believe there was a vine in the temple, which Pompey saw, and which was not the same with that of Aristobulus, which I have already proved he never saw in the temple, nor indeed was it ever there.

Tis

1. Tacitus says there was a vine of gold found in the temple, i. e. by Pompey, for Titus found none there. true there was a golden vine in the temple at the beginning of the siege, of most exquisite workmanship and infinite value, the clusters being as long as a man. But had this been found by Titus, no doubt Josephus would have mentioned it among the other ornaments of the temple borne in triumph by Vespasian; but it is probable this vine was destroyed before Titus entered the temple, for it might be embezzled by the zealots during the siege. So that, upon the whole matter, I believe Tacitus is to be understood of Pompey, and not Titus.

2. This famous vine just now spoken of, Josephus mentions (Ant. V. 14), and B. J. (VI. 6), where he says it hung over the gate, under the porch or cupola that led to the first temple. This exactly agrees with the aureum cœlum of Florus, which (I think) signifies nothing but a hollow arch or cupola overlaid with gold as that was: for thence probably comes the English word ceiling. If you think cœlo won't bear that sense, by a slight correction you may read tholo, which certainly expresses it. Mad. Dacier will have cœlum signify a canopy; which, indeed, is no ill sense.

Perhaps you'll object that the vine described by Josephus was in the third temple; and it might have been in the second too; for were not the

In Moyle's Post. Works, Vol. I. p. 211. is a letter to Dr. W. Musgrave on the meaning of the word "Aureus," as used by the old Roman writers, followed by another (p. 213) on the subject of a dispute between his correspondent and "Cuperus," whether the Roman eagles were of massy gold or plated over. GENT. MAG. VOL. X.

vessels of the first temple used in the second when it was built? Besides, Josephus mentions more vines than one in the same place, and it is very probable that one of them was taken from the old temple; for I am sure that golden vines were common ornaments of the old temple:--witness Ptolemy's table, which Josephus says was encompassed round with the golden vine. And the reason was plain; for the Jews being forbidden by their law to use statues or images, which were the chief ornaments of the Heathen temples, strove to supply that defect by figures of trees, fruits, and plants. There remains nothing more to add, but where lay the great arcanum or mystery of this vine. Tacitus, when he says that some people thought this vine a symbol or emblem of Bacchus, and from thence concluded that Bacchus was the god worshipped in the temple (Hist. Lib. 5. c. 5). Plutarch thought so likewise (Symp. B. 4. Prob. 5). "Tis pity the piece is not entire; otherwise the golden vine would have been urged by him as a proof of it. Juvenal (Sat. 6. 543.) makes the vine the god of the Jews; Magnæ Sacerdos Arboris, i. e. Aureæ vitis, says Vossius, which is, whether it be true or not, a most ingenious remark. So much for this subject.

Sir, I have sent you my thoughts upon this subject with no other design but to engage you, in return, to communicate yours with the opinion of other critics upon it. I have seen no other notes upon it but Mad. Dacier's and Vossius's. Want of books has made me too short in some of my remarks, and in others has, perhaps, made me say what very probably had been observed by others, which I hope your candour and ingenuity will overlook. I am your friend and humble servant,

W. M.

To Rich. King, Esq.† at Exeter, Devon.

No. 9. Mr. King to Mr. Moyle.
(In answer to the last.)

Sir, I thank you for your learned and ingenious letter, and am always obliged to my friends when they are pleased to correct my mistakes; and 1

+ It appears that Mr. King had not yet taken orders. 4 I

hope you will pardon me for taking the same liberty-" Hanc veniam petimusq. damusq. vicissim."

Grævius, in his reading aureo velo, is no doubt mistaken; for the veil of the temple had no gold in it (2 Chr. iii. 14. Ex. xxvi. Joseph. B. J. 6. 14.) As for the ark and cherubim, they were destroyed, as all writers agree, in the general ruin of the temple, by Nebuchadnezzar.

Before I proceed further, give me leave to take notice of a little slip of your memory in a point of chronology. You say that Herod was born at least twenty years after Pompey took the temple; whereas (indeed) he was born ten years before, which I prove thus: Jerusalem taken by Pompey, A.U.C. 690 (Cicero & Ant. Coss. Jos. Ant. 14-16.); Herod made King, 713 (Calv. & Asia. Cons. Ant. 14. 26.); lived 37 years after, died 749 (Ant. 17-16. B. J. 1. 31.); and, being seventy at his death (Ant. 17. 8. B. J. 1. 31), was born ten years before, i. e. 679.

In the next place I shall propose some objections against Mr. Selden's sense and reading, and answer yours against the vulgar. I must frankly own that the reason why I dislike the MS. reading is, because I cannot construe it. What does the word uti signify in that place? You produce a parallel place out of Horace, Lib. 1. Od. 15. But, under favour, uti in Horace is an adverb of likeness, or comparison, as tanquam, velut, &c. and I appeal to your second thoughts whether the word can possibly bear that sense, as it is supposed to stand in Florus? Is there the least appearance of a comparison in the whole sentence? If there is, I would desire to know what are the two things compared.

This word is frequently used by the best writers, and in several senses; but none that I can meet with can agree with this passage. In Mr. Selden's sense it is a downright useless expletive, without any meaning at all; for it neither adds force to the thought, perspicuity to the sense, nor elegance to the expression. If Selden's interpretation be the true one, I believe the whole ought to be read and pointed thus: "Et vidit illud grande impiæ gentis arcanum, patens, sub aureo laté

cœlo;" which is plain Latin, and wants no comment.

But I dislike his sense as much as his reading, for this following reason. He supposes cœlum to be the same with the ουρανos, or ουρανισκος, of the Greeks -an ornament used by Eastern princes, which was part of the furniture of their presence room, and a thing distinct from the roof, and was, indeed, nothing else but a pavilion or canopy of state, made in the shape of a cupola. (See Casaubon on Athenæus, V. 6. Hesych. in oupav.) But there was no such ornament in the sanctum sanctorum, as appears by the silence of all the Jewish writers, and the direct testimony of Josephus, who affirms, in express words, that there was nothing at all in the sanctum sanctorum (Bell. Jud. L. 6. c. 6.)

As for the vulgar reading, you reject it on the sole credit of the MSS; but pray consider how little difference there is in the two readings, and how easily vitem might be corrupted into uti; for I suppose vitem, or vitim, was, in the MSS. written thus, vitī, and the copier, not minding the mark of abbreviation, changed it into vti.

As for your first objection against my explanation, viz. "How can that be called a secret which always stood exposed to public view?" I might answer, though the vine itself stood in view, yet the mystical meaning, or the thing represented by it, might nevertheless be a secret to the multitude. But I can give a more direct answer. It was not exposed to public view: for none but the priests were ever suffered to pass further than the court of Israel, much less were they admitted into the porch. The kings themselves were denied the entrance (Jos. Ant. L. 14. c. 14); nor were they admitted to view at a distance the ceremonies used by the priests in their religious solemnities; of which there is a remarkable instance in Jos. Ant. L. 20. c. 7. whose single testimony, with me, weighs more than all the reasons which can be produced to the contrary. But there is no necessity to understand the words of Florus in so strict and rigorous a sense, as if the vine were the secret to the Jews. It is enough to my purpose if the site of it were concealed from the Gentiles,