found in him.  If more instances should be wanted, a comparison of the words explained by Chatterton with the same or similar words as explained by Skinner, will furnish them in abundance[6].  I shall therefore conclude this Appendix with a short view of the preceding argument.  It has been proved, that the poems attributed to Rowley were not written in the XV Century; and it follows of course, that they were written, at a subsequent period, by some impostor, who endeavoured to counterfeit an author of that century.

It has been proved, that this impostor lived since Skinner, and that the same person wrote the interpretations of words by way of Glossary, which are subjoined to most of the poems.

It has also been proved, that Chatterton wrote those interpretations of words.

Whether any thing further be necessary to prove, that the poems were entirely written by Chatterton, is left to the reader’s judgement.  If he should stick at the word entirely, which may possibly seem to carry the conclusion a little beyond the premisses, he is desired to reflect, that, the poems having been proved to be a forgery since the time of Skinner, and to have been written in great part by Chatterton, it is infinitely more probable that the remainder was also written by him than by any other person.  The great difficulty is to conceive that a youth, like Chatterton, should ever have formed the plan of such an imposture, and should have executed it with so much perseverance and ingenuity; but if we allow (as I think we must) that he was the author of those pieces to which he subjoined his interpretations, I can see no reason whatever for supposing that he had any assistance in the rest.  The internal evidence is strong that they are all from one hand; and external evidence there is none, that I have been able to meet with, which ought to persuade us, that a single line, of verse or prose, purporting to be the work of ROWLEY, existed before the time of CHATTERTON.

[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.]