​

​

Bristol Public Library (Reference Section)

   George Catcott carried on an 'extensive trade' in transcripts of Rowleyan and other C works at least until 1776, when he sold the Rowley manuscripts to Payne, the publisher of 1777 (Life, pp. 450-1 and n.). Sixteen of these transcripts are now in BPL. In some cases, in spite of Catcott's notorious inaccuracies in trans- cription, these manuscripts are the most authoritative texts. When I have been able to collate these transcripts with holographs or other texts of stronger authority, three of them invariably give the best readings. Assuming that these three transcripts were done with unusual care or that they derive from holographs rather than from other transcripts, I have used them as copy-texts when they are the only texts available and I have recorded my collation of them when their variants from a copy-text would seem to have some authority.

Bia, Bib. for B6489, in two parts, in Catcott's hand. 

The first part contains eighty-eight pages of Rowleyan material, the second forty-one pages, numbered separately, of modern pieces. Both parts have heavy annotation by Catcott.

B2. for B6490, in Catcott's hand. 

Pages 33-168 contain Rowleyan and modern transcripts with Catcott's notes.

B3. for B5374 consists of seventy-two pages in Catcott's hand, 

with notes by him and by his nephew Richard Smith; it contains nine modern pieces and 'Ynn auntient Dayes'.

Of the other BPL Catcott transcripts, seven are used in special circumstances requiring individual discussion in the tabular notes:

 (B5259, B5315, B5342, B5344, B5375, B6488, B11190), 

and six are not used at all:

(B5305, B5308, B5311, B6486, B6487, B18996), 

since recording their variants would swell the textual notes to no purpose. 

Four BPL transcript collections in other hands:

B4533 (Samuel Seyer),  B6493 (Thomas Fry),  B11063 (Michael Lort),  B11457 (Lort)  are also used in special circumstances discussed in the tabular notes to individual pieces.

C seems to have been totally uninterested in the fate of his manuscripts. Those involved in his various thrusts for patronage and renown were freely thrown into each effort: seldom were copies kept. Because Barrett and Catcott plodded along with Rowley long after C had gone on to other campaigns and died, we have a wealth of manuscripts for the years 1768 and 1769. Manuscripts of the non-Rowleyan campaigns, however, were sent to the editors, first from Bristol, then from London, and only a few of these, usually by purely accidental circumstances, have survived. It is all very understandable once we see that C's eyes were on his goals, not on his own development. However foolish, calculating, and unsympathetic we judge Barrett and Catcott to have been, then, if it had not been for their tenacity, denseness, or cunning about Rowley, C's major achievement would almost certainly have been lost. And it was interest in the consequent controversy and in C's role in the creation of Rowley that lead eventually to the great bulk of his non-Rowleyan writings being unearthed from scattered caches of manuscripts and from their disguises in the ephemeral London periodicals. Without Barrett and Catcott, in short, C's work would have belonged long ago to oblivion.

II. PROBLEMS OF AUTHENTICITY

The major authenticity problems have, oddly enough, nothing to do with Thomas Rowley. Most imitations of Rowley-they were regular features of the Rowley controversy-have, consciously or unconsciously, all the marks of burlesque. Rowley's authentic voice develops from the antiqued spelling and light archaism of 'Bristowe Tragedie' to the thick Rowleyism of 'Goddwyn', the eclogues, and 'An Excelente Balade of Charitie', but never is it as thick or as consistent as in the various imitations. Malone's attribution, 'Rowley's Printing Press', is the only Rowleyan piece over which I had to hesitate in the matter of authenticity.

The non-Rowleyan pieces are quite another matter. Since there was no edition before C's death, since most of the non-Rowleyan pieces were written and published over pseudonyms, since no particular attention has ever been paid to C's non-Rowleyan styles, and since forgers and hoaxers seem to have been involved in canon questions almost from the start, these works present serious authenticity problems.

There are several sources of authentic, doubtful, and wrong attributions, and the motives of the attributors range from M's useful desire to suggest for future students all works that ought to be considered, through the careless and uncritical attributions of 1778 and 1803, to the hoaxing and downright forgery involved in some of John Dix's attributions. The relative reliability of the various editions, collections, and other sources of attribution are discussed more fully in the section of this introduction on the history of the canon.

When there is any question of authenticity, the evidence is discussed in the commentaries, and many cases are rather special.  In general, however, I have followed certain broad principles. First, I accept works as genuine for which a holograph is extant. The one exception here would be the doubtful 'Extract of a Letter' from the Paget manuscripts. Holographs are extant for half of the pieces judged authentic. Second, eleven works are accepted because acknowledged by C in his Notebook (see Items Not Printed) or in his letters. Third, three of the early editions and collections-1777, 1784, and Croft-prove so reliable whenever they can be checked that I accept eleven works primarily on the basis of their attribution. Fourth, the attributions of certain of C's friends and acquaintances-George Catcott, Barrett, Edward Gardner, and Walpole-are accepted in cases where there seems to be no reason to doubt their reliability: this category involves twenty-eight pieces. In the last two categories, however, it has been thought necessary to consider also all other internal and external evidence (signatures, styles, allusions, circumstances, and testimony) before making a decision, and about one-fourth of the works judged authentic are accepted primarily on the basis of such evidence.