long before the life became intolerable to him. It was arranged
that he should board with Lambert, and the attorney made him share a
bedroom with the foot-boy and eat his meals in the kitchen. Further,
though his sister has recorded that the work was light, the
practice being inconsiderable, Lambert always tore up any writing of
Chatterton's that he could find if it did not relate to his business.
'_Your stuff_!' he would say. Nevertheless he admitted that his
apprentice was always to be found at his desk, for he often sent the
footman in to see. And no doubt on some of these occasions Chatterton
was copying the legal precedents of which 370 folio pages, neatly
written in a well-formed handwriting, remain to this day as evidence
of legitimate industry. At other times he was certainly composing
poems by Rowley.

Perhaps at this point it would be well to give some account of
Chatterton's method in the production of ancient writings. First it
seems he wrote the matter in the ordinary English of his day. Then he
would with the help of an English-Rowley and Rowley-English Dictionary
(which he had laboriously compiled for himself out of the vocabulary
to Speght's _Chaucer_, Bailey's _Universal Etymological Dictionary_,
and Kersey's _Dictionarium Anglo-Britannicum_) translate the work
into what he probably thought was a very fair imitation of fifteenth
century language. His spelling Professor Skeat characterizes as
'that debased kind which prevails in Chevy Chase and the Battle of
Otterbourn in Percy's _Reliques_, only a little more disguised.'
Percy's _Reliques_ were not published till 1765, but it is natural to
suppose that Chatterton when he was 'wildly squandering all he got
On books and learning and the Lord knows what,' and thereby involving
himself in some little debt, would have bought the volume very soon
after its publication. Finally as to the production of 'an original'.