Working document

Barrett : In the year 1497, 24th June on St. John’s day, as it is in a manuscript in my possession, “was Newfoundland found by Bristol men in a ship called the Matthew.”

QE! : The above is from pp.171-172 of Barrett’s History & Antiquities of Bristol…, which has the first mention of the name of Cabot’s ship the ‘Matthew.’

Although it is claimed by some, that the infamous (and missing) ‘Fust’ manuscript, purportedly written in 1565 ish, by Maurice Toby, Gent., was first to name the ship.

QE! : Cabot’s Discovery of America: The mysterious Fust manuscript & the naming of the ship ‘Matthew’ - a potential fabrication of Chatterton’s?

This one is great fun, especially as we can (thanks to our own version of time travel) relive the serious disagreement between two authors, George Weare (and others), on the one side, and the wonderfully named Henry Harrisse on the other; well he certainly ‘harrissed’ George Weare. Read on…..

QE! : The argument between the two authors ensued after Weare’s book, Cabot's Discovery of North America, was published.

Henry Harrisse, author of John Cabot, the Discoverer of North-America and Sebastian, his Son: A Chapter of the Maritime History of England under the Tudors, 1496-1557‘ was the originator of the idea that Chatterton had first named Cabot’s ship, the ‘Matthew,’ and was likely to have created the ‘Fust’ manuscript.

As an aside: I am irked when a book or manuscript becomes known by the name of the wealthy owner, rather than the name of the author - it all seems a little unfair!

The following links, numbers 1 to 7, will take you to the letters in sequence, which were published in Notes & Queries. The last link is a publication by Harrisse:

1. Notes & Queries, June 1897 - Henry Harrisse Kicks it all off

2. Notes & Queries, July 1897 - G.E.Weare, page 49

3. Notes & Queries, July 1897 - G.R.F. Prowse, page 51

4. Notes & Queries, August 1897 - Henry Harrisse. page 129

5. Notes & Queries, September 1897 - G. E.Weare

6. Notes & Queries, September 1897 - G.R.F.Prowse

7. The Date of Cabot’s Discovery of the American Continent and an alleged forgery of Chatterton - 1897, Henry Harrisse

This is mystery upon mystery, and is mysterious too, to boot - don’t you just love a good mystery? It is true that we have enough problems with obfuscation regarding Chatterton without adding to it with the infamous Fust manuscript, don’t you think? Nope, I can’t resist it, I have to diverge and investigate it all!

So, the question is:- did Chatterton create or produce manuscripts that gave Barrett his information regarding Cabot’s discovery of the American continent and, more importantly, it would seem, did he name the ship ‘Matthew.’?

QE! : When Barrett quotes from a manuscript that he owns, he often writes penes me. Does the lack of penes me, in this instance, indicate that he is quoting from a manuscript owned by someone else? Did Barrett borrow the Fust manuscript for transcription purposes and did he give it to Chatterton for his assessment? And, if so, would Chatterton be able to resist adding something of his own, such as the name ‘Matthew.’? I leave the reader to judge (as Barrett would say).

I must add that Barrett does reference Lord Verulam’s ‘Life of Henry VII’ as a source.

Lord Verulam is the aristocrat Francis Bacon. I need to read the 1621 edition of his ‘Life of Henry VII’, as the later editions all seem to be ‘edited,’ but that is unlikely currently, due to the pandemic.

Here is a link to the 1778 edition of the works of Francis Bacon, which, I have noticed, contains references to a man by the name of Tobie Matthew (I know, I know, look for coincidences and you will find them).

But it is reminiscent of Maurice Toby, Gent., supposed writer of the Fust manuscript, and of the name of the bobbing cork (ship) the ‘Matthew.’ However, the date of this edition precludes it being an influence on Chatterton - so, are there earlier editions or references to Bacon’s work that also contain this information?

It seems that Barrett was struggling to get information for his History of Bristol and surely would have visited all of the churches and great houses in and around the city - for that is where history is to be found! Especially in Great houses with vast libraries, and not many were vaster than the Fust library.

The Fust family estate was in Thornbury, which is within easy reach of central Bristol. Barrett would have been aware of the great library it contained, making it a prime destination for any antiquary. This is where he would reasonably expect to uncover ‘new’ information for his book.

However, it should be noted that Barrett doesn’t mention Fust anywhere in The History & Antiquities of the City of Bristol…, it could be that he had no knowledge of it, or forgot to mark in his working papers where he got the information from (I suffer from that problem myself from time to time), afterall he was working on his book for upwards of 30 years, and when it came to including it he simply ignored the lack of reference - although the phrase ‘in my possession’ would seem to negate this; unless, of course, it was a manuscript supplied by Chatterton. There was so much contention regarding the Rowley Ms., you can see why Barrett would choose not to reference Chatterton as the source of a non-Rowley piece.

The provenance of the ‘Fust’ manuscript proves that it existed:

It was in the possession of the Fust family until sometime after 1841, when it was sold to William Strong, bookseller. Apparently, Strong had his assistant compare the Fust manuscript with the histories of Barrett and Seyer, and to make two volumes of detailed notes of everything not in the Fust. Then sometime before 1849 the book was sold to Sir Hugh Smyth-Piggot of Ashton Court, Bristol. A telling phrase in the description of the lot for sale was ‘a very curious MS., containing many facts not recorded by the historians of Bristol,’ does this mean that the Fust manuscript was unknown before the death of the last member of the Fust family, in 1841? Surely something as important as the Fust manuscript would have been shared with local antiquarians - just to show off the discovery!

QE! : It was certainly unknown to Samuel Seyer as there was no mention of it in Volume 1, of his Memorials of Bristol, or Volume 2, which was published in 1823.

QE! : Chatterton’s potential role in the naming of the ‘Matthew’:

Everything to do with St Mary Redcliffe looms large in the life and works of Chatterton, so he couldn’t fail to notice that the church had links to the New World. Admiral Sir William Penn, father of the founder of Pennsylvania, is buried in its graveyard; and the famous bone of the mysterious Dun Cow, which, it is claimed, was brought back to Bristol on one of Cabot’s return voyages to Bristol.

So, did Chatterton find the information about the Cabot expedition in the Rowley coffers? Or did he create them in order to please Barrett and help him with his History of Bristol.

Did the Fust manuscript really have original notes not mentioned anywhere else in England, or anywhere else in the world for that matter? Where did the mysterious Maurice Toby, Gent, get his information - and who was he?

The mystery deepens when the Fust manuscript. burns in the horrendous fire in Kerslake’s bookshop in 1860. How is it that Kerslake was able to save the two books of transcripts but not the Fust manuscript itself? Or did Kerslake actually have replacement transcripts made after the fire and from memory, or indeed enhanced it wherever it suited him.

The last question, or perhaps it should be the first question: Where are the two volumes of transcripts today? According to Evan Jones of Bristol University, the whereabouts of the two volumes is unknown, although enquiries in the 1960s concluded that they may have been bought by an American library or a collector, see: David B. Quinn, 'John Cabot's Matthew', Times Literary Supplement, 8 June 1967, 517

End of p.171-2