The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, D.D. — Volume 10 / Historical Writings

by Jonathan Swift

INTRODUCTION

Of late years, that is to say, within the last thirty odd years, there has existed a certain amount of doubt as to whether or no the work known to us as "The History of the Four Last Years of the Queen," was really the product of Swift's pen. That a work of this nature had occupied Swift during his retirement at Windsor in 1713, is undoubted. That the work here reprinted from the edition given to the world in 1758, "by an anonymous editor from a copy surreptitiously taken by an anonymous friend" (to use Mr. Churton Collins's summary), is the actual work upon which Swift was engaged at Windsor, is not so certain. Let us for a moment trace the history of what is known of what Swift did write, and then we shall be in a better position to judge of the authenticity of what we have before us.

All that we know of this work is gathered from Swift's correspondence, as published by Sir Walter Scott in his edition of Swift's Works issued in 1824. The first reference there made is in a note from Dr. William King to Mrs. Whiteway, from which we gather that Swift, towards the end of the year 1736, was meditating the publication of what he had written in 1713. "As to the History," writes King, "the Dean may be assured I will take care to supply the dates that are wanting, and which can easily be done in an hour or two. The tracts, if he pleases, may be printed by way of appendix. This will be indeed less trouble than the interweaving them in the body of the history, and will do the author as much honour, and answer the purpose full as well."

This was written from Paris, under date November 9th, O.S., 1736. It can easily be gathered from this that the tracts referred to are the tracts on the same period which Swift wrote at the time in defence of the Oxford ministry. They are given in the fifth volume of this edition.

On December 7th, 1736, King was in London, and he immediately writes to Swift himself on the matter of the History. "I arrived here yesterday," he says, "and I am now ready to obey your commands. I hope you are come to a positive resolution concerning the History. You need not hesitate about the dates, or the references which are to be made to any public papers; for I can supply them without the least trouble. As well as I remember, there is but one of those public pieces which you determined should be inserted at length; I mean Sir Thomas Hanmer's Representation; this I have now by me. If you incline to publish the two tracts as an Appendix to the History, you will be pleased to see if the character given of the Earl of Oxford in the pamphlet of 1715 agrees with the character given of the same person in the History.[1] Perhaps on a review you may think proper to leave one of them quite out. You have (I think) barely mentioned the attempt of Guiscard, and the quarrel between Rechteren and Mesnager. But as these are facts which are probably now forgot or unknown, it would not be amiss if they were related at large in the notes; which may be done from the gazettes, or any other newspapers of those times. This is all I have to offer to your consideration...."

[Footnote 1: See note on page 95 of this volume.]

There is thus no doubt left as to which were the tracts referred to by King, and as to the desire of Swift to include Sir Thomas Hanmer's Representation—two points that are important as evidence for the authenticity of the edition issued by Lucas in 1758.

Towards the middle of 1737, it must have become common knowledge among Swift's friends in London, that he was preparing for publication his "History of the Four Last Years of Queen Anne's Reign." Possibly King may have dropped a hint of it; possibly Swift may have written to others for information and assistance. Be that as it may, on April 7th, 1737, the Earl of Oxford (son of Swift's old friend) wrote to Swift as follows:

"... One reason of my writing to you now is, (next to my asking
your forgiveness) this: I am told that you have given leave and
liberty to some one or more of your friends to print a history
of the last four years of Queen Anne's reign, wrote by you.
"As I am most truly sensible of your constant regard and sincere
friendship for my father, even to partiality, (if I may say so,)
I am very sensible of the share and part he must bear in such a
history; and as I remember, when I read over that history of
yours, I can recollect that there seemed to me a want of some
papers to make it more complete, which was not in our power to
obtain; besides there were some severe things said, which might
have been very currently talked of; but now will want a proper
evidence to support; for these reasons it is that I do entreat
the favour of you, and make it my earnest request, that you will
give your positive directions, that this history be not printed
and published, until I have had an opportunity of seeing it;
with a liberty of showing it to some family friends, whom I
would consult upon this occasion. I beg pardon for this; I hope
you will be so good as to grant my request: I do it with great
deference to you. If I had the pleasure of seeing you, I would
soon say something to you that would convince you I am not
wrong: they are not proper for a letter as you will easily
guess...."

It is evident that Swift had gone so far as to consult with Faulkner on the matter of the printing of the "History," because he was present when Oxford's letter arrived, and he tells us that Swift answered the letter immediately, and made him read the answer, the purport of which was: "That although he loved his lordship's father more than he ever did any man; yet, as a human creature, he had his faults, and therefore, as an impartial writer, he could not conceal them."

On the 4th of June, 1737, Swift wrote at length to Oxford a letter in which he details the circumstances and the reasons which moved him to write the History. The letter is important, and runs as follows:

"MY LORD,
"I had the honour of a letter from your lordship, dated April
the 7th, which I was not prepared to answer until this time.
Your lordship must needs have known, that the History you
mention, of the Four last Years of the Queen's Reign, was
written at Windsor, just upon finishing the peace; at which
time, your father and my Lord Bolingbroke had a misunderstanding
with each other, that was attended with very bad consequences.
When I came to Ireland to take this deanery (after the peace was
made) I could not stay here above a fortnight, being recalled by
a hundred letters to hasten back, and to use my endeavours in
reconciling those ministers. I left them the history you
mention, which I finished at Windsor, to the time of the peace.
When I returned to England, I found their quarrels and coldness
increased. I laboured to reconcile them as much as I was able: I
contrived to bring them to my Lord Masham's, at St. James's. My
Lord and Lady Masham left us together. I expostulated with them
both, but could not find any good consequences. I was to go to
Windsor next day with my lord-treasurer; I pretended business
that prevented me, expecting they would come to some
[agreement?]. But I followed them to Windsor; where my Lord
Bolingbroke told me, that my scheme had come to nothing. Things
went on at the same rate; they grew more estranged every day. My
lord-treasurer found his credit daily declining. In May before
the Queen died, I had my last meeting with them at my Lord
Masham's. He left us together; and therefore I spoke very freely
to them both; and told them, 'I would retire, for I found all
was gone'. Lord Bolingbroke whispered me, 'I was in the right'.
Your father said, 'All would do well'. I told him, 'That I would
go to Oxford on Monday, since I found it was impossible to be of
any use'. I took coach to Oxford on Monday, went to a friend in
Berkshire, there stayed until the Queen's death, and then to my
station here, where I stayed twelve years, and never saw my lord
your father afterward. They could not agree about printing the
History of the Four last Years and therefore I have kept it to
this time, when I determine to publish it in London, to the
confusion of all those rascals who have accused the queen and
that ministry of making a bad peace, to which that party
entirely owes the Protestant succession. I was then in the
greatest trust and confidence with your father the
lord-treasurer, as well as with my Lord Bolingbroke, and all
others who had part in the administration I had all the letters
from the secretary's office, during the treaty of peace out of
those, and what I learned from the ministry, I formed that
History, which I am now going to publish for the information of
posterity, and to control the most impudent falsehoods which
have been published since. I wanted no kind of materials. I knew
your father better than you could at that time, and I do
impartially think him the most virtuous minister, and the most
able, that ever I remember to have read of. If your lordship has
any particular circumstances that may fortify what I have said
in the History, such as letters or materials, I am content they
should be printed at the end, by way of appendix. I loved my
lord your father better than any other man in the world,
although I had no obligation to him on the score of preferment,
having been driven to this wretched kingdom, to which I was
almost a stranger, by his want of power to keep me in what I
ought to call my own country, although I happened to be dropped
here, and was a year old before I left it, and to my sorrow did
not die before I came back to it again. As to the History, it
is only of affairs which I know very well and had all the
advantages possible to know, when you were in some sort but a
lad. One great design of it is, to do justice to the ministry at
that time, and to refute all the objections against them, as if
they had a design of bringing in Popery and the Pretender: and
farther to demonstrate, that the present settlement of the crown
was chiefly owing to my lord your father...."

The Earl of Oxford had failed to extract the manuscript from Swift for the purpose he had expressed in his letter. But his friend and Swift's old friend, Erasmus Lewis, who had been Under-Secretary of State during Lord Oxford's administration, came to the Earl's assistance. He had not written to Swift for many years, but on June 30th, 1737, he took occasion to renew the correspondence and referred to the proposal for publishing the History in a manner which leaves no doubt as to who suggested to him to write:

" ... Now I name him, I mean Lord Oxford, let me ask you if it
be true, that you are going to print a History of the Four Last
Years of the Queen? if it is, will not you let me see it before
you send it to the press? Is it not possible that I may suggest
some things that you may have omitted, and give you reasons for
leaving out others? The scene is changed since that period of
time: the conditions of the peace of Utrecht have been applauded
by most part of mankind, even in the two Houses of Parliament:
should not matters rest here, at least for some time? I presume
your great end is to do justice to truth; the second point may
perhaps be to make a compliment to the Oxford family: permit me
to say as to the first, that though you know perhaps more than
any one man, I may possibly contribute a mite; and, with the
alteration of one word, viz. by inserting parva instead of
magna, apply to myself that passage of Virgil, et quorum pars
parva fui. As to the second point, I do not conceive your
compliment to Lord Oxford to be so perfect as it might be,
unless you lay the manuscript before him, that it may be
considered here."

On the 4th of July, 1737, Oxford replied to Swift's letter of the 4th of June (referring to it as of the 14th of June), and emphasizes his earnest wish to see the manuscript. He also asks that it may be permitted him to show it to some friends:

"GOOD MR. DEAN,
"Your letter of June 14th, in answer to mine of the 7th of
April, is come to my hands; and it is with no small concern that
I have read it, and to find that you seem to have formed a
resolution to put the History of the Four last Years of the
Queen to the press; a resolution taken without giving your
friends, and those that are greatly concerned, some notice, or
suffering them to have time and opportunity to read the papers
over, and to consider them. I hope it is not too late yet, and
that you will be so good as to let some friends see them, before
they are put to the press; and, as you propose to have the work
printed here, it will be easy to give directions to whom you
will please to give the liberty of seeing them; I beg I may be
one: this request I again repeat to you, and I hope you will
grant it. I do not doubt that there are many who will persuade
you to publish it; but they are not proper judges: their reasons
may be of different kinds, and their motives to press on this
work may be quite different, and perhaps concealed from you.
"I am extremely sensible of the firm love and regard you had for
my father, and have for his memory; and upon that account it is
that I now renew my request, that you would at least defer this
printing until you have had the advice of friends. You have
forgot that you lent me the History to read when you were in
England, since my father died; I do remember it well. I would
ask your pardon for giving you this trouble; but upon this
affair I am so nearly concerned, that, if I did not my utmost to
prevent it, I should never forgive myself."

While this correspondence was in progress, Swift had given the manuscript to Lord Orrery to hand over to Dr. King. On June 24th, 1737, King wrote to Swift stating that he had received a letter from Mrs. Whiteway in which he was told to expect the manuscript from the hands of Lord Orrery. To Mrs. Whiteway he replied, on the same day, that he would wait on Lord Orrery to receive the papers. On July 23rd, 1737, Lord Orrery wrote to Swift informing him that "Dr. King has his cargo."

With the knowledge that the manuscript was on its way to King, Swift wrote the following reply to Lewis's letter:

July 23, 1737.
"DEAR FRIEND,
"While any of those who used to write to me were alive, I always
inquired after you. But, since your secretaryship in the queen's
time, I believed you were so glutted with the office, that you
had not patience to venture on a letter to an absent useless
acquaintance; and I find I owe yours to my Lord Oxford. The
History you mention was written above a year before the queen's
death. I left it with the treasurer and Lord Bolingbroke, when I
first came over to take this deanery. I returned in less than a
month; but the ministry could not agree about printing it. It
was to conclude with the peace. I staid in London above nine
months; but not being able to reconcile the quarrels between
those two, I went to a friend in Berkshire, and, on the queen's
death, came hither for good and all. I am confident you read
that History; as this Lord Oxford did, as he owns in his two
letters, the last of which reached me not above ten days ago.
You know, on the queen's death, how the peace and all
proceedings were universally condemned. This I knew would be
done; and the chief cause of my writing was, not to let such a
queen and ministry lie under such a load of infamy, or posterity
be so ill-informed, &c. Lord Oxford is in the wrong to be in
pain about his father's character, or his proceedings in his
ministry; which is so drawn, that his greatest admirers will
rather censure me for partiality; neither can he tell me
anything material out of his papers, which I was not then
informed of; nor do I know anybody but yourself who could give
me more light than what I then received; for I remember I often
consulted with you, and took memorials of many important
particulars which you told me, as I did of others, for four
years together. I can find no way to have the original delivered
to Lord Oxford, or to you; for the person who has it will not
trust it out of his hands; but, I believe, would be contented to
let it be read to either of you, if it could be done without
letting it out of his hands, although, perhaps, that may be too
late."

Swift is evidently about to accede to the desires of his two friends, and Lewis, in his reply, takes it for granted that the manuscript will soon be in his possession for perusal and examination:

London, Aug. 4, 1737.
"I assure you, my dear Dean, 'twas matter of joy to me to
receive a letter from you, and I hope 'tis an earnest of many
more I may have hereafter, before you and I leave this world;
though I must tell you, that if you and I revive our former
Correspondence, you must indulge me the liberty of making use of
another hand; for whether it be owing to age, or writing
formerly whole nights by candle-light, or to both those causes,
my sight is so far impaired, that I am not able, without much
pain, to scratch out a letter.
"I do not remember ever to have read your History. I own my
memory is much decayed; but still I think I could not have
forgotten a matter of so much consequence, and which must have
given me so great a pleasure. It is fresh in my mind, that Lord
Oxford and the Auditor desired you to confer with me upon the
subject matter of it; that we accordingly did so; and that the
conclusion was, you would bury everything in oblivion. We
reported this to those two, I mean to his lordship and his
uncle, and they acquiesced in it. Now I find you have finished
that piece. I ask nothing but what you grant in your letter of
July 23d, viz. That your friend shall read it to me, and forbear
sending it to the press, till you have considered the
objections, if any should be made.
"In the meantime, I shall only observe to you in general, that
three and twenty years, for so long it is since the death of
Queen Anne, having made a great alteration in the world, and
that what was sense and reason then, is not so now; besides, I
am told you have treated some people's characters with a
severity which the present times will not bear, and may possibly
bring the author into much trouble, which would be matter of
great uneasiness to his friends. I know very well it is your
intention to do honour to the then treasurer. Lord Oxford knows
it; all his family and friends know it; but it is to be done
with great circumspection. It is now too late to publish a
pamphlet, and too early to publish a History.
"It was always my opinion, that the best way of doing honour to
the treasurer, was to write a History of the Peace of Utrecht,
beginning with a short preamble concerning the calamitous state
of our debt, and ending with the breaking our army, and
restoring the civil power; that these great things were
completed under the administration of the Earl of Oxford, and
this should be his epitaph. Lord Bolingbroke is undoubtedly
writing a History, but I believe will not live to finish it,
because he takes it up too high, viz. from the Restoration. In
all probability he'll cut and slash Lord Oxford. This is only my
guess. I don't know it...."
King must have taken the manuscript to Lord Oxford and Lewis,
and been present at its reading. When that reading actually took
place is not ascertainable; but there is no doubt that before
March 15th, 1738, King was aware of the criticisms made on it.
On that day he writes to Mr. Deane Swift, explaining that he has
been obliged to defer the publication until he has received
Swift's answers to the objections made by the friends who read
it. On April 25th, 1738, King wrote again to Mr. Deane Swift,
regretting that he could not see him, "because I might have
talked over with you all the affair of this History, about which
I have been much condemned: and no wonder, since the Dean has
continually expressed his dissatisfaction that I have so long
delayed the publication of it. However, I have been in no fault:
on the contrary, I have consulted the Dean's honour, and the
safety of his person. In a word, the publication of this work,
as excellent as it is, would involve the printer, publisher,
author, and everyone concerned, in the greatest difficulties, if
not in a certain ruin; and therefore it will be absolutely
necessary to omit some of the characters...."

From which we gather that Lewis and the friends had been able to show King the extreme inadvisability of publishing the work. Swift knew nothing of this at the time, but Lewis did not long keep him in doubt, and the letter Lewis wrote Swift on April 8th, 1738, sets forth at length the objections and criticisms which had so changed King's attitude.

"London, April 8, 1738.
"I can now acquaint you, my dear Dean, that I have at last had
the pleasure of reading your History, in the presence of Lord
O———d, and two or three more, who think, in all political
matters, just as you do, and are as zealous for your fame and
safety as any persons in the world. That part of it which
relates to the negotiations of peace, whether at London or at
Utrecht, they admire exceedingly, and declare they never yet saw
that, or any other transaction, drawn up with so much
perspicuity, or in a style so entertaining and instructive to
the reader, in every respect; but I should be wanting to the
sincerity of a friend, if I did not tell you plainly, that it
was the unanimous opinion of the company a great deal of the
first part should be retrenched, and many things altered.
"1st, They conceive the first establishment of the South Sea
Company is not rightly stated, for no part of the debt then
unprovided for was paid: however the advantages arising to the
public were very considerable; for, instead of paying for all
provisions cent. per cent. dearer than the common market-price,
as we did in Lord Godolphin's times, the credit of the public
was immediately restored, and, by means of this scheme, put upon
as good a footing as the best private security.
"2d, They think the transactions with Mr. Buys might have been
represented in a more advantageous light, and more to the honour
of that administration; and, undoubtedly they would have been so
by your pen, had you been master of all the facts.
"3d, The D—— of M——'s courage not to be called in question.
"4th, The projected design of an assassination they believe
true, but that a matter of so high a nature ought not to be
asserted without exhibiting the proofs.
"5th, The present ministers, who are the rump of those whose
characters you have painted, shew too plainly that they have not
acted upon republican, or, indeed, any other principles, than
those of interest and ambition.
"6th, Now I have mentioned characters, I must tell you they were
clearly of opinion, that if those you have drawn should be
published as they now stand, nothing could save the author's
printer and publishers from some grievous punishment. As we have
no traces of liberty now left but the freedom of the press, it
is the most earnest desire of your friends that you would strike
out all that you have said on that subject.
"Thus, my dear Dean, I have laid before you, in a plain manner
the sentiments of those who were present when your History was
read; if I have mistaken in anything, I ask pardon of you and
them.
"I am not at liberty to name those who were present, excepting
only the E—— of O——d, who has charged me to return you his
thanks for what you have said of his father.
"What I have to say from myself is, that there were persons in
the company to whose judgment I should pay entire deference. I
had no opportunity of paying any on this occasion, for I
concurred in the same opinion with them, from the bottom of my
heart, and therefore conjure you as you value your own fame as
an author, and the honour of those who were actors in the
important affairs that make the subject of your History, and as
you would preserve the liberty of your person, and enjoyment of
your fortune, you will not suffer this work to go to the press
without making some, or all the amendments proposed. I am, my
dear Dean, most sincerely and affectionately yours,
"E.L.
"I thank you for your kind mention of me in your letter to Lord
Oxford.
"I had almost forgot to tell you, you have mistaken the case of
the D—— of S——, which, in truth, was this, that his grace
appearing at court, in the chamber next to the council-chamber,
it was apprehended he would come into the cabinet-council; and
therefore the intended meeting was put off: whereas one would
judge, by your manner of stating it, that the council had met,
and adjourned abruptly upon his taking his place there.
"I must add, that if you would so far yield to the opinions of
your friends, as to publish what you have writ concerning the
peace, and leave out everything that savours of acrimony and
resentment, it would, even now, be of great service to this
nation in general, and to them in particular, nothing having
been yet published on the peace of Utrecht in such a beautiful
and strong manner as you have done it. Once more, my dear Dean,
adieu; let me hear from you."

It is to be presumed that Swift was again persuaded to abandon the publication of his History. Nothing further is heard of it, except a slight reference by Pope in a letter he wrote to Swift, under date May 17th, 1739, in which Pope informed him that Bolingbroke (who is writing his History of his own Time) has expressed his intention of differing from Swift's version, as he remembers it when he read the History in 1727. The variation would relate in particular to the conduct of the Earl of Oxford.

Slight as this reference is, there is yet enough in it to suggest another reason why Swift should withhold the publication of his work. It might be that this expressed intention of Bolingbroke's to animadvert on his dear friend's conduct, would just move Swift to a final rejection of his intention, and so, possibly, prevent Bolingbroke from publishing his own statement. However, the manuscript must have been returned, for nothing more was heard of it during Swift's lifetime.

Swift died in 1745, and thirteen years later appeared the anonymously edited "History of the Four Last Years." Is this the work which Swift wrote in 1713, which he permitted Pope and Bolingbroke to read in 1727, and which he prepared for publication in 1737?

In 1758 there was no doubt whatever raised, although there were at least two persons alive then—Lord Orrery and Dr. William King—who could easily have proved any forgery, had there been one.

The first suspicion cast on the work came from Dr. Johnson. Writing, in his life of Swift, of the published version, he remarks, "that it seemed by no means to correspond with the notions that I had formed of it from a conversation that I once heard between the Earl of Orrery and old Mr. Lewis." In what particulars this want of correspondence was made evident Johnson does not say. In any case, his suspicion cannot be received with much consideration, since the conversation he heard must have taken place at least twenty years before he wrote the poet's life, and his recollection of such a conversation must at least have been very hazy. Johnson's opinion is further deprived of weight when we read what he wrote of the History in the "Idler," in 1759, the year after its publication, that "the history had perished had not a straggling transcript fallen into busy hands." If the straggling manuscript were worth anything, it must have had some claims to authenticity; and if it had, then Johnson's recollection of what he heard Orrery and Lewis say, twenty years or more after they had said it, goes for very little.

Sir Walter Scott concludes, from the fact that Swift sent the manuscript to Oxford and Lewis, that it was afterwards altered in accordance with Lewis's suggestions. But a comparison of Lucas's text with Lewis's letter shows that nothing of the kind was done.

Lord Stanhope had "very great reason to doubt" the authenticity of the History, and considered it as "falsely ascribed to Swift." What this "very great reason" was, his lordship nowhere stated.

Macaulay, in a pencilled note in a copy of Orrery's "Remarks" (now in the British Museum) describes the History as "Wretched stuff; and I firmly believe not Swift's." But Macaulay could scarcely have had much ground for his note, since he took a description of Somers from the History, and embodied it in his own work as a specimen of what Somers's enemies said of him. If the History were a forgery, what object was gained in quoting from it, and who were the enemies who wrote it?

When, in 1873, Lord Beaconsfield, then Mr. Disraeli, made a speech at Glasgow, in which he quoted from the History and spoke of the words as by Swift, a correspondent in the "Times" criticised him for his ignorance in so doing. But the discussion which followed in the columns of that periodical left the matter just where it was, and, indeed, justified Beaconsfield. The matter was taken up by Mr. Edward Solly in "Notes and Queries;" but that writer threw no new light whatever on the subject.

But the positive evidence in favour of the authenticity is so strong, that one wonders how there could have been any doubt as to whether Swift did or did not write the History.

In the first place we know that Swift was largely indebted for his facts to Bolingbroke, when that statesman was the War Secretary of Queen Anne. A comparison of those portions of Swift's History which contain the facts with the Bolingbroke Correspondence, in which the same facts are embodied, will amply prove that Swift obtained them from this source, and as Swift was the one man of the time to whom such a favour was given, the argument in favour of Swift's authorship obtains an added emphasis.

In the second place, a careful reading of the correspondence between Swift and his friends on the subject of the publication of the History enables us to identify the references to the History itself. The "characters" are there; Sir Thomas Hanmer's Representation is also there, and all the points raised by Erasmus Lewis may be told off, one by one.

In the third place, Dr. Birch, the careful collector, had, in 1742, access to what he considered to be the genuine manuscript. This was three years before Swift's death. He made an abstract of this manuscript at the time, and this abstract is now preserved in the British Museum. Comparing the abstract with the edition published in 1758, there is no doubt that the learned doctor had copied from a manuscript which, if it were not genuine, was certainly the text of the work published in 1758 as "The History of the Four Last Years." But Dr. Birch's language suggests that he believed the manuscript he examined to be in Swift's own handwriting. If that be so, there is no doubt whatever of the authenticity. Birch was a very careful person, and had he had any doubts he could easily have settled them by applying to the many friends of the Dean, if not to the Dean himself. Moreover, it is absurd to believe that a forged manuscript of Swift's would be shown about during Swift's lifetime without it being known as a forgery. Mrs. Whiteway alone would have put a stop to its circulation had she suspected of the existence of such a manuscript.

Finally, it must be remembered that when the History was published in 1758, Lord Orrery was still living. If the work were a forgery, why did not Lord Orrery expose it? Nothing would have pleased him more. He had read the manuscript referred to in the Correspondence. He had carried it to Oxford and given it to King, at Swift's request. He knew all about it, and he said nothing.

These considerations, both negative and positive, lead us to the final conclusion that the History published in 1758 is practically the History referred to in Swift's Correspondence, and therefore the authentic work of Swift himself. We say practically, because there are some differences between it and the text published here. The differences have been recorded from a comparison between Lucas's version and the transcript of a manuscript discovered in Dublin in 1857, and made by Mr. Percy Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald found that this manuscript contained many corrections in Swift's own handwriting. At the time he came across it the manuscript was in the possession of two old ladies named Greene, grand-daughters of Mrs. Whiteway, and grand-nieces of Swift himself. On the title-page there was the following note:

"This is the originall manuscript of the History, corrected by me, and given into the custody of Mrs. Martha Whiteway by me Jonathan Swift, June 15, 1737. seven.

"I send a fair copy of this History by the Earl of Orrery to be printed in England.