The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, D.D., Vol. X. | Page 9

interesting sidelight on Swift's History is thrown by Chesterfield in a letter he wrote to Dr. Chenevix, Bishop of Waterford, on May 23rd, 1758. We must believe that the noble lord wrote in good faith and certainly in the full belief that the work he was criticising was the work of Swift. Chesterfield's criticism points directly to Swift as the author, since his justification for Bolingbroke's story is to be found in the work as Lucas printed it in 1758. Speaking of the History, Chesterfield calls it "a party pamphlet, founded on the lie of the day, which, as lord Bolingbroke who had read it often assured me, was coined and delivered out to him, to write Examiners, and other political papers upon. That spirit remarkably runs through it. Macarteney, for instance, murdered duke Hamilton;[4] nothing is falser, for though Macarteney was very capable of the vilest actions, he was guiltless of that, as I myself can testify, who was at his trial on the king's bench, when he came over voluntarily to take it, in the late king's time. There did not appear even the least ground for a suspicion of it; nor did Hamilton, who appeared in court, pretend to tax him with it, which would have been in truth accusing himself of the utmost baseness, in letting the murderer of his friend go off from the field of battle, without either resentment, pursuit, or even accusation, till three days afterwards. This lie was invented to inflame the Scotch nation against the Whigs; as the other, that prince Eugene intended to murder lord Oxford, by employing a set of people called Mohocks, which society, by the way, never existed, was calculated to inflame the mob of London. Swift took those hints _de la meilleure foi du monde_, and thought them materials for history. So far he is blameless."[5]
[Footnote 4: See page 178 of this volume.]
[Footnote 5: "Chesterfield's Works," pp. 498-499.]
Ignoring Chesterfield's indignation, we must believe that the references made by him to Macartney and Eugene, must have been in the manuscript Bolingbroke read; else how could Bolingbroke tell Chesterfield of their meaning? If this be so, we have a still further warrant for a strong presumption in favour of authenticity. There can really be very little doubt on the matter.
What we may doubt, however, is not the authenticity, but the value of the History as an historical document. Without question, Swift wrote in good faith; but he also wrote as a partisan, and a partisan with an affectionate leaning for the principal character in the drama he was describing. Orrery was right when he called it "a pamphlet," and "the best defence of Lord Oxford's administration." As a pamphlet and as a defence it has some claim on our attention. As a contribution to the history of the treaty of Utrecht it is of little account. Swift could not, had he even known everything, write the true story of the negotiations for publication at the time. In the first place, he would never have attempted it--the facts would have been demoralizing; and in the second place, had he accomplished it, its publication would have been a matter for much more serious consideration than was given even to the story he did write. For Swift's purpose, it was much better that he did not know the full extent of the ministry's perfidy. His affection for Oxford and his admiration for Bolingbroke would have received a great shock. He knew their weaknesses of character, though not their infidelity to honour. There can be no defence of the Oxford administration, for the manner in which it separated England from its allies and treated with a monarch who was well known to it as a political chicaner. The result brought a treaty by which Louis XIV. gained and the allies lost, and this in spite of the offers previously made by the bankrupt monarch at Gertruydenberg.
The further contents of this volume deal with what might better be called Swiftiana. They include a collection of very interesting annotations made by Swift in his copies of Macky's "Characters," Clarendon's "History of the Rebellion," Burnet's "History of his Own Time," and Addison's "Freeholder." The notes to Clarendon and Burnet have always found an important place in the many editions of these well-known works which have been issued from time to time. As here reprinted, however, they have in all cases been compared with the originals themselves. It will be found that very many additions have been made, the result of careful comparison and collation with the originals in Swift's handwriting.
My obligations are again due to Mr. W. Spencer Jackson for very valuable assistance in the collation of texts; to Mr. George Ravenscroft Dennis for several important suggestions; to Mr. Percy Fitzgerald for the use I