The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, D.D., Vol. X. | Page 8

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.
"JONATH. SWIFT."
Mr. Fitzgerald was permitted to make a collation of this manuscript,
and his collation he sent to the late John Forster. It is now in the
Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington.[2]
[Footnote 2: I regret that I have been unable to trace the existence of
this manuscript of Swift's "History." Mr. Fitzgerald himself has no
recollection of having made the collation. "Forty-five years ago," he
writes, "is a long time to look back to," and he cannot recall the fact.]
If this manuscript be what, on the face of it, it claims to be, then the
question of authenticity is for ever settled. As we have no doubt on this
point, the corrections and variations between this manuscript, as
collated by Mr. Percy Fitzgerald and the Lucas version, have been

noted in the present edition.
In 1752 Lord Orrery issued his "Remarks" on the life and character of
Swift. The work obtained for him a certain notoriety, and brought down
upon him some severe censure from the friends of Swift who were still
alive. But, whatever may have been Orrery's private opinion of Swift,
that should not invalidate any information as to fact of which he had
the knowledge to speak. Writing in that book of the History, he says:
"Dr. Swift left behind him few manuscripts. Not one of any
consequence, except an account of the peace of Utrecht, which he
called 'An History of the four last Years of Queen Anne.' The title of an
history is too pompous for such a performance.