as well as the Mechanical Operation of the Spirit, and that Jonathan Swift added the Dedications to Somers and to Posterity, the Preface, and the four Digressions that form Sections iii, v, vii, and ix, as well as the Battle of the Books. The main part of the pamphlet, the Clavis' proper, annotates more or less fully what is ascribed to Thomas Swift (with the exception of the Conclusion'), and leaves unexplained what is ascribed to Jonathan Swift (with the exception of Section ix). The notes are of little value, and some of them are wrong. As a whole the Complete Key has two purposes: to claim that a large` part of the Tale was the work of Thomas Swift, and to explain that part, and that part only. On the first page of a copy preserved in the British Museum, Curll has written the following words: Given me by Ralph Noden, Esq; of the Middle Temple. É Curil.' Evidently Noden 3 was either the author of the Key, or had acted as intermediary for its publication.

3

4. In Nichols's edition of Swift's Works, 1808, vol. ii, there is prefixed to the Tale an Advertisement' consisting of Historical Particulars' communicated to Nichols 'in 1777 by the Rev. Samuel Salter, D.D. then Master of the Charter-house'. One paragraph is as follows:

In March 1766, a copy of the first edition of the Tale of a Tub' was sold (for 5s. 6d. only) at an auction of books, by S. Baker *: 1 e.g. 'exantlation p. 67 (47), 329, and Lord', pp. 91 (73), 331.

The notes in Sir Walter Scott's edition which are marked 'Bentley' were taken from the Key. There is no reason of any kind for attributing any of them to Bentley, but the mistake has been reproduced by many of Swift's editors.

2 Brit. Mus. C. 28 b 11 (6).
3 Noden was admitted to the

Middle Temple on March 7, 1701. He or another man of the same uncommon name-had been admitted to the Inner Temple on July 13, 1687. He was the son of Hugh Noden, of London, and matriculated in the University of Oxford as a member of Brasenose College on May 20, 1680, aged 16: see Foster's Alumni Oxoni

enses.

4 This book was in the library

this copy had, it seems, belonged to Sheffield duke of Bucks; with whom Dean Swift does not appear either to have had, or to have wished for, any intimacy. In the first blank leaf the duke (as is believed and there affirmed) had written these words: 'What follows here written, is all by the hand of Mr. Thomas Swift:' or something of this tenour. In the next page Thomas Swift has given the following anecdotes.

The anecdotes were, as Nichols pointed out, all copied word for word from Curll's Key.

This is all the evidence for Thomas Swift's participation in the Tale,-nothing but rumour and Curll's Key. It is wholly disposed of by the letter' which Swift wrote to Benjamin Tooke the publisher on June 29, 1710, when they were making arrangements for the

of David Mallet and was sold by Samuel Baker on March 10, 1766. The entry in the catalogue is as follows: 828 Tale of a Tub, with MS. Additions by Tho. Swift, near Relation to the Dean, and shewing what part[s] of the Book were written by the Doctor and bimself, 1704.' The same volume, then purchased by 'Dr. Hunter', reappears in the catalogue for the sale of Dr. Charles Chauncey's books on April 12-15, 1790: No. 2408] Swift's Tale of a Tub, morocco, with large MS. note. Note in this Book. All that is contained here, in writing, was set down by Thomas Swift himself. The above is said to be the Handwriting of Lady Betty Germain, whose Book this was. C. Chauncey.' The volume then fetched £3. 35. (priced catalogue, British Museum Library 7004 cc 10). In a copy of the Tale now in the Forster Collection at South Kensington, Forster jotted a note about this sale based on a newspaper

paragraph, and ending thus: Autograph of Lady Betty Germain at commt of vol. "All that is contained here in writing was set down by Jon. Swift himself." Sold for 3. 3. Another account appeared in Notes and Queries on August 4, 1877: 'Last week at Sotheby and Co.'s a copy of Swift's Tale of a Tub was sold, which was said to have belonged to Lady Betty Germain, who has noted in it that it was written by Jonathan and Thomas Swift, and that she had got Thomas to write on the margins what each wrote. It confirms the dean's assertion that he did not write the Tale of a Tub, but only the Digressions. In this copy "Jon. Swift" is written against the preface and the Digressions, but Thomas's [sic] against each chapter of The Tale'. Despite the discrepancies in the accounts, it is clear that they all deal with the same volume.

See Appendix D, pp. 343, 4.

fifth edition of the Tale. After referring to the Key as 'so perfect a Grub street piece', he proceeds thus:

I cannot but think that little Parson-cousin of mine is at the bottom of this; for, having lent him a copy of some part of, &c. and he shewing it, after I was gone for Ireland, and the thing abroad, he affected to talk suspiciously, as if he had some share in it. If he should happen to be in town, and you light on him, I think you ought to tell him gravely, that, if he be the author, he should set his name to the &c. and railly him a little upon it: and tell him, if he can explain some things, you will, if he pleases, set his name to the next edition. I should be glad to see how far the foolish impudence of a dunce could go.

Swift goes on to say that at the conclusion of the Apology in the new edition he would take a little contemptible notice of the thing you sent me'. This he did in the Postscript. It has much in common with the letter. The Author', it says, 'asserts that the whole Work is entirely of one Hand, which every Reader of Judgment will easily discover'; and it challenges any person to prove his Claim to three Lines

in the whole Book'.

The facts are clear. The little parson cousin, who had been resident chaplain to Sir William Temple at Moor Park, had in his possession a copy of part of the Tale. He had spoken about it, and had enjoyed sharing its secret. From this the rumour grew that he was the author. Then, after the Tale had been out about six years, a Grub street piece' definitely claimed some parts of it for him, and purported to give explanations, many of which are worthless. We do not know if he contributed to this piece, nor even if it had his approval. That he was incapable of writing any part of the Tale is shown by the one publication to which he put his name.' But Swift's authorship of the Tale was long questioned. Johnson remained unconvinced. I doubt, he said, ' if

1 See Noah's Dove, a thanksgiving sermon, 1710; cf. Corre

spondence of Swift, ed. Elrington Ball, vol. i, pp. 387, 8.

the Tale of a Tub was his : it has so much more thinking, more knowledge, more power, more colour, than any of the works which are indisputably his. If it was his, I shall only say, he was impar sibi'. What he had said frequently in conversation he repeated deliberately in his Life of Swift: His Tale of a Tub has little resemblance to his other pieces. It exhibits a vehemence and rapidity of mind, a copiousness of images, and vivacity of diction, such as he afterwards never possessed, or never exerted. It is of a mode so distinct and peculiar, that it must be considered by itself; what is true of that, is not true of any thing else which he has written.' All doubt is now laid to rest. There is Swift's own letter about the Tale; there are the recurrent parallelisms in phrase and thought with his acknowledged writings; and there is the overheard muttering of the old man (which goes some way towards justifying Johnson's doubts)Good God! what a genius I had when I wrote that book"."

III. THE FIFTH EDITION.

The second and third editions of the Tale were published in 1704, and the fourth in 1705. They reproduced the first edition page for page, but with a few corrections of misprints, and some new misprints. A new edition which was intended to be final was taken in hand some time in 1709. It was to contain a reply to the critics and a substantial series of notes, and was to be adorned with cuts. But the printing was not begun before July 1710. The volume appeared late

in the same year. No advertisement of its publication has been found in the newspapers.

'

The Apology. At the end of 1708, probably in October or early in November, Swift is found thinking of an Apology for the &c.' It is one of several 'Subjects for a Volume' that he jotted down on the back of a letter addressed to him at Lord Pembroke's in Leicester Fields in October 1708. But he did not proceed with it during his busy winter in London. When it was published it bore the date 'June 3, 1709'. Swift was at Leicester, on what proved to be his final visit to his mother, from May 7 to June 14, and there the 'Apology' would appear to have been written. We next hear of it in his letter to Benjamin Tooke of June 29, 1710,3 when he acknowledged the return of the manuscript. He had probably left it with Tooke before setting sail for Ireland on June 29, 1709. The printing had been put off till Swift sent his final instructions, and now at his request Tooke returned it for revision and completion, after taking a copy in case it should miscarry, and not without showing some impatience at the delay. The short Postscript must have been added about the beginning of July, 1710, when Swift was in Dublin.

His letter to Tooke and Tooke's reply remove all doubt concerning the authorship of the 'Apology'. The manuscript had been returned in order that Swift might 'finish that business'; and there is no reason for supposing that it was not printed exactly as it left his hands.

A

'The original appears to be lost.

copy is inserted between pp. 36 and 37 of Lyon's copy of Hawkesworth's Life of Swift, now in the Forster Collection at South Kensington: see below, p. xxxiii, note 1. The list of subjects is printed in Sheridan's Life of Swift, ed.

1784, p. 56, and in Forster's Life of Swift, 1875, pp. 257, 8; cf. Correspondence of Swift, ed. Elrington Ball, 1910, vol. i, p. III.

2 Correspondence, vol. 1, pp. 153 and 158.

PP. 343, 4.