Some interest attaches to Wotton's conjectures at the authorship of the Tale of a Tub. In one place 2 he says that a brother [he means 'cousin'] of Dr Swift's is publicly reported to have been the editor at least, if not the author [of the Tale of a Tub]': in another he says that Mr Swift [i. e. Thomas Swift] is under great obligations to clear himself from the imputation of having written the book. The world besides (he continues) will think it odd that a man should in a dedication play upon that great man, to whom he is more obliged than to any other man now living; for it was at Sir William Temple's request, that my Lord Somers, then Lord-Keeper of the Great-Seal of England, gave Mr Swift a very good benefice in one of the most delicious parts of one of the pleasantest counties of England. It is publicly reported that he wrote this book: it is a story which, ... I neither made, nor spread; for it has been long as public as it can well be. The injury done to religion, that any of its ministers should lie under

1 His remarks are intended to include the Battle of the Books.

2 p. 519.

3 p. 539.

the imputation of writing such a burlesque upon it, will be irreparable, if the person so charged does not do it and himself justice. I say himself, for in my own conscience I acquit him from composing it. The author, I believe, is dead, and it is probable that it was writ in the year 1697, when it is said to have been written.'

His remarks about the Dedication to Lord Somers show that Wotton's sense of humour was somewhat deficient.

Swift's 'Apology' (1710)

For the fifth edition of the Tale and other pieces contained in the 1704 volume Swift wrote An Apology For the, etc.'1 It is an answer to Wotton's Defence. With those parts of it which concern the Tale we are not here concerned: but the following passages concern the Battle of the Books directly.

'It was determined by a fair majority that this answerer [Wotton] had, in a way not to be pardoned, drawn his pen against a certain great man then alive,

This is the title printed; the pages are headed An Apology. It may be noticed that the correct title of the Tale is A Tale of a Tub, not The Tale of a Tub.

and universally reverenced for every good quality that could possibly enter into the composition of the most accomplished person; it was observed how he was pleased and affected to have that noble writer called his adversary; and it was a point of satire well directed; for I have been told Sir William] T[emple] was sufficiently mortified at the term. All the men of wit and politeness were immediately up in arms through indignation, which prevailed over their contempt, by the consequences they apprehended from such an example; and it grew Porsenna's case; idem trecenti juravimus. In short, things were ripe for a general insurrection, till my Lord Orrery had a little laid the spirit, and settled the ferment. But his lordship being principally engaged with another antagonist [Bentley], it was thought necessary, in order to quiet the minds of men, that this opposer should receive a reprimand, which partly occasioned that discourse of the Battle of the Books; and the author was farther at the pains to insert one or two remarks on him, in the body of the book.' 1

1 S. i. pp. 18, 19.

It will be noticed that the last sentence favours the theory that the Battle was written after, not before, the Tale of a Tub (see above, pp. xl. and xli.).

To Wotton's remark about the Combat des Livres (see p. xliv.) Swift replied:

"In [this] passage there are two clauses observable; "I have been assured"; and, "if I misremember not." I desire first to know whether, if that conjecture proves an utter falsehood, those two clauses will be a sufficient excuse for this worthy critic? The matter is a trifle; but would he venture to pronounce at this rate upon one of greater moment? I know nothing more contemptible in a writer, than the character of a plagiary, which he here fixes at a venture; and this not for a passage, but a whole discourse, taken out from another book, only mutatis mutandis. The author is as much in the dark about this as the answerer; and will imitate him by an affirmation at random; that if there be a word of truth in this reflection, he is a paltry, imitating pedant; and the answerer is a person of wit, manners, and truth. He takes his boldness, from never having seen any such treatise in his life, nor heard of it before; and he is sure it is impossible for two writers, of different times

and countries, to agree in their thoughts after such a manner, that two continued discourses shall be the same, only mutatis mutandis. Neither will he insist upon the mistake of the title, but let the answerer and his friend produce any book they please, he defies them to shew one single particular, where the judicious reader will affirm he has been obliged for the smallest hint; giving only allowance for the accidental encountering of a single thought, which he knows may sometimes happen; though he has never yet found it in that discourse, nor has heard it objected by any body else.' 1

The judicious reader will put his own valuation upon

this denial.

Conclusion

Considerable interest attaches to the question, What was the real origin of the hostility of the Christ Church men to Bentley? In 1689 Bentley went to Oxford as tutor to James Stillingfleet, son of the Bishop of Worcester, becoming a member of Wadham College.

1 S. i. pp. 20-1.