:: :: University of Virginia Library

The first extant letter by Swift is printed by F. Elrington Ball and by Harold Williams from a transcript in the Leicester Museum. John Nichols stated that the original was owned at the end of the eighteenth century by one of the recipient's grandsons. The supposed original came to rest in the Leicester Museum, but, according to Williams "the transcript in the museum, long accepted as the original, has no claim to that distinction," as the paper "belongs to the latter half of the eighteenth century; and the script suggests the end of the century or the beginning of the next. The hand is not that of Swift; and the document has never passed through the post."[8] It has not been remarked that the letter was first printed in the GM for April, 1752 (pp. 157-158), with the following introduction by "J. W." of W--l, Staffordsh.", who claimed that he got it from "a son of Mr. Kendall, who was then my near neighbour, and had the original in his possession."

Having lately read the earl of Orrery's letters, concerning the life and writings of Dr. Swift, and observing his lordship's remarks, in his second letter, upon one that the doctor wrote to his uncle, soon after his leaving the university, (in which his lordship says, we see nothing of that peculiar turn of phrase that is so visible in his other writings; and from whence he seems to infer that Swift's faculties had not then begun to exert and display themselves) I recollected that I had a letter in my possession of a somewhat earlier date than that which Lord Orrery has published, and withall more perfect; in which his Lordship (if he reads your Magazine) may see, that Dr. Swift was much the same man, with regard to the peculiarity of his turn of sentiment and phrase, at five and twenty, as he was, when his Lordship conversed with him, bating his improvements in the after part of his life. The letter, I can assure you, sir, is genuine, and was carefully transcribed by myself some years ago, from the original under the dean's own hand. I find, by Lord Orrery's account of him, that he sometimes visited his mother at Leicester. There, it seems, he had talked to a young lady in a strain, which, though usual with him, was thought somewhat particular by herself and her friends. Upon which the gentleman, to whom the letter

294

was written, who was Dr. Swift's near relation, and had been with him at the university, was applied to, to write an expostulatory letter to him on his conduct towards her after his departure from Leicester; to which letter, this which I have sent you is his answer; and this account I think it necessary to give you, by way of key to it. Both the letter and the account came to me from a son of Mr. Kendall, who was then my near neighbour, and had the original in his possession. The lady, without doubt, is dead, and every one else, in all probability, that were any ways interested in the affair. Therefore the publication of the said letter (which, from the date of it appears, at the latest, to have been written nine or ten months before that which Lord Orrery has produced, and, I am apt to think, from the same place too, viz. Moore Park) can have no other effect than to let the world see Swift's picture drawn by himself, and how that wonderful man thought and wrote in his younger days, and before his appearance in it as an author. Perhaps no genuine production of his, earlier than this, can now be met with. As to his treatment, indeed, of the lady, and the place she lived in, no one, I dare say, will think it odd, or out of character, in such a man as he afterwards appeared to be; and who (as both Lord Orrery and Mrs Pilkington have observed, and, as is sufficiently evident too from a great part of his writings) was not over-favourable in his sentiments of the fair sex, nor over-complaisant in his behaviour to them; and who, either in his mirth or his anger, would never scruple to treat even kingdoms themselves with as little ceremony as he here does the town of Leicester.

Ball noted that the Rev. Mr. Kendall "had two sons, one of whom was sometime 'gentleman' to the Earl of Clanricarde, and is mentioned by Swift in a letter to Sheridan of 20 July, 1736, as being then in the Irish revenue service." The letter is actually from Sheridan to Swift (Williams, IV, 519) and there is no reference to the Earl of Clanricarde, Ball mistaking the reference to "Colonel Nuburgh." None of this helps much to identify which of Kendall's sons gave the original to his neighbor in the little village of Wall in Staffordshire. "J. W." was almost surely of the Wall family, but I have not been able to discover a J. Wall who is chronologically and geographically right. Wall is slightly south of Lichfield and about thirty miles due west of Leicester and about nineteen miles west of Thornton. I suppose that some time between 1752 and the end of the century J. Wall gave the letter to John Kendall of Thorpe Langton in Leicestershire, grandson to the recipient. In any event, the first appearance of the letter to Kendall in an edition of Swift was in 1762, the date of publication of the fourteenth volume of John Hawkesworth's edition of Swift's works, published in twelve volumes in 1755. William Bowyer, John Nichols's employer, had added volumes thirteen and fourteen and, as is well known, more volumes were to be added in subsequent years. Thomas Sheridan's edition of Swift's works (1784) was notable largely, if not solely, for his life of Swift, and it was Sheridan's edition that John Nichols revised and augmented in 1801. The text of the letter to Kendall, in these three editions was not, however, based on the GM text, as will be seen.

In what follows I give page, line references, and text from the first volume of Williams's edition of the correspondence. The GM text is unique in yours (3,3,yours), mine (3,3,mine), think that though (4,21,though), (know 4,24, knew), demonstrations (4,31,Demonstration), angel (4,37,angell), lighting (5,3, listing), I (5,8,that I), just so (5,11,just). I have not listed differences in punctuation,

295

capitalization, and spelling. "Yours," "mine," and "angel," in the GM were italicized for emphasis. The other unique readings make good sense, with the possible exception of "lighting," although it too makes sense, albeit "listing" may be preferable. What is more, the GM text shares with Bowyer, Sheridan, and Nichols, that is without Ball and Williams, itself (3,13,my self) carried (4,22,carried on), a reason (4,28,Reason), to hate (4,29,[not] to have),[9] who (4,33,to), that manner (5,14,the manner). Four readings are common to GM and Williams alone: 'tis (3,1 and 4,7,is not), began (4,16,begin), having (5,10,and having). Three readings in Williams are unique: & used (4,5,used), have always (4.14,always have), shew how (5,12, show you how). At one point GM, Bowyer et al, Ball, and Williams all disagree, the texts reading in order: and so entail miseries (5,1-2) and entail a misery, and to entail a misery, & entail a misery. Bowyer et al omit "except all things else were agreable, and that I had mathematicall Demonstration for the falsehood of the first wch if it be not impossible I am sure is very like it" (4,30-32,[Williams's text]). Bowyer et al are unique in: these (4,1,in these), cunning (4,21,cunningest), these (4,35,they), thought (5,11,I thought). Nichols follows Sheridan in three readings: beside (5,8,Besides), in adding "affectionate" after "very" in the close of the letter, and in the signature, J. Swift (Jon. Swift). Only one reading is unique to Nichols: busy (4,8,so busy).

The fact that GM and Bowyer, Sheridan, and Nichols share six readings not found in Ball and Williams (readings in which the last two agree) plus the fact that Bowyer et al omit thirty-one words found in GM (and in Ball and Williams) suggests that Bowyer's text was a faulty transcript of Wall's transcript of the original, or some descendant thereof. And the "supposed original" of the letter was almost surely simply another separate transcript of one of the existing transcripts or of some other unknown to us. Incidentally, where Ball's text is unique, in two readings, [(and who,4,5,(who], and (4,9, ends), it is wrong. The whole matter is rather messy and raises more questions than allows for answers, but at least one conclusion emerges: the standard text of the correspondence is corrupt in the letter to Kendall.