t service to this
nation in general, and to them in particular, nothing having
been yet published on the peace of Utrecht in such a beautiful
and strong manner as you have done it. Once more, my dear Dean,
adieu; let me hear from you."

It is to be presumed that Swift was again persuaded to abandon the
publication of his History. Nothing further is heard of it, except a
slight reference by Pope in a letter he wrote to Swift, under date May
17th, 1739, in which Pope informed him that Bolingbroke (who is writing
his History of his own Time) has expressed his intention of differing
from Swift's version, as he remembers it when he read the History in
1727. The variation would relate in particular to the conduct of the
Earl of Oxford.

Slight as this reference is, there is yet enough in it to suggest
another reason why Swift should withhold the publication of his work. It
might be that this expressed intention of Bolingbroke's to animadvert on
his dear friend's conduct, would just move Swift to a final rejection of
his intention, and so, possibly, prevent Bolingbroke from publishing his
own statement. However, the manuscript must have been returned, for
nothing more was heard of it during Swift's lifetime.

Swift died in 1745, and thirteen years later appeared the anonymously
edited "History of the Four Last Years." Is this the work which Swift
wrote in 1713, which he permitted Pope and Bolingbroke to read in 1727,
and which he prepared for publication in 1737?

In 1758 there was no doubt whatever raised, although there were at least
two persons alive then--Lord Orrery and Dr. William King--who could
easily have proved any forgery, had there been one.

The first suspicion cast on the work came from Dr. Johnson. Writing, in
his life of Swift, of the published version, he remarks, "that it seemed
by no means to correspond with the notions that I had formed of it from
a conversation that I once heard between the Earl of Orrery and old Mr.
Lewis." In what particulars this want of correspondence was made evident
Johnson does not say. In any case, his suspicion cannot be received with
much consideration, since the conversation he heard must have taken
place at least twenty years before he wrote the poet's life, and his
recollection of such a conversation must at least have been very hazy.
Johnson's opinion is further deprived of weight when we read what he
wrote of the History in the "Idler," in 1759, the year