Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 55.djvu/213

 (, p. 48 n.) Whatever the force of the scruples, Swift had become indignant at Temple's slowness in procuring him preferment (to Deane Swift, 3 June 1694). Temple was ‘extremely angry’ at his departure in May. When Swift reached Ireland, he found that the bishops demanded some testimonial as to his conduct during his stay in England, and he was forced to make an application to Temple (6 Oct. 1694) in sufficiently humiliating terms (the original letter in Swift's autograph is in the Rowfant Library). Temple gave the necessary document, and Swift had enough interest to obtain from Lord Capel, then lord-deputy, the prebend of Kilroot, near Belfast, worth about 100l. a year. A preposterous story of a criminal assault upon a farmer's daughter, discussed by some writers upon Swift, originated, as Scott shows, in the blunders of a lunatic. Swift carried on a flirtation with a Miss Jane Waring (‘Varina’) of Belfast, sister of an old college friend. On 29 May 1696 he wrote her a letter full of extravagant protestations, offering to give up his prospects for her sake, or, if she will wait for him, to ‘push his advancement’ in England till he is in a position to marry her. Temple had been making fresh promises to induce him to return; and Swift accordingly went back to Moor Park in May 1696. He left John Winder in charge of his prebend, which in the course of the next year he resolved to resign. He obtained the succession to Kilroot for his friend Winder, a fact which was the foundation of a story told by Sheridan (p. 19) to prove his romantic benevolence. A letter to Winder (, p. 84) shows that he had entertained hopes of patronage which were ruined by the fall of Lord Sunderland, and that he was being consulted in some political intrigues.

Swift's relation to Temple had completely changed its character. Temple's age and previous history entitled him to the respect of a young man who depended upon his patronage; but he had sufficiently shown his need of Swift's services, and now treated him as a friend. Swift employed himself in preparing Temple's letters and memoirs for publication (Swift's letter in Sir W. Temple, ii. 243). Swift had also time for a great deal of reading, chiefly classical and historical (see, pp. 56, 57 n.) He spent ten hours a day in study according to Deane Swift (p. 271), or eight according to Delany (p. 50), and now wrote the first of his books which became famous. Temple had in 1692 published his essay upon ancient and modern learning, which transplanted to England a controversy begun in France by Fontenelle. William Wotton [q. v.] had replied by ‘Reflections’ in 1694; and incidental points had started the famous controversy between Bentley and Charles Boyle [q. v.], supported by the wits of Christ Church. Swift hereupon wrote his prose mock heroic, ‘The Battle of the Books,’ in which Bentley and Wotton, as the representatives of modern pedantry, are transfixed by Boyle in a suit of armour given him by the gods as a representative of ‘the two noblest of things, sweetness and light.’ Wotton accused Swift of plagiarism from a French book by François de Callières (not ‘Coutrey,’ as Scott says; see, p. 71). There are slight resemblances which suggest that Swift may have seen the book, though his denial implies that, if so, he had forgotten it. The book remained in manuscript until its publication in 1704, with a greater satire, the ‘Tale of a Tub.’ According to Deane Swift (p. 60) the ‘Tale of a Tub’ was revised by Temple. Deane Swift also says (p. 31) that a sketch had been seen by Waring when Swift was still at Trinity College. The report, if it had any foundation, probably referred to the later period when Waring met Swift at Kilroot. In any case, it was finished early in 1697, and circulated in manuscript with the ‘Battle of the Books.’ Johnson said to Boswell (24 March 1775) that the book had ‘such a swarm of thoughts, so much of nature, and vigour, and life,’ that Swift could not have written it. The inference only expresses Johnson's prejudice; and the authorship, never seriously doubted, was assumed by Swift in a letter to his publisher Tooke (29 June 1710). The power of the satire, which anticipates Carlyle's clothes philosophy as a general denunciation of shams and pedantry, is indisputable. The contemptuous ridicule of theological pedantry in particular produced very natural suspicions of Swift's orthodoxy. The ridicule which he directs against papists and dissenters was only too applicable to Christianity in general. For the present, however, the book was known only to Temple's circle. In 1710 Swift prefixed an anonymous ‘Apology’ to a fifth edition. Curll, in a ‘Key,’ had insinuated that Thomas Swift, Jonathan's cousin, who had been chaplain at Moor Park, was the chief author. Wotton, in his ‘Defence’ of his ‘Reflections,’ also calls Thomas the editor. Swift, in writing to his publisher Tooke, makes some contemptuous references to his ‘little parson cousin,’ whom he guesses to have been an accomplice in this.

While at Moor Park Swift made occasional