He says in regard to the fourth part of the story: "It is some consolation to remark that the fiction on which this libel on human nature rests is in every respect gross and improbable, and, far from being entitled to the praise due to the management of the first two parts, is inferior in plan even to the third."[196] This is a sound verdict, even if it does contain an extra-literary element.

Scott surpassed most of his contemporaries, except the younger Romantic writers, in his ability to eliminate irrelevant considerations in estimating any literary work; and if occasionally his strong moral feeling appears in his criticism, it serves to remind us how much less often this happens than a knowledge of his temperament would lead us to expect.

In spite of the qualities in his subject that might naturally bias Scott's judgment, his criticism throughout this edition of Swift seems on the whole very judicious.

It defines the literary importance and brings out plainly the power of a man whose work presents unusual perplexities to the critic.
_The Somers Tracts_ Character of the collection and of Scott's work on it--Occasional carelessness--Purpose of the notes--Scott's attitude towards these studies.
While Scott was working on his _Dryden_ and before he began the _Swift_ he undertook to edit the great collection which had been published fifty years before as _Somers' Tracts_.

His task was to arrange, revise, and annotate pamphlets which represented every reign from Elizabeth to George I.He grouped them chronologically by reigns, and separated them further into sections under the headings,--Ecclesiastical, Historical, Civil, Military, Miscellaneous; he also added eighty-one pamphlets, all written before the time of James II.