This represents a third of the book as finally printed. Ford objected to the sudden ending; but Borrow made no alteration in this respect. There were a number of other suggestions of lesser importance in this admirable piece of technical criticism. Ford disliked Borrow’s striving to create an air of mystery as “taking an unwarrantable liberty with the reader”; he suggested a map and a short biographical sketch of the author, and especially the nature of his connection with the Bible Society. Finally he gives it as his opinion that it is neither necessary nor advisable to insert any of his letters to the Bible Society, either in the body of the book or as an Appendix.
“The Dialogues are amongst the best parts of the book,” Ford wrote; “but in several of them the tone of the speakers, of those especially who are in humble life, is too correct and elevated, and therefore out of character. This takes away from their effect. I think it would be very advisable that Mr Borrow should go over them with reference to this point, simplifying a few of the turns of expression and introducing a few contractions—don’ts, can’ts, etc. This would improve them greatly.”
This criticism applies to all Borrow’s books, in particular to the passages dealing with the Gypsies, who, in spite of their love of high-sounding words, which they frequently misuse, do not speak with the academic precision of Borrow’s works any more than do peers or princes or even pedagogues. Borrow met Ford’s criticism with the assurance that “the lower classes in Spain are generally elevated in their style and scarcely ever descend to vulgarity.”
Borrow’s first impulse appears to have been to disregard the suggestion that the two breaks should be filled in. On 13th Jan. he wrote to John Murray, Junr.:
“I have received the MS. and likewise your kind letter . . . Pray thank the Gentleman who perused the MS. in my name for his suggestions, which I will attend to. [By this it is clear that Borrow was not told that Ford was ‘the Gentleman.’] I find that the MS. was full of trifling mistakes, the fault of my amanuensis; but I am going through it, and within three days shall have made all the necessary corrections.”
No man, of however sanguine a temperament, could seriously contemplate the mere transcription of some eighty thousand words, in addition to the correction of twice that amount of manuscript, within three days. Nine days later Borrow wrote again to John Murray, Junr. “We are losing time; I have corrected seven hundred consecutive pages of MS., and the remaining two hundred will be ready in a fortnight.” That he had taken so long was due to the fact that the greater part of the preceding week had been occupied with other and more exciting matters than correcting manuscript.
“During the last week,” he continues, “I have been chiefly engaged in horse-breaking. A most magnificent animal has found his way to this neighbourhood—a half-bred Arabian—he is at present in the hands of a low horse-dealer; he can be bought for eight pounds, but no person will have him; it is said that he kills everybody who mounts him. I have been charming him, and have so far succeeded that at present he does not fling me more than once in five minutes. What a contemptible trade is the Author’s compared to that of the jockey.”
It was not until towards the end of February that the corrected manuscript of the first volume of The Bible in Spain reached Albemarle Street. Later and better counsels had apparently prevailed, and Borrow had become reconciled to filling up the breaks.
Borrow had other occupations than preparing his manuscript for the printer’s hands. He was ill and overwrought, and small things became magnified out of all proportion to their actual importance. There had been a dispute between Borrow’s dog and that of the rector of Oulton, the Rev. E. P. Denniss, and as the place was small, the dogs met frequently and renewed their feud. Finally the masters of the animals became involved, and an interchange of frigid notes ensued. It appears that Borrow threatened to appeal to the Law and to the Bishop of the Diocese, and further seems to have suggested that in the interests of peace, the rector might do away with his own dog. The tone of the correspondence may be gathered from the following notes:—[347]
“Mr Denniss begs to acknowledge Mr Borrow’s note, and is sorry to hear that his dog and Mr Borrow’s have again fallen out. Mr Denniss learns from his servant that Mr D’s dog was no more in fault than Mr B’s, which latter is of a very quarrelsome and savage disposition, as Mr Denniss can himself testify, as well as many other people. Mr Denniss regrets that these two animals cannot agree when they meet, but he must decline acceding to Mr Borrow’s somewhat arbitrary demand, conceiving he has as much right to retain a favourite, and in reality very harmless, animal, as Mr Borrow has to keep a dog which has once bitten Mr Denniss himself, and oftentimes attacked him and his family. Mr Borrow is at perfect liberty to take any measure he may deem advisable, either before the magistrates or the Bishop of the Diocese, as Mr Denniss is quite prepared to meet them.”
“Oulton Rectory, 22nd April 1842.”