Produced by Adrian Mastronardi, Matthew Wheaton and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
(This file was produced from images generously made
available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
REMARKS
ON THE
PRACTICE AND POLICY OF LENDING
BODLEIAN
PRINTED BOOKS AND MANUSCRIPTS.
BY
HENRY W. CHANDLER, M.A.
FELLOW OF PEMBROKE COLLEGE, OXFORD;
WAYNFLETE PROFESSOR OF MORAL AND METAPHYSICAL PHILOSOPHY,
AND A CURATOR OF THE BODLEIAN LIBRARY.
Oxford:
B. H. BLACKWELL,
50 AND 51, BROAD STREET.
1887.
PREFACE.
The present 'Remarks' are a reprint, with many omissions and additions,
of two privately printed papers which were communicated to the Curators
last year. From November, 1884, for about twelve months, I did very
little more than watch attentively the way in which Bodleian business is
transacted, to me at once a novelty and a surprise. For some purposes
writing is preferable to talking, and accordingly in November, 1885, I
printed a memorandum containing many gentle hints--+phonanta
sunetoisin+--which I faintly hoped might eventually prove beneficial to
the Library. Next came a Memorandum 'on the Classed Catalogue,' a thing
which some Curators look on as a most valuable work, and others as an
interminable and wasteful absurdity. This was followed by a paper 'on
the Bodleian Coins and Medals', with some observations on the proposal
to transfer the collection to the Ashmolean Museum. As far as could be
seen, all this expenditure of ink and money did no harm, and no good. In
May, 1886, a committee was appointed to draw up regulations for loans of
books; and in June the Curators received a paper 'on the lending of
Bodleian Books and Manuscripts,' as also Bishop Barlow's Argument
against lending them, then for the first time printed as a whole; and
in both the illegality of the borrowers' list was pointed out, and very
broad hints given, not only that the present loan statute is defective,
but why, and in what manner it is so. If these hints, facts, and
arguments had been addressed to the twelve signs of the Zodiac, they
could not have produced less visible effect; and it was wonderfully
amusing to find, that more than half my brethren could not for the life
of them see what to everybody else was plain as a pikestaff; so on we
went in the well-beaten path, steady as old Time himself, looking
neither to the right hand nor to the left, and, what is more remarkable,
never for one moment looking ahead. Finally, at the beginning of
October, came a paper on 'Book-lending as practised at the Bodleian';
and this proved to be the last straw; for on October 30th, partly by
words and partly by that silence which gives consent, it was plainly
intimated that these papers were unwelcome. One friend, and only one,
had a good word to say for them; so far as they contained collection of
facts he approved of them, but no further. As my little experiment
failed so lamentably, I am hardly likely to repeat it, or to put so
severe a strain on the good nature and patience of my colleagues as ever
again to trouble them with a scrap of printed paper. This puts me into a
sort of quandary. I abhor pen and ink, and should like to hold my tongue
and spare my pocket; but that is impossible as things are. I cannot
stand by and see men who know no better trying (with the best possible
intentions) to get the Bodleian on to an inclined plane, down which it
must rapidly slide to perdition, without loudly protesting against their
acts. What then is to be done? Private feelings must be respected, yet
not so as to impede the performance of a duty to the Library and to the
University. The atmosphere of a meeting is not conducive to calm and
rational discussion; I cannot make speeches; the board does not relish
either facts or arguments in print. Only one course remains then;
whenever there is anything to be said about the Bodleian or its
management (and there is much that ought to be, and must be said sooner
or later), it shall no longer be privately printed and given away to
unwilling recipients, but published and sold. In this way all parties
will be satisfied: those who are interested in the Library can buy;
those who are not, can protect themselves against annoyance. So much by
way of explanation.
When at length the board determined to apply for a new statute, and did
in November what anybody but ourselves would have done in June, the hope
was expressed that the statute would be introduced at once, and then
pushed through Congregation and Convocation as rapidly as possible in
the present term; whereupon somebody observed, that it would be just as
well not to hurry the business; and this seems to have been the view
adopted by Council.
If Convocation could only seize the full significance and incalculable
value to present and future generations of a library of reference, a
library, that is, where, at all lawful times, every book deposited in it
should always be forthcoming in a moment, it would at once see that from
such a library no lending whatever ought to be permitted, simply because
lending and deposit are practical contradictories; and if Convocation
could plainly see this, it would make very short work of any statute
which legalized loans. There is no denying, however, that in the present
day the public mind, as it is playfully called, and the University mind
as well, is in a wonderfully flabby condition. Nobody seems to be
thoroughly convinced of the unquestionable truth, that every possible
plan in this world is open to objections more or less serious, and so
they go hunting about for a scheme that shall embrace all good and
exclude all evil; such people are emphatically limp and unpractical. All
that is offered to our choice here below is a lesser evil, and
experience has proved over and over again, that it is a lesser evil
never to lend a book out of such a library as the Bodleian, than it is
to lend one. But if the University in its inscrutable wisdom should
choose to do the wrong thing, there are more ways than one of doing
it,--
+esthloi men gar haplos, pantodapos de kakoi.+
It might, for instance, confine the actual granting of a loan to
Convocation. If an application for a book were made, the University
might impose on the Curators the duty of stating in writing their
reasons for advocating the loan, and Convocation might determine to
lend, if it judged those reasons to be sound. This would be an
approximation to what was the law (though not by any means the practice)
prior to 1873; nor could it be described as a retrograde step, unless
the reformation of a bad habit is necessarily a step backwards.
If, however, the University resolves to copy the practice of foreign
libraries, it might be wise, first, to appoint a small committee to
discover and report what that practice really is. If, like a mob of
monkeys, we are determined to imitate, it is just as well that our
imitation should be a good one, and not a caricature.
In either, or indeed in any, case some effectual provision should be
made for enforcing the statute; it ought no longer to be possible for
the Curators to act with impunity as they have been in the habit of
acting for almost a quarter of a century.
A good many of my friends are strong party men of a more or less rabid
type, and I hope that they are well informed when they tell me that this
purely literary question about the Bodleian is not going to be turned
into one of those faction fights, which occasionally disturb and
disgrace this place; but that each man will judge for himself, and vote
accordingly, without divesting himself of what little reason he may
happen to possess, and blindly following a leader, who may know and care
less about the matter than he does himself. I hope that it will be so,
yet I have my doubts; for this vile spirit of faction clings like the
robe of Nessus to all who have ever been weak enough, or wicked enough,
to yield to its temptations; and one side is just as bad as the other.
Whether Convocation can be got to see the real question in these
unlearned and vulgar times may be questionable; at any rate, I should
have felt myself a traitor to Bodley, to Oxford, and to learning itself,
if I had not done what little I could to prevent an act, which, if
perpetrated, must end, sooner or later, in the irreparable damage, or
the complete destruction of a library intended by its founder to be a
perpetual help to all true scholars, an inexhaustible treasure-house of
learning to last as long as England itself.
H. W. C.
_Oxford,
Jan. 15th, 1887._
_Remarks on the Practice and Policy of lending Bodleian Printed Books
and Manuscripts._
Before offering any remarks on the policy of lending books out of the
Bodleian Library it may be well to give a brief account of the practice
of lending, so far as it has been sanctioned there. From the foundation
of the Library down to 1873, though practised, it cannot be said to have
been sanctioned at all, except as regards certain books given on the
condition that they should be lent.
On the 20th of June, 1610, a complete Bodleian Statute was promulgated
and confirmed in Convocation (Appendix Statutorum, p. 5 sqq. ed. 1763).
This statute was drawn up by Sir Thomas Bodley himself, and the eighth
section of it--'de Libris extra Bibliothecam non ferendis, aut ullo modo
commodandis'--fully expresses his firm and rooted detestation of
book-lending. Bodley's own words, of which the Latin statute is a
literal translation, run thus:--
"And sith the sundry Examples of former Ages, as well in this
University, as in other Places of the Realm, have taught us over-often,
that the frequent Loan of Books, hath bin a principal occasion of the
Ruin and Destruction of many famous Libraries; It is therefore ordered
and decreed to be observed as a Statute of irrevocable Force, that for
no Regard, Pretence, or Cause, there shall at any time, any Volume,
either of these that are chained, or of others unchained, be given or
lent, to any Person or Persons, of whatsoever State or Calling, upon any
kind of Caution, or offer of Security, for his faithful Restitution; and
that no such Book or Volume shall at any time, by any whatsoever, be
carried forth of the Library, for any longer space, or other uses, and
Purposes, than if need so require, to be sold away for altogether, as
being superfluous or unprofitable; or changed for some other of a better
Edition; or being over-worn to be new bound again, and immediately
returned, from whence it was removed. For the Execution whereof in every
Particular, there shall no Man intermeddle, but the Keeper himself
alone, who is also to proceed with the Knowledge, Liking, and Direction
of those Publick Overseers, whose Authority we will notify in other
Statutes ensuing[1]."
[1] Reliquiae Bodleianae, p. 27.
This statute has the great merit of being so plain and clear, that no
one could mistake its meaning. It was further fenced about by the
statute 'de materia indispensabili,' Tit. X.Sec.11.5, as explained in
'Barlow's Argument,' p. 6. It was not totally and absolutely impossible
to borrow a book from the Bodleian, but it was only Convocation, moved
to the act in a solemn and specified way, that could by any legal means
lend it. From 1610 to 1856, then, such was the law which everybody in
the University was bound to obey, and, as far as I can discover,
everybody did obey it, with the few exceptions that will presently be
mentioned.
In 1624 William, Bishop of Lincoln, wished to borrow a book, but was
denied[2]. In 1628 Sir Thomas Roe gave twenty-nine manuscripts, and
"proposed that his books should be permitted to be lent out for purposes
of printing, on proper security being given; a proposition which was
accepted by Convocation[3]." In 1629 the Earl of Pembroke presented the
Barocci Collection, and "he was willing that the MSS. should, if
necessary, be allowed to be borrowed." Borrowed accordingly they were,
and one at least suffered irreparable injury in very early days[4]. In
1634 we were presented with Sir Kenelm Digby's splendid manuscripts:
"the donor stipulated that they should not be strictly confined to use
within the walls of the Library;" but afterwards left the University to
treat them as it pleased[5]; so that they fell under the general
Bodleian Statute.
[2] Barlow's Argument, p. 9.
[3] Macray, Annals, p. 51.
[4] Barlow, p. 10; Macray, Annals, p. 55.
[5] Macray, Annals, p. 59.
Between 1635 and 1640 came Laud's magnificent donations. He "directs in
his letter of gift, that none of the books shall on any account be taken
out of the Library 'nisi solum ut typis mandentur, et sic publici et
juris et utilitatis fiant,' upon sufficient security, to be approved by
the Vice-Chancellor and Proctors; the MS. in such cases being
immediately after printing restored to its place in the Library[6]."
This stipulation of Laud should be carefully borne in mind, because it
will be found that of late years the Curators have not observed the
terms of the gift. Doubtless they did not know what Laud's directions
were; yet men who undertake the office of trustees are bound to know
their duties. In 1636 the University refused leave to Laud himself, who
wished to borrow Rob. Hare's MS. _Liber Privilegiorum Universitatis_[7].
In 1645 Charles I, in ignorance of our statutes, applied for a book and
was refused; in 1654 Cromwell wanted a book for the Portuguese
Ambassador, and was likewise refused[8]; and it is much to the credit of
both, that they not only acquiesced, but expressed their approval of the
Bodleian rule.
[6] Macray, Annals, p. 61.
[7] Macray, Annals, p. 82.
[8] Barlow's Argument, p. 9.
On August 29, 1654, a grace was passed in Convocation, which permitted
Selden to borrow MSS. from the collections of Barocci, Roe, and Digby,
provided he did not have more than three at a time, and that he gave
bond in L100 (not L1000 as Hearne states[9]) for the return of each of
them within a year[10]. Barlow[11] declares that this was illegal and
null; and it may be observed in passing that the whole history of the
Selden bequest needs fresh investigation. This same year that grand
scholar's books began to arrive in Oxford, and his executors stipulated,
as a condition of the gift, that no book from his collection should
hereafter be lent to any person upon any condition whatsoever. This also
must by no means be forgotten, because we shall by and by see the
Curators again and again strangely oblivious of the conditions on which
the University received these invaluable books.
[9] Barlow's Argument, p. 3.
[10] Macray, Annals, p. 79.
[11] Argument, p. 8.
At the Visitation on Nov. 8, 1686, it was ordered that notice be given
that 'nullus in posterum quemlibet librum aut volumen extra Bibliothecam
asportet,' and that monition be sent to every College and Hall for the
return of any books taken out within three days[12].
[12] Macray, Annals, p. 109.
In 1789 a lazy and incompetent Librarian, John Price, is said to have
lent the Rector of Lincoln a copy of Cook's Voyages, presented to the
Library by George III, telling him that the longer he kept it the
better, 'for if it was known to be in the Library, he (Price) should be
perpetually plagued with enquiries after it[13].' What the Curators were
about to permit such irregularities it is difficult to imagine; at any
rate here you had eight picked men--Dr. Joseph Chapman, President of
Trinity, Vice-Chancellor; the two Proctors; Dr. Randolph, Professor of
Divinity, and afterwards successively Bishop of Oxford and of Bangor;
Dr. Vansittart, Professor of Civil Law; Dr. Vivian, Professor of
Medicine; Dr. Blayney, Professor of Hebrew; William Jackson, Professor
of Greek and afterwards Bishop of Oxford:--they are men, citizens,
members of a learned corporation, trustees; they have solemnly sworn by
everything which they profess to hold sacred, that they will faithfully
observe the statutes; and what was required of them? As much sense of
duty as you expect and commonly find in a watcher or a gamekeeper; yet,
till they were roused by the public protest of Dr. Beddowes, they seem
to have shewed no trace or feeling of responsibility at all.
[13] Macray, Annals, p. 198.
Down to the year 1856 the Bodleian Curators were eight in number,
namely, the Vice-Chancellor, the two Proctors, and the Regius
Professors of Divinity, Hebrew, Greek, Medicine, and Civil Law. Eight is
rather a large number, and the larger any board is the weaker becomes
the sense of personal responsibility. No man feels that he is answerable
for anything, because he is sunk and extinguished in a majority or a
minority; and yet, without a keen sense of personal responsibility, all
business is laxly and badly done, even when it is done at all. The
artificial privacy of our proceedings is also an evil. In theory all our
meetings are public, so far at least as Convocation is concerned; in
fact, they are private; yet, if the University always knew not only what
is done, but who it is that does it; if our acts were duly published, as
they ought to be, in the University Gazette, probably both board and
University would be the better for it, and it is certain that the
affairs of the Library would be none the worse.
If Bodley argued that men who teach a subject are necessarily acquainted
with its literature, and are consequently the fittest guardians and
directors of a library, he argued very badly, and in ignorance of facts.
Ability to teach a subject is one thing; knowledge of the literature of
that subject--such knowledge as is required in the superintendents of a
library--is a totally different thing. The two may be indeed united, but
very rarely are so. A man, for instance, may be a finished Latin scholar
without ever having heard of Coster's Donatus, and without being able to
offer an opinion on that or on any of the other editions in which Dutch
libraries glory. Probably not one man in fifty who reads the sentence
which I have just written will have the very remotest idea of its true
meaning; and if he has not, it will not follow that he is a dunce, or
that he is a poor Latinist; all that follows is that he has much to
learn before he is fit to take any part in the management of a large
library. What is wanted, what in fact is necessary, is that sort of
knowledge which the Italian government proposes to give to all employed
in the libraries under its control. In Rome and in Florence a course of
bibliographical instruction and examination has lately been instituted.
The syllabus of the course, which is a very good one, lies before me,
and in it the subject is divided into six parts: 1. Paleografia, 2.
Bibliologia, 3. Bibliografia, 4. Biblioteconomia, 5. Amministrazione, 6.
Lingue. The knowledge required is neither recondite nor profound, yet I
shudder to think what the result would be were we Curators to submit
ourselves to the tender mercies of this Italian board. To speak for
myself, I should have faced such an examination without the least
trepidation some twenty years ago; but now, though I have been trying to
brush up faded knowledge, I would not stake a single sixpence on a
favorable issue; and to judge from all I have seen and heard during the
last two years, I suspect that, though a few might perhaps scramble
through, the great majority of us would emerge from the ordeal more
completely plucked than was the unhappy bird, which Diogenes introduced
to the astonished disciples with the words 'Here is Plato's man!'
In 1856 the University, probably suspecting that the board as originally
constituted was not the best that could be devised, yet timidly
shrinking from a radical and salutary reform, endeavoured to improve
matters by a measure which, if it remedied one defect, unquestionably
increased another. It made a board already too large, still larger by
the addition of five members elected by Congregation. In the course of
thirty years fourteen different men have been so elected. That all were
properly qualified to discharge the duties of their office no one will
assert who knows what those qualifications are. Why they were chosen the
University best knows. If Congregation would but remember what a unique
and priceless treasure it possesses in this noble library, if it only
knew how easy it is for rashness and ignorance to damage and to ruin it,
how difficult it is even for knowledge to preserve it, ability and
willingness to serve it would be the indispensable and the only
qualifications demanded, and neither age nor rank, dignity, nor above
all party, would be for one moment taken into account. It may be
remarked that all the thirteen Curators very rarely attend a meeting: in
the course of the last two years such a thing has happened once only;
but a board, the members of which attend intermittently, is apt to show
signs of discontinuity in its proceedings; and a firm, consistent policy
is as necessary in the management of a library as it is in any other
affair of life. What is wanted in Curators is common sense, business
capacity, and a special knowledge of books. No one would dream of
appointing any man an inspector of locomotives on a railway, unless he
were thoroughly acquainted with the structure and working of a
locomotive, and capable, at a push, of driving it himself: a large
library is as complex as a locomotive, and quite as difficult to manage
effectively. Experts, who are not so numerous as might be supposed, will
back me in this assertion; but Convocation must not be astonished if it
is hotly and contemptuously denied.
The minutes of the Curators' Meetings begin on March 20, 1793, and, with
a break of some four years when there are none (from Nov. 26, 1849, to
May 27, 1854), they continue to the present time.
On Dec. 7, 1803, four printed books were allowed to go out of the
Library 'for the use of the Clarendon Press, to be returned when done
with,' contrary to statute so far as appears; and there was a somewhat
similar transaction on June 2, 1815.
On Nov. 27, 1841, the sum of L500 was paid for the Sanscrit MSS. of
Prof. H. H. Wilson, who 'stipulated that the Boden Professor of Sanscrit
for the time being should be allowed the privilege of borrowing MSS.
(not more than two volumes at one time), giving for them a receipt, and
engagement for their safe return.'
In 1850 came the Government Commission. The Commissioners have a good
deal to say about the Bodleian, which will be found in their Report made
in 1852, p. 115 sqq. I do not quote their remarks for a reason which
appears to me valid. There were seven Commissioners all told, and
although they were very eminent persons, there was not one amongst them,
so far as I can discover, who had any special knowledge of libraries, or
of the best way of managing them. Moreover, I myself heard one of those
seven Commissioners say, more than once in the course of conversation,
that he should think it no particular misfortune if the Bodleian and its
contents were totally destroyed. Nor do I feel called upon to incur the
expense of reproducing _in extenso_ the evidence on which the
Commissioners based their recommendations. It may be sufficient to say
that the following witnesses were in favour of the lending system, some
with restrictions and some with hardly any:--the Rev. R. W. Browne; the
Rev. R. Walker; the Rev. B. Jowett; the Rev. W. H. Cox; E. A. Freeman,
Esq.; the Rev. H. Wall; the Rev. R. Congreve; Sir E. Head; N. S.
Maskelyne, Esq.; and the Rev. J. Griffiths. It is not very easy to say
whether Prof. H. H. Wilson and Dr. Greenhill did or did not belong to
the lending party; but if they did, they proposed such restrictions as
would materially lessen the evil. Prof. H. H. Vaughan (a most wordy
person) wished to confine the right of borrowing to the Professors.
Against lending were H. E. Strickland, Esq.; Prof. W. F. Donkin; the
Rev. R. Scott; Travers Twiss, Esq.; Dr. Macbride; the Rev. E. S.
Ffoulkes; and Dr. Phillimore: and I hope nobody will be offended if I
say that knowledge of books and the way to use them is, as might be
expected, very much more conspicuous in those who oppose lending than in
those who advocate it. The Rev. R. W. Browne observes, that 'probably
manuscripts and such books as are unable to be replaced should not be
lent, because it would be quite worth the while of those who wished to
consult them to visit the Library for that purpose.' It is not often
that one meets with so cogent a piece of reasoning, and Mr. Browne's
'because' proves that he had studied Logic with considerable benefit; he
also thinks that the system in the Public Library at Cambridge 'works
well.' Another witness tells us that 'the experience of the Cambridge
University Library, and of many foreign libraries, shews that this
[i.e. lending under certain restrictions] can be done without danger, and
with small loss compared to the immense benefit obtained by it.' Sir
Edmund Head also admires the Goettingen and Cambridge plan, and avers
that experience has proved that the risk of loss and damage is
groundless. How different are these airy speculations from the hard
facts of Mr. Bradshaw the Cambridge Librarian, of the Librarian of the
Advocates' Library at Edinburgh, and of Mr. Panizzi (see below, p. 50
sqq.); but then these gentlemen had the immense and perhaps unfair
advantage of knowing what they were talking about.
In 1853 a Report and Evidence upon the recommendations of H. M.'s
Commissioners was presented to the Heads of Houses. "The Committee think
that the opportunity at present allowed for lending books in _special
cases_, by permission of Convocation, is sufficient to meet extreme
cases; and that it is unnecessary to give power to the Curators to lend
books from the Library."
Dr. Pusey's evidence (p. 172) is that of a man who knows something of
books, and he points out how very fallacious is Sir E. Head's reference
to the Goettingen Library, which is altogether of a different character
from the Bodleian. "In 1825 it consisted almost entirely of modern
books, and whatever accessions it may since have had, it cannot, like
the Bodleian, have any large proportion of books, which, if lost, could
not be replaced." Dr. Pusey is strongly against lending Bodleian books;
but how little of principle there was in his objection will be seen
further on, where we shall find him more than once advocating loans. The
Rev. C. Marriott is also, on very sensible grounds, against lending; yet
it should in common fairness be known that he borrowed a most valuable
manuscript out of Oriel College Library, and died with it in his
possession. It was nearly sent to Africa by his executors, and was at
last, together with other books, actually _given_ (in all innocence of
course) to Bradfield College, from which establishment Oriel at last
retrieved it; so that in his case, as in that of Dr. Pusey, excellent
principles were joined to very loose practice.
Dr. Bandinel, Bodley's Librarian, gives evidence which is short and
sweet. "However weighty some reasons may appear, the evidence materially
preponderates against lending books out of the Library. I need only
quote one great authority, that of Niebuhr," which he does; the passage
is given below, p. 49. Dr. Bandinel also adds, "I have had a long
conversation with the Librarian of the Advocates' Library at Edinburgh,
who stated, that upon comparing the books in that Library with their
different Catalogues previous to the formation of a new Catalogue, it
was found that owing to the practice of lending books from the Library
they had lost upwards of 6000, indeed very near 7000 works." Evidence,
p. 325; an instructive comment on the lending system.
About this time, however, 'University Reform,' the true meaning of which
most of us here know, was in the air, and on May 22, 1856, the old
Library Statutes were abolished and an entirely new one enacted.
Bodley's own statute against letting books go out of the Library was of
course abrogated. That Convocation still retained the right to lend is
beyond question; but did anybody else, Curators or Librarian, acquire
the right to do so? That the University did not intend to convey any
such right seems perfectly clear; for the 11th clause of the new statute
(which is identical with the present statute, Tit. XX. iii. Sec. 11,
paragraphs 1 to 6) is headed "De libris extra Bibliothecam ad tempus
detinendis, _aut etiam_ efferendis." Now whoever says '_or even_ to have
them taken out,' and then proceeds to order whither they shall be taken,
namely to the Camera, forbids by implication their removal from the
Library on any other terms, or to any other place than those expressly
mentioned. That the University, whatever its intentions may have been,
did not as a matter of fact convey the right to any one is obvious from
the statute itself; and as the Curators never at any time possessed the
right of lending books, it is equally plain that they could not acquire
it without an express commission from the University. That the Curators
themselves were of this opinion is clear from a resolution of theirs
arrived at on Oct. 29, 1859, more than three years after the statute was
passed. I should say that in the interval no loan was sanctioned by
Convocation, or, so far as appears, even applied for. On Oct. 29, 1859,
nine Curators being present, 'The Vice-Chancellor mentioned the desire
of the Rev. Mr. ---- to be allowed to have books out of the Bodleian
Library for the purposes of study by Grace of Convocation. The Curators
resolved:--That it was not expedient that such a proposition should be
made to Convocation.' The Curators, or a majority of them, did not dream
of arrogating to themselves the power of lending, and they, as well as
the applicant, assume as self-evident that books could not be borrowed.
Books could be sent to the Camera; they could not go elsewhere without
the sanction of Convocation. The new statute then did not make lending
(except by Convocation) lawful, nor was there any intention to make it
lawful.
That same year, on Nov. 8, a Curator gave notice that he would
move:--'That Books and MSS. be taken out of the Bodleian Library under
special conditions with consent of the Curators;' that is, according to
my view of the case, he gave notice of a motion to take by force and
illegally a power which the University had not given; but it does not
appear by the minutes that any such motion was actually made.
On Oct. 25, 1860, 'leave was granted by Convocation for the lending two
Laud Manuscripts, 561 and 563, being copies of the _Historia
Hierosoylmitana_, by Albert of Aix, to the French Government[14].' Of
this loan there is, I believe, no trace in the minutes, but it is one
more proof that the Curators, or a majority of them, did not believe
either in their right or in their power to lend books. Whether
Convocation lent these two Laudian manuscripts under bond duly approved,
and for the purposes of publication, Mr. Macray does not state; but it
looks very much as if the University was just as ignorant of its
obligations as the Curators of a later date were of theirs.
[14] Macray, Annals, p. 295.
On Feb. 4, 1862, a man applied for a printed book, which he wanted for a
law case in which he was engaged; the result was this:--"Resolved--That,
there being nothing in the present statutes to forbid the exercise of
the discretion of the Curators in such a case, the book in question be
lent, under such securities and with such precautions as the Librarian
may deem necessary." Let any man read the eleventh and twelfth sections
of the present Bodleian Statute (identical, so far as the present
question is concerned, with that of 1856), and he will see that no
discretion is left to the Curators at all; there is no hint, however
faint, of "such a case." In 1862, Feb. 4, the Curators assume that they
have a power to lend books; on Nov. 7 of the same year they go a step
further, for they leave it 'to the discretion of the Librarian to lend,
if he shall deem fit, a certain MS. to the Belgian Government.' Having
themselves no power to lend, they authorise the Librarian to lend if he
chooses.
In 1863, Feb. 17, notice was given of the following motion:--'That on
application from the Professors teaching at the Museum the Bodley
Librarian be empowered to lend, for a limited time, any books bearing on
the subjects there taught that are wanted by the Students at the Museum;
the books to be returned at the end of each term:' and on March 17 of
the same year this motion was carried with certain alterations, 'and it
was resolved that it should be referred to the Council with a view on
their approval of obtaining the sanction of Convocation'; in other
words, the Curators acknowledged that Convocation could lend, and that
they themselves could not lawfully do so.
In 1859 the Curators, or a majority of them, are clear that they have no
power to lend: in 1862 they assume that they have the power, moreover
they exercise it, and they authorise the Librarian to lend a MS. to the
Belgian Government; yet on Feb. 16, 1864, they appear to disclaim this
power, for they resolve, 'That it be proposed to Convocation to lend
three Icelandic MSS.--to the Icelandic Society in Copenhagen at the
request of the Danish Minister.' They either had the power to lend, or
they had not: if they had, this application to Convocation was
unnecessary; if they had not, they had been occupied for some time in
the not very dignified employment of ignoring a statute which it was
their peculiar duty to observe.
On April 20, 1864, Dr. Pusey most inconsistently moves that a Syriac MS.
be lent; and on May 11 lent it was.
In 1865, March 11, a foreigner has leave 'to borrow Arabian MSS.,
provided the application for the use thereof be made through the Saxon
Minister, and a bond for L50 entered into for the safe return.'
On June 3, 'the use of Manuscripts 169--187 was granted on the
application of Lord John Russell to the French Government for the use of
the Imprimerie of Paris [_sic_] for two months.'
In 1866 the Curators lent manuscripts to the University Library of
Goettingen; and in 1868, Jan. 31, 'it was resolved to lend MS. Selden B.
31 to the Prussian Government.' Ye Gods and Goddesses! We only got
Selden's books at all by consenting to the condition that they never
should be lent under any circumstances whatever; and here we have five
Curators, 'all honorable men,' quietly sending off one of Selden's
manuscripts to Germany. On March 21st of the same year, three Curators
send off another of Selden's MSS. to London. In 1868 an application for
the loan of four Hebrew manuscripts was granted, and apparently they
went to a private house. On Feb. 9, 1869, two Curators, one being Dr.
Pusey, 'were requested to act in the matter of the loan of Hebrew MSS.
to Mr. ---- of ---- College, Cambridge.' On April 17 of the same year a
Laudian MS. was lent to Mr. ----; there is not a syllable in the minutes
about a bond, though that was absolutely necessary, nor any statement
that the book was required for the purpose of publication; Laud's
stipulations are quietly, and no doubt ignorantly broken under the
presidency of the Vice-Chancellor. From this time loans are perpetually
being made; and at least six manuscripts other than those mentioned
above were lent this year. At one meeting (May 22) the whole business
was the granting of loans. In 1870 fifteen MSS. at least were lent,
including one of Douce's--poor fellow! he little dreamt of the fate in
store for his lovely books. One MS. out of the archives was sent to
Philadelphia! In 1871 some thirty manuscripts were lent; many to private
hands; others to Berlin, Cambridge, and Philadelphia. Not content with
these exploits, the Curators positively sent the 39th volume of the
Camden Society's publications to Rouen! In 1872 nearly thirty
manuscripts were lent: one 'subject to the approval of the Librarian,'
thus granting to him concurrent authority with themselves. These books
went some to private persons; others to Cambridge, London, Leyden,
Berlin, Munster, Leipzic, Kiel, Philadelphia, and elsewhere. The
manuscript sent to Munster was an old English book of Laud's; there was
no bond, nor is there any hint that it was lent for publication. Besides
manuscripts they lent printed books, amongst the rest Tyndale's New
Testament of 1534! This portentous act was perpetrated on May 25th,
1872; and the same day there appears this entry on the minutes: 'In
reference to applications for loans during the Long Vacation, it was
agreed, on the suggestion of the Librarian, that he be empowered in
urgent cases, with the assent of two Curators, to grant loans during the
Long Vacation'; an utterly illegal resolution not rescinded till 1886.
For ten years, ever since 1862, the Curators had been lending, on their
own authority, and without a shadow of statutable right, manuscripts and
printed books to persons in Oxford and other parts of England, as well
as to foreign countries: will it be believed that on Feb. 8, 1873, the
Librarian was asked to state his opinion as to 'the lending of books out
of the Library under proper restrictions;' and that on Feb. 28 of the
same year, 'it was agreed that the Curators should proceed by statute to
take power to order the lending out of books under certain
restrictions'? Why this was the very thing they had been doing for years
past; and now by agreeing 'to proceed by statute' they plainly declare
their opinion that for all those years they had been doing something for
which they had no statutable warrant. However, they drew up a draft
statute which was laid before Council, and Council promptly 'struck out
the proposal to lend books out of the Library;' whereupon on March 8th,
1873, one of the Curators moved 'that Council be requested to insert a
provision that books be lent out from evening to morning. This was
agreed to'. On which resolution I shall make no remark, for fear my pen
might run away with me; but most people will be able to supply that
comment which I refrain from making.
This very year 1873 they lent the York Missal, unless in the judgment of
the Librarian 'too valuable to be lent out of the Library': there is a
touch of modesty in this which disarms me, otherwise I could say
something very true, but very unpleasant. The same year an application
was made for one of the Douce MSS., but 'by reason of regulations as to
Douce MSS. this was refused.' What regulations these were it would be
interesting to know, for I cannot discover that there are at present any
regulations, at all events in writing.
At length the Curators obtained their desire. On March 25, 1873, a form
of statute was proposed by one Head of a House and seconded by another,
and on May 2, 1873, it was carried without a division in the following
shape: (Tit. XX. iii. Sec. 11. 10.) Liceat Curatoribus, sicut mos fuit,
libros impressos et manuscriptos, scientiae causa, viris doctis sive
Academicis sive externis mutuari: that is to say, _Let it be lawful for
the Curators, as the custom has been, to borrow books printed and
manuscript in the interest of knowledge for learned men, whether Members
of the University or not_. A board of grave and learned men--_viri
variis doctrinis et literis imbuti_, as the statute says--wish to do
openly, what they had been in the habit of doing, as it would appear,
unknown to Council, and against its wishes (for it 'struck out the
proposal to lend books out of the Library'): there is something droll in
that, but it is nothing to what came of it. They petition for leave to
_lend_, walk off perfectly contented with a permission to _borrow_, and
nobody sees the joke! 'Reform' seems not only to have impaired our
knowledge of Latin, but to have diminished our sense of the
ridiculous--a most dolorous result. That Convocation intended by this
strangely worded statute to convey to the Curators the power to _lend_
books is beyond question; it is equally beyond question that it conveyed
the power to _borrow_ them, for in good Latin and in our statute Latin
alike, _mutuari_ means not to lend, but to borrow, as every Latin
Dictionary from the Hortus Vocabulorum down to Lewis and Short
testifies; and as to our statute Latin we find: quantum magister ...
potest de cista de Guildeforde mutuari (Anstey, p. 99); quod magister
regens mutuari possit quadraginta solidos (_ibid._ p. 132); de eadem
mutuari poterit ad usum suum proprium.... quinque marcas (_ibid._ p.
338). As _mutuari_ is correctly used in the barbarous language of our
old statutes, so is it in the more polished Latinity of the Laudian
code, in which the word occurs once, and I think only once, and as the
devil of mischief will have it, in the Bodleian Statute itself, where 'e
cista D. Thomae Bodley mutuari' means 'to borrow from Sir Thomas Bodley's
chest'. The meaning of the word then is clear beyond dispute, and what
it means in one part of the statutes it must mean in another. There is
plenty of barbarous Latin in our statute book, but in every case it is
justified or excused by long usage, or by the fact that other learned
bodies have constantly used the same or similar language; but the
statute of 1873 is probably the only one either in ancient or modern
times, where without necessity, without precedent, and without warning,
a word which means and always has meant one thing is used under the
erroneous impression that it means another, and that not by schoolboys,
but by their elders. A statute, however, means what it plainly says:
with the intentions of a legislative body we have no concern except in
so far as they are clearly expressed, and every prudent judge knows what
grave evils spring from neglect of this principle of interpretation.
(See Dwarris On Statutes, p. 580 sqq.)
Whether this statute really gives the power to lend may be disputed. On
the one hand it may be said, that those who borrow a book _for_ learned
men may do what they like with it, and may therefore lend it. At first
sight this seems probable and reasonable, but the more it is thought of
the less probable does it appear. On the other hand it may be said, that
since the statute does not plainly and expressly give the Curators the
power to lend, they have no power to do so at all. Be that as it may, no
such scruples troubled the minds of the Curators; every one seems to
have been completely mesmerised, and this singular statute was
straightway put in practice after a fashion; for on June 23, 1873, 'an
application from Professor ---- was considered, asking for loan of such
books or MSS. as he might require, at the discretion of the Librarian,
under the provisions of Sec.11, ch. 10 of the Bodleian amended statute,
during the present vacation. Mr. ---- and Mr. ---- made similar
applications. It was agreed to accede to the request in the case of the
three applicants respectively'; that is to say, within a few days of the
passing of the statute it is broken. The Curators do not agree to borrow
books for the applicants, the only thing the statute allowed them to do;
the statute says not one word about the discretion of the Librarian,
nor does it allow the Curators in this case to leave anything to it: in
the buying of books (Stat. XX. iii. Sec. 4, 4) they may leave much to his
discretion, but nowhere else is any such permission given: so the
Curators took it. They did not do what the statute says they may do, and
they did do what no statute permits them to do; and as they began that
day, so have they continued to this moment. No change is made in the
minutes. Before as well as after the passing of this statute the form
always is 'applications for loans,' or some equivalent phrase. In 1873 a
dozen MSS. or more, besides printed books, including the Hereford
Missal! were lent exactly as before, some to private persons, some to
libraries, and they went to Leeds, Cambridge, Utrecht, Kiel, Berlin, &c.
In 1874 more than twenty MSS. were lent to Jena, Cambridge, Marburg,
Vienna (two of the Junius collection were sent there), and to private
hands. In 1875 MSS. were sent to St. Petersburg, Bonn, Vienna, Paris,
Cambridge, Edinburgh, Konigsberg, Heidelberg, and some to private
houses; three printed books also were lent, without a shadow of reason
so far as can be seen, to a gentleman residing in the Temple.
On Oct. 30 two of the sub-librarians applied 'for the privilege of
taking books out of the Library. Their application was agreed to upon
the terms stated in the minutes of June 23, 1873, in the case of a
similar application from others.'
And here it should be noticed that all the loans do not by any means
necessarily appear in the minutes. Owing to the illegal resolution of
the Curators of May 25, 1872, (see above, p. 16,) no loans during the
Long Vacation are there entered. Moreover, at some time unknown to me
the Librarian was quietly permitted to let certain persons borrow books
at his discretion, and there at last grew up, it is to be presumed, with
the knowledge of the Curators, what the Library officials call the
Borrowers' List, and what after a time appears in the minutes as 'the
privileged list.' As every one can see, there is nothing whatever in
the statute to justify all this.
I do not for one moment mean to charge the Curators with doing anything
which they thought to be improper or beyond their discretion; but I do
most distinctly charge them with having in fact exceeded their
statutable powers, and with taking the law into their own hands, all, I
doubt not, with the best and most innocent intentions. Unfortunately
some of the most mischievous acts in the world have been done with the
best and purest intentions. Like all other members of the University the
Curators have promised to observe the statutes, and the Vice-Chancellor
and Proctors have not only done that, but have solemnly pledged
themselves to see that the statutes are observed, and are moreover armed
with power to enforce them. If statutes are absurd, it is clearly the
duty of those who control legislation in this place to get them
abolished or amended without delay; if they are not absurd, all are
bound to obey them. As regards the Bodleian there is a special order
(XX. iii. Sec. 12. 3) directing the Curators what to do with an imperfect
statute, and how to do it; but it is one thing to make a statute; it is
a very different thing to get people to obey it. No one who sees the
ease with which statutes are made and unmade, can doubt, that if those
of the Bodleian are defective in any respect, it needs but a word from
one or two members of Council to have all defects remedied. If the
Curators want fresh powers, or more discretion, and greater latitude of
action than they are at present allowed, they have but to ask and
obtain; but I protest most vehemently against the usurpation of powers
not granted by the University as a thing _pessimi exempli_. If the
Bodleian Curators are to do exactly as they like, the University might
just as well spare itself the trouble of legislation. If the University
deliberately chooses to have its statutes nullified, there is, I
suppose, no help for it; yet I cannot but suspect that the University
has no knowledge--at all events no clear and distinct knowledge--of the
way in which we have dealt with the statutes which were intended to mark
out our duties. The secret growth of 'the borrowers' list' is as
singular a thing as is to be found in the history of the Bodleian. The
Curators and the Curators alone have, by a statute of their own
devising, a right to borrow; yet the late Librarian assumed to himself
the right of naming persons who are to have the privilege of borrowing,
and the Curators quietly allowed it, without, as I believe, the faintest
suspicion that they were doing what was wrong.
In 1876 eleven MSS. went some to private persons, others to Augsburg,
Paris, Goettingen, Heidelberg, Cambridge: the book sent to Augsburg
without bond, and without guarantee for publication, was one of Laud's
Greek MSS. On June 24 an application 'from Mr. ---- for use of books at
home during Vacation' was 'assented to.' In 1877 some fourteen or
fifteen MSS. were sent to Heidelberg, Paris, Cambridge, London, Rome,
Copenhagen, Munich, Marburg, besides printed books: the book sent to
Munich was one of Laud's, again in total defiance of all his
stipulations.