Pesth, Leyden, and Rostock, besides printed books: one book with
illuminations was refused, 'as being one of a class not lent out.' I
have before observed that I know of no written rules at all. On Oct. 26
of this year the Curators surpassed themselves, for there was an
application 'from the Rev. ----, Fellow of ---- College, for permission
to borrow works from the Library to be taken to his rooms. In this
matter it was agreed that power to act on the clause 10, Sec. 11 of the
Bodleian Statute _be delegated_ by the Curators to the Librarian.' There
were ten Curators present on this memorable occasion. The Curators are
themselves delegates, and if they had the right to delegate to the
Librarian the power which the University delegated to them, then what is
sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: if the Curators _mero
motu_ may delegate their powers, the Librarian may with equal right and
equal reason delegate his, and so on _in infinitum_, to the utter ruin
of all sense of responsibility.
It would be tedious to enumerate all the loans; suffice it to say that
they have gone on year after year; and from this point I shall only
mention a few notable cases.
On May 31, 1879, 'the request of Professor ---- to borrow printed books
from the Library was granted.' Considering that only seven months
before, the Curators had resolved 'to delegate' their lending powers to
the Librarian, it is strange that they did not refer the applicant
straight to that official.
In 1880, June 11, a Selden MS. was ordered to Paris; ten Curators were
present, and it is to be presumed that not one of them knew, what he was
bound to know, namely, the special stipulation made with respect to all
Selden's books.
On Oct. 29, 1880, the Junior Proctor gave notice of the following
motion:--'That in the case of MSS. sent out on loan to persons resident
within the United Kingdom, a pecuniary bond shall be executed by the
person to whom such MS. is lent, of such value as shall be determined
from time to time by the Curators, unless the MS. is sent for use only
within the precincts of the British Museum, or some other approved
Public Library.' On Nov. 27 this motion was made and lost.
In 1881, June 4, 'an application from ---- for the use of books dealing
with the subject of Biblical Chronology at his own house appeared to the
Curators to fall under the provisions of the Statute XX. iii. Sec. 11, 10;
the Librarian exercising discretion as to the number of volumes issued.'
On Oct. 26, 1878, not three years before, the Curators formally
'delegated' their powers to the Librarian; on May 31, 1879, they assume
that they possess what they have 'delegated'; and here they do the same
thing, and all this without any formal and solemn resumption by them of
their 'delegated' powers. On Oct. 29, 1881, it was reported that
Professor ---- of Cambridge had not returned a manuscript borrowed _four
years_ before, and the Vice-Chancellor was requested to communicate with
the Professor in the matter. The manuscript never has been, and in all
probability never will be restored, and our only consolation must be the
fact that it was a transcript of another manuscript in the Bodleian, not
on that account necessarily of little value, for a transcript may, and
sometimes does, become of inestimable value; why it does so, all
acquainted with books know.
In 1882, Feb. 11, a Laudian MS. was ordered to Heidelberg, and a Selden
MS. to St. Petersburg. On Dec. 2, 1882, 'it was agreed that Mr.----,
Fellow of ---- be one of the persons privileged to take out books. It was
agreed that the Librarians be allowed to take out books and MSS. for
their own use.'
In 1883, Jan. 27, the Librarian suggested 'that all Fellows and
ex-Fellows of Colleges should be entitled to have books out of the
Library'; the suggestion was not adopted. On the same day, 'Mr. ----
(---- College) and Dr. ---- were placed on the list of persons specially
entitled.' On March 3 of the same year, 'Dr. Frankfurter's application
to be placed on the privileged list of borrowers was assented to.' There
we have it at last, in black and white--_the privileged list of
borrowers_, as unstatutable and as illegal a thing as could well be
permitted. The words '_let it be lawful for the Curators to borrow books
for learned men_,' (always supposing the Latin not to be downright
nonsense,) cannot convey to the Curators the power to let other people
borrow books; for if they could, then any words may have any meaning,
which comes to the same thing as saying that they have no meaning at
all. Yet it is on these words, and on these words alone, that the
'borrowers' list' has been made to depend; though how educated men can
have extracted from this statute any meaning whatever which would
justify, or even seem, in the most distant way, to justify the act of
conveying to others the power to borrow books from the library is one
of the most astonishing things that I ever met with in the whole course
of my life. But it will be said that the Bodleian Curators for thirteen
years understood _mutuari_ to mean 'lend', and therefore they might
institute a 'borrowers' list'. It is an astonishing, not to say
staggering, fact that they did so understand it, yet the borrowers' list
is none the less illegal. Nay, I have heard a Curator in his place
maintain, that as there could be no doubt what the University intended
when it passed this statute, _mutuari_ in this place must mean 'lend'.
Much as I admired the boldness of the assertion, I was unable to commend
either the law or the logic of it; the consequences which would at once
follow from the position, that if the intentions of a legislative body
are clear it matters not how it expresses them, are too palpably absurd
to find acceptance with ordinary minds. However, let it be supposed,
that instead of _mutuari_ the word actually used were _commodare_. You
are still no better off. The University on this hypothesis gives to the
Curators as a board the power of lending a specific book to a specific
person, and that is all. It does not give the Curators the power to
invest any person or persons with the right or privilege of borrowing
books, still less does it convey the power of creating a class of
persons who have such a right or privilege. This is not only clear to
plain common sense, but, as I am advised, is plain as a matter of law;
and I am further assured that, if any book is damaged or lost in
consequence of the Curators persisting in such a course, they become
themselves personally liable to the University.
This illegal borrowers' list comprises at this moment (subtracting one
dead man and double entries) one hundred and eleven persons, besides the
Clarendon Press. Among these persons are two ladies, who can have no
conceivable right to be where they are, for even those whose tolerant
Latinity suffers them to take _mutuari_ for _commodare_ will hardly
maintain that '_viris doctis_' covers learned women. It includes too
non-residents and foreigners; and I am informed that manuscripts have
been sent for the use of one of these persons more than a hundred miles
as the crow flies. Books are sent by post, and Bodleian money is spent
to pay for carriage. The finances of the Library, however, deserve a
paper all to themselves, and some day they shall have one.
On May 26, 1883, 'an application from Dr. Leumann to be placed on the
privileged list was agreed to.' On Oct. 20, of the same year, two
persons were 'placed on the privileged list of readers;' and on Nov. 24,
another 'was placed on the privileged list;' and from that moment to the
present no other formula is employed in the minutes.
In 1885, Oct. 31, the Librarian applied 'for authority to decline
requests for loans of Selden MSS. and books, and of Laud's MSS. (except
for purposes of publication), without referring the application to the
Curators, as being contrary to the terms of the respective donations.
This was agreed to.' It was, and to my great astonishment it passed
without any remark whatever.
In 1886, March 13, 'Liceat Curatoribus' was ruled to mean 'the consent
of a majority of Curators;' that is to say, the illegal resolution of
May 25, 1872, was silently rescinded. On May 15 of the same year a
committee of four was appointed to consider the practice of loans. At a
meeting on June 19, another name was added to the borrowers' list. Every
Curator knew that the legality of their practice with respect to loans,
and especially with respect to the borrowers' list, had been openly
challenged; notwithstanding this, and in spite of protest then and there
made, the chairman put the name to the vote, and a majority actually
voted for it. This proceeding was, in my opinion (and not in mine only),
irregular and improper to say the least of it, but it was highly
characteristic. After waiting to see whether the Vice-Chancellor or any
other Curator would call attention to the charge brought against the
board, and finding, as I was sure would be the case, that no one shewed
any disposition to do so, I gave notice of a motion for the next
statutable meeting:--_That the borrowers' list be abolished as illegal;
that all books in the hands of borrowers be at once recalled as having
been illegally lent; and that for the future the Statute XX. iii. Sec. 11.
10 be faithfully observed._
On June 28 it was agreed (I being silent for an obvious reason) that
during the Vacation all the Curators in Oxford should meet every
fortnight in the Library at 2 p.m. solely to consider applications for
loans. During the Vacation six such meetings were summoned. On July 10,
three Curators met and refused an application; on Aug. 21, and on Sept.
11, only two were present, and of course declined to act; on Sept. 25,
and Oct. 9, I, who attended all the meetings, found myself alone; on
Oct. 23, there were six of us, and business was adjourned on the ground
that the whole question of loans would be debated on Oct. 30.
Accordingly, on Oct. 30, _all_ the Curators made their appearance, a
thing I never saw before, though they were not all present during the
whole of the proceedings. The motion to abolish the borrowers' list was
duly made and seconded; then, after some confused talk, which could not
be dignified by the name of a debate, an amendment was moved, 'That the
consideration of the regulations under which books _be lent_ be referred
to a committee'; and this was carried, all the Curators being present.
An instruction to the committee was also moved, 'To consider what
alteration is required in the statute with regard to the borrowing of
books'; which was also carried. Next we considered the report of the
committee on loans, and returned it in a somewhat mangled condition to
the reconsideration of those who drew it up. After that, applications
for loans numbered 1 to 16 were discussed, and _all_ were refused. This
exhausted the agenda paper, and should, I apprehend, have finished the
business of the day. However, an application for the loan of manuscripts
_not_ on the agenda paper was considered, and the board, which up to
that moment had refused all applications, including one from Sir
Richard Burton, granted the loan of _seventeen_ manuscripts to _one_
man. In self-defence, let me say that I always vote against all loans
when there is a division.
On Nov. 8 the loan committee recommended that Council be asked to
propose amendments in Stat. Tit. XX. sect. iii. Sec. 11, and thought that
'the farther consideration of the rules framed by them and amended at
the Curators' meeting on Oct. 30 should for the present be postponed.'
On Nov. 25, ten Curators being present, this recommendation was
considered. One of the Curators thought that while there was 'no harm'
in applying for a new statute, yet that it was 'a waste of time' and 'a
little ridiculous': another wished to move an amendment and have the new
statute in _English_, but some of us saw (though no one said so) that
such an amendment would be a highly comic confession on the part of the
_viri variis doctrinis et literis imbuti_; and accordingly it was not
pressed. Then the same Curator proposed that _commodare_ should be
substituted for _mutuari_, and that _sicut mos fuit_ should be struck
out. Four voted for this amendment, which was lost. Even had it been
carried, it would still have been unlawful to lend books to women, for,
as was pointed out at the time, _vir_ means _a man_; but the minority
was in no mood to be affected by philological facts. The original
recommendation was then passed.
The board having thus expressed its opinion that a new statute was
necessary to enable it to lend books had, it might be thought, asserted
that the existing statute does not enable it to do so; accordingly we at
once turned our attention to applications for loans. The first article
applied for was not a book at all, but an inscribed bronze vessel; and
it was observed that we have no statutable right, in other words no
power whatever, to lend such a thing; whereupon some one remarked that
it might be done, _because it is not forbidden_, an argument, which (if
valid) would lead to some startling conclusions.
However, that a decree of Convocation to authorise the loan of this
vessel should be asked for was duly moved and seconded; then the
Curator, who wished to patch the Bodleian Latin statute with a bit of
English, moved as an amendment 'that the Curators lend it', quite
ignoring the fact that they had no statutable power to do so. For this
amendment three Curators voted, one abstained, and the rest voted
against it: finally the original motion was carried. After that, two
loans of books were refused and three were granted.
In applying for a decree to enable them to lend this vessel the Curators
turned over a new leaf. The whole Bodleian statute consists of ten
octavo pages, eleven lines and four words: it can be read out aloud in
thirty minutes, and by eye alone in half that time: there is, therefore,
no excuse whatever for not knowing its contents, and still less for not
obeying it. It is not my purpose at the present moment to point out how
often, and in how many ways, we drive a coach and four through statutes
intended to control our actions; but to complete the subject of loans,
and dismissing the practice of book-lending from further consideration,
it may be noted that the Stat. XX. iii. Sec. 11. 9 allows the Curators
under specified conditions to place certain prints and drawings either
in the Radcliffe or in the Taylor Building; but with this exception, if
exception it be, no power is anywhere given to them to lend any picture,
coin, antiquity, or other object belonging to the library. Nevertheless
I find the following entries in the minutes:--
On April 26, 1865, 'it was agreed to lend "Miniatures" to the Lords of
the Committee of Council on Education to be exhibited in the South
Kensington Museum.'
On Oct. 28, 1865, 'the Curators sanction the loan of such Pictures as
may be desired for the National Exhibition of Portraits at Kensington in
1866.'
On Dec. 12, 1865, 'that the loan of the Pictures according to the list
sent, save that of Sir Thomas Bodley, be granted to South Kensington
Museum Exhibition of National Portraits.'
On March 8, 1867, 'a letter from the Secretary of the Earl of Derby was
read asking for the loan of eighteen Pictures for exhibition at
Kensington. This was acceded to.'
On Jan. 31, 1868, 'it was resolved ... to lend to the Leeds Exhibition
the Portraits they wish of Yorkshire Worthies.'
On Feb. 5, 1870, 'an application from Mr. Cosmo Innis, of the General
Register house, Edinburgh, for the loan of the old map of Britain of the
14th century, which hangs on the wall of the Library, to be traced in
facsimile, under the care of Sir Henry James, for the 2nd volume of the
National MSS. of Scotland, was granted.'
On Feb. 14, 1874, 'an application from the South Kensington Museum was
read, asking for the loan of remarkable specimens of Book-binding for
next year's International Exhibition. In this matter it was agreed that
the Museum should be invited to send a person to Oxford to inspect, and
that it should be left to the discretion of the Librarian to decide upon
lending any specimen required.'
On April 28, 1877, 'an application from Mr. Blades [_sic_] on behalf of
Caxton memorial committee for the loan of certain early printed books to
a Public Exhibition at South Kensington was considered and granted.'
On May 26, 1877, application 'for Bibles to be sent to the Caxton
Exhibition. This was granted, and the Librarian was directed to take
such measures as might be necessary to ensure secure transmission.'
On May 11, 1878, permission was given to lend the Selden Portrait to the
Nottingham Art Exhibition; and an application from the Bath and West of
England Agricultural Society for works of art, &c. for their approaching
meeting at Oxford, was considered. This was left to the Librarian's
discretion.
On Nov. 13, 1880, Wyngarde's Plan of London 'to be granted under a bond'
to Mr. Wheatley.
On April 29, 1882, the Portrait of Sam. Butler was lent to the
Worcestershire Exhibition of Fine Arts.
On Feb. 2, 1884, Drake's Chair was lent to the Mayor of Plymouth.
On May 2, 1885, 'the Librarian presented applications from the
Exhibition of Inventions now being held for the loan of certain MSS.;
certain early printed books; certain works on music. It was agreed that
the Librarian be empowered to lend out of the above as required, as he
may think well, to the Exhibition.'
At this last meeting I was present, and the following is a verbatim copy
of my note written the same day:--
'An Exhibition of Inventions (I have not got the name correctly) applied
for the loan of certain MSS. and books from Bodleian: 5 MSS. Liturgies:
3 Bodley MSS. 515, 775, 842: Gough, Missal 336: an Ashmole book, and 2
English.--I objected, but the loan was carried, except as to 775
Bodley.' I have lately been informed that one of the books sent up to be
stared at by the mob of sightseers was a Selden book: this I neither
knew nor could have known at the time, or it should have been stopped,
if protesting could have stopped it.
In every one of these cases the Curators, with the most perfect
innocence, took upon themselves to do what they had not a shadow of
right to do. If the University is content to have its property so dealt
with that in case of damage or loss its only remedy would be to mulct
the Curators, there is nothing more to be said; but it is just as well
that the University should know what has been done in the past, and what
would have been done in the future, had not a protest been made against
the practice; and even now, though the board as a board has seemingly
condemned its former doings, it still contains a stubborn and impenitent
minority. If the University wishes its statutes to be obeyed, it should
ordain substantial pecuniary fines for breaches of them; if it does not
care whether they are obeyed or not, it is a pity that it wastes its
time in enacting them.
* * * * *
And now as to the policy of lending the printed books and manuscripts of
the Bodleian. The question is not whether it is a good or a bad thing to
lend books, nor whether it is a good thing for this or that library to
do so; it is simply whether it is right to lend Bodleian books. It may
be argued that it is right to do so--
1. Because books are made to be used, and they will be very much more
used if they are lent than if they are not; moreover it is generally
more convenient to read in one's own room than it is in a public place.
Some men cannot read, certainly cannot read and think in a library, or
in the midst of company; I cannot myself, and all that I have ever been
able to do in such places is to make extracts, verify references and the
like; but to read a book as I should in my own room is to me, and
probably to many people, impossible. If you go to a public institution
you must go when it is open; you must sit still; you must not whistle or
make a noise; you must not smoke; you cannot lie down and read on your
back; you cannot throw the book aside, go for a walk, and resume your
perusal; you cannot read quietly over the fire of an evening; you cannot
read in the small hours of the night, and so on _ad infinitum_. Yet all
this you can do if you are allowed to borrow the books. You can then
treat them exactly as if they were your own. It is clear that this
argument may be expanded in a multitude of ways, and no one is so
destitute of imagination as not to be able to fill up the details to
suit his own particular case and fancy.
The answer to it is very simple. You cannot by any device or contrivance
combine the advantages of private and of public property. He who wishes
to use the books of a public library must submit to many personal
inconveniences; and the man who is unwilling to deny himself for the
general good is the very last person in the community to whom any favour
ought to be shown, and of all people he least deserves the favour of
borrowing. He who has ever been foolish enough to lend his own books
freely, learns by almost unvaried experience that hardly one man in
twenty can be trusted: your book comes back (when it comes back at all)
more damaged by a month's outing than the owner would occasion in fifty
years. The book of a public library is even less regarded, as a rule,
than that belonging to a friend; for the friend may have a sharp tongue,
and a knack of using it, whereas a librarian is an official; even if he
ever has time to look through the books when they are returned, his
censure is disregarded, and after all accidents will happen, and the
book might possibly have been equally damaged had it never left the
library walls. It is really astonishing how few men there are in the
present day who know how to use a book without doing it real and often
serious damage. Over and over again have I seen men who would be very
angry to be called boors deliberately break the back of a book. Over and
over again, both in libraries and in private rooms, have I seen the
headband broken, simply because people did not know how to take a book
off a shelf. Again and again I have seen men of education (but grossly
ignorant for all that of the ways of books) play such pranks with my own
volumes as made me shudder. The horrid trick of turning a leaf by
wetting a finger I have seen practised in this seat of learning over and
over again by Graduates, by Professors, by Heads of Houses; and years
ago I saw that same nasty trick played _pro pudor!_ in the sacred
precincts of the Bodleian itself _on a manuscript_, which will bear to
its last moment the impression of the dirty thumb (and it _was_ dirty)
that perpetrated the uncleanly act. Often and often you see a man
sitting close over the fire with a well-bound volume; a few such
experiments will ruin the binding of any book; if it is his own, well
and good, though even so the act is that of a barbarian: but suppose it
a Bodleian book, what then? Why in that case the binding bills will be
higher than ever, to say nothing about the ruin of the book itself. A
man who knows how to handle a book will use a volume habitually for
years and leave no trace of wear and tear behind him; but the average
man, even though he may be a Master of Arts, is, not unfrequently,
totally unfit to have the use of any books in good condition, even in a
library, much less out of one.