NOVEMBER 1837–APRIL 1838
GREAT changes had taken place in Madrid during Borrow’s absence. The
Carlists had actually appeared before its gates, although they had
subsequently retired. Liberalism had been routed and a _Moderado_
Cabinet, under the leadership of Count Ofalia, ruled the city and such
part of the country as was sufficiently complaisant as to permit itself
to be ruled. As the _Moderados_ represented the Court faction, Borrow
saw that he had little to expect from them. He was unacquainted with any
of the members of the Cabinet, and, what was far more serious for him,
the relations between the new Government and Sir George Villiers {211}
were none too cordial, as the British Minister had been by no means
favourable to the new ministry.
Having written to Mr Brandram telling of his arrival in Madrid, “begging
pardon for all errors of commission and omission,” and confessing himself
“a frail and foolish vessel,” that had “accomplished but a slight portion
of what I proposed in my vanity,” Borrow proceeded to disprove his own
assertion. He found the affairs of the Bible Society in a far from
flourishing condition. The Testaments had not sold to any considerable
extent, for which “only circumstances and the public poverty” were the
cause, as Dr Usoz explained.
To awaken interest in his campaign, Borrow planned to print a thousand
advertisements, which were to be posted in various parts of the city, and
to employ colporteurs to vend the books in the streets. He despatched
consignments of books to towns he had visited that required them, and in
the enthusiasm of his eager and active mind foresaw that, “as the circle
widens in the lake into which a stripling has cast a pebble, so will the
circle of our usefulness continue widening, until it has embraced the
whole vast region of Spain.” {212a}
It soon became evident that there was to be a very strong opposition. A
furious attack upon the Bible Society was made in a letter addressed to
the editors of _El Español_ on 5th November, prefixed to a circular of
the Spiritual Governor of Valencia, forbidding the purchase or reading of
the London edition of Father Scio’s Bible. The letter described the
Bible Society as “an infernal society,” and referred in passing to “its
accursed fecundity.” It also strongly resented the omission of the
Apocrypha from the Scio Bible. Borrow promptly replied to this attack in
a letter of great length, and entirely silenced his antagonist, whom he
described to Mr Brandram (20th Nov.) as “an unprincipled benefice-hunting
curate.” “You will doubtless deem it too warm and fiery,” he writes,
referring to his reply, “but tameness and gentleness are of little avail
when surrounded by the vassal slaves of bloody Rome.” {212b} Borrow’s
response to the “benefice-hunting curate” not only silenced him, but was
listened to by the General Committee of the Society “with much pleasure.”
The cause of the trouble in Valencia lay with the other agent of the
Bible Society in Spain, Lieutenant James Newenham Graydon, R.N., who
first took up the work of distributing the Scriptures at Gibraltar in
1835. Here he became associated with the Rev. W. H. Rule, of the
Wesleyan Methodist Society. “The Lieutenant, who seems to have combined
the personal charm of the Irish gentleman with some of the perfervid
incautiousness of the Keltic temperament, finding himself unemployed at
Gibraltar, resolved to do what lay in his power for the spiritual
enlightenment of Spain. Without receiving a regular commission from any
society, he took up single-handed the task which he had imposed upon
himself.” {213a}
Borrow had first met Lieutenant Graydon at Madrid, in the summer of 1836,
where he saw him two or three times. When Graydon left, on account of
the heat, Borrow had removed to Graydon’s lodgings as being more
comfortable than his own. The prohibition in Valencia was directly due
to the indiscretion and incaution of Graydon. The Vicar-General of the
province gave as a reason for his action, an advertisement that had
appeared in the _Diario Comercial_ of Valencia, undertaking to supply
Bibles gratis to those who could not afford to buy them. For this
advertisement Graydon was admonished by the General Committee, which
refused to entertain his plea that, being unpaid, he was not, strictly
speaking, an agent of the Bible Society. He was given to understand that
as the Society was responsible for his acts he must be guided by its
views and wishes.
The next occasion on which Borrow came into conflict with this impulsive
missionary free-lance was in March 1838, when he heard from the Rev. W.
H. Rule that Graydon was on his way to Andalusia. Borrow immediately
wrote to Mr Brandram that he, acting on the advice of Sir George
Villiers, had already planned an expedition into that province, and
furthermore that he had despatched there a number of Testaments. He
explained to Mr Brandram that he was apprehensive “of the re-acting at
Seville of the Valencian Drama, which I have such unfortunate cause to
rue, as I am the victim on whom an aggravated party have wreaked their
vengeance, and for the very cogent reason that I was within their reach.”
{213b} On this occasion Graydon was instructed not to start upon his
projected journey, although Mr Brandram gave the order much against his
own inclination. {214a}
One great difficulty that Borrow had to contend with was the apathy of
the Madrid booksellers, who “gave themselves no manner of trouble to
secure the sale, and even withheld [the] advertisements from the public.”
{214b} This determined him to open a shop himself, and, accordingly,
towards the end of November, he secured premises in the Calle del
Principe, one of the main thoroughfares, for which he agreed to pay a
rent of eight _reals_ a day. He furnished the premises handsomely, with
glass cases and chandeliers, and caused to be painted in large yellow
characters the sign “Despacho de la Sociedad Bíblica y Estrangera” (Depôt
of the Biblical and Foreign Society). He engaged a Gallegan (José
Calzado, whom he called Pepe) as salesman, and on 27th November formally
opened his new premises. Customers soon presented themselves; but many
were disappointed on finding that they could not obtain the Bible. “I
could have sold ten times the amount of what I did,” Borrow writes. “I
_must_ therefore be furnished with Bibles instanter; send me therefore
the London edition, bad as it is, say 500 copies.” {214c}
To facilitate the passing of these books through the customs, Borrow
suggested that they should be consigned to the British Consul at Cadiz,
who was friendly to the Society and “would have sufficient influence to
secure their admission into Spain. But the most advisable way,” he goes
on to explain with great guile, “would be to pack them in two chests,
placing at the top Bibles in English and other languages, for there is a
demand, viz., 100 English, 100 French, 50 German, 50 Hebrew, 50 Greek, 10
Modern Greek, 10 Persian, 20 Arabic. _Pray do not fail_.” {215a}
When Sir George Villiers first obtained from Isturitz permission for
Borrow to print and sell the New Testament in Spanish without notes, he
had cautioned him “to use the utmost circumspection, and in order to
pursue his vocation with success, to avoid offending popular prejudices,
which would not fail to be excited against a Protestant and a Foreigner
engaged in the propagation of the Gospel.” {215b} This warning the
British Minister had repeated frequently since. It was without
consulting Sir George that Borrow opened his depôt, and “imprudently
painted upon the window that it was the Depôt of the London (sic) Bible
Society for the sale of Bibles. I told him,” Sir George writes “that
such a measure would render the interference of the Authorities
inevitable, and so it turned out.” {215c}
Borrow now lost the services of the faithful Antonio, who, on the last
day of the year, informed him that he had become unsettled and
dissatisfied with everything at his master’s lodgings, including the
house, the furniture, and the landlady herself. Therefore he had hired
himself out to a count for four dollars a month less than he was
receiving from Borrow, because he was “fond of change, though it be for
the worse. _Adieu_, _mon maitre_,” he said in parting; “may you be as
well served as you deserve. Should you chance, however, to have any
pressing need _de mes soins_, send for me without hesitation, and I will
at once give my new master warning.” A few days later Borrow engaged a
Basque, named Francisco, who “to the strength of a giant joined the
disposition of a lamb,” {216a} and who had been strongly recommended to
him.
On his return from a hurried visit to Toledo, Borrow found his _Despacho_
succeeding as well as could be expected. To call attention to his
premises he now took an extremely daring step. He caused to be printed
three thousand copies of an advertisement on paper yellow, blue, and
crimson, “with which I almost covered the sides of the streets” he wrote,
“and besides this inserted notices in all the journals and periodicals,
employing also a man, after the London fashion, to parade the streets
with a placard, to the astonishment of the populace.” {216b} The result
of this move, Borrow declared, was that every man, woman and child in
Madrid became aware of the existence of his _Despacho_, as well they
might. In spite of this commercial enterprise, the first month’s trading
showed a sale of only between seventy and eighty New Testaments, and ten
Bibles, {216c} these having been secured from a Spanish bookseller who
had brought them secretly from Gibraltar, but who was afraid to sell them
himself. Mr Brandram’s comment upon the letter from Borrow telling of
the posters was that its contents had “afforded us no little merriment.
The idea of your placards and placard-bearers in Madrid is indeed a novel
one. It cannot but be effectual in giving publicity. I sincerely hope
it may not be prejudicial.” {216d}
When in England, at the end of 1836, Borrow had been authorised by the
Bible Society to find “a person competent to translate the Scriptures in
Basque.” On 27_th_ February 1837, he wrote telling Mr Brandram that he
had become “acquainted with a gentleman well versed in that dialect, of
which I myself have some knowledge.” Dr Oteiza, the domestic physician
of the Marqués de Salvatierra, was accordingly commissioned to proceed
with the work, for which, when completed, he was paid the sum of “£8 and
a few odd shillings.” Borrow reported to Mr Brandram (7th June 1837):
“I have examined it with much attention, and find it a very faithful
version. The only objection which can be brought against it is that
Spanish words are frequently used to express ideas for which there
are equivalents in Basque; but this language, as spoken at present in
Spain, is very corrupt, and a work written entirely in the Basque of
Larramendi’s Dictionary would be intelligible to very few. I have
read passages from it to men of Guipuscoa, who assured me that they
had no difficulty in understanding it, and that it was written in the
colloquial style of the province.”
Borrow had “obtained a slight acquaintance” with Basque when a youth,
which he lost no opportunity of extending by mingling with Biscayans
during his stay in the Peninsula. He also considerably improved himself
in the language by conversing with his Basque servant Francisco. Borrow
now decided to print the Gitano and Basque versions of St Luke, which he
accordingly put in hand; but as the compositors were entirely ignorant of
both languages, he had to exercise the greatest care in reading the
proofs.
During his stay in Spain he had found time to translate into the dialect
of the Spanish gypsies the greater part of the New Testament. {217a} His
method had been somewhat original. Believing that there is “no
individual, however wicked and hardened, who is utterly _godless_,”
{217b} he determined to apply his belief to the gypsies. To enlist their
interest in the work, he determined to allow them to do the translating
themselves. At one period of his residence in Madrid he was regularly
visited by two gypsy women, and these he decided to make his translators;
for he found the women far more amenable than the men. In spite of the
fact that he had already translated into Gitano the New Testament, or the
greater part of it, he would read out to the women from the Spanish
version and let them translate it into Romany themselves, thus obtaining
the correct gypsy idiom. The women looked forward to these gatherings
and also to “the one small glass of Malaga” with which their host regaled
them. They had got as far as the eighth chapter before the meetings
ended. What was the moral effect of St Luke upon the minds of two
gypsies? Borrow confessed himself sceptical; first, because he was
acquainted with the gypsy character; second, because it came to his
knowledge that one of the women “committed a rather daring theft shortly
afterwards, which compelled her to conceal herself for a fortnight.”
{218a} Borrow comforted himself with the reflection that “it is quite
possible, however, that she may remember the contents of those chapters
on her death-bed.” {218b} The translation of the remaining chapters was
supplied from Borrow’s own version begun at Badajos in 1836.
It is not strange that Borrow should be regarded with suspicion by the
Spaniards on account of his association with the Gitanos. Sometimes
there would be as many as seventeen gypsies gathered together at his
lodgings in the Calle de Santiago.
“The people in the street in which I lived,” he writes, {218c}
“seeing such numbers of these strange females continually passing in
and out, were struck with astonishment, and demanded the reason. The
answers which they obtained by no means satisfied them. ‘Zeal for
the conversion of souls—the souls too of Gitánas,—disparáte! the
fellow is a scoundrel. Besides he is an Englishman, and is not
baptised; what cares he for souls? They visit him for other
purposes. He makes base ounces, which they carry away and circulate.
Madrid is already stocked with false money.’ Others were of the
opinion that we met for the purposes of sorcery and abomination. The
Spaniard has no conception that other springs of action exist than
interest or villany.”
Borrow was in reality endeavouring to convey to his “little
congregation,” as he called them, some idea of abstract morality. He was
bold enough “to speak against their inveterate practices, thieving and
lying, telling fortunes,” etc., and at first experienced much opposition.
About the result, he seems to have cherished no illusions; still, he
wrote a hymn in their dialect which he taught his guests to sing.
For some time past it had been obvious to Borrow that he was becoming
more than ever unpopular with certain interested factions in Madrid, who
looked upon his missionary labours with angry disapproval. The opening
of his _Despacho_ had caused a great sensation. “The Priests and Bigots
are teeming with malice and fury,” he had written to Mr Brandram, {219a}
“which hitherto they have thought proper to exhibit only in words, as
they know that all I do here is favoured by Mr Villiers {219b} (sic) . . .
There is no attempt, however atrocious, which may not be expected from
such people, and were it right and seemly for _me_, the most
insignificant of worms, to make such a comparison, I would say that, like
Paul at Ephesus, I am fighting with wild beasts.” He was attacked in
print and endeavours were made to incite the people against him as a
sorcerer and companion of gypsies and witches. When he decided upon the
campaign of the posters it would appear, at first glance, that in the
claims of the merchant Borrow had entirely forgotten the obligations of
the diplomatist. On the other hand, he may have foreseen that the
priestly party would soon force the Government to action, and was
desirous of selling all the books he could before this happened. His own
words seem to indicate that this was the case.
“People who know me not,” he wrote to Mr Brandram, “nor are
acquainted with my situation, may be disposed to call me rash; but I
am far from being so, as I never adopt a venturous course when any
other is open to me; but I am not a person to be terrified by any
danger when I see that braving it is the only way to achieve an
object.” {220}
Whatever may have been Borrow’s motives, the crisis arrived on 12th
January, when he received a peremptory order from the Civil Governor of
Madrid (who had previously sent for and received two copies, to submit
for examination to the Ecclesiastical Authorities) to sell no more of the
New Testament in Spanish without notes. At that period the average sale
was about twenty copies a day. “The priests have at length ‘swooped upon
me,’” Borrow wrote to Mr Brandram, three days later. The order did not,
however, take him unawares.
Borrow saw that little assistance was to be expected from Sir George
Villiers, who, for obvious reasons, was not popular with the Ofalia
ministry, and, accepting the British Minister’s advice, he promptly
complied with the edict. He recognised that for the time being his
enemies were paramount. He accuses the priests of employing the ruffian
who, one night in a dark street, warned him to discontinue selling his
“Jewish books,” or he would “have a knife ‘_nailed in his heart_’” to
which he replied by telling the fellow to go home, say his prayers and
inform his employers that he, Borrow, pitied them. It was a few days
after this episode that Borrow received the formal notice of prohibition.
Consoling himself with the fact that he was not ordered to close his
_Despacho_, and refusing the advice that was tendered to him to erase
from its windows the yellow-lettered sign, he determined to continue his
campaign with the Bibles that were on their way to him, and the Gitano
and Basque versions of St Luke as soon as they were ready. The
prohibition referred only to the Spanish New Testament without notes, and
in this Borrow took comfort. He had every reason to feel gratified; for,
since opening the _Despacho_, he had sold nearly three hundred copies of
the New Testament.
At Earl Street it was undoubtedly felt that Borrow had to some extent
precipitated the present crisis. On 8th February Mr Brandram wrote that,
whilst there was no wish on the part of the Committee to censure him,
they were not altogether surprised at what had occurred; for, when they
first heard about them, “some _did_ think that your tri-coloured placards
and placard-bearer were somewhat calculated to provoke what has
occurred.” In reply Borrow confessed that the view of the “some” gave
him “a pang, more especially as I knew from undoubted sources that
nothing which I had done, said, or written, was the original cause of the
arbitrary step which had been adopted in respect to me.” {221a}
The printing of the Gitano and Basque editions of St Luke (500 copies
{221b} of each) was completed in March, and they were published
respectively in March and April. The Gitano version attracted much
attention. Some months later Borrow wrote:—
“No work printed in Spain ever caused so great and so general a
sensation, not so much amongst the Gypsies, that peculiar people for
whom it was intended, as amongst the Spaniards themselves, who,
though they look upon the Roma with some degree of contempt as a low
and thievish race of outcasts, nevertheless take a strange interest
in all that concerns them, it having been from time immemorial their
practice, more especially of the dissolute young nobility, to
cultivate the acquaintance of the Gitanos, as they are popularly
called, probably attracted by the wild wit of the latter and the
lascivious dances of the females. The apparation, therefore, of the
Gospel of St Luke at Madrid in the peculiar jargon of these people,
was hailed as a strange novelty and almost as a wonder, and I believe
was particularly instrumental in bruiting the name of the Bible
Society far and wide through Spain, and in creating a feeling far
from inimical towards it and its proceedings.” {222a}
The little volume appears to have sold freely among the gypsies. “Many
of the men,” Borrow says, {222b} “understood it, and prized it highly,
induced of course more by the language than the doctrine; the women were
particularly anxious to obtain copies, though unable to read; but each
wished to have one in her pocket, especially when engaged in thieving
expeditions, for they all looked upon it in the light of a charm.”
All endeavours to get the prohibition against the sale of the New
Testament removed proved unavailing. Borrow’s great strength lay in the
support he received from the British Minister, and, in all probability,
this prevented his expulsion from Spain, which alone would have satisfied
his enemies. At the request of Sir George Villiers, he drew up an
account of the Bible Society and an exposition of its views, telling
Count Ofalia, among other things, that “the mightiest of earthly
monarchs, the late Alexander of Russia, was so convinced of the
single-mindedness and integrity of the British and Foreign Bible Society,
that he promoted their efforts within his own dominions to the utmost of
his ability.” He pointed to the condition of Spain, which was
“overspread with the thickest gloom of heathenish ignorance, beneath
which the fiends and demons of the abyss seem to be holding their ghastly
revels.” He described it as “a country in which all sense of right and
wrong is forgotten . . . where the name of Jesus is scarcely ever
mentioned but in blasphemy, and His precepts [are] almost utterly unknown
. . . [where] the few who are enlightened are too much occupied in the
pursuit of lucre, ambition, or ungodly revenge to entertain a desire or
thought of bettering the moral state of their countrymen.” This report,
in which Borrow confesses that he “made no attempts to flatter and
cajole,” must have caused the British Minister some diplomatic
embarrassment when he read it; but it seems to have been presented,
although, as is scarcely surprising, it appears to have been ineffectual
in causing to be removed the ban against which it was written as a
protest.
The Prime Minister was in a peculiarly unpleasant position. On the one
hand there was the British Minister using all his influence to get the
prohibition rescinded; on the other hand were six bishops, including the
primate, then resident in Madrid, and the greater part of the clergy.
Count Ofalia applied for a copy of the Gipsy St Luke, and, seeing in this
an opening for a personal appeal, Borrow determined to present the
volume, specially and handsomely bound, in person, probably the last
thing that Count Ofalia expected or desired. The interview produced
nothing beyond the conviction in Borrow’s mind that Spain was ruled by a
man who possessed the soul of a mouse. Borrow had been received “with
great affability,” thanked for his present, urged to be patient and
peaceable, assured of the enmity of the clergy, and promised that an
endeavour should be made to devise some plan that would be satisfactory
to him. The two then “parted in kindness,” and as he walked away from
the palace, Borrow wondered “by what strange chance this poor man had
become Prime Minister of a country like Spain.”
In reporting progress to the Bible Society on 17th March Borrow, after
assuring Mr Brandram that he had “brought every engine into play which it
was in my power to command,” asked for instructions. “Shall I wait a
little time longer in Madrid,” he enquired; “or shall I proceed at once
on a journey to Andalusia and other places? I am in strength, health and
spirits, thanks be to the Lord! and am at all times ready to devote
myself, body and mind, to His cause.” {224a} The decision of the
Committee was that he should remain at Madrid.
During the time that Borrow had been preparing his Depôt in Madrid,
Lieutenant Graydon had been feverishly active in the South. On 19th
April Borrow wrote to Mr Brandram:—
“Sir George Villiers has vowed to protect me and has stated so
publicly . . . He has gone so far as to state to Ofalia and [Don
Ramon de] Gamboa [the Civil Governor], that provided I be allowed to
pursue my plans without interruption, he will be my bail (_fiador_)
and answerable for everything I do, as he does me the honor to say
that he knows me, and can confide in _my_ discretion.”
In the same letter he begs the Society to be cautious and offer no
encouragement to any disposed “‘to run the muck’ (_sic_) (it is Sir
George’s expression) against the religious and political _institutions_
of Spain”; but “the delicacy of the situation does not appear to have
been thoroughly understood at the time even by the Committee at home.”
{224b} They saw the astonishing success of Graydon in distributing the
Scripture, and became infused with his enthusiasm, oblivious to the fact
that the greater the enthusiasm the greater the possibilities of
indiscretion. On the other hand Graydon himself saw only the glory of
the Gospel. If he were indiscreet, it was because he was blinded by the
success that attended his efforts, and he failed to see the clouds that
were gathering. {225} Borrow saw the danger of Graydon’s reckless
evangelism, and although he himself had few good words for the pope and
priestcraft, he recognised that a discreet veiling of his opinions was
best calculated to further the ends he had in view.
About this period Borrow became greatly incensed at the action of the
Rev. W. H. Rule of Gibraltar in consigning to his care an ex-priest, Don
Pascual Mann, who, it was alleged, had been persuaded to secede from Rome
“by certain promises and hopes held out” to him. He had accordingly left
his benefice and gone to Gibraltar to receive instruction at the hands of
Mr Rule. On his return to Valencia his salary was naturally
sequestrated, and he was reduced to want. When he arrived at Madrid it
was with a letter (12th April) from Mr Rule to Borrow, in which it was
stated that Mann was sent that he might “endeavour to circulate the Holy
Scriptures, Religious Tracts and books, and if possible prepare the minds
of some with a view to the future establishment of a Mission in Madrid.”
Borrow had commiserated with the unfortunate Mann, even to the extent of
sending him 500 _reals_ out of his own pocket; but on hearing that he was
on his way to Madrid to engage in missionary work, he immediately wrote a
letter of protest to Mr Brandram. He was angry at Mr Rule’s conduct in
saddling him with Mann, and that without any preliminary correspondence.
He had entertained Mr Rule when in Madrid, had conversed with him about
the unfortunate ex-priest; but there had never been any mention of his
being sent to Madrid. Mr Rule, on the other hand, thought it had been
arranged that Mann should be sent to Borrow. The whole affair appears to
have arisen out of a misunderstanding. There was considerable danger to
Borrow in Mann’s presence in the capital; but it was not the thought of
the danger that incensed him so much as what he conceived to be Mr Rule’s
unwarrantable conduct, and his own deeply-rooted objection to working
with anyone else. Mr Brandram repudiated the suggestion that assistance
had been promised Mann from London (although he authorised Borrow to give
him ten pounds in his, Brandram’s, name), and gave as an excuse for what
Borrow described as the desertion of the ex-priest by those who were
responsible for his conversion, that “the man had returned of his own
accord to Rome,” Graydon vouching for the accuracy of the statement.
On the other hand, Mann stated that he was persuaded to secede by
promises made by Graydon and Rule, and induced to sign a document
purporting to be a separation from the Roman Church. He further stated
that he was abandoned because he refused to preach publicly against the
Chapter of Valencia, which in all probability would have resulted in his
imprisonment. Whatever the truth, there appears to have been some
embarrassment among those responsible for bringing in the lost sheep as
to what should be done with him. “I hope that Mann’s history will be a
warning to many of our friends,” Borrow wrote to Mr Rule and quoted the
passage in his letter to Mr Brandram, {226} “and tend to a certain extent
to sober down the desire for doing what is called at home _smart things_,
many of which terminate in a manner very different from the original
expectations of the parties concerned.” Mr Brandram thought that Borrow
was a little hard upon Graydon, and that he had not received “with the
due _grano salis_ the statements of the unfortunate M.” He intimated,
nevertheless, that the Committee had no opening for Mann’s services.
That Borrow was justified in his anger is shown by the fact that, as he
had foreseen, he reaped all the odium of Mann’s conversion. The Bishop
of Cordoba in Council branded him as “a dangerous, pestilent person, who
under the pretence of selling the Scriptures went about making converts,
and moreover employed subordinates for the purpose of deluding weak and
silly people into separation from the Mother Church.” {227a}
Although Borrow was angry about the Mann episode, he did not allow his
personal feelings to prevent him from ministering to the needs of the
poor ex-priest “as far as prudence will allow,” when he fell ill. He
even went the length of writing to Mr Rule, being wishful “not to offend
him.” None the less he felt that he had not been well treated. To Mr
Brandram he wrote reminding him “that all the difficulty and danger
connected with what has been accomplished in Spain have fallen to my
share, I having been labouring on the flinty rock and sierra, and not in
smiling meadows refreshed by sea breezes.” {227b}
On 14th July 1838 Borrow made the last reference to the ex-priest in a
letter to Mr Brandram: “The unfortunate M. is dying of a galloping
consumption, brought on by distress of mind. All the medicine in the
world would not accomplish his cure.” {227c}
The watchful eye of the law was still on Borrow, and fearful lest his
stock of Bibles, of which 500 had arrived from Barcelona, and the Gypsy
and Basque editions of St Luke should be seized, he hired a room where he
stored the bulk of the books. He now advertised the two editions of St
Luke, with the result that on 16th April a party of _Alguazils_ entered
the shop and took possession of twenty-five copies of the Romany Gospel
of St Luke.
On the publication of the Gypsy St Luke, a fresh campaign had been opened
against Borrow, and accusations of sorcery were made and fears expressed
as to the results of the publication of the book. Application was made
by the priestly party to the Civil Governor, with the result that all the
copies at the _Despacho_ of the Basque and Gitano versions of St Luke had
been seized. Borrow states that the _Alguazils_ “divided the copies of
the gypsy volume among themselves, selling subsequently the greater
number at a large price, the book being in the greatest demand.” {228a}
Thus the very officials responsible for the seizure and suppression of
the Bible Society’s books in Spain became “unintentionally agents of an
heretical society.” {228b}
Disappointed at the smallness of the spoil, the authorities strove by
artifice to discover if Borrow still had copies of the books in his
possession. To this end they sent to the _Despacho_ spies, who offered
high prices for copies of the Gitano St Luke, in which their interest
seemed specially to centre, to the exclusion of the Basque version. To
these enquiries the same answer was returned, that at present no further
books would be sold at the _Despacho_.
As evidence of the high opinion formed of the Romany version of St Luke,
the following story told by Borrow is amusing:—
“Shortly before my departure a royal edict was published, authorising
all public libraries to provide themselves with copies of the said
works [the Basque and Gypsy St Lukes] on account of their
philological merit; whereupon on application being made to the Office
[of the Civil Governor, where the books were supposed to be stored],
it was discovered that the copies of the Gospel in Basque were safe
and forthcoming, whilst every one of the sequestered copies of the
Gitano Gospel had been plundered by hands unknown [to the
authorities]. The consequence was that I was myself applied to by
the agents of the public libraries of Valencia and other places, who
paid me the price of the copies which they received, assuring me at
the same time that they were authorised to purchase them at whatever
price which might be demanded.” {229a}
Borrow’s enemies acknowledged that the Gitano St Luke was a philological
curiosity; but that it was impossible to allow it to pass into
circulation without notes. How great a philological curiosity it
actually was, is shown by the fact that the ecclesiastical authorities
were unable to find anywhere a person, in whom they had confidence,
capable of pronouncing upon it, consequently they could only condemn it
on two counts of omission; firstly the notes, secondly the imprint of the
printer from the title-page.
The Basque version was by no means so popular; for one thing, “It can
scarcely be said to have been published,” Borrow wrote, “it having been
prohibited, and copies of it seized on the second day of its appearance.”
{229b} Several orders were received from San Sebastian and other towns
where Basque predominates, which could not be supplied on account of the
prohibition.
The official remonstrance from Sir George Villiers to Count Ofalia in
respect of the seizure of the Gypsy and Basque Gospels is of great
interest as showing, not only the British Minister’s attitude towards
Borrow, but how, and with what wrath, Borrow “desisted from his
meritorious task.” The communication runs:—
MADRID, 24_th_ _April_ 1838.
SIR,
It is my duty to request the attention of Your Excellency to an act
of injustice committed against a British subject by the Civil
Authorities of Madrid.
It appears that on the 16th inst., two officers of Police were sent
by the Civil Governor to a Shop, No. 25 Calle del Principe occupied
by Mr Borrow, where they seized and carried away 25 Copies of the
Gospel of St Luke in the Gitano language, being the entire number
exposed there for sale.
Mr Borrow is an agent of the British Bible Society, who has for some
time past been in Spain, and in the year 1836 obtained permission
from the Government of Her Catholic Majesty to print, at the expense
of the Society, Padre Scio’s translation of the New Testament. He
subsequently sold the work at a moderate price and had no reason to
believe that in so doing he infringed any law of Spain or exposed
himself to the animadversion of the Authorities, otherwise, from my
knowledge of Mr Borrow’s character, I feel justified in assuring Your
Excellency that he would at once, although with regret, have desisted
from his meritorious task of propagating the Gospel. Some months
ago, however, the late Civil Governor of Madrid, after having sent
for and examined a copy of the work, thought proper to direct that
its further sale should be suspended, which order was instantly
complied with.
Mr Borrow is a man of great learning and research and master of many
languages, and having translated the Gospel of St Luke into the
Gitano, he presented a copy of it to Don Ramon Gamboa, the late Civil
Governor, and announced his intention to advertise it for sale, to
which no objection was made.
Since that time neither Mr Borrow nor the persons employed by him
received any communication from the present Civil Governor forbidding
the sale of this work until it was seized in the manner I have above
described to Your Excellency.
I feel convinced that the mere statement of these facts without any
commentary on my part will be sufficient to induce your Excellency to
take steps for the indemnification of Mr Borrow, who is not only a
very respectable British subject but the Agent of one of the most
truly benevolent and philanthropic Societies in the world.
I have, etc., etc., etc.
GEORGE VILLIERS.
His Excellency Count Ofalia.