JULY–NOVEMBER 1838
BORROW’S spirit chafed under this spell of enforced idleness. His horses
were neighing in the stable and “Señor Antonio was neighing in the
house,” as Maria Diaz expressed it; and for himself, Borrow required
something more actively stimulating than pen and ink encounters with Mr
Brandram. He therefore determined to defy the prohibition and make an
excursion into the rural districts of New Castile, offering his
Testaments for sale as he went, and sending on supplies ahead. His first
objective was Villa Seca, a village situated on the banks of the Tagus
about nine leagues from Madrid.
He was aware of the danger he ran in thus disregarding the official
decree.
“I will not conceal from you,” he writes to Mr Brandram on 14th July,
“that I am playing a daring game, and it is very possible that when I
least expect it I may be seized, tied to the tail of a mule, and
dragged either to the prison of Toledo or Madrid. Yet such a
prospect does not discourage me in the least, but rather urges me on
to persevere; for I assure you, and in this assertion there lurks not
the slightest desire to magnify myself and produce an effect, that I
am eager to lay down my life in this cause, and whether a Carlist’s
bullet or a gaol-fever bring my career to an end, I am perfectly
indifferent.”
He was not averse from martyrdom; but he objected to being precipitated
into it by another man’s folly. In his interview with Count Ofalia, he
had been solemnly warned that if a second time he came within the
clutches of the authorities he might not escape so easily, and had
replied that it was “a pleasant thing to be persecuted for the Gospel’s
sake.”
In his decision to make Villa Seca his temporary headquarters, Borrow had
been influenced by the fact that it was the home of Maria Diaz, his
friend and landlady. Her husband was there working on the land, Maria
herself living in Madrid that her children might be properly educated.
Borrow left Madrid on 10th July, and on his arrival at Villa Seca he was
cordially welcomed by Juan Lopez, the husband of Maria Diaz, who
continued to use her maiden name, in accordance with Spanish custom.
Lopez subsequently proved of the greatest possible assistance in the work
of distribution, shaming both Borrow and Antonio by his energy and powers
of endurance.
The inhabitants of Villa Seca and the surrounding villages of Bargas,
Coveja, Villa Luenga, Mocejon, Yunclér eagerly bought up “the book of
life,” and each day the three men rode forth in heat so great that “the
very _arrieros_ frequently fall dead from their mules, smitten by a
sun-stroke.” {269a}
It was in Villa Seca that Borrow found “all that gravity of deportment
and chivalry of disposition which Cervantes is said to have sneered away”
{269b} and there were to be heard “those grandiose expressions which,
when met with in the romances of chivalry, are scoffed at as ridiculous
exaggerations.” {269c} Borrow so charmed the people of the district with
the elaborate formality of his manner, that he became convinced that any
attempt to arrest or do him harm would have met with a violent
resistance, even to the length of the drawing of knives in his defence.
In less than a week some two hundred Testaments had been disposed of, and
a fresh supply had to be obtained from Madrid. Borrow’s methods had now
changed. He had, of necessity, to make as little stir as possible in
order to avoid an unenviable notoriety. He carefully eschewed
advertisements and handbills, and limited himself almost entirely to the
simple statement that he brought to the people “the words and life of the
Saviour and His Saints at a price adapted to their humble means.” {270a}
It is interesting to note in connection with this period of Borrow’s
activities in Spain, that in 1908 one of the sons of Maria Diaz and Juan
Lopez was sought out at Villa Seca by a representative of the Bible
Society, and interrogated as to whether he remembered Borrow. Eduardo
Lopez (then seventy-four years of age) stated that he was a child of
eight {270b} when Borrow lived at the house of his mother; yet he
remembers that “_El inglés_” was tall and robust, with fair hair turning
grey. Eduardo and his young brother regarded Borrow with both fear and
respect; for, their father being absent, he used to punish them for
misdemeanours by setting them on the table and making them remain
perfectly quiet for a considerable time. The old man remembered that
Borrow had two horses whom he called “la Jaca” and “el Mondrágon,” and
that he used to take to the house of Maria Diaz “his trunk full of books
which were beautifully bound.” He remembered Borrow’s Greek servant,
“Antonio Guchino” (the Antonio Buchini of _The Bible in Spain_), who
spoke very bad Spanish.
The most interesting of Eduardo Lopez’ recollections of Borrow was that
he “often recited a chant which nobody understood,” and of which the old
man could remember only the following fragment:—
“Sed un la in la en la la
Sino Mokhamente de resu la.”
It has been suggested, {271a} and with every show of probability, that
“this is the Moslem _kalimah_ or creed which he had heard sung from the
minarets”:
“La illaha illa allah
Wa Muhammad rasoul allah.”
Borrow recognised that he must not stay very long in any one place, and
accordingly it was his intention, as soon as he had supplied the
immediate wants of the Sagra (the plain) of Toledo, “to cross the country
to Aranjuez, and endeavour to supply with the Word the villages on the
frontier of La Mancha.” {271b} As he was on the point of setting out,
however, he received two letters from Mr Brandram, which decided him to
return immediately to Madrid instead of pursuing his intended route.
Borrow was informed that if, after consulting with Sir George Villiers,
it was thought desirable that he should leave Madrid, he was given a free
hand to do so. Furthermore, the President of the Bible Society (Lord
Bexley), with whom Mr Brandram had consulted, was of the opinion that
Borrow should return home to confer with the Committee. It was clear
from the correspondence that nothing short of an interview could remove
the very obvious feeling of irritation that existed between Borrow and
the Society. In his reply (23rd July), Borrow showed a dignity and
calmness of demeanour that had been lacking from his previous letters;
and it most likely produced a far more favourable effect at Earl Street
than the impassioned protests of the past two months:—
“My answer will be very brief;” he wrote, “as I am afraid of giving
way to my feelings; I hope, however, that it will be to the purpose.
“It is broadly hinted in yours of the 7th that I have made false
statements in asserting that the Government, in consequence of what
has lately taken place, had come to the resolution of seizing the
Bible depôts in various parts of this country. [Borrow had written
to Mr Brandram on 25th June, “The Society are already aware of the
results of the visit of our friend to Malaga; all their Bibles and
Testaments having been seized throughout Spain, with the exception of
my stock in Madrid.”]
“In reply I beg leave to inform you that by the first courier you
will receive from the British Legation at Madrid the official notice
from Count Ofalia to Sir George Villiers of the seizures already
made, and the motives which induced the Government to have recourse
to such a measure.
“The following seizures have already been made, though some have not
as yet been officially announced:—The Society’s books at Orviedo,
Pontevedra, Salamanca, Santiago, Seville, and Valladolid.
“It appears from your letters that the depôts in the South of Spain
have escaped. I am glad of it, although it be at my own expense. I
see the hand of the Lord throughout the late transactions. He is
chastening me; it is His pleasure that the guilty escape and the
innocent be punished. The Government gave orders to seize the Bible
depôts throughout the country on account of the late scenes at Malaga
and Valencia—I have never been there, yet only _my_ depôts are
meddled with, as it appears! The Lord’s will be done, blessed be the
name of the Lord!
“I will write again to-morrow, I shall have then arranged my
thoughts, and determined on the conduct which it becomes a Christian
to pursue under these circumstances. Permit me, in conclusion, to
ask you:
“Have you not to a certain extent been partial in this matter? Have
you not, in the apprehension of being compelled to blame the conduct
of one who has caused me unutterable anxiety, misery and persecution,
and who has been the bane of the Bible cause in Spain, refused to
receive the information which it was in _your_ power to command? I
called on the Committee and yourself from the first to apply to Sir
George Villiers; no one is so well versed as to what has lately been
going as himself; but no. It was God’s will that I, who have risked
all and lost _almost_ all in the cause, be taunted, suspected, and
the sweat of agony and tears which I have poured out be estimated at
the value of the water of the ditch or the moisture which exudes from
rotten dung; but I murmur not, and hope I shall at all times be
willing to bow to the dispensations of the Almighty.
“Sir George Villiers has returned to England for a short period; you
have therefore the opportunity of consulting him. I _will not_ leave
Spain until the whole affair has been thoroughly sifted. I shall
then perhaps appear and bid you an eternal farewell. {273a} Four
hundred Testaments have been disposed of in the Sagra of Toledo.
“_P.S._—I am just returned from the Embassy, where I have had a long
interview with that admirable person Lord Wm. Hervey [Chargé
d’Affaires during Sir George Villiers’ absence]. He has requested me
to write him a letter on the point in question, which with the
official documents he intends to send to the Secretary of State in
order to be laid before the Bible Society. He has put into my hands
the last communication from Ofalia {273b} it relates to the seizure
of _my_ depots at Malaga, Pontevedra, etc. I have not opened it, but
send it for your approval.”
It is pleasant to record that the Sub-Committee expressed itself as
unable to see in Mr Brandram’s letter what Borrow saw. There was no
intention to convey the impression that he had made false statements, and
regret was expressed that he had thought it necessary to apply to the
Embassy for confirmation of what he had written. All this Mr Brandram
conveyed in a letter dated 6th August. He continues: “I am now in full
possession of all that Mr Graydon has done, and find it utterly
impossible to account for that very strong feeling that you have imbibed
against him.”
On 20th July Mr Brandram had written that, after consulting with two or
three members of the Committee, they all confirmed a wish already
expressed that their Agent should not continue to expose himself to such
dangers. If, however, he still saw the way open before him,
“as so pleasantly represented in your letter . . . you need not think
of returning . . . Do allow me to suggest to you,” he continues, “to
drop allusion to Mr Graydon in your letters. His conduct is not
regarded here as you regard it. I could fancy, but perhaps it is all
fancy, that you have him in your eye when you tell us that you have
eschewed handbills and advertisements. Time has been when you have
used them plentifully . . . Sir George Villiers is in England—but I
do not know that we shall seek an interview with him—We are afraid of
being hampered with the trammels of office.”
The Committee, however, did not endorse Mr Brandram’s view as to Borrow
continuing in Spain, and further, they did “not see it right,” the
secretary wrote (6th August), “after the confidential communication in
which you have been in with the Government, that you should be acting now
in such open defiance of it, and putting yourself in such extreme
jeopardy.” Later Borrow made reference to the remark about the
handbills.
“It would have been as well,” he wrote, “if my respected and revered
friend, the writer, had made himself acquainted with the character of
my advertisements before he made that observation. There is no harm
in an advertisement, if truth, decency and the fear of God are
observed, and I believe my own will be scarcely found deficient in
any of these three requisites. It is not the use of a serviceable
instrument, but its abuse that merits reproof, and I cannot conceive
that advertising was abused by me when I informed the people of
Madrid that the New Testament was to be purchased at a cheap price in
the _Calle del Principe_.” {275}
Elsewhere he referred to these same advertisements as “mild yet
expressive.”
In spite of the strained state of his relations with the Bible Society,
Borrow had no intention of remaining in Madrid brooding over his wrongs.
Encouraged by the success that had attended his efforts in the Sagra of
Toledo, and indifferent to the fact that his renewed activity was known
at Toledo, where it was causing some alarm, he determined to proceed to
Aranjuez, and, on his arrival there, to be guided by events as to his
future movements. Accordingly about 28th July he set out attended by
Antonio and Lopez, who had accompanied him from Villa Seca to Madrid,
proceeding in the direction of La Mancha, and selling at every village
through which they passed from twenty to forty Testaments. At Aranjuez
they remained three days, visiting every house in the town and disposing
of about eighty books. It was no unusual thing to see groups of the
poorer people gathered round one of their number who was reading aloud
from a recently purchased Testament.
Feeling that his enemies were preparing to strike, Borrow determined to
push on to the frontier town of Ocaña, beyond which the clergy had only a
nominal jurisdiction on account of its being in the hands of the
Carlists. Lopez was sent on with between two and three hundred
Testaments, and Borrow, accompanied by Antonio, followed later by a
shorter route through the hills. As they approached the town, a man, a
Jew, stepped out from the porch of an empty house and barred their way,
telling them that Lopez had been arrested at Ocaña that morning as he was
selling Testaments in the streets, and that the authorities were now
waiting for Borrow himself.
Seeing that no good could be done by plunging into the midst of his
enemies, who had their instructions from the _corregidor_ of Toledo,
Borrow decided to return to Aranjuez. This he did, on the way narrowly
escaping assassination at the hands of three robbers. The next morning
he was rejoined by Lopez, who had been released. He had sold 27
Testaments, and 200 had been confiscated and forwarded to Toledo. The
whole party then returned to Madrid.
The unfortunate affair at Ocaña by no means discouraged Borrow. It was
his intention “with God’s leave” to “fight it out to the last.” He saw
that his only chance of distributing his store of Testaments lay in
visiting the smaller villages before the order to confiscate his books
arrived from Toledo. His enemies were numerous and watchful; but Borrow
was as cunning as a gypsy and as far-seeing as a Jew. Thinking that his
notoriety had not yet crossed the Guadarrama mountains and penetrated
into Old Castile, he decided to anticipate it. Lopez was sent ahead with
a donkey bearing a cargo of Testaments, his instructions being to meet
Borrow and Antonio at La Granja. Failing to find Lopez at the appointed
place, Borrow pushed on to Segovia, where he received news that some men
were selling books at Abades, to which place he proceeded with three more
donkeys laden with books that had been consigned to a friend at Segovia.
At Abades Lopez was discovered busily occupied in selling Testaments.
Hearing that an order was about to be sent from Segovia to Abades for the
confiscation of his Testaments, Borrow immediately left the town,
donkeys, Testaments and all, and for safety’s sake passed the night in
the fields. The next day they proceeded to the village of Labajos. A
few days after their arrival the Carlist leader Balmaceda, at the head of
his robber cavalry, streamed down from the pine woods of Soria into the
southern part of Old Castile, Borrow “was present at all the horrors
which ensued—the sack of Arrevalo, and the forcible entry into Marrin
Muñoz and San Cyprian. Amidst these terrible scenes we continued our
labours undaunted.” {277a} He witnessed what “was not the war of men or
even cannibals . . . it seemed a contest of fiends from the infernal
pit.” Antonio became seized with uncontrollable fear and ran away to
Madrid. Lopez soon afterwards disappeared, and, left alone, Borrow
suffered great anxiety as to the fate of the brave fellow. Hearing that
he was in prison at Vilallos, about three leagues distant, and in spite
of the fact that Balmaceda’s cavalry division was in the neighbourhood,
Borrow mounted his horse and set off next day (22nd Aug.) alone. He
found on his arrival at Vilallos, that Lopez had been removed from the
prison to a private house. Disregarding an order from the _corregidor_
of Avila that only the books should be confiscated and that the vendor
should be set at liberty, the _Alcalde_, at the instigation of the
priest, refused to liberate Lopez. It had been hinted to the unfortunate
man that on the arrival of the Carlists he was to be denounced as a
liberal, which would mean death. “Taking these circumstances into
consideration,” Borrow wrote, {277b} “I deemed it my duty as a Christian
and a gentleman to rescue my unfortunate servant from such lawless hands,
and in consequence, defying opposition, I bore him off, though perfectly
unarmed, through a crowd of at least one hundred peasants. On leaving
the place I shouted ‘Viva Isabella Segunda.’”
In this affair Borrow had, not only the approval of Lord William Hervey,
but of Count Ofalia also. In all probability the Bible Society has never
had, and never will have again, an agent such as Borrow, who on occasion
could throw aside the cloak of humility and grasp a two-edged sword with
which to discomfit his enemies, and who solemnly chanted the creed of
Islam whilst engaged as a Christian missionary. There was something
magnificent in his Christianity; it savoured of the Crusades in its
pre-Reformation virility. Martyrdom he would accept if absolutely
necessary; but he preferred that if martyrs there must be they should be
selected from the ranks of the enemy, whilst he, George Borrow,
represented the strong arm of the Lord.
After the Vilallos affair, Borrow returned to Madrid, crossing the
Guadarramas alone and with two horses. “I nearly perished there,” he
wrote to Mr Brandram (1st Sept.), “having lost my way in the darkness and
tumbled down a precipice.” The perilous journey north had resulted in
the sale of 900 Testaments, all within the space of three weeks and
amidst scenes of battle and bloodshed.
On his return to Madrid, Borrow found awaiting him the Resolution of the
General Committee (6th Aug.), recalling him “without further delay.”
“I will set out for England as soon as possible,” he wrote in reply;
{278} “but I must be allowed time. I am almost dead with fatigue,
suffering and anxiety; and it is necessary that I should place the
Society’s property in safe and sure custody.”
On 1st September he wrote to Mr Brandram that he should “probably be in
England within three weeks.” Shortly after this he was attacked with
fever, and confined to his bed for ten days, during which he was
frequently delirious. When the fever departed, he was left very weak and
subject to a profound melancholy.
“I bore up against my illness as long as I could,” he wrote, {279a}
“but it became too powerful for me. By good fortune I obtained a
decent physician, a Dr Hacayo, who had studied medicine in England,
and aided by him and the strength of my constitution I got the better
of my attack, which, however, was a dreadfully severe one. I hope my
next letter will be from Bordeaux. I cannot write more at present,
for I am very feeble.”
The actual date that Borrow left Madrid is not known. He himself gave it
as 31st August, {279b} which is obviously inaccurate, as on 19th
September he wrote to Mr Brandram: “I am now better, and hope in a few
days to be able to proceed to Saragossa, which is the only road open.”
He travelled leisurely by way of the Pyrenees, through France to Paris,
where he spent a fortnight. Of Paris he was very fond; “for, leaving all
prejudices aside, it is a magnificent city, well supplied with sumptuous
buildings and public squares, unequalled by any town in Europe.” {279c}
Having bought a few rare books he proceeded to Boulogne, “and thence by
steamboat to London,” {279d} where in all probability he arrived towards
the end of October.
He had “long talks on Spanish affairs” {279e} with his friends at Earl
Street, where personal interviews seem to have brought about a much
better feeling. The General Committee requested Borrow to put into
writing his views as to the best means to be adopted for the future
distribution of the Scriptures in Spain. He accordingly wrote a
statement, {280} a fine, vigorous piece of narrative, putting his case so
clearly and convincingly as to leave little to be said for the
unfortunate Graydon. He expressed himself as “eager to be carefully and
categorically questioned.” This Report appears subsequently to have been
withdrawn, probably on the advice of Borrow’s friends, who saw that its
uncompromising bluntness of expression would make it unacceptable to the
General Committee. It was certainly presented to and considered by the
Sub-Committee. Another document was drawn up entitled, “Report of Mr
Geo. Borrow on Past and Future Operations in Spain.” This reached Earl
Street on 28th November. In it Borrow states that as the inhabitants of
the cities had not shown themselves well-disposed towards the Scriptures,
it would be better to labour in future among the peasantry. It was his
firm conviction, he wrote,
“that every village in Spain will purchase New Testaments, from
twenty to sixty, according to its circumstances. During the last two
months of his sojourn in Spain he visited about forty villages, and
in only two instances was his sale less than thirty copies in each .
. . If it be objected to the plan which he has presumed to suggest
that it is impossible to convey to the rural districts of Spain the
book of life without much difficulty and danger, he begs leave to
observe that it does not become a real Christian to be daunted by
either when it pleases his Maker to select him as an instrument; and
that, moreover, if it be not written that a man is to perish by wild
beasts or reptiles he is safe in the den even of the Cockatrice as in
the most retired chamber of the King’s Palace; and that if, on the
contrary, he be doomed to perish by them, his destiny will overtake
him notwithstanding all the precautions which he, like a blind worm,
may essay for his security.”
In conclusion Borrow calls attention, without suggesting intimate
alliance and co-operation, to the society of the liberal-minded Spanish
ecclesiastics, which has been formed for the purpose of printing and
circulating the Scriptures in Spanish _without commentary or notes_.
This had reference to a movement that was on foot in Madrid, supported by
the Primate and the Bishops of Vigo and Joen, to challenge the Government
in regard to its attempt to prevent the free circulation of the
Scriptures. It was held that nowhere among the laws of Spain is it
forbidden to circulate the Scriptures either with or without annotations.
The only prohibition being in the various Papal Bulls. Charles Wood was
chosen as “the ostensible manager of the concern”; but had it not been
for the trouble in the South, Borrow would have been the person selected.
It would have been in every way deplorable had Borrow severed his
connection with the Bible Society as a result of the Graydon episode.
Borrow had been impulsive and indignant in his letters to Earl Street, Mr
Brandram, on the other hand, had been “a little partial,” and on one or
two occasions must have written hastily in response to Borrow’s letters.
There is no object in administering blame or directing reproaches when
the principals in a quarrel have made up their differences; but there can
be no question that the failure of the Officials and Committee of the
Bible Society to appreciate the situation in Spain retarded their work in
that country very considerably. This fact is now generally recognised.
Mr Canton has admirably summed up the situation when he says:
“Borrow had his faults, but insincerity and lack of zeal in the cause
he had espoused were not among them. Both Sir George Villiers and
his successor [during Sir George’s visit to England], Lord William
Hervey, were satisfied with the propriety of his conduct. Count
Ofalia himself recognised his good faith—‘_cuia buena fé me es
conocida_.’ To see his plans thwarted, his work arrested, the
objects of the Society jeopardised, and his own person endangered by
the indiscretion of others, formed, if not a justification, at least
a sufficient excuse for the expression of strong feeling. On the
other hand, it was difficult for those at home to ascertain the
actual facts of the case, to understand the nicety of the situation,
and to arrive at an impartial judgment. Mr Brandram, who in any case
would have been displeased with Borrow’s unrestrained speech, appears
to have suspected that his statements were not free from
exaggeration, and that his discretion was not wholly beyond reproach.
Happily the tension caused by this painful episode was relieved by
Lieut. Graydon’s withdrawal to France in June.” {282}