The Life of George Borrow [150]
the whole of his Letters, as it is very probable that other points of interest which they contain may have been omitted in the narrative. Some of the most interesting letters relate to journies not given in the MS."
The work when it reached Ford was apparently in a very rough state. In addition to many mistakes in spelling and grammar, a number of words were left blank. In a vast number of instances short sentences were run together. Mrs Borrow does not appear to have been a very successful amanuensis at this period. Perhaps the most interesting indication of how much the manuscript, as first submitted, differed from the published work is shown by one of Ford's criticisms:-
"In the narrative there are at present two breaks--one from about March 1836 to June 1837 [Chapters XIII.-XX.],--and the other from November 1837 to July 1839 [Chapters XXXVI.-XLIX.]
This represents a third of the book as finally printed. Ford objected to the sudden ending; but Borrow made no alteration in this respect. There were a number of other suggestions of lesser importance in this admirable piece of technical criticism. Ford disliked Borrow's striving to create an air of mystery as "taking an unwarrantable liberty with the reader"; he suggested a map and a short biographical sketch of the author, and especially the nature of his connection with the Bible Society. Finally he gives it as his opinion that it is neither necessary nor advisable to insert any of his letters to the Bible Society, either in the body of the book or as an Appendix.
"The Dialogues are amongst the best parts of the book," Ford wrote; "but in several of them the tone of the speakers, of those especially who are in humble life, is too correct and elevated, and therefore out of character. This takes away from their effect. I think it would be very advisable that Mr Borrow should go over them with reference to this point, simplifying a few of the turns of expression and introducing a few contractions--don'ts, can'ts, etc. This would improve them greatly."
This criticism applies to all Borrow's books, in particular to the passages dealing with the Gypsies, who, in spite of their love of high-sounding words, which they frequently misuse, do not speak with the academic precision of Borrow's works any more than do peers or princes or even pedagogues. Borrow met Ford's criticism with the assurance that "the lower classes in Spain are generally elevated in their style and scarcely ever descend to vulgarity."
Borrow's first impulse appears to have been to disregard the suggestion that the two breaks should be filled in. On 13th Jan. he wrote to John Murray, Junr.:
"I have received the MS. and likewise your kind letter . . . Pray thank the Gentleman who perused the MS. in my name for his suggestions, which I will attend to. [By this it is clear that Borrow was not told that Ford was 'the Gentleman.'] I find that the MS. was full of trifling mistakes, the fault of my amanuensis; but I am going through it, and within three days shall have made all the necessary corrections."
No man, of however sanguine a temperament, could seriously contemplate the mere transcription of some eighty thousand words, in addition to the correction of twice that amount of manuscript, within three days. Nine days later Borrow wrote again to John Murray, Junr. "We are losing time; I have corrected seven hundred CONSECUTIVE pages of MS., and the remaining two hundred will be ready in a fortnight." That he had taken so long was due to the fact that the greater part of the preceding week had been occupied with other and more exciting matters than correcting manuscript.
"During the last week," he continues, "I have been chiefly engaged in horse-breaking. A most magnificent animal has found his way to this neighbourhood--a half-bred Arabian--he is at present in the hands of a low horse-dealer; he can be bought for eight pounds, but no person will have him; it is said that he kills everybody who mounts him. I have been CHARMING him, and have so far succeeded
The work when it reached Ford was apparently in a very rough state. In addition to many mistakes in spelling and grammar, a number of words were left blank. In a vast number of instances short sentences were run together. Mrs Borrow does not appear to have been a very successful amanuensis at this period. Perhaps the most interesting indication of how much the manuscript, as first submitted, differed from the published work is shown by one of Ford's criticisms:-
"In the narrative there are at present two breaks--one from about March 1836 to June 1837 [Chapters XIII.-XX.],--and the other from November 1837 to July 1839 [Chapters XXXVI.-XLIX.]
This represents a third of the book as finally printed. Ford objected to the sudden ending; but Borrow made no alteration in this respect. There were a number of other suggestions of lesser importance in this admirable piece of technical criticism. Ford disliked Borrow's striving to create an air of mystery as "taking an unwarrantable liberty with the reader"; he suggested a map and a short biographical sketch of the author, and especially the nature of his connection with the Bible Society. Finally he gives it as his opinion that it is neither necessary nor advisable to insert any of his letters to the Bible Society, either in the body of the book or as an Appendix.
"The Dialogues are amongst the best parts of the book," Ford wrote; "but in several of them the tone of the speakers, of those especially who are in humble life, is too correct and elevated, and therefore out of character. This takes away from their effect. I think it would be very advisable that Mr Borrow should go over them with reference to this point, simplifying a few of the turns of expression and introducing a few contractions--don'ts, can'ts, etc. This would improve them greatly."
This criticism applies to all Borrow's books, in particular to the passages dealing with the Gypsies, who, in spite of their love of high-sounding words, which they frequently misuse, do not speak with the academic precision of Borrow's works any more than do peers or princes or even pedagogues. Borrow met Ford's criticism with the assurance that "the lower classes in Spain are generally elevated in their style and scarcely ever descend to vulgarity."
Borrow's first impulse appears to have been to disregard the suggestion that the two breaks should be filled in. On 13th Jan. he wrote to John Murray, Junr.:
"I have received the MS. and likewise your kind letter . . . Pray thank the Gentleman who perused the MS. in my name for his suggestions, which I will attend to. [By this it is clear that Borrow was not told that Ford was 'the Gentleman.'] I find that the MS. was full of trifling mistakes, the fault of my amanuensis; but I am going through it, and within three days shall have made all the necessary corrections."
No man, of however sanguine a temperament, could seriously contemplate the mere transcription of some eighty thousand words, in addition to the correction of twice that amount of manuscript, within three days. Nine days later Borrow wrote again to John Murray, Junr. "We are losing time; I have corrected seven hundred CONSECUTIVE pages of MS., and the remaining two hundred will be ready in a fortnight." That he had taken so long was due to the fact that the greater part of the preceding week had been occupied with other and more exciting matters than correcting manuscript.
"During the last week," he continues, "I have been chiefly engaged in horse-breaking. A most magnificent animal has found his way to this neighbourhood--a half-bred Arabian--he is at present in the hands of a low horse-dealer; he can be bought for eight pounds, but no person will have him; it is said that he kills everybody who mounts him. I have been CHARMING him, and have so far succeeded