The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night, vol 14 by Sir Richard Francis Burton (the best books to read TXT) 📕

I have the honour to be, sir,

Yours obediently,

(Signed) RICHARD F. BURTON.”

“DR. R. ROST,

Chief Librarian, India Office.”

As nearly a month had elapsed without my receiving any reply, I directed the following to the Vice-Chancellor of the University, Rev. Dr. Bellamy:—

No. II.

ATHENAEUM CLUB, PALL MALL,

Oct. 13, 1886.

“Sir,

“I have the honour to submit to you the following details:—

“On September 13, 1886, I wrote to Dr. Rost, Chief Librarian, India Office, an official letter requesting him to apply to the Curators of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, for the temporary transfer of an Arabic Manuscript, No. 522 (the Wortley Montague text of the Arabian Nights) to the library of the India Office, there to be kept under special charge of the Chief Librarian.

There being seven volumes, I wanted only one or two at a time. I undertook not to keep them long, and, further, I pledged myself not to translate tales that might be deemed offensive to propriety.

“Thus, I did not apply for a personal loan of the MS. which, indeed, I should refuse on account of the responsibility which it would involve. I applied for the safe and temporary transfer of a work, volume by volume, from one public library to another.

“My official letter was forwarded at once by Dr. Rost, but this was the only expeditious step. On Saturday, September 25, the Curators could form no quorum; the same thing took place on Saturday, October 9; and there is a prospect that the same will take place on Saturday, October 23.

“I am acquainted with many of the public libraries of Europe, but I know of none that would throw such obstacles in the way of students.

“The best authorities inform me that until June, 1886, the signatures of two Curators enabled a student to borrow a book or a manuscript; but that since June a meeting of three Curators has been required; and that a lesser number does not form a quorum.

“May I be permitted to suggest that the statute upon the subject of borrowing books and manuscripts urgently calls for revision?

I have the honour to be, sir,

Yours obediently,

(Signed) RICHARD F. BURTON.

“THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, OXFORD.”

The Curators presently met and the following was the highly unsatisfactory result which speaks little for “Bodleian” kindness or courtesy:—

No. III.

Monday, Nov. 1, 1886.

“DEAR SIR RICHARD BURTON,

“The Curators considered your application on Saturday, Oct. 30, afternoon, and the majority of them were unwilling to lend the MS[FN#420]

Yours very truly,

(Signed) EDWARD B. NICHOLSON.”

Learning through a private source that my case had been made an unpleasant exception to a long-standing rule of precedent, and furthermore that it had been rendered peculiarly invidious by an act of special favour,[FN#421] I again addressed the Vice-Chancellor, as follows:—

No. IV.

23, DORSET STREET, PORTMAN SQUARE,

November 3rd, 1886.

“Sir,

“I have the honour to remind you that, on October 13, I communicated with you officially requesting a temporary transfer of the Wortley Montague manuscript (Arabian Nights) from the Bodleian Library to the personal care of the Librarian, India Office.

“To this letter I received no reply. But on November 1, I was informed by Mr. Librarian Nicholson that the Curators had considered my application on Saturday, October 30, and that the majority of them were unwilling to lend the manuscript.

“The same Curators at the same meeting allowed sundry manuscripts for the use of an Indian subject to be sent to the India Office.

“I cannot but protest against this invidious proceeding, and I would willingly learn what cause underlies it.

“1. It cannot be the importance of the manuscript, which is one of the meanest known to me—written in a schoolmaster character, a most erroneous, uncorrected text, and valuable only for a few new tales.

“2. It cannot be any consideration of public morals, for I undertook (if the loan were granted) not to translate tales which might be considered offensive to strict propriety.

“3. It cannot be its requirement for local use. The manuscript stands on an upper shelf in the manuscript room, and not one man in the whole so-called ‘University’ can read it.

I have the honour to be, sir,

Yours obediently,

RICHARD F. BURTON.”

“THE VlCE-CHANCELLOR, OXFORD.”

In due time came the reply:—

No. V.

ST. JOHN’S COLLEGE, OXFORD,

November 6th, 1886.

“Dear Sir,

“I will remove from your mind the belief that I treated your former letter with discourtesy.

“I may say, that it did not appear to me to contain any question or request which I could answer. You informed me that you had made formal application in September for a loan of MSS., and your letter was to complain of the delay in considering this request.

You told me that you had learned from the Librarian the cause of the delay (the want of a quorum), and that he had intimated that there would probably be no meeting formed before October 30th.

“You complained of this, and suggested that the statute regulating the lending of the Bodleian books should be speedily revised.

“As I had no power to make a quorum, nor to engage that your suggestion should be adopted; and as your letter made no demand for any further information, I thought it best to reserve it for the meeting of the 30th, when I communicated it to the Curators.

“I will lay the letter (dated November 3rd), with which you have favoured me, before the next meeting of the Curators.

I beg to remain,

Yours faithfully,

(Signed) J. BELLAMY.”

“SIR R. F. BURTON.”

To resume this part of the subject.

The following dates show that I was kept waiting six weeks before being finally favoured with the curtest of refusals: Application made on September 13th, and sent on.

On Saturday, September 25th, Curators could not form quorum, and deferred next meeting till Saturday, October 9th.

Saturday, October 9th. Again no quorum; and yet it might easily have been formed, as three Curators were on or close to the spot.

Saturday, October 23rd. Six Curators met and did nothing.

Saturday, October 30th. Curators met and refused me the loan of MS.

My letter addressed to the Vice-Chancellor was read, and notice was given for Saturday (December 3rd, 1886) of a motion, “That the MS. required by Sir R. F. Burton be lent to him”—and I was not to be informed of the matter unless the move were successful.

Of course it failed. One of the Curators (who are the delegates and servants of Convocation) was mortally offended by my letter to “The Academy,” and showed the normal smallness of the official mind by opposing me simply because I told the truth concerning the laches of his “learned body.”

Meanwhile I had addressed the following note to the Most Honourable the Chancellor of the University.[FN#422]

23, DORSET STREET, PORTMAN SQUARE,

November 30th, 1886.

“MY LORD,

“I deeply regret that the peculiar proceedings of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, necessitate a reference to a higher authority with the view of eliciting some explanation.

“The correspondence which has passed between the Curators of the Bodleian Library and myself will be found in the accompanying printed paper.

“Here it may be noticed that the Committee of the Orientalist Congress, Vienna, is preparing to memorialise H.M.‘s Secretary of State, praying that Parliament will empower the British Museum to lend out Oriental MSS. under proper guarantees. The same measure had been proposed at the Leyden Congress of 1883; and thus an extension, rather than a contraction of the loan-system has found favour with European savants.[FN#423]

“I believe, my Lord, that a new statute upon the subject of the Bodleian loans of books and MSS. is confessedly required, and that it awaits only the initiative of the Chancellor of the University, without whose approval it cannot be passed.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) RICHARD F. BURTON.”

“THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE CHANCELLOR.”

My object being only publicity I was not disappointed by the following reply:—

HATFIELD HOUSE, HATFIELD, HERTS,

December 1st, 1886.

“DEAR SIR RICHARD,

“I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 30th of November with enclosure.

“I have, however, no power over the Bodleian Library, and, therefore, I am unable to assist you.

Yours, very truly,

(Signed) SALISBURY.”

“SIR RICHARD F. BURTON, K.C.M.G.”

On January 29, 1887, there was another “Bodleian Meeting,” all the Curators save one being present and showing evident symptoms of business. The last application on the list of loans entered on the Agenda paper ran thus:—

V MS. Bodl. Vols. 550-556 to the British Museum (the 7 vols.

successively) for the use of Mr. F. F. Arbuthnot’s Agent.

[The MS. lately refused to Sir R. Burton. Mr. Arbuthnot wishes to have it copied.]

It was at once removed by the Regius Professor of Divinity (Dr.

Ince) and carried nem. con. that, until the whole question of lending Bodleian books and MSS. then before Council, be definitely settled, no applications be entertained; and thus Professor Van Helton, Bernard Kolbach and Mr. Arbuthnot were doomed, like myself, to be disappointed.

On January 31, 1887, a hebdomadal Council was called to deliberate about a new lending statute for submission to Convocation; and an amendment was printed in the “Oxford University Gazette.” It proposed that the Curators by a vote of two-thirds of their body, and at least six forming a quorum, might lend books or MSS. to students, whether graduates or not; subject, when the loans were of special value, to the consent of Convocation. Presently the matter was discussed in “The Times”

(January 25th; April 28th; and May 31st), which simply re-echoed the contention of Mr. Chandler’s vigorous pamphlets.[FN#424]

Despite the letters of its correspondent “F. M. M.” (May 6th, 1887), a “host in himself,” who ought to have added the authority of his name to the sensible measures which he propounded, the leading journal took a sentimental view of “Bodley’s incomparable library” and strongly advocated its being relegated to comparative inutility.

On May 31, 1887, an amendment practically forbidding all loans came before the House. In vain Professor Freeman declared that a book is not an idol but a tool which must wear out sooner or later. To no purpose Bodley’s Librarian proved that of 460,000

printed volumes in the collection only 460 had been lent out, and of these only one had been lost. THE AMENDMENT FORBIDDING THE

PRACTICE OF LENDING WAS CARRIED BY 106 VOTES TO 60.

Personally I am not dissatisfied with this proceeding. It is retrograde legislation befitting the days when books were chained to the desks. It suffers from a fatal symptom—the weakness of extreme measures. And the inevitable result in the near future will be a strong reaction: Convocation will presently be compelled to adopt some palliation for the evil created by its own folly.

The next move added meanness to inertness. I do not blame Mr. E.

B. Nicholson, Bodley’s Librarian, because he probably had orders to write the following choice specimen: 30/3/1887.

“DEAR SIR RICHARD BURTON,

“I have received two vols. of four (read six) ‘Supplemental Nights’ with a subscription form. If a Bodleian MS. is to be copied for any volume, I must stipulate that that volume be supplied to us gratis. Either my leave or