The Romany Rye E-Book

George Borrow

• Herausgeber: George Borrow
• Kategorie: Gesellschafts- und Liebesromane
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017

Beschreibung

The Romany Rye: A sequel to "Lavengro" written by George Borrow who was an English writer of novels and of travel books based on his own experiences in Europe. This book is one of many works by him. It has already Published in 1857. Now republish in ebook format. We believe this work is culturally important in its original archival form. While we strive to adequately clean and digitally enhance the original work, there are occasionally instances where imperfections such as blurred or missing pages, poor pictures or errant marks may have been introduced due to either the quality of the original work. Despite these occasional imperfections, we have brought it back into print as part of our ongoing global book preservation commitment, providing customers with access to the best possible historical reprints. We appreciate your understanding of these occasional imperfections, and sincerely hope you enjoy reading this book.

Leseprobe

The Romany Rye

A sequel to "Lavengro"

By

George Borrow

Editor: Theodore Watts-Dunton

Table of Contents

ADVERTISMENTS

IN DEFENCE OF BORROW.

CHAPTER_I

CHAPTER_II

CHAPTER_III

CHAPTER_IV

CHAPTER_V

CHAPTER_VI

CHAPTER_VII

CHAPTER_VIII

CHAPTER_IX

CHAPTER_X

CHAPTER_XI

CHAPTER_XII

CHAPTER_XIII

CHAPTER_XIV

CHAPTER_XV

CHAPTER_XVI

CHAPTER_XVII

CHAPTER_XVIII

CHAPTER_XIX

CHAPTER_XX

CHAPTER_XXI

CHAPTER_XXII

CHAPTER_XXIII

CHAPTER_XXIV

CHAPTER_XXV

CHAPTER_XXVI

CHAPTER_XXVII

CHAPTER_XXVIII

CHAPTER_XXIX

CHAPTER_XXX

CHAPTER_XXXI

CHAPTER_XXXII

CHAPTER_XXXIII

CHAPTER_XXXIV

CHAPTER_XXXV

CHAPTER_XXXVI

CHAPTER_XXXVII

CHAPTER_XXXVIII

CHAPTER_XXXIX

CHAPTER_XL

CHAPTER_XLI

CHAPTER_XLII

CHAPTER_XLIII

CHAPTER_XLIV

CHAPTER_XLV

CHAPTER_XLVI

CHAPTER_XLVII

APPENDIX

FOOTNOTES

ADVERTISEMENT.

It having been frequently stated in print that the book called “Lavengro” was got up expressly against the popish agitation, in the years 1850-51, the author takes this opportunity of saying that the principal part of that book was written in the year ’43, that the whole of it was completed before the termination of the year ’46, and that it was in the hands of the publisher in the year ’48.  And here he cannot forbear observing, that it was the duty of that publisher to have rebutted a statement which he knew to be a calumny; and also to have set the public right on another point dealt with in the Appendix to the present work, more especially as he was the proprietor of a review enjoying, however undeservedly, a certain sale and reputation.

      “But take your own part, boy!For if you don’t, no one will take it for you.”

With respect to “Lavengro,” the author feels that he has no reason to be ashamed of it.  In writing that book he did his duty, by pointing out to his country people the nonsense which, to the greater part of them, is as the breath of their nostrils, and which, if indulged in, as it probably will be, to the same extent as hitherto, will, within a very few years, bring the land which he most loves beneath a foreign yoke: he does not here allude to the yoke of Rome.

Instead of being ashamed, has he not rather cause to be proud of a book which has had the honour of being rancorously abused and execrated by the very people of whom the country has least reason to be proud?

One day Cogia Efendy went to a bridal festival.  The masters of the feast, observing his old and coarse apparel, paid him no consideration whatever.  The Cogia saw that he had no chance of notice; so going out, he hurried to his house, and, putting on a splendid pelisse, returned to the place of festival.  No sooner did he enter the door than the masters advanced to meet him, and saying, “Welcome, Cogia Efendy,” with all imaginable honour and reverence, placed him at the head of the table, and said, “Please to eat, Lord Cogia.”  Forthwith the Cogia, taking hold of one of the furs of his pelisse, said, “Welcome, my pelisse; please to eat, my lord.”  The masters looking at the Cogia with great surprise, said, “What are you about?”  Whereupon the Cogia replied, “As it is quite evident that all the honour paid is paid to my pelisse, I think it ought to have some food too.”—Pleasantries of the Cogia Nasr Eddin Efendi.

IN DEFENCE OF BORROW.

When the publishers of “The Minerva Library” invited me to write a few introductory words to this edition of Borrow’s “Romany Rye,” I hesitated at first about undertaking the task.  For, notwithstanding the kind reception that my “Notes upon George Borrow” prefixed to their edition of “Lavengro” met with from the public and the Press, I shrank from associating again my own name with the name of a friend who is now an English classic.  But no sooner had I determined not to say any more about my relations with Borrow than circumstances arose that impelled me, as a matter of duty, to do so.  Ever since the publication of Dr. Knapp’s memoirs of Borrow attacks upon his memory have been appearing—attacks which only those who knew him can repel.

His has indeed been a fantastic fate!  When the shortcomings of any illustrious man save Borrow are under discussion, “les défauts de ses qualités” is the criticism—wise as charitable—which they evoke.  Yes, each one is allowed to have his angularities save Borrow.  Each one is allowed to show his own pet unpleasant facets of character now and then—allowed to show them as inevitable foils to the pleasant ones—save Borrow.  His weaknesses no one ever condones.  During his lifetime his faults were for ever chafing and irritating his acquaintances, and now that he and they are all dead these faults of his seem to be chafing and irritating people of another generation.  A fantastic fate, I say, for him who was so interesting to some of us!

One writer assails him on account of his own ill-judged and unwarrantable attacks upon a far greater man than himself—Sir Walter Scott; another on account of his “no-popery” diatribes; another on account of his amusing anger over “Charley o’er the Waterism.”

When Mr. Murray’s new and admirable edition of “The Romany Rye” came out this year, a review of the book appeared in the Daily Chronicle, in which vitality was given—given by one of the most genial as well as brilliant and picturesque writers of our time—to all the old misrepresentations of Borrow and also to a good many new ones.  The fact that this review came from so distinguished a writer as Dr. Jessopp lends it an importance and a permanency that cannot be ignored.  To me it gave a twofold pain to read that review, for it was written by a man for whom I have a very special regard.  I cannot claim Dr. Jessopp as a personal friend, but I have once or twice met him; and, assuredly, to spend any time in his society without being greatly attracted by him is impossible.  I must say that I consider it quite lamentable that he who can hardly himself have seen much if anything of Borrow should have breathed the anti-Borrovian atmosphere of Norwich—should have been brought into contact with people there and in Norfolk generally who did know Borrow and who disliked, because they did not understand, him.

Lest it should be supposed that in writing with such warmth I am unduly biassed in favour of Borrow I print here a letter I received concerning that same review of Dr. Jessopp’s.  It is written by one who has with me enjoyed many a delightful walk with Borrow in Richmond Park—one who knew Borrow many years ago—long before I did—Dr. Gordon Hake’s son—Mr. Thomas St. E. Hake, the author of “Within Sound of the Weir,” and other successful novels, and a well-known writer in Chambers’s Journal.

Craigmore, Bulstrode Road,Hounslow, W.May 15, 1900.

My Dear Watts-Dunton,—You will remember that when I congratulated you upon the success of your two gypsy books I prophesied that now there would be a boom of the gypsies: and I was right it seems.  For you will see by the enclosed newspaper cutting that in Surrey a regular trade is going on in caravans for gypsy gentlemen.  And “Lavengro” and “The Romany Rye” are going, I see, into lots of new editions.  I know how this must gratify you.  But I write to ask you whether you have seen the extremely bitter attack upon Borrow’s memory which has appeared in the Daily Chronicle.  The writer is a man I must surely have heard you mention with esteem—Dr. Jessopp.  It is a review of Murray’s new edition of “The Romany Rye.”  In case you have not seen it I send you a cutting from it for you to judge for yourself. [0a]

Was there ever anything so unjust as this?  As to what he says about Borrow’s being without animal passion, I fancy that the writer must have misread certain printed words of yours in which you say, “Supposing Borrow to have been physically drawn towards any woman, could she possibly have been a Romany? Would she not rather have been of the Scandinavian type?”  But I am quite sure that, when you said this, you did not intend to suggest that he was “the Narses of Literature.”  As to his dislike of children, I have heard you say how interested he used to seem in the presence of gypsy children, and I especially remember one anecdote of yours about the interest he took in a child that he thought was being injured by the mother’s smoking.  And did you not get that lovely anecdote about the gypsy child weeping in the churchyard because the poor dead gorgios could not hear the church chimes from something he told you?  But I can speak from personal experience about his feeling towards children that were not gypsies.  When our family lived at Bury St. Edmunds, in the fifties, my father, as you know, was one of Borrow’s most intimate friends, and he was frequently at our house, and Borrow and my father were a good deal in correspondence (as Dr. Knapp’s book shows) and my impression of Borrow is exactly the contrary of that which it would be if he in the least resembled Dr. Jessopp’s description of him.  At that time George was in the nursery and I was a child.  He took a wonderfully kind interest in us all; * * * * * * * * but the one he took most notice of was George, chiefly because he was a very big, massive child.  It was then that he playfully christened him “Hales,” because he said that the child would develop into a second “Norfolk giant.”  You will remember that he always addressed George by that pet name.  But what do you think of Dr. Jessopp’s saying that Borrow’s voice was not that of a man?  You yourself have spoken in some of your writings—I don’t exactly remember where and when—of the “trumpet-like clearness” of Borrow’s voice.  As to his being beardless and therefore the “Narses of Literature” it is difficult to imagine that a man of intelligence, as I suppose Dr. Jessopp is, can really think virility depends upon the growth of a man’s whiskers, as no doubt ignorant people often do.  I should have thought that a man who knew Norfolk well would know that it is notable for its beardless giants of great power.  I really think that, as Borrow’s most intimate friend in his latest years (I mean after my father left Roehampton for Germany), it is your duty to write something and stand up for the dear old boy, and you are the one man now who can defend him and do him justice.  I assure you that the last time that I ever saw him his talk was a good deal about yourself.  I remember the occasion very well; it was just outside the Bank of England, when he was returning from one of those mysterious East-end expeditions that you wot of: he was just partially recovering from that sad accident which you have somewhere alluded to.  As to Dr. Jessopp, it is clear from his remarks upon a friend of Borrow’s—the Rev. Mr. John Gunn, of Norwich, that he never saw Borrow.  Gunn, he says, was of colossal frame and must have been in his youth quite an inch taller than Borrow.  And then he goes on to say that Gunn’s arm was as big as an ordinary man’s thigh.  Now you and I and George, are specially competent to speak of Borrow’s physical development, for we have been with Borrow when at seventy years of age he would bathe in a pond covered with thin ice.  He then stood six feet four and his muscles were as fully developed as those of a young man in training.  If Gunn was a more colossal man than Borrow he certainly ought to have been put into a show.  But you should read the entire article, and I wish I had preserved it.

Yours ever affectionately,Thomas St. E. Hake.

I consider this an interesting document to all Borrovians.  There are only two things in it which I have to challenge.  I infer that Mr. Hake shares the common mistake of supposing Borrow to have been an East Anglian.  Not that this is surprising, seeing that Borrow himself shared the same mistake—a mistake upon which I have on a previous occasion remarked.  I have said elsewhere that one might as well call Charlotte Brontë a Yorkshire woman as call Borrow an East Anglian.  He was, of course, no more an East Anglian than an Irishman born in London is an Englishman.  He had at bottom no East Anglian characteristics, and this explains the Norfolk prejudice against him.  He inherited nothing from Norfolk save his accent—unless it were that love of “leg of mutton and turnips” which Mr. Hake and I have so often seen exemplified.  The reason why Borrow was so misjudged in Norfolk was, as I have hinted above, that the racial characteristics of the Celt and the East Anglian clashed too severely.  Yet he is a striking illustration of the way in which the locality that has given birth to a man influences his imagination throughout his life.  His father, a Cornishman of a good middle-class family, had been obliged, owing to a youthful escapade, to leave his native place and enlist as a common soldier.  Afterwards he became a recruiting officer, and moved about from one part of Great Britain and Ireland to another.  It so chanced that while staying at East Dereham, in Norfolk, he met and fell in love with a lady of French extraction.  Not one drop of East Anglian blood was in the veins of Borrow’s father, and very little in the veins of his mother.  Borrow’s ancestry was pure Cornish on one side, and on the other mainly French.  But such was the egotism of Borrow—perhaps I should have said, such is the egotism of human nature—that the fact of his having been born in East Anglia made him look upon that part of the world as the very hub of the universe.  East Anglia, however, seems to have cherished a very different feeling towards Borrow.  Another mistake of Mr. Hake’s is in supposing that Borrow gave me the lovely incident of the gypsy child weeping in the churchyard because “the poor dead gorgios could not hear the church bells.”  As this mistake has been shared by others, and has appeared in print, I may as well say that it was a real incident in the life of a well-known Romany chi, from whom I have this very morning received a charming letter dated from “the van in the field,” where she has settled for the winter.

The anecdote about Borrow and the gypsy child who was, or seemed to be, suffering through the mother’s excessive love of her pipe can very appropriately be introduced here, and I am glad that Mr. Hake has recalled it to my mind.  It shows not only Borrow’s relations to childhood, but also his susceptibility to those charms of womankind to which Dr. Jessopp thinks he was impervious.  Borrow was fond of telling this story himself, in support of his anti-tobacco bias.  Whenever he was told, as he sometimes was, that what brought on the “horrors” when he lived alone in the dingle, was the want of tobacco, this story was certain to come up.

One lovely morning in the late summer, just before the trees were clothed with what is called “gypsy gold,” and the bright green of the foliage showed scarcely a touch of bronze—at that very moment, indeed, when the spirits of all the wild flowers that have left the common and the hedgerow seem to come back for an hour and mingle their half-forgotten perfumes with the new breath of calamint, ground-ivy, and pimpernel, he and a friend were walking towards a certain camp of gryengroes well known to them both.  They were bound upon a quaint expedition.  Will the reader “be surprised to learn” that it was connected with Matthew Arnold and a race in which he took a good deal of interest, the gypsies?

Borrow, whose attention had been only lately directed by his friend to “The Scholar Gypsy,” had declared that there was scarcely any latter-day poetry worth reading, and also that whatever the merits of Matthew Arnold’s poem might be from any supposed artistic point of view, it showed that Arnold had no conception of the Romany temper, and that no gypsy who ever lived could sympathise with it, or even understand its motive in the least degree.  Borrow’s friend had challenged this, contending that howsoever Arnold’s classic language might soar above a gypsy’s intelligence, the motive was so clearly developed that the most illiterate person could grasp it.  This was why in company with Borrow he was now going (with a copy of Arnold’s poems in his pocket) to try “The Scholar Gypsy” upon the first intelligent gypsy woman they should meet at the camp: as to gypsy men, “they were,” said Borrow, “too prosaic to furnish a fair test.”

As they were walking along, Borrow’s eyes, which were as long-sighted as a gypsy’s, perceived a white speck in a twisted old hawthorn bush some distance off.  He stopped and said: “At first I thought that white speck in the bush was a piece of paper, but it’s a magpie,” next to the water-wagtail the gypsies’ most famous bird.  On going up to the bush they discovered a magpie crouched among the leaves.  As it did not stir at their approach, Borrow’s friend said to him: “It is wounded—or else dying—or is it a tame bird escaped from a cage?”

“Hawk!” said Borrow, laconically, and turned up his face and gazed into the sky.  “The magpie is waiting till the hawk has caught his quarry and made his meal.  I fancy he has himself been ‘chivvied’ by the hawk, as the gypsies would say.”

And there, sure enough, beneath one of the silver clouds that specked the dazzling blue a hawk—one of the kind which takes its prey in the open rather than in the thick woodlands—was wheeling up and up, and trying its best to get above a poor little lark in order to stoop at and devour it.  That the magpie had seen the hawk and had been a witness of the opening of the tragedy of the lark was evident, for in its dread of the common foe of all well-intentioned and honest birds, it had forgotten its fear of all creatures except the hawk.  Man it looked upon as a protecting friend.

As Borrow and his friend were gazing at the bird a woman’s voice at their elbows said—

“It’s lucky to chivvy the hawk what chivvies a magpie.  I shall stop here till the hawk’s flew away.”

They turned round, and there stood a magnificent gypsy woman, carrying, gypsy fashion, a weakly child that, in spite of its sallow and wasted cheek, proclaimed itself to be hers.  By her side stood a young gypsy girl of about seventeen years of age.  She was beautiful—quite remarkably so—but her beauty was not of the typical Romany kind.  It was, perhaps, more like the beauty of a Capri girl.

She was bareheaded—there was not even a gypsy handkerchief on her head—her hair was not plaited, and was not smooth and glossy like a gypsy girl’s hair, but flowed thick and heavy and rippling down the back of her neck and upon her shoulders.  In the tumbled tresses glittered certain objects, which at first sight seemed to be jewels.  They were small dead dragon-flies of the crimson kind called “sylphs.”

To Borrow and his friend these gypsies were well known.  The woman with the child was one of the Boswells: I dare not say what was her connection, if any, with “Boswell the Great”—I mean Sylvester Boswell, the grammarian and “well-known and popalated gipsy of Codling Gap,” who, on a memorable occasion, wrote so eloquently about the superiority of the gypsy mode of life to all others “on the accont of health, sweetness of air, and for enjoying the pleasure of Nature’s life.”  But this I do remember—that it was the very same Perpinia Boswell whose remarkable Christian name has lately been made the subject of inquiry in The Guardian.  The other gypsy, the girl of the dragon-flies, I prefer to leave nameless here.

After greeting the two, Borrow looked at the weakling child with the deepest interest, and said, “This chavo ought not to look like that—with such a mother as you, Perpinia.”

“And with such a daddy, too,” said she.  “Mike’s stronger for a man nor even I am for a woman”—a glow of wifely pride passing over her face; “and as to good looks, it’s him as is got the good looks, not me.  But none on us can’t make it out about the chavo.  He’s so weak and sick he don’t look as if he belonged to Boswells’ breed at all.”

“How many pipes of tobacco do you smoke in a day?” said Borrow’s friend, looking at the great black cutty pipe protruding from Perpinia’s finely cut lips, and seeming strangely out of place there.

“Can’t say,” said she, laughing.

“About as many as she can afford to buy,” interrupted her companion—“that’s all.  Mike don’t like her a-smokin’.  He says it makes her look like a old Londra Irish woman in Common Garding Market.”

“You must not smoke another pipe,” said Borrow’s friend to the mother—“not another pipe till the child leaves the breast.”

“What?” said Perpinia defiantly.  “As if I could live without my pipe!”

“Fancy Pep a-livin’ without her baccy,” laughed the girl of the dragon-flies.

“Your child can’t live with it,” said Borrow’s friend to Perpinia.  “That pipe of yours is full of a poison called nicotine.”

“Nick what?” said the girl, laughing.  “That’s a new kind o’ Nick.  Why, you smoke yourself!”

“Nicotine,” said Borrow’s friend; “and the first part of Pep’s body that the poison gets into is her breast, and—”

“Gets into my burk?” said Perpinia; “get along wi’ ye.”

“Yes.”

“Do it pison Pep’s milk?” said the girl.

“Yes.”

“That ain’t true,” said Perpinia; “can’t be true.”

“It is true,” said Borrow’s friend.  “If you don’t give up that pipe for a time the child will die, or else be a rickety thing all his life.  If you do give it up, it will grow up to be as fine a Romany chal as Mike himself.”

“Chavo agin pipe, Pep,” said the girl.

“Lend me your pipe, Perpinia,” said Borrow, in that hail-fellow-well-met tone of his which he reserved for the Romanies—a tone which no Romany could ever resist.  And he took it gently from the woman’s lips.  “Don’t smoke any more till I come to the camp and see the chavo again.”

The woman looked very angry at first.

“He be’s a good friend to the Romanies,” said the girl in an appeasing tone.

“That’s true,” said the woman, “but he’s no business to take my pipe out o’ my mouth for all that.”

She soon began to smile again, however, and let Borrow retain the pipe.  Borrow and his friend then moved away towards the dusty high-road leading to the camp, and were joined by the young girl.  Perpinia remained, keeping guard over the magpie that was to bring luck to the sinking child.

It was determined now that the young girl was the very person to be used as the test-critic of the Romany mind upon Arnold’s poem, for she was exceptionally intelligent.  So instead of going to the camp the oddly assorted little party of three struck across the ferns, gorse, and heather towards “Kingfisher brook,” and when they reached it they sat down on a fallen tree.

Nothing delights a gypsy girl so much as to listen to a story either told or read to her, and when Borrow’s friend pulled his book from his pocket the gypsy girl began to clap her hands.  Her anticipation of enjoyment sent over her face a warm glow, and I can assure Dr. Jessopp that Borrow (notwithstanding that his admiration of women was confined as a rule to blondes of the Isopel Berners type) seemed as much struck by her beauty as ever the Doctor could be himself.  To say the truth, he frequently talked of it afterwards.  Her complexion, though darker than an English girl’s, was rather lighter than any ordinary gypsy’s.  Her eyes were of an indescribable hue, but an artist who has since then painted her portrait for Borrow’s friend described it as a mingling of pansy-purple and dark tawny.  The pupils were so large that, being set in the somewhat almond-shaped and long-eyelashed lids of her race, they were partly curtained both above and below, and this had the peculiar effect of making the eyes seem always a little contracted and just about to smile.  The great size and deep richness of the eyes made the straight little nose seem smaller than it really was, they also lessened the apparent size of the mouth, which, red as a rosebud, looked quite small until she laughed when the white teeth made quite a wide glitter.

“The beauty of that girl,” murmured Borrow, “is really quite—quite—”

I don’t know what the sentence would have been had it been finished.

Before three lines of the poem had been read she jumped up and cried, “Look at the Devil’s needles.  They’re come to sew my eyes up for killing their brothers.”

And surely enough a gigantic dragon-fly, whose body-armour of sky-blue and jet black, and great lace-woven wings, shining like a rainbow gauze, caught the sun as he swept dazzling by, did really seem to be attracted either by the wings of his dead brothers or by the lights shed from the girl’s eyes.

“I dussn’t set here,” said she.  “Us Romanies call this ‘Dragon-fly brook.’  And that’s the king o’ the dragon-flies: he lives here.”

As she rose she seemed to be surrounded by dragon-flies of about a dozen different species of all sizes, some crimson, some bronze, some green and gold, whirling and dancing round her as if they meant to justify their Romany name and sew up the girl’s eyes.

“The Romanies call them the Devil’s needles,” said Borrow; “their business is to sew up pretty girl’s eyes.”

In a second, however, they all vanished, and the girl after a while sat down again to listen to the “lil,” as she called the story.

Glanville’s prose story, upon which Arnold’s poem is based, was read first.  In this the girl was much interested.  She herself was in love with a Romany Rye.  But when the reader went on to read to her Arnold’s poem, though her eyes flashed now and then at the lovely bits of description—for the country about Oxford is quite remarkably like the country in which she was born—she looked sadly bewildered, and then asked to have it all read again.  After a second reading she said in a meditative way, “Can’t make out what the lil’s all about—seems all about nothink!  Seems to me that the pretty sights what makes a Romany fit to jump out o’ her skin for joy makes this ’ere gorgio want to cry.  What a rum lot gorgios is surely!”

And then she sprang up and ran off towards the camp with the agility of a greyhound, turning round every few moments, pirouetting and laughing aloud.

“The beauty of that girl,” Borrow again murmured, “is quite—quite—”

Again he did not finish his sentence, but after a while said—

“That was all true about the nicotine?”

“Partly, I think,” said his friend, “but not being a medical man I must not be too emphatic.  If it is true it ought to be a criminal offence for any woman to smoke in excess while she is suckling a child.”

“Say it ought to be a criminal offence for a woman to smoke at all,” growled Borrow.  “Fancy kissing a woman’s mouth that smelt of stale tobacco—pheugh!”

Now, so far from forgetting this incident, Borrow took quite as much interest in the case as though the child had been his own.  He went at short intervals to the camp to see Perpinia, who had abandoned her pipe, for the time being.  And when after a fortnight the child, either from Perpinia’s temporary abstention from nicotine, or through the “good luck” sent by the magpie, or from some other cause began to recover from its illness, he reported progress with the greatest gusto to his friend.

“Is not Perpinia very grateful to you and to me?” said the friend.

“Yes,” said Borrow, with a twinkle in his eye.  “She manages to feel grateful to you and me for making her give up the pipe, and also to believe at the same time that her child was saved by the good luck that came to her because she guarded the magpie.”

If it were needful to furnish other instances of Borrow’s interest in children, and also of his susceptibility to feminine charms, I could easily furnish them.  As to the “rancorous hatred that smouldered in that sad heart of his,” in spite of all his oddities, all his “cantankerousness,” to use one of his own words, he was a singularly steadfast and loyal friend.  Indeed, it was the very steadfastness of his friendship that drove him to perpetrate that outrage at Mr. Bevan’s house, recorded in Dr. Gordon Hake’s “Memoirs.”  I need only recall the way in which he used to speak of those who had been kind to him (such as his publisher, Mr. John Murray for instance) to show that no one could be more loyal or more grateful than he who has been depicted as the incarnation of all that is spiteful, fussy, and mean.  There is no need for the world to be told here that the author of “Lavengro” is a delightful writer, and one who is more sure than most authors of his time to win that little span of life which writing men call “immortality.”  But if there is need for the world to be told further that George Borrow was a good man, that he was a most winsome and a most charming companion, that he was an English gentleman, straightforward, honest, and brave as the very best exemplars of that fine old type, the world is now told so—told so by two of the few living men who can speak of him with authority, the writer of the above letter and myself.

THEODORE WATTS-DUNTON.

CHAPTER I.

THE MAKING OF THE LINCH-PIN—THE SOUND SLEEPER—BREAKFAST—THE POSTILLION’S DEPARTURE.

I awoke at the first break of day, and, leaving the postillion fast asleep, stepped out of the tent.  The dingle was dank and dripping.  I lighted a fire of coals, and got my forge in readiness.  I then ascended to the field, where the chaise was standing as we had left it on the previous evening.  After looking at the cloud-stone near it, now cold, and split into three pieces, I set about prying narrowly into the condition of the wheel and axle-tree—the latter had sustained no damage of any consequence, and the wheel, as far as I was able to judge, was sound, being only slightly injured in the box.  The only thing requisite to set the chaise in a travelling condition appeared to be a linch-pin, which I determined to make.  Going to the companion wheel, I took out the linch-pin, which I carried down with me to the dingle, to serve me as a model.

I found Belle by this time dressed, and seated near the forge: with a slight nod to her like that which a person gives who happens to see an acquaintance when his mind is occupied with important business, I forthwith set about my work.  Selecting a piece of iron which I thought would serve my purpose, I placed it in the fire, and plying the bellows in a furious manner, soon made it hot; then seizing it with the tongs, I laid it on my anvil, and began to beat it with my hammer, according to the rules of my art.  The dingle resounded with my strokes.  Belle sat still, and occasionally smiled, but suddenly started up and retreated towards her encampment, on a spark which I purposely sent in her direction alighting on her knee.  I found the making of a linch-pin no easy matter; it was, however, less difficult than the fabrication of a pony-shoe; my work, indeed, was much facilitated by my having another pin to look at.  In about three-quarters of an hour I had succeeded tolerably well, and had produced a linch-pin which I thought would serve.  During all this time, notwithstanding the noise which I was making, the postillion never showed his face.  His non-appearance at first alarmed me: I was afraid he might be dead, but, on looking into the tent, I found him still buried in the soundest sleep.  “He must surely be descended from one of the seven sleepers,” said I, as I turned away and resumed my work.  My work finished, I took a little oil, leather, and sand, and polished the pin as well as I could; then, summoning Belle, we both went to the chaise, where, with her assistance, I put on the wheel.  The linch-pin which I had made fitted its place very well, and having replaced the other, I gazed at the chaise for some time with my heart full of that satisfaction which results from the consciousness of having achieved a great action; then, after looking at Belle in the hope of obtaining a compliment from her lips, which did not come, I returned to the dingle, without saying a word, followed by her.  Belle set about making preparations for breakfast; and I, taking the kettle, went and filled it at the spring.  Having hung it over the fire, I went to the tent in which the postillion was still sleeping, and called upon him to arise.  He awoke with a start, and stared around him at first with the utmost surprise, not unmixed, I could observe, with a certain degree of fear.  At last, looking in my face, he appeared to recollect himself.  “I had quite forgot,” said he, as he got up, “where I was, and all that happened yesterday.  However, I remember now the whole affair, thunder-storm, thunder-bolt, frightened horses, and all your kindness.  Come, I must see after my coach and horses; I hope we shall be able to repair the damage.”  “The damage is already quite repaired,” said I, “as you will see, if you come to the field above.”  “You don’t say so,” said the postillion, coming out of the tent; “well, I am mightily beholden to you.  Good morning, young gentlewoman,” said he, addressing Belle, who, having finished her preparations, was seated near the fire.  “Good morning, young man,” said Belle: “I suppose you would be glad of some breakfast; however, you must wait a little, the kettle does not boil.”  “Come and look at your chaise,” said I; “but tell me how it happened that the noise which I have been making did not awake you; for three-quarters of an hour at least I was hammering close at your ear.”  “I heard you all the time,” said the postillion, “but your hammering made me sleep all the sounder; I am used to hear hammering in my morning sleep.  There’s a forge close by the room where I sleep when I’m at home, at my inn; for we have all kinds of conveniences at my inn—forge, carpenter’s shop, and wheelwright’s,—so that when I heard you hammering, I thought, no doubt, that it was the old noise, and that I was comfortable in my bed at my own inn.”  We now ascended to the field, where I showed the postillion his chaise.  He looked at the pin attentively, rubbed his hands, and gave a loud laugh.  “Is it not well done?” said I.  “It will do till I get home,” he replied.  “And that is all you have to say?” I demanded.  “And that’s a good deal,” said he, “considering who made it.”  “But don’t be offended,” he added, “I shall prize it all the more for its being made by a gentleman, and no blacksmith; and so will my governor, when I show it to him.  I shan’t let it remain where it is, but will keep it as a remembrance of you, as long as I live.”  He then again rubbed his hands with great glee, and said, “I will now go and see after my horses, and then to breakfast, partner, if you please.”  Suddenly, however, looking at his hands, he said, “Before sitting down to breakfast, I am in the habit of washing my hands and face: I suppose you could not furnish me with a little soap and water.”  “As much water as you please,” said I, “but if you want soap, I must go and trouble the young gentlewoman for some.”  “By no means,” said the postillion, “water will do at a pinch.”  “Follow me,” said I; and leading him to the pond of the frogs and newts, I said, “This is my ewer; you are welcome to part of it—the water is so soft that it is scarcely necessary to add soap to it;” then lying down on the bank, I plunged my head into the water, then scrubbed my hands and face, and afterwards wiped them with some long grass which grew on the margin of the pond.  “Bravo,” said the postillion, “I see you know how to make a shift;” he then followed my example, declared he never felt more refreshed in his life, and, giving a bound, said “he would go and look after his horses.”

We then went to look after the horses, which we found not much the worse for having spent the night in the open air.  My companion again inserted their heads in the corn-bags, and, leaving the animals to discuss their corn, returned with me to the dingle, where we found the kettle boiling.  We sat down, and Belle made tea and did the honours of the meal.  The postillion was in high spirits, ate heartily, and, to Belle’s evident satisfaction, declared that he had never drank better tea in his life, or indeed any half so good.  Breakfast over, he said that he must now go and harness his horses, as it was high time for him to return to his inn.  Belle gave him her hand and wished him farewell: the postillion shook her hand warmly, and was advancing close up to her—for what purpose I cannot say—whereupon Belle, withdrawing her hand, drew herself up with an air which caused the postillion to retreat a step or two with an exceedingly sheepish look.  Recovering himself, however, he made a low bow, and proceeded up the path.  I attended him, and helped to harness his horses and put them to the vehicle; he then shook me by the hand, and taking the reins and whip mounted to his seat; ere he drove away he thus addressed me: “If ever I forget your kindness and that of the young woman below, dash my buttons.  If ever either of you should enter my inn you may depend upon a warm welcome, the best that can be set before you, and no expense to either, for I will give both of you the best of characters to the governor, who is the very best fellow upon all the road.  As for your linch-pin, I trust it will serve till I get home, when I will take it out and keep it in remembrance of you all the days of my life:” then giving the horses a jerk with his reins, he cracked his whip and drove off.

I returned to the dingle, Belle had removed the breakfast things, and was busy in her own encampment: nothing occurred, worthy of being related, for two hours, at the end of which time Belle departed on a short expedition, and I again found myself alone in the dingle.

CHAPTER II.

THE MAN IN BLACK—THE EMPEROR OF GERMANY—NEPOTISM—DONNA OLYMPIA—OMNIPOTENCE—CAMILLO ASTALLI—THE FIVE PROPOSITIONS.

In the evening I received another visit from the man in black.  I had been taking a stroll in the neighbourhood, and was sitting in the dingle in rather a listless manner, scarcely knowing how to employ myself; his coming, therefore, was by no means disagreeable to me.  I produced the hollands and glass from my tent, where Isopel Berners had requested me to deposit them, and also some lump sugar, then taking the gotch I fetched water from the spring, and, sitting down, begged the man in black to help himself; he was not slow in complying with my desire, and prepared for himself a glass of Hollands and water with a lump of sugar in it.  After he had taken two or three sips with evident satisfaction, I, remembering his chuckling exclamation of “Go to Rome for money,” when he last left the dingle, took the liberty, after a little conversation, of reminding him of it, whereupon, with a he! he! he! he replied, “Your idea was not quite so original as I supposed.  After leaving you the other night I remembered having read of an emperor of Germany who conceived the idea of applying to Rome for money, and actually put it into practice.

“Urban the Eighth then occupied the papal chair, of the family of the Barbarini, nicknamed the Mosche, or Flies, from the circumstance of bees being their armorial bearing.  The Emperor having exhausted all his money in endeavouring to defend the church against Gustavus Adolphus, the great King of Sweden, who was bent on its destruction, applied in his necessity to the Pope for a loan of money.  The Pope, however, and his relations, whose cellars were at that time full of the money of the church, which they had been plundering for years, refused to lend him a scudo; whereupon a pasquinade picture was stuck up at Rome, representing the church lying on a bed, gashed with dreadful wounds, and beset all over with flies, which were sucking her, whilst the Emperor of Germany was kneeling before her with a miserable face, requesting a little money towards carrying on the war against the heretics, to which the poor church was made to say: ‘How can I assist you, O my champion, do you not see that the flies have sucked me to the very bones?’  Which story,” said he, “shows that the idea of going to Rome for money was not quite so original as I imagined the other night, though utterly preposterous.

“This affair,” said he, “occurred in what were called the days of nepotism.  Certain popes, who wished to make themselves in some degree independent of the cardinals, surrounded themselves with their nephews, and the rest of their family, who sucked the church and Christendom as much as they could, none doing so more effectually than the relations of Urban the Eighth, at whose death, according to the book called the ‘Nipotismo di Roma,’ there were in the Barbarini family two hundred and twenty-seven governments, abbeys, and high dignities; and so much hard cash in their possession that threescore and ten mules were scarcely sufficient to convey the plunder of one of them to Palestrina.”  He added, however, that it was probable that Christendom fared better whilst the popes were thus independent, as it was less sucked, whereas before and after that period, it was sucked by hundreds instead of tens, by the cardinals and all their relations, instead of by the pope and his nephews only.

Then, after drinking rather copiously of his hollands, he said that it was certainly no bad idea of the popes to surround themselves with nephews, on whom they bestowed great church dignities, as by so doing they were tolerably safe from poison, whereas a pope, if abandoned to the cardinals, might at any time be made away with by them, provided they thought that he lived too long, or that he seemed disposed to do anything which they disliked; adding, that Ganganelli would never have been poisoned provided he had had nephews about him to take care of his life, and to see that nothing unholy was put into his food, or a bustling stirring brother’s wife like Donna Olympia.  He then with a he! he! he! asked me if I had ever read the book called the “Nipotismo di Roma;” and on my replying in the negative, he told me that it was a very curious and entertaining book, which he occasionally looked at in an idle hour, and proceeded to relate to me anecdotes out of the “Nipotismo di Roma” about the successor of Urban, Innocent the Tenth, and Donna Olympia, showing how fond he was of her, and how she cooked his food, and kept the cardinals away from it, and how she and her creatures plundered Christendom, with the sanction of the Pope, until Christendom, becoming enraged, insisted that he should put her away, which he did for a time, putting a nephew—one Camillo Astalli—in her place, in which, however, he did not continue long; for the Pope conceiving a pique against him, banished him from his sight, and recalled Donna Olympia, who took care of his food, and plundered Christendom until Pope Innocent died.

I said that I only wondered that between pope and cardinals the whole system of Rome had not long fallen to the ground, and was told in reply, that its not having fallen was the strongest proof of its vital power, and the absolute necessity for the existence of the system.  That the system, notwithstanding its occasional disorders, went on.  Popes and cardinals might prey upon its bowels, and sell its interests, but the system survived.  The cutting off of this or that member was not able to cause Rome any vital loss; for, as soon as she lost a member, the loss was supplied by her own inherent vitality; though her popes had been poisoned by cardinals, and her cardinals by popes; and though priests occasionally poisoned popes, cardinals, and each other, after all that had been, and might be, she had still, and would ever have, her priests, cardinals, and pope.

Finding the man in black so communicative and reasonable, I determined to make the best of my opportunity, and learn from him all I could with respect to the papal system, and told him that he would particularly oblige me by telling me who the Pope of Rome was; and received for answer, that he was an old man elected by a majority of cardinals to the papal chair; who, immediately after his election, became omnipotent and equal to God on earth.  On my begging him not to talk such nonsense, and asking him how a person could be omnipotent who could not always preserve himself from poison, even when fenced round by nephews, or protected by a bustling woman, he, after taking a long sip of hollands and water, told me that I must not expect too much from omnipotence; for example, that as it would be unreasonable to expect that One above could annihilate the past—for instance, the Seven Years’ War, or the French Revolution—though any one who believed in Him would acknowledge Him to be omnipotent, so would it be unreasonable for the faithful to expect that the Pope could always guard himself from poison.  Then, after looking at me for a moment steadfastly, and taking another sip, he told me that popes had frequently done impossibilities; for example, Innocent the Tenth had created a nephew: for, not liking particularly any of his real nephews, he had created the said Camillo Astalli his nephew; asking me, with a he! he! “What but omnipotence could make a young man nephew to a person to whom he was not in the slightest degree related?”  On my observing that of course no one believed that the young fellow was really the pope’s nephew, though the pope might have adopted him as such, the man in black replied, “that the reality of the nephewship of Camillo Astalli had hitherto never become a point of faith; let, however, the present pope, or any other pope, proclaim that it is necessary to believe in the reality of the nephewship of Camillo Astalli, and see whether the faithful would not believe in it.  Who can doubt that,” he added, “seeing that they believe in the reality of the five propositions of Jansenius?  The Jesuits, wishing to ruin the Jansenists, induced a pope to declare that such and such damnable opinions, which they called five propositions, were to be found in a book written by Jansen, though in reality no such propositions were to be found there; whereupon the existence of these propositions became forthwith a point of faith to the faithful.  Do you then think,” he demanded, “that there is one of the faithful who would not swallow, if called upon, the nephewship of Camillo Astalli as easily as the five propositions of Jansenius?”  “Surely, then,” said I, “the faithful must be a pretty pack of simpletons!”  Whereupon the man in black exclaimed, “What! a Protestant, and an infringer of the rights of faith!  Here’s a fellow, who would feel himself insulted if any one were to ask him how he could believe in the miraculous conception, calling people simpletons who swallow the five propositions of Jansenius, and are disposed, if called upon, to swallow the reality of the nephewship of Camillo Astalli.”

I was about to speak, when I was interrupted by the arrival of Belle.  After unharnessing her donkey, and adjusting her person a little, she came and sat down by us.  In the meantime I had helped my companion to some more hollands and water, and had plunged with him into yet deeper discourse.

CHAPTER III.

NECESSITY OF RELIGION—THE GREAT INDIAN ONE—IMAGE-WORSHIP—SHAKESPEAR—THE PAT ANSWER—KRISHNA—AMEN.

Having told the man in black that I should like to know all the truth with regard to the Pope and his system, he assured me he should be delighted to give me all the information in his power; that he had come to the dingle, not so much for the sake of the good cheer which I was in the habit of giving him, as in the hope of inducing me to enlist under the banners of Rome, and to fight in her cause; and that he had no doubt that, by speaking out frankly to me, he ran the best chance of winning me over.

He then proceeded to tell me that the experience of countless ages had proved the necessity of religion; the necessity, he would admit, was only for simpletons; but as nine-tenths of the dwellers upon this earth were simpletons, it would never do for sensible people to run counter to their folly, but, on the contrary, it was their wisest course to encourage them in it, always provided that, by so doing, sensible people could derive advantage; that the truly sensible people of this world were the priests, who, without caring a straw for religion for its own sake, made use of it as a cord by which to draw the simpletons after them; that there were many religions in this world, all of which had been turned to excellent account by the priesthood; but that the one the best adapted for the purposes of priestcraft was the popish, which, he said, was the oldest in the world and the best calculated to endure.  On my inquiring what he meant by saying the popish religion was the oldest in the world, whereas there could be no doubt that the Greek and Roman religion had existed long before it, to say nothing of the old Indian religion still in existence and vigour; he said, with a nod, after taking a sip at his glass, that, between me and him, the popish religion, that of Greece and Rome, and the old Indian system were, in reality, one and the same.