He grew restless and ill-content. He had been as free as the wind, with occupation for brain and body. He was now, like Achilles, brooding in his tent, and over his mind there fell a shadow of unrest. As early as July 1841 he had thought of settling in Berlin and devoting himself to study. Hasfeldt suggested Denmark, the land of the Sagas. Later in the same year Africa had presented itself to Borrow as a possible retreat, but Ford advised him against it as "the land from which few travellers return," and told him that he had much better go to Seville. Still later Constantinople was considered and then the coast of Barbary. Into his letters there crept a note of querulous complaint. John Hasfeldt besought him to remember how much he had travelled and he would find that he had wandered enough, and then he would accustom himself to rest.

The manuscript of The Bible in Spain was completed early in January (1842) and despatched to John Murray, who sent it to Richard Ford. From the "reader's report" it is to be gathered that in addition to the manuscript Borrow sent also the letters that he had borrowed from the Bible Society. Ford refers to the story of the man stung to death by vipers {344a} "in the letter of the 16th August 1837," and advises that "Mr Borrow should introduce it into his narrative." He further recommends him "to go carefully over 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 that at present he does not fling me more than once in five minutes. What a contemptible trade is the Author's compared to that of the jockey."

It was not until towards the end of February that the corrected manuscript of the first volume of The Bible in Spain reached Albemarle Street. Later and better counsels had apparently prevailed, and Borrow had become reconciled to filling up the breaks.

Borrow had other occupations than preparing his manuscript for the printer's hands. He was ill and overwrought, and small things became magnified out of all proportion to their actual importance. There had been a dispute between Borrow's dog and that of the rector of Oulton, the Rev. E. P. Denniss, and as the place was small, the dogs met frequently and renewed their feud. Finally the masters of the animals became involved, and an interchange of frigid notes ensued. It appears that Borrow threatened to appeal to the Law and to the Bishop of the Diocese, and further seems to have suggested that in the interests of peace, the rector might do away with his own dog. The tone of the correspondence may be gathered from the following notes:- {347a}

"Mr Denniss begs to acknowledge Mr Borrow's note, and is sorry to hear that his dog and Mr Borrow's have again fallen out. Mr Denniss learns from his servant that Mr D's dog was no more in fault than Mr B's, which latter is of a very quarrelsome and savage disposition, as Mr Denniss can himself testify, as well as many other people. Mr Denniss regrets that these two animals cannot agree when they meet, but he must decline acceding to Mr Borrow's somewhat arbitrary demand, conceiving he has as much right to retain a favourite, and in reality very harmless, animal, as Mr Borrow has to keep a dog which has once bitten Mr Denniss himself, and oftentimes attacked him and his family. Mr Borrow is at perfect liberty to take any measure he may deem advisable, either before the magistrates or the Bishop of the Diocese, as Mr Denniss is quite prepared to meet them."

"OULTON RECTORY, 22nd April 1842."

Borrow's reply (in the rough draft found among his papers after his death) ran:

"Mr Borrow has received Mr Denniss' answer to his note. With respect to Mr Denniss' recrimination on the quarrelsome disposition of his harmless house-dog, Mr Borrow declines to say anything further. No one knows better than Mr Denniss the value of his own assertions . . . Circumstances over which Mr Borrow has at present no control will occasionally bring him and his family under the same roof with Mr Denniss; that roof, however, is the roof of the House of God, and the prayers of the Church of England are wholesome from whatever mouth they may proceed."

Borrow's most partisan admirer could not excuse the outrage to all decency contained in the last paragraph of his note, if indeed it were ever sent, in any other way than to plead the writer's ill- health.

It had been arranged that The Bible in Spain should make its appearance in May. In July Borrow wrote showing some impatience and urging greater expedition.

"What are your intentions with respect to the Bible in Spain?" he enquires of John Murray. "I am a frank man, and frankness never offends me. Has anybody put you out of conceit with the book? . . . Tell me frankly and I will drink your health in Romany. Or would the appearance of the Bible on the first of October interfere with the avatar, first or second, of some very wonderful lion or Divinity, to whom George Borrow, who is NEITHER, must of course give place? Be frank with me, my dear Sir, and I will drink your health in Romany and Madeira."

He goes on to offer to release John Murray from his "share in the agreement" and complete the book himself remitting to the printer "the necessary money for the purchase of paper."

To Ford, who had acted as a sort of godfather to The Bible in Spain, it was "a rum, very rum, mixture of gypsyism, Judaism, and missionary adventure," as he informed John Murray. He read it "with great delight," and its publisher may "depend upon it that the book will sell, which, after all, is the rub." He liked the sincerity, the style, the effect of incident piling on incident. It reminded him of Gil Blas with a touch of Bunyan. Borrow is "such a TRUMP . . . as full of meat as an egg, and a fresh-laid one." All this he tells John Murray, and concludes with the assurance, "Borrow will lay you golden eggs, and hatch them after the ways of Egypt; put salt on his tail and secure him in your coop, and beware how any poacher coaxes him with 'raisins' or reasons out of the Albemarle preserve." {349a}

Ford was never tired of applying new adjectives to Borrow and his work. He was "an extraordinary fellow," "this wild missionary," "a queer chap." Borrow, on the other hand, cherished a sincere regard for the man who had shown such enthusiasm for his work. To John Murray, Junr., he wrote (4th April 1843): "Pray remember me to Ford,