Arthur Boycott, FRS (1877-1938)
Though
difficult to define with precision, the “American dream”, which featured large
in political discussions during the recent electoral campaigns, holds to the
belief in the possibility of the steady, long-term, progressive improvement in
the material circumstances of the American family. I have perhaps more than once commented in
these essays on the huge differences in the life led by my grandparents, all
born in the nineteenth century, and the
lives of my grandchildren, mostly born in the twenty-first. Without presuming to touch upon either the
economic possibility or theological probity of infinitely expanding material prosperity,
I have begun a list of things that were common in my youth and now are rare or
non-existent.
It
once was a very common experience for a child from a neighboring family to
appear at the door, with basket, bowl, jar, or cup in hand, with a polite
request from the neighbor-mother to “borrow” an egg, a stick of margarine, a
cup of sugar or some other food staple.
Such items were invariably scrupulously returned (or, one hopes,
replaced) with elaborate thanks. I noted
early that there was a kind of hierarchy in borrowing. No child would ever appear in search of a
twenty-dollar bill, or even seventy-five cents to buy a dozen eggs. There were indeed private loans of money, but
they were a rather solemn, adult-male sort of thing, always arranged outside
of my sight and hearing.
No
doubt professional sociologists and anthropologists have studied this sort of
thing. Certain items are so culturally
borrowable as to threaten any meaningful distinction between loan and
theft. Umbrellas seem to fall into this
category. But in my particular line of
work it is the book that most readily
comes to mind.
A
woman named Barbara Roston just returned to the Brooklyn Public Library a copy
of Gone with the Wind that had been
overdue since 1959. At the time she
checked it out, Ms. Roston was fifteen years old and a sales-girl, or sales
pre-woman, at Macy’s Department Store. She simply forgot about it for approximately seventy
years. Fortunately the book’s lack of a
barcode presented the librarians with such knotty technical problems that they
entirely forgave her the accumulated thousand-dollar fine. There is quite a bit of sociological interest
here. Are there still fifteen-year-old
Americans whose idea of a big time after a hard day’s work is to hunker down
with 400,000-word novels without any pictures but with lots of three-syllable
words? I have my doubts.
But
even Ms. Roston’s liberal attitude toward book-borrowing seems somewhat
constrained when contrasted with that of Professor Arthur Boycott, FRS
(1877-1938). Alice Gillett, the
granddaughter of this once eminent British scientist, recently discovered among
her inherited possessions a copy of The
Microscope and Its Revelations (1856) by William B. Carpenter. This book manifestly was the property of the
library of the Hereford Cathedral School, where her grandfather had been a
pupil between 1886 and 1894. Hence it
was overdue at the very least by 122 years.
Even worse, it appears that the book, though removed from the library, had perhaps never actually been checked out. Ms. Gillett hastened to return it
forthwith. Given the facts that boffins
are notoriously absent-minded, and that certain improvements in microscope
technology since 1854 have rendered Carpenter’s volume somewhat less than
indispensable, the British authorities, too. forgave Boycott’s estate the hefty
fine of £7,446.
Actually,
it is very hard to keep track of one’s library books with zeal, especially if
you have scores of them borrowed and at hand at any given moment, and
especially if they are the kind of book that very few other people actually
read, and fewer still have the will to recall.
After you have had a visiting book in your home office for a year or
two, you develop a nearly unconscious attitude of surrogate ownership. I feel morally certain that by about the year
1900 Professor Boycott assumed that he really did own The Microscope and Its Revelations.
My
personal record, which is probably about average for senior scholars in the
humanities, is roughly a hundred to two.
That is, I have actually lost two library books. During those same long years I have lost
roughly a hundred of my own. I could
explain to you how losing the library’s two books was not my fault, how they
cannot really be lost, how they are bound to arise intact at the Last Trump
from some surprising corner to justify their borrower.
What I cannot explain is the vanished hundred of my own. First you forget exactly what book you loaned to whom. Then the who
part disappears entirely from the mind, followed not too much later by the what part. The books are simply gone with the wind.
When flesh
fails one’s sole hope is spirit. I have
hanging above one of the door of my “study” a facsimile of a sign to be found
in various of the old Spanish libraries.
It announces the special excommunication “reserved by His Holiness
against any people who…swipe any book, whether parchment or paper.” Who is to say it doesn’t work, that without
it my losses would have been two
hundred? The Puritans who founded the
great American academic libraries were hardly less severe. There used to be a notice posted at our
circulation desk that read: “To err is
human; to forgive is not library policy”.
Many years ago I attended a service at the beautiful chapel at Trinity College at the University of Toronto where the prayer books had this printed on the bookplate:
ReplyDelete"The wicked borroweth and returneth not."
When I returned home I had my own bookplates printed up with that printed on them and have not lost a book since.