[Illustration: AN APPLICATION FOR A BOOK IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, WITH BORROWS SIGNATURE]
22 HEREFORD SQUARE, BROMPTON, _Nov. 2, 1871._
SIR,--I have received your letter and am gratified by the desire you express to make my acquaintance. Whenever you please to come I shall be happy to see you.--Yours truly,
The meeting did not, through Leland's absence from London, then take place. Two years later it was another story. The failing powers were more noteworthy. Borrow was by this time dead to the world, as the documents before me abundantly testify. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume, as Leland's friends have all done, that Borrow never replied because he was on the eve of publishing a book of his own about the gypsies. There seems no reason to assume, as Dr. Knapp does and as Leland does, that this was the reason for the unanswered letter:
LANGHAM HOTEL, PORTLAND PLACE, _March 31st, 1873._
DEAR SIR,--I sincerely trust that the limited extent of our acquaintanceship will not cause this note to seem to you too presuming. _Breviter_, I have thrown the results of my observations among English gypsies into a very unpretending little volume consisting almost entirely of facts gathered from the Romany, without any theory. As I owe all my interest in the subject to your writings, and as I am sincerely grateful to you for the impulse which they gave me, I should like very much to dedicate my book to you. Of course if your kindness permits I shall submit the proofs to you, that you may judge whether the work deserves the honour. I should have sent you the MS., but not long after our meeting at the British Museum I left for Egypt, whence I have very recently returned, to find my publisher clamorous for the promised copy.
It is _not_--God knows--a mean and selfish desire to help my book by giving it the authority of your name, which induces this request. But I am earnestly desirous for my conscience' sake to publish nothing in the Romany which shall not be true and sensible, even as all that you have written is true and sensible. Therefore, _should_ you take the pains to glance over my proof, I should be grateful if you would signify to me any differences of opinion should there be ground for any. Dr. A. F. Pott in his _Zigeuner_ (vol. ii. p. 224), intimates very decidedly that you took the word _shastr_ (Exhastra de Moyses) from Sanskrit and put it into Romany; declaring that it would be very important if _shaster_ were Romany. I mention in my book that English gypsies call the New Testament (also any MS.) a _shaster_, and that a betting-book on a racecourse is called a _shaster_ 'because it is written.' I do not pretend in my book to such deep Romany as you have achieved--all that I claim is to have collected certain words, facts, phrases, etc., out of the Romany of the roads--corrupt as it is--as I have found it to-day. I deal only with the gypsy of the _Decadence_. With renewed apology for intrusion should it seem such, I remain, yours very respectfully,