CHAPTER I.
The first Appearance of Gipseys in Europe.
No record is to be found, stating in what year, or in what part of Europe, Gipseys made their first appearance. But it is to be premised, what will afterwards be investigated, that they did not originate in our quarter of the globe; on the contrary, that they strayed hither, as oriental strangers, either from Egypt, Asia Minor, or some other part: we shall then examine, whether it be not possible, by means of what is related in old writings concerning the first observance of them in different countries, to follow the track so as to ascertain where and when they first set foot on European ground.
Mention is made of them in Germany so early as the year 1417, when they appeared in the vicinity of the North Sea. A year afterwards we find them also in Switzerland and the country of the Grisons. In 1422 they likewise appeared in Italy. It is unknown what was the earliest period at which they were observed in France and Spain: but their appearance in these countries must have been of later date than in Germany, as is proved in respect to France, by the name Bohemians, which they bear there. In regard to Spain, Cordova, in order to contradict some surmises about the Gipseys’ mother country, uses the argument, that they were known in Germany prior to either Spain or Italy. The French make the first mention of them in 1427, when they straggled about Paris, having arrived there on the 17th day of August in that year.
From what country did they come into Germany?—Muratori thinks, from Italy: but how unfounded this opinion is, appears clearly from their coming to that country after they had been in Germany. The Bologna Chronicle ascertains the time when Italy became acquainted with these people. The horde therein mentioned, which arrived in that city on the 18th of July, 1422, consisted of about a hundred men; whose leader’s, or (as they called him) duke’s, name, was Andreas. They travelled from Bologna to Forli, intending to proceed to pay the Pope a visit at Rome. Muratori founds his judgment on this chronicle, not knowing that Gipseys are spoken of in the German prints five years earlier.
Still less true is what Majolus asserts, that they came from Spain, and first entered the German territories in the year 1492, when they were driven out of Spain by Ferdinand the Catholic. Hungary is certainly the country whence they came into Germany. Not only the time confirms this conjecture, as we find them in Hungary in 1417, the very same year in which they were first observed in Germany, but Aventin expressly mentions Hungary among the countries from which he supposes them to come.
In this state our examination rests, in regard to whether they came immediately into Germany, or first appeared stationary in some other place.
That Poland should be the country which harboured the first Gipseys, and that they spread thence into Wallachia, Transylvania, and other countries, is a mere arbitrary surmise. The writer (J. G. Eccard) who advances this opinion, appeals to Münster’s intelligence, but that does not contain a syllable in confirmation of it. Others, with the greatest confidence, maintain that Wallachia and Moldavia, where they also wandered about in 1417, are the places in which they made their first appearance in Europe. Cantemir, on the contrary, is very undecided, saying, “Whence, or at what time, this nation arrived in Moldavia, neither do they know themselves nor is there any mention made in our annual publications.” However, the second opinion seems to approach very near the truth, but does not point out the particular province in which the Gipseys were first observed;—Of what use would that be? But one information, compared with other circumstances, is of so much assistance here, that we may, without hesitation, pronounce Turkey to be the country whence these eastern guests found their way to us. This is probable—First, because Aventin expressly makes Turkey their original place of rendezvous: secondly, as this explains why the south-east parts of Europe are most crowded with Gipseys, as before stated (vide p. 7). It happened in Turkey, as in every other place through which they passed, that many of these wanderers remained behind; now, as all that came to Europe passed by this route, whether at once or in different divisions, it was possible, indeed a necessary consequence, that a greater number should continue here, than in the different countries where their hordes were much divided and diminished.
The time when they arrived, has been as little certified, as the particular place where they landed. Perhaps, the before-quoted chronicle of Bologna may afford some insight into this matter. It relates, as appears by the context, from the mouth of the leader of the horde which it describes, that these people had been five years wandering about in the world, previously to their arrival at Bologna. Now, if this account is to be depended on, they cannot have arrived in Europe earlier than the year 1417. But before attaching credit to this relation, we are to consider, whether the author of it be deserving of credit. To place any confidence in Gipsey narrations, in general, would be very imprudent; as there are too many proofs that their sayings are mere nonsense, and contradictory prattle: but the case in question seems to be an exception. All the inconsistency and falshoods which the Gipseys reported, concerning whence they came, with the reasons for their wandering, have an end in view. But with regard to time, if they knew, they are more to be trusted, as no injury could be expected to result from the knowledge of a mere date. Now, the inference to be drawn is, that the leader of a horde might not only know how long he had retired from Egypt, or Asia Minor, and travelled about in Europe, as the time had been short; but it may also be supposed, that he said what he knew. In the mean time, we will compare this cited term, of five years, with other circumstances, and see whether they make for or against our argument. The first enquiry would be, Whether there are any earlier authentic accounts of their appearance in Europe, than 1417? But we do not find such any-where. [113] The second question to be decided is, Whether, if they were not seen towards the Black Sea before 1417, they could in one year’s time have reached the North Sea? This doubt requires little consideration. A year was quite sufficient for people like the Gipseys, who never tarried long in a place, to have migrated even far beyond where they were found. Again, if they were not in Moldavia and Wallachia earlier than the year 1417, and yet appeared during the same year in the neighbourhood of the North Sea, what great difference would it make if they came from a province next beyond Moldavia or Wallachia, travelling a few miles further to arrive at the same place? It is therefore very credible that 1417 was the period of their arrival.
Although, immediately after their coming into Germany, they spread so rapidly, that in 1418 their names were recorded in the annual publications of almost every part of the country, yet particular places seem to have been favoured by them. Thus, in Bavaria they were not noticed till 1433; and they must have very quickly withdrawn themselves from these parts, as six years afterwards it was remarked, as somewhat new and extraordinary, that in this year (1439) the Gipseys, a pack of scoundrels, a vagrant gang, were come into that country, with their king, whose name was Zundl.
They did not travel together, but in different hordes, each having its leader, sometimes called count: at other times their leaders were dignified with the titles of dukes or kings of Lesser Egypt. One horde which arrived at Augsburgh in 1419, although it consisted of only seventy men, had even two of these dukes, beside some counts, with them. But what sort of creatures these great men among the Gipseys were, has been explained in another place. (Vide p. 72, & seq.)
If Stumpf be right, the number of these people must have been very considerable. Those alone who came into Switzerland in 1718, women and children included, were estimated at 14000. But here he, or his authority, seems to have greatly miscounted. It is true, that he likewise remarks, they did not keep all together, but went about in separate parties; notwithstanding this, his account is much to be doubted. By what is to be found concerning particular hordes, there were none which exceeded one or at most two hundred. That which went to Augsburgh in 1419 consisted of but seventy men: therefore if they had been so numerous as Stumpf asserts, there must have been at least a hundred such hordes dispersed through Switzerland. It was at this time (1418) that Gipseys were first seen at Zurich; they were a swarm, whose leader’s name was Michael. Four years had elapsed before they were known at Basil—part of the very horde of this Michael. Would not some other tribe have got to Basil before these, if they had been so numerous? Thomasius adopts this number of 14000 without suspicion, and understands it to comprehend the whole multitude all over Germany; but then he does not appear to have quoted Stumpf’s testimony in the sense it was meant. Many hordes of them must certainly have arrived, as they spread every-where so prodigiously; but to persist in any nearer investigation of their numbers, would be only useless trouble.
Their possessions were, as at present, small, and their whole arrangement singular; besides which, according to the Eastern custom, they hung ragged clothes about them, instead of other garments. Their leaders only were exceptions. Several had horses, asses, or mules, with them, on which they loaded their tents, and effects, with the whole family into the bargain. They had also dogs in their train, with which Kranz asserts they used illegally to destroy game: but probably the dogs were kept not so much for that purpose, as to take fowls and geese.
CHAPTER II.
On the Sanctity, Passports, and Difference, of the former from the latter Gipseys.
At the first arrival of the Gipseys in Europe, it was generally believed that they were Egyptians and pilgrims, constrained to wander on account of religion. This mistake originated from their own relation; but when required to give a more circumstantial detail of the reasons for their pilgrimage, they varied very much from each other. Some of them declared that they were compelled to make this emigration as an atonement for their forefathers having, for some time, apostatised from the Christian faith: others asserted that the king of Hungary had seized their country, and imposed on them this penance of wandering. A third party represented that God had signified to them the necessity of this pilgrimage, by an universal sterility in their country. They supposed this punishment to have been inflicted on account of sin committed by their ancestors, in refusing to receive the infant Jesus, when carried by his Mother and Joseph to Egypt, as an asylum from the persecution of Herod. The term of their pilgrimage was to be seven years.
No evidence is necessary to determine that these were mere fables; and it is astonishing that men should be found to adduce long-winded proofs of the origin of these people, grounded on no better authority than such idle tales. We have not now any positive grounds remaining, to shew how these legends were invented, or what gave rise to them; but the real truth seems to be merely, that upon being asked whence they came, they answered from Egypt; and there is no reason existing to deny their having come from that country. Now priests, monks, or perhaps other people, might wonder why they should quit a place to which the holy family had fled for refuge, unless their forefathers had been guilty of some transgression on that occasion; but, be this as it may, all that could be said, with regard to the origin of their legends, would be only mere conjecture. Let it therefore suffice to say, they chose to be considered everywhere as pilgrims; and this profession met with the more ready belief, as it coincided with the infatuation of the times.
The credulity with which people cherished the idea that the Gipseys were real pilgrims and holy persons was attended with the consequence, that they were not only tolerated, but, if the information on this head may be relied on, they everywhere received assistance, with express safe-conducts. These safe-conducts are mentioned in several old writings. Münster declares, not merely, in general terms, that they carried about with them passports and seals from the Emperor Sigismund and other princes, by means of which they had free passage through different countries and cities, but that he had himself seen an attested copy of such a letter, in the possession of some Gipseys at Eberbach. Besides Kranz, Stumpf, and Guler, Laurentius Palmirenus also agrees in this statement; but the latter writer is guilty of a mistake, in confounding the Emperor Sigismund with Sigismund king of Poland. The Gipseys at Bologna, likewise, shewed an instrument from Sigismund; but he appears to have granted this to them, not as emperor, and in Germany, but in Hungary, and as king of Hungary. A pass of another king of Hungary, Uladislaus II. which the Gipseys obtained chiefly on account of their supposed sanctity and pilgrimage, might be quoted. They were not destitute in Transylvania, if it be true, as asserted, that they received this sort of letters of protection from the princes of the house of Bathory. Wehner says, that the Gipseys in France likewise quoted ancient privileges, granted to them by the former kings of that country. Crusius, Wurstisen, and Guler, mention papal permissions, which these people acquired, for wandering, unmolested, through all Christian countries, so long as the time of their pilgrimage lasted.
This is the information we find, dispersed here and there, concerning the privileges and passes of the Gipseys. To how much, or how little, are we to give credit? Thomasius believes every thing as it stands. Ahasuerus Fritsch, on the contrary, declares all to be lies, and the Gipseys’ own invention. Appearances are certainly equivocal, as none of these instruments are even verbally handed down to us, so that they can be properly proved; except that of Uladislaus II. which does not belong to this question. Moreover, it has been frequently experienced, that the Gipseys, using the pretence of such safe-conducts, have committed all manner of excesses, and when desired to produce them, had either nothing to shew, or such kind of papers as did not at all resemble what are usually given from a public office. It cannot be denied that they have practised deceit, but it is impossible to assert, with certainty, that the whole was fallacy. If the contents of that passport to be found in Muratori is conceived in such terms as to allow the horde which possessed it to wander about seven years, to rob and steal every-where, without any person being permitted to bring them to justice, such a letter seems to carry falshood on the very face of it, as no sensible prince could ever grant such a one. But what shall we say, if it be found that these words do not so much convey the sense of the instrument, as a crafty explanation of the author, on recollecting the many irregularities practised by the Gipseys, who availed themselves of this freedom to travel about every-where unmolested. Further, with respect to the passport which Münster perused at Eberbach, although every person must look upon the reasons given by the Gipseys for their emigration as fictions, yet we cannot entirely reject it. How could it benefit them, being old and having lost its validity many years ago? Why did not the horde to which it belonged carry with them some writing that might afford them present protection? If they had been guilty of any knavery about this letter, why was it just of that kind as could only serve, incontrovertibly, to prove they were cheats? These documents would certainly not have been found among them, had they not been transmitted, from their parents and ancestors, as things of value. Supposing this matter to have been invented by themselves, it is difficult to conceive why they should confine their privileges to seven years, and not rather leave them unlimited. But there are other proofs of the authenticity of such letters. First, they were looked upon as pilgrims; and it was quite conformable to the custom of those superstitious times to grant to pilgrims, as holy people, all sorts of passes, and safe-conducts. Secondly, we must believe that this did happen with the Gipseys, when we read with what chagrin Aventin mentions their thefts and excesses, concluding thus: “Robbing and stealing are prohibited to others, under pain of hanging or beheading, but these people have licence for them.” When, thirdly, in the decree of the diet at Augsburgh anno 1500, all ranks of people in the empire are strictly enjoined, in future, not to permit the people called Gipseys to travel through their countries and districts, nor to grant them any further ‘protection and convoy,’ it certainly implies that people had formerly granted them such protection and convoy. Whoever has still any doubts remaining, may read, fourthly, in a decree of the empire of fifty years later date, a regular complaint preferred on account of the passports granted by various princes to the Gipseys, and which are, by that diet, declared to be null and void. All these circumstances together will not, it may be presumed, allow the shadow of a doubt to remain, that such letters of convoy have been really granted to the Gipseys. [132]
The Gipseys’ golden age lasted a considerable time; but when about half a century had elapsed, and people began to look at them with a watchful eye, the old prejudices gave way. They endeavoured to prolong the term, by asserting, that their return home was prevented by soldiers stationed to intercept them, and by wishing to have it believed that new parties of pilgrims were to leave their country every year, otherwise their land would be rendered totally barren. All this was of no avail; people saw too clearly, that, instead of holy pilgrims, they were the mere refuse of humanity: upon which followed the sentences of banishment, we have before mentioned.
Before we proceed to other matters, it will be proper to say a few words respecting an assertion in some writings, that the latter Gipseys differ very widely from those who went about during the first seven years, both with respect to their conduct and descent. Stumpf, for instance, and others after him, relate, that these first Gipseys were very orderly and decent, did no harm to any one, but paid ready money for what they consumed; for which purpose they received fresh remittances constantly: and at the expiration of seven years they returned home. Afterwards an idle desperate crew united, who, when the Gipseys were withdrawn, took their place; and, by blackening their faces, at the same time using the like outlandish garments, endeavoured to persuade the world that they were the identical Egyptians.
This is all related with so much appearance of veracity, that, at the first view, no doubt would seem to remain of its truth; wherefore Thomasius readily adopted the whole, and founded his system about the Gipseys upon it: but upon closer examination, we shall find that the statement is totally void of foundation.
This proceeding, we acknowledge, is recorded in four different annual publications; but all the four amount to only a single testimony, which rests entirely upon Stumpf, from whom the other three have drawn their assertions. Let it remain, as Thomasius will have it, an old manuscript account or chronicle; it is still evident that the favourable description of the ancient Gipseys originates from the same prejudice as first produced their passports. And even these passports may have contributed to recommend the first Gipseys. They have had so much effect on Thomasius, that all the good he has given the above-mentioned primitive Gipseys credit for, has been principally owing to them.
When Stumpf, or rather his authority, mentions, with other circumstances, that the earlier Gipseys received remittances from time to time out of their own country, it was a necessary addition, to support the editor’s opinion: as the reader, who was to believe that these people did not steal, but paid money for every thing they wanted, would have been sceptical had he not been informed beforehand where the money came from, in order to provide for their necessities, in an honest way, during the term of seven years.
With regard to the latter Gipseys, they were certainly lineal descendants from the former: who were undoubtedly, equally with these, thieves, cheats, and vagrants. The uprightness and honesty falsely allowed to the Gipseys, in the manuscript chronicle which Stumpf copied, might, even before Stumpf’s time, have induced the continuator of this chronicle to believe, on finding his cotemporary Gipseys lived very differently from what had been represented of their predecessors, that the former were not the true Egyptians: he accordingly wrote down his surmise, not by way of conjecture, but as positive truth, and Stumpf, in his Annual Register, afterwards quoted it as such. Whoever does not allow this, but considers the latter Gipseys in the light that Stumpf represents them, must be ready to answer, when called upon to solve, the following doubt:—How was it possible that a collection of rascals assembled in Europe, supposing that with respect to complexion and clothing they should be able to transform themselves into real Gipseys, could at once acquire foreign countenances, speak a foreign language, and, both in constitution and turn of mind, become perfectly oriental; and at the same time contract a taste and desire for carrion, which remain with them to this day? It cannot be denied but that some depraved people have associated themselves with the Gipseys: but particular instances are not proofs of general maxims.
CHAPTER III.
Presumed Origin of the Gipseys.
It would be equally useless, prolix, and revolting, to reconsider the multitude of conjectures which the questions—“What race of people are the Gipseys?” and—“Where are we to look for their true mother country?” have occasioned. The greatest part of them are of such a nature, that they need only be heard to be totally rejected. We shall nevertheless produce some examples, as an excuse for passing over the rest in silence.
Various conjectures have been formed, and coincidences have been searched for, to obtain a solution of these queries. Some persons adverted to this or that name only of the Gipseys, without attending to other circumstances. Because they were likewise called Gipseys (Cingani), they must immediately derive their origin from the Grecian heretics, called Athingans: then again they must have wandered from the African province formerly called Zeugitana. [137] Another time they are supposed to be the fugitives driven from the city Singara, in Mesopotamia, by Julian the Apostate: others again transplanted them to Mount Caucasus, and made them Zochori; or to the Palus Mæotis, making them descendants from the Ziches. [138] Some people imagined that instead of Zigeuner, they should be called Zigarener, which they thought a corruption of Saracener, and they must certainly be Saracens. Another writer (to return to Africa) conducts them from the Mauritanian province Tingitane, and supposes them to be the Canaanites, who, being driven out by Joshua, settled here. Still another brings them from Mauritania, and, to corroborate his opinion by the name, calls them descendants of Chus; as he thinks nothing can have a greater affinity in sound, than Zigeuner and Chusener. Herbelot judges the coast of Zengebar to be their mother country. Bellonius, on the contrary, looks for them in Bulgaria and Wallachia, where their ancestors are said to have lived, under the name Sigynner. Cordova stumbled on Zigere, formerly a city of Thrace, which he assigns as their native soil. Some people fancied they had heard that the Gipseys called themselves More, and often used the name amori among one another (not amori, but Discha more—Get out, fellow!) and now they are Amorites!
Another party, besides this or that appellation for the Gipseys, considered their unsettled way of life, or selected some particular circumstance from their manners, by which they decided concerning their origin. Wherefore they were sometimes torlaques, faquirs, or kalendars; [139] sometimes the remains of Attila’s Huns, at other times the Avari, who were vanquished by Charles the Great: then again Petschenegers, who played their last stake in the twelfth century; or perhaps a mixture of all kinds of rascally people gathered together, having collectively no certain country, as their name Zigeuner indicates, signifying, ‘to wander up and down;’—for which reason, it is said, our German ancestors denominated every strolling vagrant Zichegan. By several writers they have been thought inhabitants of the Alps and Pyrenées; others suppose them to be Cain’s descendants, who, on account of the curse denounced against their stock, have been compelled to lead a wandering vagrant life. Because they pretend to tell fortunes, some have supposed them to be Chaldeans, or some Syrian religious sect. Brodæus formed his judgment from their clothes, in which he thought he discovered a resemblance to the Roman toga; and thence he imagined they were natives of Wallachia, descendants from the colony sent by Trajan into Dacia to keep this newly-conquered country steady in its allegiance. And, according to his assertion, people in Germany do really call them Wahlen (he writes Walachen), that is to say, Italians.
All these opinions are merely conjecture; it would therefore be useless to proceed with the list of them: but it may be proper to cite a few which seem to have a greater appearance of probability. Let us begin with Wagenseil. He considers the Gipseys to be German Jews; who about the middle of the fourteenth century, to escape the dreadful persecution which raged against them all over Europe, especially in Germany, secreted themselves in forests, [141] deserts, and subterraneous caverns. In these hiding-places they remained above half a century, not making their appearance again till the period of the Hussites: as the Hussish heresy then engrossed the public attention, with regard to the Jews all was safe. But not daring to declare themselves, they fell on the device of saying, that their respect for the Mosaic law would not permit them to become Christians, at the same time styling themselves, in general terms, Egyptian pilgrims. Those who did not yet know what they were, nor whence they came, from their wandering about (einherzichen) called them Gipseys (Zigeuner). To establish this supposition respecting the origin of the Gipseys, he refers to their language, which he says is a mixture of German and Hebrew, quoting, in proof of his assertion, near fifty words, which are evidently Hebrew. He then asks, Whence should the Gipseys have gotten so many Hebrew words into their language, if they were not Jews; at a time too when Hebrew was unknown to all other nations?—This opinion bears infinitely more the appearance of truth, than any one of those before cited. It must also have been deemed incontrovertible by the learned author, as he mentions it, in the introduction to his treatise, with great confidence, and as much self-congratulation as if he had discovered the philosopher’s-stone. Notwithstanding all this, the confutation is so short and easy, that very few words are sufficient to overturn the whole system; which rests entirely on the language:—the words quoted are taken from a gibberish vocabulary; but gibberish is not the Gipsey language. . . . What relates to the Jewish persecution is very just; but all the rest are mere, and frequently inconsistent, conjectures, founded on it by the learned writer.
A later opinion is, that the Gipseys are a horde of Tartars, which separated from the multitude under Timur, when he invaded western Asia, about the year 1401. The supposed proofs are:—First, because the Mongols (Mongols and Tartars are here reckoned one and the same people) are just as nomadic as the Gipseys. Secondly, because these have sometimes declared themselves to be Tartars. Thirdly, because the Gipsey king mentioned by Aventin, whose name was Zundel or Zindelo, a Mongol chan, was a descendant from the great Zingis: as Zindelo is a very easy change from Zingis. Fourthly, because among the several states into which the Mongol empire was divided after the death of Zingis, one was called Dsongar, and the members of it Dsongari, which agrees perfectly with Zingari. Fifthly, because the Tartar and Gipsey languages have a great affinity to each other; for during a late war between Russia and the Porte, a commander of Crim Tartars, by name Devlet Gueray, signalised himself very much; and this Devlet is perhaps derived from Devla, the Gipsey appellation for the Deity, and may be a name under which the Tartars reverence any thing respectable. Sixthly, and lastly, because the time of Timur’s expedition agrees very well with the first appearance of the Gipseys.—This is an opinion founded on six points; and one might add, in further conformation of it, that this hypothesis will reasonably determine how the Gipseys, such poor wretches in general, came to be so well stored with gold and silver at their first arrival in Europe, as Stumpf and others assert. If they were part of Timur’s followers, it was very likely to be plunder taken from the people they had conquered.
Of all these grounds, that adduced from the favourable concurrence of chronological events has the most weight, but proves neither more nor less than the bare possibility of the thing. With respect to the first point, it is not so clearly established. The Tartars are herdsmen, and the quality of the pasture for their cattle implies a fixed residence. Gipseys, on the contrary, are ignorant as to tending cattle, nor have they the smallest idea about breeding them. Further, whether they are Tartars, because they represent themselves as such, or have been declared such by other people; whether Zindelo is a Mongol chan, because his name is easily derived from Zingis; whether the language of the Tartars bears a near affinity to that of the Gipseys, because a native of Tartary was found whose name, Devlet, is perhaps derived from the Gipsey word Devla, and as that word among the Gipseys signifies God, it may possibly among the Tartars signify something like it;—all this must be left to the reader’s discretion. If such assertions are admitted for proofs, then the Gipseys must be Bohemians, because they are called so in France. Thus Chiflet must have been of Gipsey or Tartar descent, because his name may possibly be derived from Devla or Devlet. The Franks, too, are probably derived from the Trojans, because Pharamond, their king’s name, may be formed from Priamus. Dsongari and Zingari compared with each other do coincide, except that the latter is only the Latin termination given by the learned. But, besides all this, if the Gipseys must be Tartars at all events, where are the Tartars’ broad faces?—Where is their courage?—Where are the zealous religious principles with which the Tartars honour the Deity, and, upon occasion, fight for him? Finally, with regard to language, this contradicts rather than supports the opinion we are discussing. The language of the Tartars is Turkish; that of the Gipseys is quite different, as will be hereafter proved.
As these and the like arguments rather controvert the Tartar origin of the Gipseys, so can we as little agree with Mr. Pray, in supposing them to be [Tartars] of Asia Minor, from the Countries of the ancient Zichen, whose name the Gipseys are said to bear; nor with an older writer, Ekhard, who contends that they are Circassians, terrified from their habitations by Timur’s Mongols. Mr. Pray brings nothing further in support of his surmise, than the similarity of sound in the names Zigianer (Zichen or properly Zygier) and Zigeuner; together with the circumstance, that the latter appeared among us soon after Timur’s expedition into Asia Minor. Ekhard, on the contrary, who in like manner unites the names Zigeuner and Circassier—by endeavouring to prove that these, as possessors of the countries belonging to the Zichen, were by authors indifferently styled Circassier, Zygier, and Zichen—adds moreover, that the Circassian complexion was a brown yellow, exactly like that of the Gipseys; that they both suffer their hair to hang loose over the shoulders; that in their diet and clothes they are both equally dirty; and lastly, that among the Circassians, you meet with astrology, and all kinds of witchcraft, precisely the same as among the Gipseys. But this comparison, were it even better founded than it is, would only prove that you may make what you please of the Gipseys. Upon the same ground, they might just as well be supposed to be allied to the people of Otaheite, or any other uncivilised nation in any quarter of the globe. And yet the author draws this conclusion from it, that one egg is not more like another than the Circassian and the Gipsey; and he may confidently assert, that all who before his time have been of a different opinion, were mistaken.
We ought long ago to have spoken of the reputed Egyptian descent of the Gipseys; but as that has been a very current, and almost universally received, opinion, it merits a chapter by itself.
CHAPTER IV.
On the Egyptian Descent of the Gipseys.
The belief that Gipseys are of Egyptian origin, is parallel with the existence of these people in Europe. It arose from the report circulated by the first of them who arrived here that they were pilgrims from Egypt; and this statement has not only been universally adopted by the common people, but has also, here and there, obtained credit among men of learning. Had this opinion not been received at a time when every thing was taken upon trust without examination; had it not been propagated every-where by the first Gipseys, and obtained the sanction of time in following ages; it would have been impossible for it to have gained such general acceptation, or to have maintained itself even to the latest times.
Till the seventeenth century, the Egyptian descent of the Gipseys rested entirely on tradition. Thomasius was the first who endeavoured to establish this matter on satisfactory evidence. Those who, since him, have supported the same opinion, are principally the Englishman Salmon; and, lately, Signor Griselini. Before their vouchers are produced, it will be proper to mention that Thomasius speaks only of the Gipseys who travelled about Europe during the first seven years after their arrival; for he thinks that, after seven years were elapsed, these, excepting a very few, returned home again, and after their retreat the present set was produced, as has been already described. In this particular, he differs entirely from the other two writers, making the latter Gipseys a distinct race of people from those who first arrived. On the contrary, Salmon, as well as Griselini, consider the Gipseys that are now wandering in Europe, and with truth, as lineal descendants of the former, consequently bring them all from Egypt.
Thomasius says: “The first Gipseys never would allow themselves to be any people but Egyptians; asserting always, that the Lesser Egypt was their mother country: and they deserve credit, as they were an honourable worthy set of people.” One observation will be sufficient in reply:—Among the oldest writers who, prior to Stumpf, mention the Gipseys, not one seems to be acquainted with their worth. But Thomasius himself discovered the weakness of his first argument, and therefore hastens to another. “Be this as it may,” he proceeds, “they were in the earliest times, when doubtless something more certain was extant, always looked upon as Egyptians: so that it does not become us, who live two hundred years later, positively to reject what was at that time generally assented to.” Our author was not aware that this kind of reasoning proves too much; for by the same mode of arguing, every antiquated error, every ridiculous superstition, may be defended. If this be admitted, Satan gets his cloven foot again, of which modern unbelief had bereft him. Thus, Christian Thomasius acted unjustifiably when he laid violent hands on witches and sorcerers, and put an end to their existence, though credited from the highest antiquity. Thomasius imagines there were other proofs, beside the Gipseys’ own assertions, that they were Egyptians; this supposition, however, not only has nothing to support it, but is openly contradicted by Aventin, Kranz, and Münster. It is not authenticated because the chronicles universally mention it as a saying of the Gipseys, whenever they speak of their coming from Egypt. It is confuted by Aventin, who rejects their Egyptian descent; at the same time he alledges, that they wished to be thought from that country. In his time, nothing was known concerning them, but what came from their own mouths: and those who thought them Egyptians, rested their belief entirely on the veracity of their informants. This is collected with greater certainty from Kranz and Münster; for these declare expressly, that every thing which could be discovered, by any other means than their own assertions, contradicted rather than confirmed their Egyptian descent. Yet Thomasius has more proofs; he cites the resemblance between the Gipseys and the inhabitants of the Lesser Egypt, whence they say they came. But many people lay this difficulty in his way, that the name of Lesser Egypt is not to be found in any system of geography, but is a mere invention of the Gipseys. He rests his opinion on that of Vulcanius, who looks upon Nubia to be the Lesser Egypt, and thinks, for what reason does not appear, that the Nubians themselves called their country by that name. These are the similarities:—Nubians, as well as Gipseys, confess themselves Christians; both lead a wandering life, and both are of a dark brown complexion: to which some resemblances in shape between the Gipseys and Egyptians are introduced in general terms. Whether there be any affinity in their languages he leaves undetermined, because, he says, he knows nothing about it. That the name of Zigeuner is the same as Egyptian, and the former is derived from the latter, he proves in the following ingenious manner: “The Spaniards—who, instead of Egyptaner, call them Gitanos—have cut off the first syllable. Our forefathers, who exceeded the Spaniards in the art of mangling names, have rejected two syllables, and, instead of Egyptianer, first called them Cianer, afterwards, in order to fill up the chasm between i and a, Ciganer. Further, as we, instead of Italianer, say Italiener, we have also changed Ciganer into Cigener; and at last, as people in Upper Germany are very fond of diphthongs, Cigeuner, or Zigeuner, has been produced.” Now, if any thing can be proved by all this, in the same manner the several opinions quoted in the former chapter are likewise established. And yet, after all, who will say, that, instead of Egyptier, Egyptianer, whence Cianer, Ciganer, and thus progressively through all the changes, Zigeuner may be produced? With regard to the denomination of Lesser Egypt, ranked under the list of Gipsey fables, and brought as evidence to overset Thomasius’s system, because Egypt never was divided into Greater and Smaller, it is nevertheless a true geographical name, though certainly not to be found in the treatises on geography: it however appears in the title of a Turkish emperor. A declaration of war, made by Achmet IV. against John Casimir, king of Poland, in 1652, begins with the following words: “I sultan, a king and son of the Turkish emperor, a soldier of the God of the Greeks and Babylonians—king of the Greater and Lesser Egypt.” The Gipseys have therefore, in this instance, been falsely accused of a fiction: but whether by this Lesser Egypt, Lower Egypt be understood, cannot be determined.
Salmon believes the Gipseys to be Mamelukes, who were obliged to quit Egypt in 1517, when the Turkish emperor conquered this country, and thereby put an end to the Circassian government. They are reputed to have acquired the name of Zigeuner, or in the Turkish language Zinganies, from a Captain Zinganeus, who was very active in opposing the Turks. How all this is proved, will best appear from his own words: “They had no occasion for any testimony to shew they were of Egyptian descent. The blackness of their skin clearly indicated from what part they came. What confirms me, in my belief of this intelligence, concerning the origin of the Gipseys, is an act of Parliament, passed in the twenty-seventh year of the reign of Henry VIII.—that is, fourteen years after the victory obtained by Selim emperor of the Turks over Egypt—in which are the following words: Whereas certain outlandish people, who do not profess any craft or trade, whereby to maintain themselves; but go about, in great numbers, from place to place, using insidious underhand means to impose on his Majesty’s subjects, making them believe that they understand the art of foretelling to men and women their good or ill fortune, by looking in their hands, whereby they frequently defraud people of their money; likewise are guilty of thefts and highway robberies: it is hereby ordered, that the said vagrants, commonly called Egyptians, in case they remain one month in the kingdom, shall be proceeded against as thieves and rascals, and on the importation of any such Egyptian, he (the importer) shall forfeit 40l. . . . for every trespass.” He then quotes another act, passed during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, wherein the Gipseys are also called Egyptians.
From the blackness of their skins, therefore, with the official use of the name Egyptian, Salmon first draws the inference that they were really Egyptians: then, because the first decree published against the Gipseys in England was fourteen years after Selim’s conquest of Egypt, that they were Mamelukes. There is not any connection to be discovered in either conclusion. The Parliament used in the act the word Egyptian, because it was universally current in England. Whether the Gipseys were Egyptians or not, was a question of learning, totally irrelevant with the intention of the order; nor could it be determined by any juridical decree.
There is still less reason for supposing them Mamelukes who had travelled from Egypt on its being taken by Selim in 1517, and tracing their name from one of their leaders: as both they and their name were known in Europe at least a hundred years preceding the fall of Gäwry; or before Tumanbai, the latest hope of the Mamelukes, was hanged. [154]
Griselini advances numerous reasons in support of his opinion, and would certainly go a great way towards determining the Egyptian origin of the Gipseys, if, as in most investigations, more did not depend upon the quality than the number of the proofs. Yet he does not suppose them to be genuine Egyptians; and for this reason, because the greatest number of those resemblances which he has sought between Egyptians and Gipseys, intended to prove the latter descended from the former, are not applicable to the question. Besides, he finds himself under the necessity of looking for foreign helps; and what he cannot make coincide with the Egyptians, he meets with among the Ethiopians and Troglodytes: these he introduces promiscuously, kneads the whole together, and determines the Gipseys to be a mixture of Ethiopians, Egyptians, and Troglodytes. This very circumstance, even before his reasons are considered, renders the matter very suspicious. By the same means, it would not be very difficult to shew that the Italians are, in part, on account of their nastiness, Ostiacks; in part, because of their superstition, and admiration of magnificent edifices, Egyptians; and lastly, in part, for their dastardly treacherous revenge, Chinese.
Griselini begins his comparisons with the disposition of the Gipseys. He says,—
“They are inclined to melancholy, and are desperate in the first emotions of their anger:—Ammianus Marcellinus describes the Egyptians, of his time, in nearly the same terms.
“With regard to religion,” he proceeds, “the Gipseys of the Banat always conform to that which prevails in the village, be it the Roman-catholic or the Illyrian Greek. They have not the least comprehension of either; in which ignorance they perfectly resemble the Wallachians—except that they observe the strict fasts of the Greek church with more exactness. The Wallachians separate from their wives only during the last days of the great fasts: the Gipseys, on the contrary, avoid their society from the beginning to the end; also on the Ascension of the Blessed Virgin, in Advent, and especially all vigils.—Apuleius, and other writers of antiquity, take particular notice of the Egyptian fasts, whose strictness consisted chiefly in this, that the man held himself obliged to refrain from his consort’s bed.
“But, beside these solemn fasts, the Gipseys of the Banat observe a degree of temperance, and a choice in their diet, even on those days when all kinds of food are permitted. They abstain from frogs and tortoises; wherein they accord with the Wallachians, Räizes, and other Christians of the Greek church. Moreover, they refrain from some kinds of river fish, viz. the red-scaled bream, perch, and lampreys; of which it is known that, among the Egyptians, the race of Likopolis and Tagaroriopolis refused to taste. The Gipseys are adverse to all feathered game, and particularly to birds of prey. The stork, when he deigns to build on their wretched huts, is highly esteemed by them:—one of these birds, like its relation ibis, was an object of worship, with other symbolical Egyptian deities.
“Of four-footed animals, the Gipseys are most fond of swine’s flesh, particularly salted.—The Egyptians likewise consumed a great number of these creatures, though they looked upon their herds and keepers to be unclean.
“The Gipseys hang up large onions in their dwellings, but do not eat them.—Besides that the Egyptians honoured them, as well as many other vegetables, we are informed by Diodorus Siculus, that by the regulations relating to diet, observed in the different Egyptian provinces, onions were prohibited in some, but allowed in others.
“Like the old Egyptians, the Gipseys cannot bear the smell of beans; although their neighbours, the Wallachians, eat them with pleasure.
“When I was at Denta, in the district of Csakowa, curiosity led me into a Gipsey hut. The first object which arrested my attention was a young man covered with the itch, whose mother was feeding him with the boiled flesh of a small snake, on a dirty earthen plate.—In the same manner the Egyptians used the flesh of snakes, as the mildest and most effectual remedy for the elephantiasis.
“It is well known that, even to this day, fowls and others of the feathered tribe are hatched by art in Egypt.—I must confess I was not a little surprised when, in July, 1775, I went into a Gipsey hut before Karansebes, to find an old woman engaged in hatching geese and ducks eggs, in horse-dung. This was exactly the method of the old Egyptians.
“From all which has hitherto been produced, as well as that the Gipseys of the Banat, and others dispersed over the rest of Europe, declare themselves to be from Egypt, it is highly probable that they are of Egyptian origin. But see a nearer resemblance. So long ago as in Ælian’s time, the Egyptians were famous for their patience in enduring all kinds of torture; and would rather expire on the rack, than be brought to confession; which is a striking trait in the character of the Gipseys. When this equivocal means of learning the truth, the torture, was practised in the imperial royal hereditary dominions, several instances may be remembered of the Gipseys suffering themselves to be torn to pieces sooner than acknowledge crimes, even when the magistrates had the most indisputable proofs of them.”
Thus far has been to prove the Egyptian descent of the Gipseys. What follows is against it; and, from the similarity of their condition, is to convince us that they are of Æthiopian and Troglodytish origin.
“According to the most authentic writers, the Egyptians were solicitous to build themselves convenient habitations. They lived decently; and their attention to cleanliness, in the observance of certain rules of health, was so general, that even the peasants, and the lowest classes of people in the nation, were no exception to it.—The residences of the Gipseys in the Banat present a very different picture. . . . Miserable dwellings, consisting, partly of thorns and straw packed together, and partly of holes, ten or twelve feet deep, dug in the earth. Taken in this point of view, the Gipseys have more the appearance of being related to the hordes of Æthiopians and Troglodytes.
“Among the ancient Egyptians, agriculture was in high esteem; as it still is among the present Copts, their true descendants.—The Gipseys, on the contrary, are the worst, and most careless farmers: another argument for their being Ethiopians and Troglodytes.
“These and other African hordes, employ themselves in collecting gold out of the river sand;—in like manner, the Marosch, Nera, and other streams, have induced the Gipseys to become goldwashers.
“An inclination for strolling, to which the Egyptians were so very adverse, is the particular propensity of the Gipseys in general; nor are those of the Banat exempt from it.
“The more artful, particularly of the other sex, go about from house to house, where they tell fortunes, cast nativities, discover thefts, and pretend they possess remedies, to which they ascribe wonders and infallible cures. These nostrums consist, chiefly, of roots, amulets, certain small stones . . . mostly a kind of scoriæ.—Among the Egyptians, likewise, such impostors rambled up and down. These were Ethiopians by descent, who carried on a similar trade.
“From the last considerations, compared with the former, one would be inclined rather to deduce the origin of the Gipseys from the Ethiopians and Troglodytes, than from the Egyptians. But what I am going to add, will make it more probable that they are a mixture of all the three nations. [161]
“It is well known that people of both sexes, calling themselves Egyptian priests and priestesses, were, in ancient times, scattered through Italy, Greece, and all the provinces of the Roman empire: where they not only introduced the worship of the goddess Isis, but wandered from place to place, begged, and professed the same kinds of ingenuity in which the Gipseys of the Banat, and the rest of their brethren dispersed over Europe, are so thoroughly versed. These said priests and priestesses, which Apuleius ironically calls magnæ religionis sidera, not only knocked at people’s doors, in Rome, with their sistris, but even had the skill to persuade the common people, that to refuse them alms and to commit sacrilege were equally heinous. They even went so far as to threaten those who slighted them, in the name of their goddess Isis, to strike them with blindness, or the tympany (hydrops tympanites).—Aventin says, the Gipseys could so terrify the people in Bavaria, with the like threats, that they suffered themselves to be robbed by them with impunity. Likewise in the Banat, the women, particularly, are heard to vent the most horrid curses and imprecations if they are reprimanded, or not paid for their calculations of nativities, singing, or fortune-telling.
“The licentiousness and immorality of the Gipseys are extreme. In early youth, when yet young girls, they exhibit themselves, with their dances, before every person from whom they expect any present; and these dances always end in lascivious attitudes and shameful gestures. In like manner, the ordinary women in Egypt used to dance at their orgies, especially at the feast of Bubostes, and the procession of Canopus. The like scenes appeared at Rome, among the wives, daughters, and sponsors of the priests of Isis, agreeably to the mysteries of that goddess.”
Griselini now comes to the point:—To what nation did these priests and priestesses belong? And when did their emigration happen?
“It was after the time of Augustus,” he says, “that they began to wander through the different parts of Europe; in every district of which, they endeavoured to disseminate the worship of Isis.
“They practised astrology, and other kinds of superstitious impositions, with all sorts of vagrants’ tricks, in nearly the same manner as the Gipseys of our age deceive people.
“Now it is known that the Egyptian priests had stated incomes, from appropriated lands; which circumstance attached them to their native country: and hence they hated an unsettled life. Neither did they desire to make proselytes; and strangers, who wished to be initiated into the rites and mysteries of Isis, were obliged to submit to be circumcised;—this ceremony was indispensable: on the contrary, the before-mentioned priests of Isis wandering about the Roman provinces, never mentioned a word of circumcision to their new converts. Very sensible critics have produced palpable evidence that they were Ethiopians and Troglodytes, who could the more easily pass for Egyptians, as their features, persons, customs, and religion, were the same.
“Of all the writers who mention these emigrations, from Egypt, into Italy, Greece, and every part of the globe which was known in the time of the Romans, I shall refer only to Heliodorus. It was very possible that, sometimes, real Egyptians who had been driven by misfortunes from their native country, or perhaps some of the very lowest rank of people who had nothing to lose, might be mixed with these wanderers. From this mixture of Ethiopians, Troglodytes, and Egyptians, then, sprang a distinct wandering race, which partakes, in some measure, of all the three nations; and from which, according to the foregoing observations, we may reasonably conclude the Gipseys of our time to be descended; as in all of them we discover, sometimes the Troglodyte, sometimes the Ethiopian, and sometimes the Egyptian.
“That no mention is made of them in the Hungarian yearly publications before the year 1417, is by no means a proof that they were not known long before, both in that kingdom and the Banat. If we admit the Roman coins which are dug out of the earth as proof that the Romans have been inhabitants of any place, without the concurrent testimony of any historian; we are equally authorised to admit the little Egyptian idols, of bronze, which are dug up near them in the Banat, as proof for the Gipseys. Being dispersed all over the Roman conquest, why might they not as well, when Dacia became a province, have gone there likewise, and propagated the worship of Isis, Anubis, and other Egyptian deities, the same as in Italy?”
Such are Mr. Griselini’s arguments, stated very diffusely, as they may be found in his works: but it will be evident, that what he adduces in support of his opinion, is a direct proof that it cannot be established. Supposing any person charitable enough to allow there is good argument in his far-fetched similarities; yet the circumstance, that neither in the Hungarian nor in any other Journals, is the least notice taken of Gipseys before the year 1417, would overset the whole again. Griselini felt this himself; but what he urges in reply, is no answer to the objection. Nor is it just, that the Roman coins found in the Banat should be esteemed, without concurrent testimony, a proof of the Romans having formerly dwelt there. German crowns are, as Mr. Niebuhr informs us, the chief current coin in Yemen (Arabia Felix), and great numbers are yearly sent thither for coffee. If some centuries hence, when revolutions may have occasioned great changes, the said German money should be dug up, would any historical writer venture to assert as a truth, that Arabia Felix had formerly been inhabited by Germans! But it is unnecessary to enter into a laboured confutation of Mr. Griselini’s arguments; yet a few hints, with respect to his mode of proceeding, strike so forcibly, that we cannot forbear to notice them.
He relies chiefly upon certain similarities between the Gipseys, Egyptians, and Ethiopians, without reflecting whether they are distinctions peculiar to these people. Of this description the following are examples:—he thinks the Gipseys must be Troglodytes and Ethiopians, because they follow the employment of goldwashing; these latter, as well as some of the African hordes, do the same in their rivers which produce gold: he makes them Egyptians, because they eat swine’s flesh: again, he concludes they must be priests of Isis, because they exclaim against the hard-hearted, who refuse the boon they ask. Are these, then, distinctions which none but Egyptians and Ethiopians have in common with the Gipseys? Is it necessary to recur to the Egyptians, to find people, beside Gipseys, who eat pork?—Or to the priests of Isis, for sturdy beggars? And, with regard to goldwashers, how came he not to recollect that the Wallachians also follow this employment?—And that near Strasburgh, beside other places, hundreds of people who have not a drop of Gipsey blood in their veins get their living by it?
Further, the said Mr. Griselini, in order to render his system the more plausible, has made use of certain expedients at the expense of truth; and, in spite of all experience to the contrary, so modelled the properties of the Gipseys, as to give them the appearance of complete Egyptians. He makes them by nature inclined to melancholy; whereas their dispositions have not the least tincture of it: they are described as most conscientiously, nay rather superstitiously, attached to religious customs; and yet, according to the universal testimony of other observers of these people, they are totally indifferent as to every thing connected with religion. He says, they are adverse to eating onions; and as for beans, they abhor them: whereas Sulzer was a witness how much they liked the flavour of both. By proceeding in this manner, every thing may be made to answer all purposes. But woe to the records and histories which are used in this manner!
It will be seen, from what has been said on the subject, that the supposed Egyptian descent of the Gipseys is very far from being proved; notwithstanding it was formerly so generally credited, and even is to this day. Arguing on the supposition that they originated from Egypt, care was taken to inform us what kind of people they had been in that country. It is very confidently related, and to our great edification, that their forefathers were the same sorcerers who, in the presence of Pharaoh, imitated Moses’s miracles: moreover, that the Egyptian king set these people as taskmasters over the children of Israel, in order to render their labour the more grievous: and finally, that these were the very murderers employed by the inhuman Herod, to carry into effect his cruel decree respecting the children of Bethlehem. This kind of dreaming has been carried still further; it having been calculated to what degree of indolence these people had accustomed themselves in Egypt, living by the labour and sweat of others. Afterwards, when, contrary to expectation, the Children of Israel escaped from their servitude, the lucrative employment of these overseers, of course, had an end: instead of reconciling themselves to any kind of labour, they rather chose to decamp, with goods, wives, and children, from Egypt, in hopes, by cunning and fraud, to procure an easier subsistence in foreign countries. They pursued this shameful course of life through the following centuries; and have, at last, pushed their excursions into our territories.
But it is not sufficient that the Egyptian descent of these people is entirely destitute of proof; on the other side, the most positive proof is to be found to contradict it. Their language differs entirely from the Coptic; and their customs, as Ahasuerus Fritsch has remarked, are diametrically opposite to the Egyptian. To these facts must be added that weighty circumstance, of their wandering about like strangers in Egypt, where they form a distinct people; as not only Bellonius, but many later writers assure us. Muratori, therefore, is not in the wrong, when he thinks it ridiculous to account them Egyptians—people having no better authority for this belief, than their own unsupported opinion.
Thus, then, stands the argument, as well with respect to the derivation of the Gipseys in general, as in regard to the Egyptian descent of them in particular. While many men, and among these some very respectable for their learning, declare the origin of these people to remain an unsolved riddle, the opinion that they were not originally from Egypt, will, it is thought, by the contents of this and the foregoing chapter, be thoroughly confirmed. Notwithstanding the innumerable researches, the Gipseys still remain unacknowledged inmates in Europe.
It may nevertheless be doubted whether Swinburne is quite right, in asserting it to be impossible ever to find out the real home of these strangers. After so many unsuccessful endeavours, it is not without apprehension, though with the best-founded hope, we venture on another trial.
CHAPTER V.
The Gipseys come from Hindostan.
It is justly asserted, that one of the most infallible methods of determining the origin of these people with certainty, would be the discovery of a country where their language was in common use. The first and most necessary examination here, therefore, will be, to find out the part of the globe in which the Gipseys’ language is that of the natives: and this country is no other than Hindostan. But before we endeavour to prove this assertion, by a comparison of the Hindostan and Gipsey languages, it will be proper to premise something, which will serve as an introduction of considerable weight. It is an article of intelligence, to be found in the Vienna Gazette, and comes from a Captain Szekely von Doba, a man who was thinking of nothing less than of searching for the Gipseys and their language in the East Indies.
“In the year 1763, on the 6th of November,” says Captain Szekely, “a printer, whose name was Stephen Pap Szathmar Nemethi, came to see me. Talking upon various subjects, we at last fell upon that of the Gipseys; and my guest related to me the following anecdote, from the mouth of a preacher of the reformed church, Stephen Vali, at Almasch in the county of Komora.—When the said Vali studied at the university of Leyden, he was intimately acquainted with some young Malabars, of whom three are obliged constantly to study there, nor can they return home till relieved by three others. Having observed that their native language bore a great affinity to that spoken by the Gipseys, he availed himself of the opportunity to note down, from themselves, upwards of one thousand words, together with their significations. They assured him, at the same time, that upon their island was a tract of land, or province, called Czigania (but it is not laid down on the map). After Vali was returned from the university, he informed himself, among the Raber Gipseys, concerning the meaning of his Malabar words, which they explained without trouble or hesitation.”
In this anecdote, every thing seems to happen by chance; even to the learned man who published it in the Gazette, it appeared as if fallen from the clouds, and entirely oversets his system; for he was the person, mentioned above, who broached the opinion of the Gipseys being Mongol Tartars. So much more weighty, therefore, and unexceptionable, are the hints it throws out, for the discovery of the Gipseys’ mother country, by means of their language.
The consideration that, according to this anecdote, the Gipsey language is declared to be Malabar, and we have pronounced it Hindostan, does not create any difficulty, although they are very different from each other. Probably the three young men, from whom Vali took down his words, were Bramins’ sons, whose language was that proper to the learned Bramins, or the Shanscritt. But the affinity between this and the common language spoken by the people of Hindostan, is the same as between pure Latin and modern Italian. It was therefore very natural that the Raber Gipseys should understand, if not all, at least the greatest part of the words which Vali repeated to them.
However, we do not want this come-off. The difficulty will subside without it, when we examine the connection between the Gipsey and Hindostan languages. The next thing, therefore, is to give a list of words from both.
Numerals.
Gipsey. | Hindostan. | English. | |
Ick; Ek | Ek | One | |
Duj; Doj | Du | Two | |
Trin; Tri | Tin | Three | |
Schtar; Star | Tschar | Four | |
Pantsch; Pansch | Pansch | Five | |
Tschowe; Schow; Sof | Tscho | Six | |
Efta | Hefta; Sat | Seven | |
Ochto | Aute | Eight | |
Now | Nine | ||
Desch; Des | Dos; Des | Ten | |
Besch; Bisch; Bis | Bjs | Twenty | |
Trianda; Tranda | Tjs | Thirty | |
Starweldesch; Saranda | Tschaljs | Forty | |
Pantschwerdesch; Panda Pontsandis | Petschass | Fifty | |
Tschowerdesch; Schoandis | Sytt | Sixty | |
Estawerdesch | Syttr | Seventy | |
Ochtowerdesch | Asseh | Eighty | |
Eijawerdesch; Enjandis | Nubbeh | Ninety | |
Tschèl; Schèl; Sel | Souw | Hundred | |
Deschwerschel; Ekezeros | Ekhazar; Hazar | Thousand | |
O Gluno; a Jékto | Pajla | The First | |
O Duito; a Duito | Dusera | The Second | |
O Trito | Tjssera | The Third | |
O Schtarto | Tscharta | The Fourth | |
Nouns Substantive.
Gipsey. | Hindustan. | English. | ||
Tziro | Wakht | Time | ||
Bersch | Burz; Sal | A Year | ||
Manet; Tschon | Meina | A Month | ||
Diwes | Diw; Rase | Day | ||
Ratti; Rattgin; Rat | Rateh | Night | ||
Feizrile | Fazir; Nur | Morning | ||
Kurko | Etwar | Sunday | ||
Doga | Tschis | An Affair; a Thing | ||
Kak | Tulad; Rykem | The Sex | ||
Arti | Zatt | The Sort | ||
Goswro | Gustur; Moffikj | The Manner | ||
Jek; Otter | Tschan; Tukra | A Piece | ||
Gin | Adadah | The Number | ||
Dewe; Dewel; Dewol; Dewla | Khoda; Allah | God | ||
Deuw; Muret | An Idol | |||
Bollopen; Boliben | Dune | The World | ||
Mulro | Dumm | The Spirit | ||
Sie; Wode | Jan | The Soul | ||
Trupo; Teschta | Dhj; Ang; Hal | The Body | ||
Shweto; Tscherosz | Behescht; Asman | Heaven | ||
Tserhenje; Tscherhenja | Tara | A Star | ||
Cham; Cam; Okam | Kam; Surez | The Sun | ||
Schon; Tschemut; Mrascha | Tschand | The Moon | ||
Prabal | Howah | The Air | ||
Jag; Jak; Jago | Ag | Fire | ||
Panj; Pango | Panj | Water | ||
Pu; Bhu; Pube; Epebu | Zemin | The Earth | ||
Balwal, Bear | Beiar; Batas | The Wind | ||
Felhoeschnodi | Baddel | A Cloud | ||
Felheschine | Bjdschelj | Lightening | ||
Tschetogasch | Meg | Thunder | ||
Brischint; Brechindo | Birrsat | Rain | ||
Mrascha; Osch | Kohassa; Osh | The Dew | ||
Koeddo | Kohassa; Kohol | Fog | ||
Temm | Muluk | The Soil | ||
Akra | Moidan | The Field | ||
Hedjo | Pahr | A Mountain | ||
Bar | Pytter; Kaja | A Hillock | ||
Gere; Wermo | Gerrah | A Pit | ||
Wesch | Djp | An Island | ||
Baro Pani | Deriauw | The Ocean | ||
Sero | Dschjl | The Sea | ||
Kunara; Parra | Kinerj | The Shore | ||
Tato Panj; Poschi | Tschata | Morass; Slough | ||
Hani; Foljasi | Pohara | A Spring | ||
Hanj; Hanik | Huah; Koka | A Well | ||
Tallo | Tallauw | A Dike | ||
Flammus | Tjm; Lu | Flame | ||
Jangar; Angar | Koyla | Coal | ||
Mommli; Mumeli | Batthj | Light | ||
Schik | Moil | Mud | ||
Rag; Bowus | Ashes | |||
Mescho | Tscuna | Chalk | ||
Balu | Bull; Rith | Sand | ||
Bàre; Bar | Sanka; Pytter | Stone | ||
Wahlin; Tcheklo | Belun | Glass | ||
Jegekoro bar | Patter | Flint-stone | ||
Sonnai; Sonnikey;Schomnakai | Suna | Gold | ||
Rùp | Ruppa | Silver | ||
Tzaster; Trascht | Luha | Iron | ||
Tschino | Kelley | Tin | ||
Molliwo | Mulwa; Sjscha | Lead | ||
Tzindo rup | Parrat | Quicksilver | ||
Lohn; Lon | Nun | Salt | ||
Lonkeren | Sura | Saltpetre | ||
Kandini momelli | Genden | Sulphur | ||
Char; Tschar; Wira | Gas | Grass | ||
Jiv | Giuw | Wheat | ||
Gib; Arpa | Jou | Barley | ||
Tzirja: Pura | Ljsun | Garlic | ||
Purum; Lolipurum | Peiaz | Onion | ||
Schach | Kubj | Cabbage | ||
Hirhil | Mytter | Peas | ||
Dudum | Hulla | A Gourd | ||
Herbuzho | Terbus | A Melon | ||
Boborka | Birka | A Cucumber | ||
Rùk | Garsch | A Tree | ||
Pabuj | Pawug; Sjuw | An Apple | ||
Brohl | Prohlo | A Pear | ||
Télel | Januwr | A Beast | ||
Kirmo | Kentschuwa | A Worm Silk | ||
Rezh | Rissem | Silk | ||
Birlin | Mumukkj; Schehetkj | A Bee | ||
Jerni | Mum | Wax | ||
Gwju; Mescho | Schahed | Honey | ||
Kirja | Kiro; Tschontj | An Ant | ||
Jua; Tzua | Juj | A Louse | ||
Puzhum; Puschan | Pjsche | A Flea | ||
Mutschli | Fish | |||
Alo | Bam | An Eel | ||
Tschirikli; Tschiriklo | Tschuri | A Bird | ||
Bischothilo | Ghido | The Eagle | ||
Papin; Papim; Papi | Hans | A Goose | ||
Hiretza; Retschori | Buttugh | A Duck | ||
Tovadei | Tubbuter; Tschetschlj | A Dove | ||
Jaros; Garum | Unnda | An Egg | ||
Baro peng; Oroschlana | Sjr; Sing | The Lion | ||
Ru | Bira; Hundar | A Wolf | ||
Jùkel; Tzùkel; Juket; Tschokel;Schokel; Tschikel | Kuttha | A Dog | ||
Schoschi; Tschoschai | Sassa; Khurr | A Hare | ||
Papinori | Baner | An Ape | ||
Gra; Grea; Krej | Gorra; Ghassi | A Horse | ||
Gratsch; Grast | Gorra | A Stallion | ||
Grasnj; Graschni | Gorrj | A Mare | ||
Dernagresch | Batscheru | A Foal | ||
Gurrub; Guru; Gurni | Gorna; Boil | An Ox | ||
Guruni; Kircumni; Gurongatsch | Gaj; Borjuko | A Cow | ||
Warjuhilo | Batschera | A Calf | ||
Bàkera: Bakra;Bakro | Bhjra; Bhjri; Mendha; Mendhi | A Sheep | ||
Bakero; Bhara dohilo | Mendhj batscha | A Lamb | ||
Jeschingingri; Ketschka | Bukkrj | A Goat | ||
Balo; Bala | Pala; Sur | A Swine | ||
Bikarisch krohilo | Sur | A Boar | ||
Balóra | Surbatscha | A Pig | ||
Beng; Mendowk | A Frog | |||
Tsap | Sarap | A Snake | ||
Beng | Guddj | A Dragon | ||
Kazht; Karscht | Lakerj | Wood | ||
Tschjlka; Borka | Tschal | The Bark | ||
Patrin | Pat | A Leaf | ||
Pèperi | Mirritz | Pepper | ||
Bàl; Pàl | Bàl | The Hair | ||
Puzhum | Ojr | Wool | ||
Pori | Dum | The Tail | ||
Rat | Lohu | Blood | ||
Tud | Dhud | Milk | ||
Kjl | Kel; Mukken | Butter | ||
Kiral; Chiral; Kiras | Panjr | Cheese | ||
Tulo | Tschjli | Fat | ||
Swa | Ansu | A Tear | ||
Mas; Masz | Ghost | Flesh | ||
Tschero; Schero;Cheru | Ser | The Head | ||
Aok; Jaok; Jaka; Po;Aran | Awk | The Eye | ||
Kan | Kawn | The Ear | ||
Nàk | Nakk | The Nose | ||
Tscham | Gal | The Cheek | ||
Tchammedini | Thori | A Slap on the Face | ||
Tschor | Dharri | The Beard | ||
Mui; Moi | Mu | The Mouth | ||
Dant | Dant | A Tooth | ||
Tschib; Tscheb | Jibb | The Tongue | ||
Men | Gerdhen; Gulla | The Neck | ||
Dummo | Piteh | The Back | ||
Andririk | Terrik | The Side | ||
Gew; Buhl | Tschutter | The Behind | ||
Kelin | Tschatti | The Breast | ||
Per | Piteh | The Belly | ||
Mossin; Mucia | Bhan; Hateh | The Arm | ||
Wast; Wass | Hateh | The Hand | ||
Kuzhilo; Guzhdo; Gusto | Awngli | A Finger | ||
Anguta | The Thumb | |||
Heroi | Tingeri | The Leg | ||
Piro | Par; Pauw | The Foot | ||
Tschangu | Gunga | The Knee | ||
Naj | Nouh | A Finger Nail | ||
Sie; Si | Djl | The Heart | ||
Buko | Sjiger | The Liver | ||
Buchlipen | Jagga | A Place | ||
Rundo | Nala | A District | ||
Geb | Gibah; Tsched | A Hole | ||
But; Behjr | Pot | A Multitude | ||
Pisla | Toro | A Scarcity | ||
Lowe; Löwe | Peyssa | Money | ||
Libra | Sere | A Pound | ||
Jemia; Miga | Koss | A Mile | ||
Buda; Purana | Potdjna | Age | ||
Tschiwawa | Tiuw; Ratbhah | Life | ||
Rikewela | Ehad | The Memory | ||
Sunjo | Sunnj | The Hearing | ||
Sung | Sunkh | The smell | ||
Sik | Tschik | The Taste | ||
Rakerpen; Rakriben; Tschip | Bat; Juvanj | The Speech | ||
Lab; Alo | Bat; Kelam | A Word | ||
Nao; Lawe | Nom | A Name | ||
Liel | Khutt | An Epistle | ||
Buchos | Ketab | A Book | ||
Schin | Rengeh | Colour | ||
Pul; Pos | Pual | Straw | ||
Baxt | Bukhtj | Fortune | ||
Dromnazhedum | Aheb; Tiffauti | Error | ||
Sik | Minet | Diligence | ||
Merla | Mordanj; Mot | Death | ||
Bkò | Buk | Hunger | ||
Truzhilo | Peas | Thirst | ||
Sentinella | Para; Tschokkj | Watching | ||
Sowawa | Njn; Khab | Sleep | ||
Dùk | Dirk | Smart | ||
Dòko | Dumm | The Breath | ||
Ghas | Kassj | A Cough | ||
Butin | Kar; Kam | Labour | ||
Mekljm | Balsam | |||
Tschinneben | Zukhmj; Gatel | A Wound | ||
Ker | Gurr; Havelj | A House | ||
Tschater; Chör | Tschater | A Tent; Roof | ||
Gadsi | Kassi; Juru | A Wife | ||
Tschowo; Tschabo | Lirrka | A Child | ||
Tsche; Tschaj | Tschuknj | A Girl | ||
Tschabe; Tschawo | Tschokna | A Boy | ||
Tschek | Tschekerin | A Virgin | ||
Dade; Dadi | Bab | A Father | ||
Daj; Daju; Dajo | Ma | A Mother | ||
Mami | A Grandmother | |||
Tschawo; Schave | Beth | A Son | ||
Tschaj; Schaj | Bethj | A Daughter | ||
Tschakrorum | Jamwatsch | Son-in-law | ||
Kako | Tsche-tscherabhais | Cousin | ||
Dades Krupral | Tschatscha | Father’s Brother | ||
Dades Kripen | Tschatschi | Father’s Sister | ||
Pewli | Rhenduj; Rand | A Widow | ||
Velèto | Noker; Tschaker | Man Servant | ||
Rakli | Tschakerin | Maid Servant | ||
Wirthus | Gurkka-Suheb | A Landlord | ||
Werda | Seratsch; Kham | An Inn | ||
Sikerwawa | Talima | Instruction | ||
Putzjum | Sowal | A Question | ||
Pen | Bjn; Jivab | An Answer | ||
Mangawa | Urrizi | A Petition | ||
Schegari; Sidah | The Chase | |||
Wezheskro | Scheggar | A Huntsman | ||
Kellipen | Kele; Notsch | A Game | ||
Schetra | Serinda | A Violin | ||
Tschorori | Tscherjfi; Konkatj | Poverty | ||
Drum | Musafferj | A Voyage; Journey | ||
Jangustri; Gostring;Gusderin | Angutri | A Ring | ||
Tower; Tober | Kulhari | An Ax; A Bill | ||
Pàl | Mes; Tukhta | A Board | ||
Bechari | Piala; Tschasj | A Cup | ||
Tschupni | Tschabukk | A Whip | ||
Tschor | Tschur | A Thief | ||
Tschordas | Tschurj | A Theft | ||
Dhoro; Krjs | A Sword; Dagger | |||
Pleisserdum | Masuri | A Reward | ||
Tschatscho | Jnsaf; Sjera | Right | ||
Paro; Birda | Bharr; Birz | Weight; Burthen | ||
Tchumoben | Tschuma | A Kiss | ||
Dori | Sutlj; Fjtha | A Band | ||
Manru; Maro | Rutj | Bread | ||
Jaro; Aro | Atà; Moidda | Meal | ||
Gabèn | Konna | Food; Eatables | ||
Kjl | Mukken | Butter | ||
Raja; Rajah | Raja | The Prince | ||
Ranj | Roji | The Princess | ||
Raz | Raz; Surdari | The Principality | ||
Buklo | Koluff | A Castle | ||
Kuroben | Jungro | War | ||
Kutwnaskro | Gardj; Tscholdar | A Warrior | ||
Harmi | Hattiar | A Breastplate | ||
Puschka; Banduk | Sanduk | A Musket | ||
Gaue; Gal; Jegag | Gauw; Busti | A Village | ||
Tombun | Tumbur | A Drum | ||
Kandini momelli | Genden | Brimstone | ||
Thu | Dhuah | Smoke | ||
Paka | Bosu | The Wing | ||
Palmande | Musaka | The Rear | ||
Romm; Manusch | Murd; Manusch | Man, Mankind | ||
Jammadar | Surrdar | Commander | ||
Klusturi | Takkor bar | A Cloister | ||
Kangri; Kangheri | Musizam | A Church | ||
Isba | Ischba; Kuterj | Apartment | ||
Skaurnin | Tschukire | A Chair | ||
Kambana | Guntha Ghittal | A Bell | ||
Gowr | Kibr | The Grave | ||
Doga | Tschjs | The Matter | ||
Nani kek | Quotsch-netsch | Nobody | ||
Schut | Sirrka | Vinegar | ||
Ker; Baua | Havelj; Emarat | An Edifice | ||
Klidin | Tschabj; Kili | A Key | ||
Schoste | Petschamma | Drawers | ||
Koro | Kurti | A Coat | ||
Kuni | Map; Kejasa | A Measure | ||
Kutschahu | Kitseh | Potter’s Clay | ||
Goig | A Sausage | |||
Mol | Angur; Schrab | Wine | ||
Gereta | Karamitti | Chalk | ||
Sapuni | Savin | Soap | ||
Kammawa | Guna | Accusation; Debt | ||
Gono | Kissa | A Knapsack | ||
Por; For | Purr; Por | A Feather | ||
Madjho; Matzlin | Mudkj | A Fly | ||
Adjectives.
Gipsey. | Hindostan. | English. | ||
Schoker | Jssekta; Hakabat | Respectable | ||
Puro | Purana; Buda | Old | ||
Dumino | Pagla | Simple | ||
Prinjerdo | Tschinta | Known | ||
Nango | Nenga | Bare | ||
Nanilalsch; Erio | Budd; Khrab | Wicked | ||
Bulhàila | Tschaura | Broad | ||
Duber; Aduito | Duara | Double | ||
Sana | Schano; Pittla | Thin | ||
Tschori ropen | Kambukht | Miserable | ||
Ajecto | Ekara | Single | ||
Tschimaster | Netko; Kerned | Eternal | ||
Latschila; Wingro | Juta | False | ||
Tamlo | Nerassa | Dark | ||
Piro | Kalasch | Free | ||
Zelo | Sumutscha | Entire | ||
Baro | Burra | Great | ||
Latscho | Bala | Good | ||
Tschorero | Budd-suret | Ugly, Hateful | ||
Pral | Unscha | High | ||
Boko | Buka | Hungry | ||
Baugo | Benka; Tera | Crooked | ||
Tikno; Tigno | Tengna | Short | ||
Bango | Lingra; Aftara | Lame | ||
Lokes; Betschuker | Djla; Derrtschka | Slow | ||
Sorlo | Jeura | Powerful | ||
Kindo | Binga | Wet | ||
Nevo | Naia | New | ||
Matwir; Talivirr | Rich | |||
Kalo; Kala | Kala; Sjah | Black | ||
Mitschach | Tik | Severe | ||
Bharahilo | Barri | Heavy | ||
Gudlo | Mitha | Sweet | ||
Gor | Gehera | Deep | ||
Merla; Mojas | Mua; Whakka | Dead | ||
Schukrohilo | Sukka | Dry | ||
Gojemen | Kuffa | Arrogant | ||
But | Bot; Fatta | Much | ||
Perdo | Purra; Bharra | Full | ||
Massob | Kaberdar | Watchful | ||
Tscha | Sutscha | True | ||
Tatto; Tatip | Gorm | Warm | ||
Parna | Saffed; Vjela | White | ||
Dur | Tschaura | Far | ||
Naneleskeksi | Tschimmero | Tough | ||
Verbs.
Example how the two Languages decline.
1. Without being joined to an Adjective.
Singular Number.
| Gadzo | Adami | A Man |
| Gadzeskero | Adamika | Of the Man |
| Gadzsko | Adamiko | To the Man |
| Gadzo | Adami; Adamiko | The Man |
| O Gadzo | O Adami | O Man |
| Gadzestar; Gadzese | Adamise | from, with the Man |
Plural Number.
| Gadze | Adamjon | Men |
| Gadzengero | Adamjonka | Of the Men |
| Gadzengo | Adamjonko | To the Men |
| Gadze | Adamjon; Adamjonko | The Men |
| O Gadze | O Adamjon | O Men |
| Gadzendar; Gadzense | Adamjonse | from, with the Men |
Singular Number.
| Kafidi | Mes | The Table |
| Kafidjakero | Meska | Of the Table |
| Kafidjake | Mesko | To the Table |
| Kafidi | Mes; Mesko | The Table |
| O Kafidi | O Mes | O Table |
| Kafidjater; Kafidjse | Messe | from, with the Table |
Plural Number.
| Kafidja | Mese | The Tables |
| Kafidjakero | Meseka | Of the Tables |
| [a/]Kafidjenge | Meseko | To the Tables |
| Kafidja | Mese | The Tables |
| O Kafidja | O Mese | O Tables |
| Kafidjendar; Kafidjase | Mesese | from, with the Tables |
2. With an Adjective.
Singular Number.
| Baru balo | Burra sur | The great Hog |
| Bari balis | Buna surka | Of the great Hog |
| Bari balis | Burra surko | To the great Hog |
| Baru balis | Buna sur | The great Hog |
| O Baru bails | O Burra sur | O great Hog |
| Bari balister; balisse | Burra surse | from, with the great Hog |
Plural Number.
| Baru balen | Burre sure | The great Hogs |
| Bari balen | Burre sureka | Of the great Hogs |
| Bari balen | Burre sureko | To the great Hogs |
| Baru balen | Burre sure | The great Hogs |
| O Baru balen | O Burre sure | O great Hogs |
| Bar balender; balense | Burre surese | from, with the great Hogs |
Remark I. Those syllables which, in the oblique cases, are printed in Italics, are the article. In the Gipsey, as well as in the Hindustan language, the article is not placed before the noun, but affixed behind it, and that is the sole indication of the case of a noun. In the Gipsey tongue, the article of the nominative case is o or i; in the Hindostan, a or i.
Remark II. The Gipsey language, as well as the Hindostan, has only two genders, the masculine and feminine. Those nouns which end in i, are, in both languages, feminine, and all the rest masculine. Both languages change the masculine into the feminine gender, by putting a j or an i for the termination. For Example,
| Gipsey, | Raja, the Prince, | Ranj, the Princess |
| Hindostan, | Raja, | Raji |
Some Pronouns.
1. I: Me; Me, Mo.
Singular Number.
| Me | Me; Mo | I |
| Mrohi; Man | Merra; Meika | Of me |
| Mange; Man | Mejko | To me |
| Mange; Man | Mejko | Me |
| Mander | Mejse | from Me |
| Amen; Men | Humra | We |
| Amerohi | Hummarra; Huraka | Of us |
| Amenge; Men | Hummko | To us |
| Amen; Men | Hummare; Humko | Us |
| Amendar; Amense | Hummse | from, with Us |
2. Thou: Tu; Tu.
Singular Number.
| Tu | Tu | Thou |
| Trohi; Tute | Terra | Of Thee |
| Tuke; Tute | Tuko | To Thee |
| Tutte; Tut | Tusko | Thee |
| O Tu | O Tu | O Thou |
| Tutarhi; Tuter | Tuse | from Thee |
Plural Number.
| Tumen; Tume | Tum | You |
| Tumarohi; Tumende | Tumarra | Of You |
| Tumengole; Tamen | Tumko | To You |
| Tumen; Tume | Tumarre; Tumko | You |
| O Tume | O Tum | O You |
| Tumendar; Tumense | Tumse | from, with You |
3. a. He: Job; Uweh.
Singular Number.
| Uweh | He | |
| Leste | Jssika | Of Him |
| Las | Jssiko | To Him |
| Les | Jssiko | Him |
| Lester; Leha | Jssise | from, with Him |
3. b. She: Joi; Uwehi
Singular Number.
| Joi | Uwehi | She |
| Lati | Uska | Of Her |
| La | Usko | To Her |
| La | Usko | Her |
| Later; Laha | Usise | from, with Her |
Plural Number, common to both Genders.
| Jole | Jnne | They |
| Lente | Jnneka | Of them |
| Len | Jnneko | To Them |
| Lea | Jnne | Them |
| Lender | Jnnese | from Them |
4. My: Maro; Merra
Mari; Merri
| Masculine, | Feminine. | Masculine. | Feminine. | |
| Miro | Miri | Merra | Merri | My |
| Meri | Merraka | Merrika | Of My | |
| Merige | Merrako | Merriko | To My | |
| Merige | Merra | Merri | My | |
| O Miro | O Miri | O Merra | O Merri | O My |
| Merider | Merrase | Merrse | from My |
5. Our: Maro; Hummarra
Mari; Hummarri
Singular Number.
| Maro | Miri | Hummarra | Hummarri | Our |
| Mari | Hummarraka | Hummarrika | Of Our | |
| Marige | Miro | Hummarrako | Hummarriko | To Our |
| Marige | Hummarra | Hummarri | Our | |
| O Maro | O Mari | O Hummarra | O Hummarri | O Our |
| Marider | Hummarrase | Hummarrise | from Our |
6. Thy: Tiro; Terra
Tiri; Terri
Singular Number.
| Masculine. | Feminine. | Masculine. | Feminine. | |
| Tiro | Tiri | Terra | Terri | Thy |
| Teri | Terraka | Terrika | Of Thy | |
| Terige | Terrako | Terriko | To Thy | |
| Terige | Terra | Terri | Thy | |
| O Tiro | O Tiri | O Terra | O Terri | O Thy |
| Terider | Terrase | Terrise | from, with Thy | |
| Terise |
7. Your: Tumaro; Tummarra
Tumari; Tummarri
Singular Number.
| Tumaro | Tumari | Tummarra | Tummarri | Your |
| Tumari | Tummaraka | Tummarrika | Of Your | |
| Tumarige | Tummarrako | Tummarriko | To Your | |
| Tumarige | Tummarra | Tummarri | Your | |
| O Tumaro | O Tumari | O Tummarra | O Tummarri | O Your |
| Tamarider; Tumarise | Tummarrase | Tummarrise | from, with You |
8. Who? Kohn? Gipsey; Koun? Hindostan.
[a/]Examples of the conjugation of both Languages.
I am: Me Hom; Me Hej
Present.—Singular Number.
Gipsey. | Hindostan. | English. | ||
Masculine. | Feminine. | Masculine. | Feminine. | |
Me Hom; Kom | Sinjom | He Hej; Mem Hu; Hota | Hoti | I am |
Tu Hal | Sinjel | Ty Hej; Tem Hae; Hota | Hoti | Thou art |
Job Hi | Si | Vweh Hej; Wo Hae; Hota | Hoti | He is |
Plural Number.
| Men Ham | Sinjam | Hum Hei; Ham Haem; Hote | Hotia | We are |
| Tume Ham | Sinjan | Tum Hej; Tom Ho; Hote | Hotia | Ye are |
| Jole Hi | Sinja | Jnne Hei; We Haem; Hote | Hotia | They are |
Imperfect.—Singular Number.
| Me Hames | Me Hua; Mem Tha | Thi | I was |
| Tu Hales | Tu Hua; Tem Tha | Thi | Thou wast |
| Job Has | Uweh Hua; Woh Tha | Thi | He was |
Plural Number.
| Men Hames | Hum Hue; Ham The | Thia | We were |
| Tume Hames | Tum Hue; Tom The | Thia | Ye were |
| Jole Has | Inne Hue; We The | Thia | They were |
Perfect.—Singular Number.
| Me Sinjomahi | Me Huatha | I have been |
| Tu Sinjalahi | Tu Huatha | Thou hast been |
| Job Sinja | Uweh Huatha | He hath been |
Plural Number.
| Men Sinjamahi | Hum Huathe | We have been |
| Tume Sinjanahi | Tum Huathe | Ye have been |
| Jole Sinje | Jnne Huathe | They have been |
[a/]Future.—Singular Number.
| Gipsey. | Hindostan. | English. |
| Me Owa | Me Huga | I shall be |
| Du Oweha | Tu Huga | Thou shalt be |
| Job Ula | Uweh Huga | He shall be |
Plural Number.
| Men Owaha | Hum Huge | We shall be |
| Tume Una | Tum Huge | Ye shall be |
| Jole Owena | Jnne Huge | They shall be |
Infinitive.
| Huna | To be |
To make; do: Kerja; Kurrna.
Present.—Singular Number.
| Me Kerel | Me Kurrta | I make |
| Tu Kerech | Tu Kurrta | Thou makest |
| Job Kerel | Uweh Kurrta | He maketh |
Plural Number.
| Scho Kerjem | Hum Kurrte | We make |
| Tumen Kerjen | Tum Kurrte | Ye make |
| Ou Kerde | Jnne Kurrte | They make |
Imperfect.—Singular Number.
| Me Kerjom | Me Kurrtatha | I did make |
| Tu Kerjel | Tu Kurrtatha | Thou didst make |
| O Kerje | Uweh Kurrtatha | He did make |
Plural Number.
| Scho Kerjom | Hum Kurrtathe | We did make |
| Tumen Kerjen | Tum Kurrtathe | Ye did make |
| On Kerde | Jnne Kurrtathe | They did make |
The comparison thus far will, it is presumed, be sufficient to convince every person of the truth of the position, that the Gipsey language is really that of Hindostan. Let the reader look over the catalogue once more, and it will appear, on the average, that every third Gipsey word is likewise an Hindostan one; or still more, out of thirty Gipsey words, eleven or twelve are constantly of Hindostan. This agreement is uncommonly great: it must at the same time be remembered, that the words above communicated have been learned from the Gipseys within a few years; consequently, at a time when they had been nearly four complete centuries away from Hindostan, their native country (as we may now assert it to be), among people who spoke languages totally different, and in which the Gipseys themselves conversed. Under the constant, and so long continued, influx of these languages, their own must necessarily have suffered great alteration; more especially as they are a people entirely ignorant, without either writing or literature. One foreign word after another must have crept into their language; consequently, by the frequent use of such words, the Gipsey word of the same signification was more rarely used, and by degrees lost from their recollection: by which circumstance the original composition of their language became completely deranged; [190] which is the reason why, as any person may convince himself by inspection, various languages and idioms—Turkish, Grecian, Latin, Wallachian, Hungarian, Sclavonian, German, and others—make part of the foregoing vocabulary. The word rome, man, is Coptic; with, perhaps, a few more. It does not appear that there is so much Persian in the Gipsey language, as has been generally imagined; and even what there is of it they may have brought with them from their native country, as many Persian words are current in Hindostan.
After all these reflections, we ought rather to wonder that the number of Hindostan words in the Gipsey language is so considerable, than to require it should be greater, in order to furnish sufficient proof of the Hindostan language being the Gipseys’ mother tongue.
But we have a right, from the agreement which appears in the catalogue published, to conclude the affinity is much more intimate. The idea hitherto adopted has been that, among the Gipsey words quoted, all those of the Hindostan language, answering to the annexed meaning, appear, which are still extant in the Gipsey language. But this is certainly by no means the case. It will be recollected, from the first part, how great a secret the Gipseys make of their language, and how suspicious they appear when any person wishes to learn a few words of it. Even if the Gipsey is not perverse, he is very inattentive; and is consequently likely to answer some other rather than the true Gipsey word. Under such circumstances, it is very possible, nay even probable, that in the foregoing catalogue there may many words be inserted, for which true Gipsey, of course Hindostan, words might be found; but that the Gipseys when enquired of, either from levity or by design, did not declare them.
Further, it is not all absurd to pronounce, that there remain more, or at least different, true Gipsey words among those residing in one country than another. And if, at a future period, some person should, as an experiment on the above catalogue, examine a second or third time parties of Gipseys in different countries, and compare the words obtained with those already delivered, the catalogue would certainly receive a considerable augmentation in favour of our hypothesis.
Finally, we must consider the Hindostan language itself. This, it is true, is fundamentally the same all over Hindostan; but, like every other language in the world, has different dialects in the various provinces. The eastern dialect, spoken about the Ganges, has different names for some things, and different inflexions of some words, from the western one spoken about the Indus. There is, besides, a third, varying from both these, viz. the Surat dialect, which has a number of Malabar and other words mixed with it. To this must be added, that in the Hindostan, as well as in every other language, there are often several names for the same thing. The particular dialect bearing the closest affinity to the Gipsey language, as will appear hereafter, is the western, and perhaps more especially that of Surat. Had this therefore, or the western one in general, been the standard of the above comparison; and had we not, for want of words in these dialects, been obliged frequently to have recourse to the eastern one, spoken in Bengal; or had we, even in the latter, been able to obtain so many words, that where the Gipsey, from not knowing any more, could only give us a single expression, we might have produced, not one or two as at present, but all, or at least the greater part, of the synonymous appellations: we should infallibly in this manner recover, in the Hindostan language, many a Gipsey word, which even the learned are unable to derive from the European or any other language, and yet have as little appearance of being Hindostan. With respect to the construction and inflexions of the two languages, they are evidently the same. That of Hindostan has only two genders; the Gipsey the same. In the former every word ended in j is feminine, all the rest masculine; in the latter the same rule is observed. That makes the inflections entirely by the article, adding it at the end of the word; the Gipsey language proceeds exactly in the same manner. Finally, likewise, bating a trifling variation, this identical similarity is evident in the pronouns.
So much for the language of the Gipseys. As this is indubitably Hindostan, it would be sufficient of itself to prove the descent of those people from Hindostan. But we shall now proceed to other grounds, which, united with the proofs from the language, will leave us less reason to doubt concerning this matter.
That the Gipseys, and natives of Hindostan, resemble each other in complexion and shape, and are equally timorous and cowardly, is undeniable. But we shall pass over these, together with some other circumstances; as, perhaps, neither the one nor the other are such distinguishing marks as not to be met with among other Oriental people.
The name of Polgar, likewise, carries some weight with it, which we find among the Gipseys in the earliest times, before they began to change the names they brought with them for those used in Europe. Polgar, as we may remember, was the name of the leader who, in the year 1496, obtained a safe-conduct from the Hungarian king Uladislaus II. by virtue of which he, with his horde, consisting of twenty-five tents or families, had the liberty of travelling about where he pleased. This name Polgar originates in India, where it is the appellation of a deity presiding over marriages and matrimonial concerns: the Indians are very fond of bearing this name, as well as the names of their other deities.
In reciting the employments of the Gipseys, their smith’s business was mentioned; when it was remarked, that their anvil is a stone, and what more implements they use consist in a pair of hand-bellows, a pair of tongs, a hammer, a vise, and a file. With such a portable apparatus, the travelling Gipsey wanders from place to place. We will compare this account with what Sonnerat relates of the Indian smiths: the following are his own words: “The smith carries his tools, his shop, and his forge, about with him, and works in any place where he can find employment: he erects his shop before the house of his employer, raising a low wall with beaten earth, before which he places his hearth; behind this wall he fixes two leathern bellows, which his apprentice blows alternately, to keep up the fire. He has a stone instead of an anvil, and his whole apparatus is a pair of tongs, a hammer, a beetle, and a file.” The most striking circumstance relating to this coincidence is, that both Gipsey and Indian should use the same kind of hand-bellows, and both have exactly two. As the apprentice works these for the Indian, so does the wife or one of the children for the Gipsey.
What is asserted of the young Gipsey girls, rambling about with their fathers who are musicians, dancing with all kinds of indecent and lascivious attitudes and gestures, to divert any person who is willing to give them a small gratuity for so acting, is likewise perfectly Indian. Sonnerat confirms this also.—“Surat is,” he says, “famous for its dancing girls. These young women devote themselves entirely to the worship of the Gods, whom they attend in the processions, dancing and singing before the representations of them. The handycraftsmen generally destine the youngest of their daughters to this service, and send them to the pagoda before they come to the age of puberty. There they have dancing and music masters, with persons to teach them to sing. The Bramins form their young minds, and deflower them; in the end, they become common prostitutes. They then join in companies, take musicians with them, to entertain any-body who chooses to engage them, with music and dancing.” Sonnerat speaks here likewise of the wanton gestures of these dancing girls, of which he has given a drawing; and ends his description thus: “The blinking of their eyes—half open, half shut—and the negligent sinking of their bodies, to the most languishing music, shew that their whole frame breathes nothing but lasciviousness.”
Fortune-telling is practised all over the east; but the peculiar kind professed by the Gipseys, viz. chiromancy—constantly referring to whether the parties shall be rich or poor, fortunate or unhappy in marriage; whether they shall have many or few children, &c.—is no-where met with but in India. The following instance will evince, how perfectly Gipseyish it is: “It once happened,” says Baldæus, “that the Rajah Khans made his appearance before the inhabitants; when being given to understand that an experienced Bramin was arrived, he ordered him to be brought before him, and said—‘Narret (that was his name), look at my daughter’s hand, and inform me whether she will be happy or unfortunate, poor or rich; whether she will have many or few children; if her life will be long or short: speak out freely, and conceal nothing.’ The Bramin having looked at her hand, replied, ‘May it please your Majesty, according to the indication of these lines, I read thus—She shall bear seven children, viz. six sons and a daughter; the youngest of whom shall not only deprive you of your crown and empire, but likewise of your head and life, and afterwards place himself in your seat.’” This method, Baldæus adds, of looking in the hands, is very common among the heathens.
The excessive loquacity of the Gipseys, as well as their very advantageous natural qualities, which have been before noticed, are likewise distinguishing characteristics of the Indian; besides, the very name Zigeuner, or, according to a broader way of pronunciation, Ciganen and Tchingenen, is the appellation of an Indian people, living at the mouth of the Indus, as mentioned by Thevenot.
Another striking intimation of the Indian descent of the Gipseys, is the partiality of the latter for red colours, or saffron: in like manner the Bramin performs all his religious duties in a white dress, without the least mixture of any other colour. On his return home from these functions, he changes his white turban for a red one. The common Indians also prefer this colour for their little round caps: and these last, especially on holidays, make a double deep yellow stripe on their foreheads with fat, saffron, and sacred cow-dung. The Bramins make the same stripe with red, as a mark of pre-eminence. Again, the Gipseys as Twiss assures us of those in Spain, never intermarry with any people who are not, like themselves, of Gipsey extraction; which puts us strongly in mind of the Indian castes.
CHAPTER VI.
The Gipseys are of the Caste called Suders.
We come now to the position we hoped to substantiate, viz. that the Gipseys are of the lowest class of Indians, namely, Parias; or, as they are called in Hindostan, Suders.
The whole great nation of Indians is known to be divided into four ranks or stocks, which are called by a Portuguese name, castes, each of which has its own particular subdivisions. Of these castes, the Bramin is the first: the second contains the Tschechteries or Setreas: the third consists of the Beis or Wasziers: the fourth is the caste of the just-mentioned Suders; who upon the Peninsula of Malabar, where their condition is the same as in Hindostan, are called Parias or Parier.
The relative situation of these four castes, and the grounds of their difference, rest on the Indian fable of the Creation. This relates, that the God who created Bruma, ordained that the Bramin should proceed out of Bruma’s mouth; the Tschechterie out of his arms; the Beis out of his legs; and the Suder from his feet. As Bruma afterwards allotted the employments of each of these stocks, he appointed the first to seek after knowledge, to give instruction, and to take care of religion; the second was to serve in war; the third was, as well as the Bramin, to cultivate science, but to attend particularly to the breeding of cattle and agriculture: the caste of Suders was destined to be subservient to the Bramins, the Tschechteries, and the Beis. These Suders are held in the greatest contempt: they are considered infamous and unclean, from their occupations; and they are abhorred because they eat flesh, the three other castes living entirely on vegetables.
Of this very caste, as will appear by the following comparison, our Gipseys are composed.
We have seen that the Gipseys are in the highest degree filthy, and disgusting; and with regard to character, of the most depraved hearts: that they are thievish, liars, and fraudulent to excess:—and these are exactly the qualities of the Suders. Baldæus says, “The Pareas are a filthy race, in a word, a contemptible stinking people; a wicked crew, who in winter steal much cattle, kill them, and sell the hides.” It is again related in the Danish Mission Intelligence, “Nobody can deny that the Bareier are the dregs and refuse of all the Indians: they have wicked dispositions, are thievish, arrant liars, are intractable with good usage, require to be kept in order by fear and blows, and held under continual restraint.” Moreover, Neuhof assures us, “The Parruas are full of every kind of dishonesty; they do not consider lying and cheating to be sinful, as they have no other maxim or custom among them.” The Gipsey’s solicitude to conceal his language, is likewise a striking Indian trait. “Custom,” says Pallas, of the Indians round Astrakan, “has rendered them to the greatest degree suspicious about their language, insomuch that I never was able to obtain a small vocabulary from them.”
In addition to the foregoing, the Gipseys love to intoxicate themselves; they are particularly fond of brandy, because it more speedily answers their purpose than any other liquor. Among the Suders we find this inclination is universal; though other Indians do not commit such excess, or very seldom, and then privately.
What has been further said with respect to the immoral life of the Gipseys, agrees perfectly with the Suders. “Their wives and daughters,” says Neuhof, “make no difficulty of yielding up their persons, for money, to any sort of people, be they of what country or religion soever; as the inclination of this tribe tends more to voluptuousness, than towards diligence or industry.”
With regard to Gipsey marriages, it has been asserted, that it is a matter of indifference to them whether the party be the nearest relation or an utter stranger, or, as Salmon expresses himself, the nearest relations cohabit like beasts with each other; and as to education, that their children grow up in the most shameful neglect, without either discipline or instruction. All this is precisely the case with the Pariars. In the Journals of the Missionaries already quoted, it is said, “With respect to matrimony, they act like the beasts; and their children are brought up without restraint or information.”
Gipseys are fond of being about horses; so are the Suders in India, for which reason they are commonly employed as horsekeepers by the Europeans resident in that country.
The Gipseys were formerly employed as flayers, hangmen, and executioners, all over Hungary and Transylvania; and they still readily perform those offices whenever called upon. In like manner, in India, no one who is not of the caste of Suders will on any account transact that kind of business.
We have seen that the Gipseys hunt after cattle which have died of distempers, in order to feed on them; and where they can provide more of the flesh than is sufficient for one day’s consumption, dry it in the sun: such is likewise a constant custom with the Pariars in India. It “is their office,” according to the accounts we have of them, “to remove carrion, which they cut up; part they boil fresh and eat, other parts they dry in pieces, by the heat of the sun, for their future provision.”
Hitherto the accounts of the Gipseys and Suders perfectly coincide. Even the before-mentioned smiths and dancing girls are of this caste: and as they before shewed, in general, from the similarity of their make, that they were of Indian extraction, so in this instance they give particular evidence, that they are descendants from the lowest class.
But there are still some further traits relating to the Gipseys; we shall now examine whether they also are to be found among the Suders. Of these the first is, that the Gipseys always choose their place of residence near some village or city; very seldom within the village or city, even though there may be no order to prevent it: as is the case in Moldavia, Wallachia, and all parts of Turkey. Even the more improved Gipseys, as those in Transylvania, who have long since discontinued their wandering mode of life, and might, with permission from government, reside within the cities, yet rather choose to build their huts in some bye-place, without their limits. This custom seems to be a remnant of their original Suder education; it being usual, all over India, for the Suders to have their huts without the villages of the other castes, and in retired places near their cities.
Further, with regard to the Gipseys’ religion, we may recollect, from what has been said, that their sense of it is very confined, and that they have not the least degree of steadiness in it. To the Gipseys, every persuasion is the same; as often as he meets with a different one, he changes his opinions. To-day he receives the sacrament as a Lutheran; next Sunday, from a Roman-catholic; and perhaps before the end of the week partakes of the communion in a Reformed church. Yet the greater part of them do not even go so far as this, but live without any religion at all, and are, as Tollius says, worse than heathens. The more wonderful such an appearance is—of a whole people being so void of and indifferent about religion—the more weight it carries with it to confirm their Indian origin, when all this is found to be literally true of the Suders. “This race,” says Rogerius, of the Suders in the kingdom of Surat, “seems to be neither heathens nor Mahometans; they live on in their own way, without any religion, or worshipping of God. There are some, it is true, who imitate the other castes in an outward shew of religion, and appoint priests for themselves; but they neither frequent the pagodas of the higher castes, nor have any of their own: and as to the choice of their deities, every one conforms to the custom of the place where he lives, or happens to remain a short time, exactly the same as the Gipseys.”
If people, in reflecting on the emigration of the Gipseys, are not determined to imagine that they were actuated by a blind impulse, to break up at once, and quit their native country; no cause can be assigned for their retreat from thence so plausible as the war of Timur Beg in India. The date of their arrival marks it very plainly. It was in the years 1408 and 1409 that this conqueror ravaged India; and having persuaded himself, as well as his followers, that he had undertaken the expedition against India for the purpose of disseminating the Mahometan religion, his war was oppressive enough to occasion such an emigration. Not only every one who made any resistance was destroyed, and such as fell into the enemy’s hands, though quite defenceless, were made slaves, but in a short time these very slaves, to the number of a hundred thousand, were put to death. As in consequence an universal panic took place, nobody being secure that it might not be his own fate in a short time, what could be more natural than that a great number of terrified inhabitants should endeavour to save themselves by flight?
An objection naturally occurs, that when this supposed flight took place, had it been true, not Gipseys only, or the lowest class of people, but with them all sorts of Indians, of superior rank, would have come among us. But this argument will fall of itself, when we reflect on the prepossession which the three higher castes of Indians entertain for their country. They ascribe an extraordinary degree of holiness to it, and believe it to be the only country thought, by the Creator of the universe, worthy for such sanctified people as the Bramins, Tschechteries, and Beis, to dwell in. They would rather suffer torture and death, than quit this land, chosen by the Almighty himself for their residence, to go and dwell any-where else. Moreover a Suder is, in their estimation, the most execrable being in the world; and the least intercourse with him would be defiling and degrading their high characters, which, to them, would be more dreadful than death. Wherefore it was a moral impossibility for those of a higher caste to have any thing in common with a Suder, or that they should have made an united retreat. Finally, by putting themselves into the power of the Suders, with whom they live constantly in a state of discord and inveteracy, they would have hazarded a greater danger, than by patiently risking their fate from the hands of their common enemy. If any of the higher ranks of Indians did withdraw themselves, on account of the troubles, it is probable they retired southwards, to people of their own sort, the Mahrattas.
As every part to the northward and eastward was beset by the enemy, and no passage left in those directions for escaping, it seems most probable that the countries below Multan, to the mouth of the Indus, were the first asylum and rendezvous of the fugitive Suders. Here they were safe; and so remained, till Timur returned from his victories on the Ganges. Then it was that they first entirely quitted the country; and, probably, with them a considerable number of the proper inhabitants about the Indus, which will explain the meaning of their original name, Ciganen, or, according to the German mode of speaking, Zigeuner. For if it was in the country of the Zinganen that these terrified fugitives collected; and they afterwards drew a considerable number of the Zinganen themselves along with them, nothing could be more easy or natural than that the people who had assembled from the general wreck should take the name of the greater number.
By what route they came to us, cannot be ascertained: if they went straight through the southern Persian deserts of Sigistan, Makran, and Kirman, along the Persian Gulph to the mouth of the Euphrates, thence they might get, by Bassora, into the great deserts of Arabia, afterwards into Arabia Petræa, and so arrive in Egypt, by the isthmus of Suez. They must certainly have been in Egypt before they reached us; otherwise we cannot account for the report that they were Egyptians. In what manner they were afterwards transported to Europe is also an obscure research: perhaps it was effected by means of the Turks, who, being at that time fully employed with the Grecian empire, might permit the Gipseys to travel about with the rabble of Serdenjesti and Nephers, who were appointed to go on ravaging parties. However, all that can be said upon that subject is mere surmise. The chief aim in this Dissertation was, to prove that the Gipseys came from Hindostan, and that they were Suders, which it is hoped has been accomplished. When every thing, even the most fortuitous concomitant circumstances, but particularly that most decisive one—the similarity of their language to that of Hindostan, uniformly point out that extraction, we cannot believe them to belong to a different country, and to be descended from another people.
SUPPLEMENT.
To invalidate, if possible, the charge of cannibalism—apparently so well founded—brought against the Gipsey tribe, it is thought proper in this place to mention circumstances, relative to the proceedings in Hungary, which at least render the justice of the sentence pronounced against these devoted people doubtful.
In the year 1534, as recorded in the Hungarian history, the Gipseys were suspected of traitorously assisting John Zapolya; in consequence of which the governor of Leutschau, Tsernabo, sent some horsemen to arrest a company of them, near Iglo: the greatest part escaped by flight; only a few old men and boys were taken, who were brought into Leutschau. These confessed circumstantially (which certainly appears improbable, that men should lye to effect their own ruin), as well before, as upon the rack, the following falsities—That a hundred of them had been sent by Zapolya since the middle of Lent, and had agreed for a sum of money to set fire to the five chief cities, Kaschau, Leutschau, Bartfeld, Eperies, and Zeben: that the preceding Saturday several of them had privately entered Leutschau, disguised like Wallachians and shepherds, under the pretence of selling skins: that they laid fire in various places; and moreover, that they had murdered several people: and finally, that they had letters from Zapolya to thirteen different cities, with orders to afford them shelter and protection within their districts, as long as they chose to remain. In consequence of this confession they were impaled, “but whether justly or not,” adds the Chronicle, “that, let him answer for who condemned them:” for on being conducted about the town, to shew in what places they had laid the fire, they could not specify them; besides, they denied every thing when they came to execution.
Except the circumstance of retracting, of which nothing is mentioned in the sentence of death, the above case seems to be exactly similar to that of the men-eaters executed in Hungary in 1782. These were taken upon suspicion of theft; in the course of their examination something escaped them which gave occasion to think they had committed murder, and the criminals being interrogated on this point, perhaps on account of the severity used, or probably from an idea of heroism (a very common trait in their character), they confessed the fact, and chattered away till they had filled the paper, without considering consequences. When desired to state where they had deposited the bodies, they promised to shew, but on being brought to the spot nothing was found, and they endeavoured to run off. Nevertheless, having once confessed, they were put on the rack. As the persons said to have been murdered could not be found, the judge imagined they must have eaten them, which, though denied by the poor miserable wretches, decided their fate.