A DISQUISITION ON THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF GIPSYDOM.
“There is nothing hid that shall not be revealed.”
In giving an account of the Gipsies, the subject would be very incomplete, were not something said about the manner in which they have drawn into their body the blood of other people, and the way in which the race is perpetuated; and a description given of their present condition, and future prospects, particularly as our author has overlooked some important points connected with their history, which I will endeavour to furnish. One of these important points is, that he has confined his description of the present generation of settled Gipsies to the descendants of those who left the tent subsequently to the commencement of the French war, to the exclusion of those who settled long anterior to that time. It is also necessary to treat the subject abstractly—to throw it into principles, to give the philosophy of it—to ensure the better understanding, and perpetuate the knowledge of it, amid the shifting objects that present themselves to the eye of the world, and even of the people described.
Gipsydom may, in a word, be said to be literally a sealed book, a terra incognita, to mankind in general. The Gipsies arrived in Europe a strange race; strange in their origin, appearance, habits and disposition. Supposing that their habits had never led them to interfere with the property of others, or obtain money by any objectionable way, but that they had confined their calling to tinkering, making and selling wares, trading, and such like, they would, in all probability, still have remained a caste in the community, with a strong feeling of sympathy for those living in other countries, in consequence of the singularity of their origin and development, as distinguished from those of the other inhabitants, their language and that degree of prejudice which most nations have for foreigners settling among them and particularly so in the case of a people so different in their appearance and mode of life as were the Gipsies from those among whom they settled. That may especially be said of tented Gipsies, and even of those who, from time to time, would be forced to leave the tent, and settle in towns, or live as tramps, as distinguished from tented Gipsies. The simple idea of their origin and descent, tribe and language, transmitted from generation to generation, being so different from those of the people among whom they lived, was, in itself, perfectly sufficient to retain them members of Gipsydom, although, in cases of intermarriages with the natives, the mixed breeds might have gone over to the white race, and been lost to the general body. But in most of such cases that would hardly have taken place; for between the two races, the difference of feeling, were it only a slight jealousy, would have led the smaller and more exclusive and bigoted to bring the issue of such intermarriages within its influence. In Great Britain, the Gipsies are entitled, in one respect at least, to be called Englishmen, Scotchmen, or Irishmen; for their general ideas as men, as distinguished from their being Gipsies, and their language, indicate them, at once, to be such, nearly as much as the common natives of these countries. A half or mixed breed might more especially be termed or pass for a native; so that, by clinging to the Gipsies, and hiding his Gipsy descent and affiliation from the native race, he would lose nothing of the outward character of an ordinary inhabitant; while any benefit arising from his being a Gipsy would, at the same time, be enjoyed by him.
But the subject assumes a totally different aspect when, instead of a slight jealousy existing between the two races, the difference in feeling is such as if a gulf had been placed between them. The effect of a marriage between a white and a Gipsy, especially if he or she is known to be a Gipsy, is such, that the white instinctively withdraws from any connexion with his own race, and casts his lot with the Gipsies. The children born of such unions become ultra Gipsies. A very fine illustration of this principle of half-breed ultra Gipsyism is given by Mr. Borrow, in his “Gipsies in Spain,” in the case of an officer in the Spanish army adopting a young female Gipsy child, whose parents had been executed, and educating and marrying her. A son of this marriage, who rose to be a captain in the service of Donna Isabel, hated the white race so intensely, as, when a child, to tell his father that he wished he (his father) was dead. At whose door must the cause of such a feeling be laid? One would naturally suppose that the child would have left, perhaps despised, his mother’s people, and clung to those whom the world deemed respectable. But the case was different. Suppose the mother had not been prompted by some of her own race, while growing up, and the son, in his turn, not prompted by the mother, all that was necessary to stir up his hatred toward the white race was simply to know who he was, as I will illustrate.[258]
Suppose that a great iron-master should fancy a Cinderella, living by scraping pieces of iron from the refuse of his furnaces, educate her, and marry her, as great iron-masters have done. Being both of the same race, a complete amalgamation would take place at once: perhaps the wife was the best person of the two. Silly people might sneer at such a marriage; but if no objection attached to the personal character of the woman, she might be received into society at once, and admired by some, and envied by others, particularly if she had no “low relations” living near her. She might even boast of having been a Cinderella, if it happened to be well known; in which case she might be deemed free of pride, and consequently a very sensible, amiable woman, and worthy of every admiration.
But who ever heard of such a thing taking place with a Gipsy? Suppose a Gipsy elevated to such a position as that spoken of; she would not, she dare not, mention her descent to any one not of her own race, and far less would she give an exposé of Gipsydom; for she instinctively perceives, or at least believes, that, such is the prejudice against her race, people would avoid her as something horridly frightful, although she might be the finest woman in the world. Who ever heard of a civilized Gipsy, before Mr. Borrow mentioned those having attained to such an eminent position in society at Moscow? Are there none such elsewhere than in Moscow? There are many in Scotland. It is this unfortunate prejudice against the name that forces all our Gipsies, the moment they leave the tent, (which they almost invariably do with their blood diluted with the white,) to hide from the public their being Gipsies; for they are morbidly sensitive of the odium which attaches to the name and race being applied to them. It is quite time enough to discover the great secret of Nature, when it is unavoidable to enter
“The undiscovered country from whose bourne
No traveller returns.”
As little disposition is manifested by these Gipsies to “show their hands:” the uncertainty of such an experiment makes the very idea dreadful to them. Hence it is that the constant aim of settled Gipsies is to hide the fact of their being Gipsies from other people.
It is a very common idea that Gipsies do not mix their blood with that of other people. Now, what is the fact? I may, indeed, venture to assert, that there is not a full-blooded Gipsy in Scotland;[259] and, most positively, that in England, where the race is held to be so pure, all that can be said of some families is, that they have not been crossed, as far as is known; but that, with these exceptions, the body is much mixed: “dreadfully mixed” is the Gipsies’ description, as, in many instances, my own eyes have witnessed. This brings me to an issue with a writer in the Edinburgh Review, who, in October, 1841, when reviewing the “Gipsies in Spain,” by Mr. Borrow, says, “Their descent is purity itself; no mixture of European blood has contaminated theirs. . . . . . They, (the stranger and Gipsy,) may live together; the European vagrant is often to be found in the tents of the Gipsies; they may join in the fellowship of sport, the pursuit of plunder, the management of their low trades, but they can never fraternize.” A writer in Blackwood’s Magazine, on the same occasion, says, “Their care to preserve the purity of their race might, in itself, have confuted the unfounded charge, so often brought against them, of stealing children, and bringing them up as Gipsies.” More unfounded ideas than those put forth by these two writers are scarcely possible to be imagined.[260]
This mixture of “the blood” is notorious. Many a full or nearly full-blood Gipsy will say that Gipsies do not mix their blood with that of the stranger. In such a case he only shuffles; for he whispers to himself two words, in his own language, which contradict what he says; which words I forget, but they mean “I belie it;” that is, he belies what he has just said. Besides, it lets the Gipsies down in their imagination, and, they think, in the imagination of others, to allow that the blood of their race is mixed. It is also a secret which they would rather hide from the world.[261] I am intimate with English Gipsy families, in none of whom is full blood; the most that can be said of them is, that they range from nearly full, say from seven-eighths, down to one-eighth, and perhaps less. Suppose that a fair-haired common native marries a full-blood Gipsy: the issue of such an union will show some of the children, in point of external appearance, perfectly European, like the father, and others, Gipsies, like the mother. If two such European-like Gipsies marry, some of their children will take after the Gipsy, and be pretty, even very, dark, and others after the white race. In crossing a second time with full white blood, the issue will take still more after the white race. Still, the Gipsy cannot be crossed altogether out; he will come up, but of course in a modified form. Should the white blood be of a dark complexion and hair, and have no tendency, from its ancestry, to turn to fair, in its descent, then the issue between it and the Gipsy will always be dusky. I have seen all this, and had it fully explained by the Gipsies themselves.
The result of this mixture of the Gipsy and European blood is founded, not only on the ordinary principles of physiology, but on common sense itself; for why should not such issue take after the European, in preference to the Gipsy? If a residence in Europe of 450 years has had no effect upon the appearance of what may be termed pure Gipsies, (a point which, at least, is questionable,) the length of time, the effects of climate, and the influence of mind, should, at least, predispose it to merge, by mixture, into something bearing a resemblance to the ordinary European; which, by a continued crossing, it does. Indeed, it soon disappears to the common eye: to a stranger it is not observable, unless the mixture happens to be met with in a tent, or under such circumstances as one expects to meet with Gipsies. In paying a visit to an English Gipsy family, I was invited to call again, on such a day, when I would meet with some Welsh Gipsies. The principal Welsh Gipsy I found to be a very quiet man, with fair hair, and quite like an ordinary Englishman; who was admitted by his English brethren to “speak deep Gipsy.” He had just arrived from Wales, where he had been employed in an iron work. Unless I am misinformed, the issue of a fair-haired European and an ordinary Hindoo woman, in India, sometimes shows the same result as I have stated of the Gipsies; but it ought to be much more so in the case of the Gipsy in Europe, on account of the race having been so long acclimated there. Indeed, it is generally believed, that the population of Europe contains a large part of Asiatic blood, from that continent having at one time been overrun by Asiatics, who mixed their blood with an indigenous race which they met with there.
Of the mixed Spanish Gipsy, to whom I have alluded, Mr. Borrow says, that “he had flaxen hair; his eyes small, and, like ferrets, red and fiery; and his complexion like a brick, or dull red, chequered with spots of purple.” This description, with, perhaps, the exception of the red eyes, and spots of purple, is quite in keeping with that of many of the mixed Gipsies. The race seems even to have given a preference to fair or red hair, in the case of such children and grown-up natives as they have adopted into their body. I have met with a young Spaniard from Corunna, who is so much acquainted with the Gipsies in Spain, that I took him to be a mixed Gipsy himself; and he says that mixtures among the Spanish Gipsies are very common; the white man, in such cases, always casting his lot with the Gipsies. None of the French, German, or Hungarian Gipsies whom I have met with in America are full blood, or anything like it; but I am told there are such, and very black too, as the English Gipsies assert. Indeed, considering how “dreadfully mixed” the Gipsies are in Great Britain and Ireland, I cannot but conclude that they are more or less so all over the world.[262]
The blood once mixed, there is nothing to prevent a little more being added, and a little more, and so on. There are English Gipsy girls who have gone to work in factories in the Eastern States, and picked up husbands among the ordinary youths of these establishments. And what difference does it make? Is not the game in the Gipsy woman’s own hands? Will she not bring up her children Gipsies, initiate them in all the mysteries of Gipsydom, and teach them the language? There is another married to an American farmer “down east.” All that she has to do is simply to “tell her wonderful story,” as the Gipsies express it. Jonathan must think that he has caged a queer kind of a bird in the English Gipsy woman. But will he say to his friends, or neighbours, that his wife is a Gipsy? Will the children tell that their mother, and, consequently, they themselves are Gipsies? No, indeed. Jonathan, however, will find her a very active, managing woman, who will always be a-stirring, and will not allow her “old man” to kindle the fires of a morning, milk his cows, or clean his boots, and, as far as she is concerned, will bring him lots of chabos.
Gipsies, however, do not like such marriages; still they take place. They are more apt to occur when they have attained to that degree of security in a community where no one knows them to be Gipsies, or when they have settled in a neighbourhood to which they had come strangers. The parents exercise more constraint over their sons than daughters; they cannot bear the idea of a son taking a strange woman for a wife; for a strange woman is a snare unto the Gipsies. If a Scottish Gipsy lad shows a hankering after a stranger lass, the mother will soon “cut his comb,” by asking him, “What would she say if she knew you to be a loon of a Gipsy? Take such or such a one (Gipsies) for a wife, if you want one.” But it is different with the girls. If a Gipsy lass is determined to have the stranger for a husband, she has only to say, “Never mind, mother; it makes no earthly difference; I’ll turn that fellow round my little finger; I’ll take care of the children when I get them.” I do not know how the settled Scottish Gipsies broach the subject of being Gipsies to the stranger son-in-law when he is introduced among them. I can imagine the girl, during the courtship, saying to herself, with reference to her intended, “I’ll lead you captive, my pretty fellow!” And captive she does lead him, in more senses than one. Perhaps the subject is not broached to him till after she has borne him children; or, if he is any way soft, the mother, with a leering eye, will say to him at once, “Ah ha, lad, ye’re among Gipsies now!” In such a case, the young man will be perfectly bewildered to know what it all means, so utterly ignorant is he about Gipsies; when, however, he comes to learn all about it, it will be mum with him, as if his wife’s friends had burked him, or some “old Gipsy” had come along, and sworn him in on the point of a drawn dirk. It may be that the Gipsy never mentions the subject to her husband at all, for fear he should “take her life;” she can, at all events, trust her secret with her children.
Why should there be any hard feelings towards a Gipsy for “taking in and burking” a native in this way? She does not propose—she only disposes of herself. She has no business to tell the other that she is a Gipsy. She does not consider herself a worse woman than he is a man, but, on the contrary, a better. She would rather prefer a chabo, but, somehow or other, she sacrifices her feelings, and takes the gorgio, “for better or worse.” Or there may be considerable advantages to be derived from the connexion, so that she spreads her snares to secure them. Being a Gipsy, she has the whip-hand of the husband, for no consideration will induce him to divulge to any one the fact that his wife is a Gipsy—should she have told him; in which case she has such a hold upon him, as to have “turned him round her little finger” most effectually. “Married a Gipsy! it’s no’ possible!” “Ay, it is possible. There!” she will say, chattering her words, and, with her fingers, showing him the signs. He soon gets reconciled to the “better or worse” which he has taken to his bosom, as well as to her “folk,” and becomes strongly attached to them. The least thing that the Gipsy can then do is to tell her “wonderful story” to her children. It is not teaching them any damnable creed; it is only telling them who they are; so that they may acknowledge herself, her people, her blood, and the blood of the children themselves.
And how does the Gipsy woman bring up her children in regard to her own race? She tells them her “wonderful story”—informs them who they are, and of the dreadful prejudice that exists against them, simply for being Gipsies. She then tells them about Pharaoh and Joseph in Egypt, terming her people, “Pharaoh’s folk.” In short, she dazzles the imagination of the children, from the moment they can comprehend the simplest idea. Then she teaches them her words, or language, as the “real Egyptian,” and frightens and bewilders the youthful mind by telling them that they are subject to be hanged if they are known to be Gipsies, or to speak these words, or will be looked upon as wild beasts by those around them. She then informs the children how long the Gipsies have been in the country; how they lived in tents; how they were persecuted, banished, and hanged, merely for being Gipsies. She then tells them of her people being in every part of the world, whom they can recognize by the language and signs which she is teaching them; and that her race will everywhere be ready to shed their blood for them. She then dilates upon the benefits that arise from being a Gipsy—benefits negative as well as positive; for should they ever be set upon—garroted, for example—all that they will have to do will be to cry out some such expression as “Biené raté, calo chabo,” (good-night, Gipsy, or black fellow,) when, if there is a Gipsy near them, he will protect them. The children will be fondled by her relatives, handed about and hugged as “little ducks of Gipsies.” The granny, while sitting at the fireside, like a witch, performs no small part in the education of the children, making them fairly dance with excitement. In this manner do the children of Gipsies have the Gipsy soul literally breathed into them.[263]
In such a way—what with the supreme influence which the mother has exercised over the mind of the child from its very infancy; the manner in which its imagination has been dazzled; and the dreadful prejudice towards the Gipsies, which they all apply, directly or indirectly, to themselves—does the Gipsy adhere to his race. When he comes to be a youth, he naturally enough endeavours to find his way to a tent, to have a look at the “old thing.” He does not, however, think much of it as a reality; but it presents something very poetical and imaginative to his mind, when he contemplates it as the state from which his mysterious forefathers have sprung.[264] It makes very little difference, in the case to which I have alluded, whether the father be a Gipsy or not; the children all go with the mother, for they inherit the blood through her. What with the blood, the education, the words, and the signs, they are simply Gipsies, and will be such, as long as they retain a consciousness of who they are, and any peculiarities exclusively Gipsy. As it sometimes happens that the father, only, is a Gipsy, the attachment may not be so strong, on the part of the children, as if the blood had come through the mother; still, it likewise attaches them to the body. A great deal of jealousy is shown by the Gipsies, when a son marries a strange woman. A greater ado is not made by some Catholics, to bring up their children Catholics, under such circumstances, than is exhibited by Gipsies for their children knowing their secret—that is, the “wonderful story;” which has the effect of leading them, in their turn, to marry with Gipsies. The race is very jealous of “the blood” being lost; or that their “wonderful story” should become known to those who are not Gipsies.
There are people who cannot imagine how a man can be a Gipsy and have fair hair. They think that, from his having fair hair, he cannot have the same feelings of what they imagine to be a true Gipsy, that is, a black-haired one. One naturally asks, what effect can the matter of colour of hair have upon the mind of a member of any community or clan, whether the hair be black, brown, red, fair, or white, or the person have no hair at all? Let us imagine a Gipsy with fair hair. How long is it since the white blood was introduced among his ancestors? Perhaps three hundred and fifty years. The race of which he comes has been, more or less, mixing and crossing ever since, but always retaining the issue within its own community. Is he fair-haired? Then he may be half a Gipsy; he may be three-fourths Gipsy, and perhaps even more. At the present day, the “points” of such a Gipsy are altogether arbitrary; some profess to know their points, but it is a thing altogether uncertain. All that they know and adhere to is, that they are Gipsies, and nothing else. In this manner are the British Gipsies, (with the exception of some English families, about whom there is no certainty,) members of the Gipsy community, or nation, as such—each having some of the blood; and not Gipsies of an ideal purity of race. What they know is, that their parents and relatives are Gipsies; that Gipsies separate them from the eternity that is past; and, consequently, that they are Gipsies. They, indeed, accept their descent, blood, and nationality as instinctively as they accept the very sex which God has given them. Which of the two knows most of Gipsydom—the fair-haired or black? Almost invariably the fair.[265]
We naturally ask, what effect has this difference in appearance upon two such members of one family—the one with European, the other with Gipsy, features and colour? and the answer is this: The first will hide the fact of his being a Gipsy from strangers; indeed, he is ashamed to let it be known that he is a Gipsy; and he is afraid that people, not knowing how it came about, would laugh at him. “What!” they would ask, “you a Gipsy? The idea is absurd.” Besides, it facilitates his getting on in the world, to prevent it being known that he is a Gipsy. The other member cannot deny that he is a Gipsy, because any one can see it. Such are the Gipsies who are more apt to cling to the tent, or the more original ways of the old stock. They are very proud of their appearance; but it is a pride accompanied with disadvantages, and even pain. For, after all, the beauty and pleasure in being a Gipsy is to have the other cast of features and colour; he has as much of the blood and language as the other, while he can go into any kind of company—a sort of Jack-the-Giant-Killer in his invisible coat. The nearer the Gipsy comes to the original colour of his race, the less chance is there of improving him. He knows what he is like; and well does he know the feeling that people entertain for him. In fact, he feels that there is no use in being anything but what people call a Gipsy. But it is different with those of European countenance and colour, or when these have been modified or diluted by a mixture of white blood. They can, then, enter upon any sphere of employment to which they have a mind, and their personal advantages and outward circumstances will admit of.[266]
Let us now consider the destiny of such European-like Gipsies. Suppose a female of this description marries a native in settled life, which both of them follow. She brings the children up as Gipsies, in the way described. The children are apt to become ultra Gipsies. If they, in their turn, marry natives, they do the same with their children; so that, if the same system were always followed, they would continue Gipsies forever. For all that is necessary to perpetuate the tribe, is simply for the Gipsies to know who they are, and the prejudice that exists toward the race of which they are a part; to say nothing of the innate associations connected with their origin and descent. Such a phenomenon may be fitly compared to the action of an auger; with this difference, that the auger may lose its edge, but the Gipsy will drill his way through generations of the ordinary natives, and, at the end, come out as sharp as ever; all the circumstances attending the two races being exactly the same at the end as at the beginning. In this way, let their blood be mixed as it may, let even their blood-relationship outside of their body be what it may, the Gipsies still remain, in their private associations, a distinct people, into whatever sphere of human action they may enter; although, in point of blood, appearance, occupation, character, and religion, they may have drifted the breadth of a hemisphere from the stakes and tent of the original Gipsy.
There can surely be no great difficulty in comprehending so simple an idea as this. Here we have a foreign race introduced amongst us, which has been proscribed, legally as well as socially. To escape the effects of this double proscription, the people have hidden the fact of their belonging to the race, although they have clung to it with an ardour worthy of universal admiration. The proscription is toward the name and race as such, that is, the blood; and is not general, but absolute; none having ever been received into society as Gipsies. For this reason, every Gipsy, every one who has Gipsy blood in his veins, applies the proscription to himself. On the other hand, he has his own descent—the Gipsy descent; and, as I have already said, he has naturally as little desire to wish a different descent, as he has to have a different sex. As Finns do not wish to have been born Englishmen, or Englishmen Finns, so Gipsies are perfectly satisfied with their descent, nay, extremely proud of it. They would not change it, if they could, for any consideration. When Gipsies, therefore, marry natives, they do not only willingly bring up their children as Gipsies, but by every moral influence they are forced to do it, and cling to each other. In this way has the race been absolutely cut off from that of the ordinary natives; all intercourse between the two, unless on the part of the bush Gipsy, in the way of dealings, having been of a clandestine nature, on the side of the Gipsy, or, in other words, incog. How melancholy it is to think that such a state of things exists in the British Islands!
The Gipsy, born of a Gipsy mother and a native father, does, therefore, most naturally, and, I may say, invariably, follow the Gipsy connexion; the simplest impulse of manhood compels him to do it. Being born, or becoming a member of settled society, he joins in the ordinary amusements or occupations of his fellow-creatures of both races; which he does the more readily when he feels conscious of the incognito which he bears. But he has been brought up from his mother’s knee a Gipsy; he knows nothing else; his associations with his relatives have been Gipsy; and he has in his veins that which the white damns, and, he doubts not, would damn in him, were he to know of it. He has, moreover, the words and signs of the Gipsy race; he is brought in contact with the Gipsy race; he perceives that his feelings are reciprocated by them, and that both have the same reserve and timidity for “outsiders.” He does not reason abstractly what he is not, but instinctively holds that he is “one of them;” that he has in his mind, his heart, and his blood, that which the common native has not, and which makes him a chabo, that is, a Gipsy.
The mother, in the case mentioned, is certainly not a full-blood Gipsy, nor anything like it; she does not know her real “points;” all that she knows is, that she is a “Gipsy:” so that, if the youth’s father is an ordinary native, the youth holds himself to be a half-and-half, nominally, though he does not know what he really is, as regards blood. Imagine, then, that he takes such a half-and-half Gipsy for a wife, and that both tell their children that they are “Gipsies:” the children, perhaps, knowing nothing of the real origin of their parents, take up the “wonderful story,” and hand it down to their children, initiating them, in their turn, in the “mysteries.” These children never doubt that they are “Gipsies,” although their Gipsyism may, as I have already said, have “drifted the breadth of a hemisphere from the stakes and tent of the original Gipsy.” In this manner is Gipsydom kept alive, by its turning round and round in a perpetual circle. And in this manner does it happen, that a native finds his own children Gipsies, from having, in seeking for a wife, stumbled upon an Egyptian woman. Gipsydom is, therefore, the aggregate of Gipsies, wherever, or under whatever circumstances, they are to be found. It is, in two respects, an absolute question; absolute as to blood, and absolute as to those teachings, feelings, and associations, that, by a moral necessity, accompany the possession of the blood.
This brings me to an issue with Mr. Borrow. Speaking of the destination of the Spanish Gipsies, he says: “If the Gitanos are abandoned to themselves, by which we mean, no arbitrary laws are again enacted for their extinction, the sect will eventually cease to be, and its members become confounded with the residue of the population.” I can well understand that such procedure, on the part of the Spanish Government, was calculated to soften the ferocious disposition of the Gipsies; but did it bring them a point nearer to an amalgamation with the people than before? Mr. Borrow continues: “The position which they occupy is the lowest. . . . . The outcast of the prison and the presidio, who calls himself Spaniard, would feel insulted by being termed Gitano, and would thank God that he is not.” He continues: “It is, of course, by intermarriage, alone, that the two races will ever commingle; and before that event is brought about, much modification must take place amongst the Gitanos, in their manners, in their habits, in their affections and their dislikes, and perhaps even in their physical peculiarities, (yet ‘no washing,’ as Mr. Borrow approvingly quotes, ‘will turn the Gipsy white;’) much must be forgotten on both sides, and everything is forgotten in course of time.” So great, indeed, was the prejudice against the Gipsies, that the law of Charles III, in 1783, forbade the people calling them Gitanos, under the penalty of being punished for slander! because, his majesty said: “I declare that those who go by the name of Gitanos are not so by origin or nature; nor do they proceed from any infected root(!)” What regard would the native Spaniards pay to the injunction, that they would be punished for “slander,” for calling the Gipsies Gitanos, in place of Spaniards? We may well believe that such a law would be a dead letter in Spain; where, according to Mr. Borrow, “justice has invariably been a mockery; a thing to be bought and sold, terrible only to the feeble and innocent, and an instrument of cruelty and avarice.”
Mr. Borrow leaves the question where he found it. Even remove the prejudice that exists against the Gipsies, as regards their colour, habits, and history; what then? Would they, as a people cease to be? Would they amalgamate with the natives, so as to be lost? Assuredly not. They may mix their blood, but they preserve their mental identity in the world; even although, in point of physical appearance, habits, manners, occupation, character, and creed, they might “become confounded with the residue of the population.” In that respect, they are the most exclusive people of almost any to be found in the world. We have only to consider what Freemasonry is, and we can form an idea of what Gipsyism is, in one of its aspects. It rests upon the broadest of all bases—flesh and blood, a common and mysterious origin, a common language, a common history, a common persecution, and a common odium, in every part of the world. Remove the prejudice against the Gipsies, make it as respectable to be Gipsies, as the world, with its ignorance of many of the race, deem it desreputable; what then? Some of them might come out with their “tents and encampments,” and banners and mottoes: the “cuddy and the creel, the hammer and tongs, the tent and the tin kettle” forever. People need not sneer at the “cuddy and the creel.” The idea conveys a world of poetry to the mind of a Gipsy. Mrs. Fall, of Dunbar, thought it so poetical, that she had it, as we have seen, worked in tapestry; and it is doubtless carefully preserved, as an heir-loom, among her collateral descendants.[267]
Mr. Borrow speaks of the Gipsies “declining” in Spain. Ask a Scotchman about the Scottish Gipsies, and he will answer: “The Scotch Gipsies have pretty much died out.” “Died out?” I ask; “that is impossible; for who are more prolific than Gipsies?” “Oh, then, they have become settled, and civilized.” “And ceased to be Gipsies?” I continue. “Exactly so,” he replies. What idea can be more ridiculous than that of saying, that if a Gipsy leaves the tent, settles in a town, and attends church, he ceases to be a Gipsy; and that, if he takes to the tent again, he becomes a Gipsy again? What has a man’s occupation, habits, or character, to do with his clan, tribe, or nationality? Does education, does religion, remove from his mind a knowledge of who he is, or change his blood? Are not our own Borderers and Highlanders as much Borderers and Highlanders as ever they were? Are not Spanish Gipsies still Spanish Gipsies, although a change may have come over the characters and circumstances of some of them? It would be absurd to deny it.[268]
Mr. Borrow has not sufficiently examined into Spanish Gipsyism to pass a reliable opinion upon it. He says: “One thing is certain, in the history of the Gitanos; that the sect flourished and encreased, so long as the law recommended and enjoined measures the most harsh and severe for its suppression. . . . The caste of the Gitanos still exists, but is neither so extensive, nor so formidable, as a century ago, when the law, in denouncing Gitanismo, proposed to the Gitanos the alternatives of death for persisting in their profession, or slavery for abandoning it.” These are very singular alternatives. The latter is certainly not to be found in any of the Spanish laws quoted by Mr. Borrow. I am at a loss to perceive the point of his reasoning. There can be no difficulty in believing that Gipsies would rather encrease in a state of peace, than if they were hunted from place to place, like wild beasts; and consequently, having renounced their former mode or life, they would, in Mr. Borrow’s own words, “cease to play a distinct part in the history of Spain, and the law would no longer speak of them as a distinct people.” And the same might, to a certain extent, be said of the Spanish people. Mr. Borrow again says: “That the Gitanos are not so numerous as in former times, witness those barrios, in various towns, still denominated Gitanerias, but from whence the Gitanos have disappeared, even like the Moors from the Morerias.” But Mr. Borrow himself, in the same work, gives a good reason for the disappearance of the Gipsies from these Gitanerias; for he says: “The Gitanerias were soon considered as public nuisances, on which account the Gitanos were forbidden to live together in particular parts of the town, to hold meetings, and even to intermarry with each other.” If the disappearance of the Gipsies from Spain was like that of the Moors, it would appear that they had left, or been expelled from, the country; a theory which Mr. Borrow does not advance. The Gipsies, to a certain extent, may have left these barriers, or been expelled from them, and settled, as tradesmen, mechanics, and what not, in other parts of the same or other towns; so as to be in a position the more able to get on in the world. Still, many of them are in the colonies. In Cuba there are many, as soldiers and musicians, dealers in mules and red pepper, which businesses they almost monopolize, and jobbers and dealers in various wares; and doubtless there are some of them innkeepers, and others following other occupations. In Mexico there are not a few. I know of a Gitano who has a fine wholesale and retail cigar store in Virginia.[269]
Mr. Borrow concludes, in regard to the Spanish Gipsies, thus: “We have already expressed our belief that the caste has diminished of latter years; whether this diminution was the result of one or many causes combined; of a partial change of habits, of pestilence or sickness, of war or famine, or of a freer intercourse with the Spanish population, we have no means of determining, and shall abstain from offering conjectures on the subject.” In this way does he leave the question just where he found it. Is there any reason to doubt that Gipsydom is essentially the same in Spain as in Great Britain; or that its future will be guided by any other principles than those which regulate that of the British Gipsies? Indeed, I am astonished that Mr. Borrow should advance the idea that Gipsies should decrease by “changing their habits;” they might not encrease so fast, in a settled life, as when more exposed to the air, and not molested by the Spanish Government. I am no less astonished that he should think they would decrease by “a freer intercourse with the Spanish population;” when, in fact, such mixtures are well known to go with the Gipsies; the mixture being, in the estimation of the British Gipsies, calculated to strengthen and invigorate the race itself. Had Mr. Borrow kept in mind the case of the half-blood Gipsy captain, he could have had no difficulty in learning what became of mixed Gipsies.[270]
It doubtless holds in Spain, as in Great Britain, that as the Gipsy enters into settled life, and engages in a respectable calling, he hides his descent, and even mixes his blood with that of the country, and becomes ashamed of the name before the public; but is as much, at heart, a Gipsy, as any others of his race. And this theory is borne out by Mr. Borrow himself, when he speaks of “the unwillingness of the Spanish Gipsies to utter, when speaking of themselves, the detested expression Gitano; a word which seldom escapes their mouths.” We might therefore conclude, that the Spanish Gipsies, with the exception of the more original and bigoted stock, would hide their nationality from the common Spaniards, and so escape their notice. It is not at all likely that the half-pay Gipsy captain would mention to the public that he was a Gipsy, although he admitted it to Mr. Borrow, under the peculiar circumstances in which he met him. My Spanish acquaintance informs me that the Gitanos, generally, hide their nationality from the rest of the world.
Such a case is evidently told by Mr. Borrow, in the vagabond Gipsy, Antonio, at Badajoz, who termed a rich Gipsy, living in the same town, a hog, because he evidently would not countenance him. Antonio may possibly have been kicked out of his house, in attempting to enter it. He accused him of having married a Spaniard, and of fain attempting to pass himself for a Spaniard. As regards the wife, she might have been a Gipsy with very little of “the blood” in her veins; or a Spaniard, reared by Gipsies; or an ordinary Spanish maiden, to whom the Gipsy would teach his language, as sometimes happens among the English Gipsies. His wishing to pass for a Spaniard had nothing to do with his being, but not wishing to be known as, a Gipsy. The same is done by almost all our Scottish Gipsies. In England, those who do not follow the tent—I mean the more mixed and better-class—are even afraid of each other. “Afraid of what?” said I, to such an English Gipsy; “ashamed of being Gipsies?” “No, sir,” (with great emphasis;) “not ashamed of being Gipsies, but of being known to other people as Gipsies.” “A world of difference,” I replied. What does the world hold to be a Gipsy, and what does it hold to be the feelings of a man? If we consider these two questions, we can have little difficulty in understanding the wish of such Gipsies to disguise themselves. It is in this way, and in the mixing of the blood, that this so-called “dying out of the Gipsies” is to be accounted for.[271]
It is singular that Mr. Borrow should attribute the change which has come over the Spanish Gipsies, so much to the law passed by Charles III. in 1783; and that he should characterize it as an enlightened, wise, and liberal law; distinguished by justice and clemency; and as being calculated to exert considerable influence over the destiny of the race; nay, as being the principal, if not the only, cause for the “decline” of it in Spain. It was headed: “Rules for repressing and chastising the vagrant mode of life, and other excesses, of those who are called Gitanos.” Article II. forbids, under penalties, the Gipsies “using their language, dress, or vagrant kind of life, which they had hitherto followed.” Article XI. prohibits them from “wandering about the roads and uninhabited places, even with the pretext of visiting markets and fairs.” Article IX. reads thus: “Those who have abandoned the dress, name, language or jargon, associations and manners of Gitanos, and shall have, moreover, chosen and established a domicile, but shall not have devoted themselves to any office or employment, though it be only that of day-labourer, shall be proceeded against as common vagrants.” Articles XVI. and XVII. enact, that “the children, and young people of both sexes, who are not above sixteen years of age, shall be separated from their parents, who wander about and have no employment, [which was forbidden by the law itself,] and shall be destined to learn something, or shall be placed out in hospices or houses of instruction.” Article XX. dooms to death, without remission, Gipsies who, for the second time, relapse into their old habits.
I cannot agree with Mr. Borrow, when he says, that this law “differs in character” from any which had hitherto been enacted, in connection with the body in Spain, if I take those preceding it, as given by himself. The only difference between it and some of the previous laws is, that it allowed the Gipsy to be admitted to whatever office or employment to which he might apply himself, and likewise to any guilds or communities; but it prohibited him from settling in the capital, or any of the royal residences; and forbade him, on pain of death, to publicly profess what he was—that is, a Gipsy. With the trifling exceptions mentioned, the law of Charles III. was as foolish a one as ever was passed against the Gipsies. These very exceptions show what the letter, whatever the execution, of previous laws must have been. Nor can we form any opinion as to the effects the law in question had upon the Gipsies, unless we know how it was carried out. The law of the Empress Maria Theresa produced no effect upon the Gipsies in Hungary. “In Hungary,” says Mr. Borrow, “two classes are free to do what they please—the nobility and the Gipsies—the one above the law, the other below it.” And what did Mr. Borrow find the Gipsies in Hungary? In England, the last instances of condemnation, under the old sanguinary laws, happened a few years before the Restoration, although these were not repealed till 23d Geo. III., c. 54. The Gipsies in England can follow any employment, common to the ordinary natives, they please: and how has Mr. Borrow described them there? In Scotland, the tribe have been allowed to do nothing, not even acknowledge their existence, as Gipsies: and this work describes what they are in that country.
Instead of the law of Charles III. exercising any great beneficial influence over the character of the Spanish Gipsies, I would attribute the change in question to what Mr. Borrow himself says: “It must be remembered that during the last seventy years, a revolution has been progressing in Spain, slowly it is true; and such a revolution may have affected the Gitanos.” The Spanish Gipsy proverb, “Money is to be found in the town, not in the country,” has had its influence on bringing the race to settle in towns. And by residing in towns, and not being persecuted, they have, in Mr. Borrow’s own words, “insensibly become more civilized than their ancestors, and their habits and manners less ferocious.” The only good which the law of Charles III. seems to have done to the Spanish Gipsies was, as already said, to permit them to follow any occupation, and be admitted to any guilds, or communities, (barring the capital, and royal residences,) they pleased; but only on the condition, and that on the pain of death, that they renounced every imaginable thing connected with their tribe; which, we may reasonably assume, no Gipsy submitted to, however much in appearance he might have done so.
But it is doubtful if the law of Charles III. was anything but the one which it was customary for every Spanish monarch to issue against the tribe. Mr. Borrow says: “Perhaps there is no country in which more laws have been framed, having in view the suppression and extinction of the Gipsy name, race, and manner of life, than Spain. Every monarch, during a period of three hundred years, appears, at his accession to the throne, to have considered that one of his first and most imperative duties consisted in suppressing and checking the robberies, frauds, and other enormities of the Gitanos, with which the whole country seems to have resounded since the time of their first appearance.” The fact of so many laws being passed against the Gipsies, is, to my mind, ample proof, as I shall afterwards explain, that few, if any, of them were put, to any extent, in force; and that the act in question, viewed in itself, as distinct from the laws previously in existence, was little more than a form. It contains a flourish of liberality, implied in the Gitanos being allowed to enter, if they pleased, any guilds, (which they were not likely to do,) or communities, (where they were doubtless already;) but it debars, (that is, expels,) them from the king’s presence, at the capital or any of the royal residences. Moreover, it allowed the Gitano to be “admitted to whatever office or employment to which he might apply himself,” (against which, there probably was, or should have been, no law in existence.) His majesty must also impose his pragmatical conceit upon his loyal subjects, by telling them, that “Gitanos are not Gitanos”—that they “do not proceed from any infected root;” and threaten them, that if they maintain the contrary, and call them Gitanos, he will have them punished for slander!
The Gipsies, after a residence of 350 years in the country, would have comparatively little notice taken of them, under this law, except when they made themselves really obnoxious, or gave an official an occasion to display his authority, or his zeal for the public service.[272] Whatever may have been the treatment which the Gipsies experienced at the hands of the civil authorities, the church does not seem to have disturbed, and far less distressed, them. Mr. Borrow represents a priest of Cordova, formerly an Inquisitor, saying to him: “I am not aware of one case of a Gitano having been tried or punished by the Inquisition. The Inquisition always looked upon them with too much contempt, to give itself the slightest trouble concerning them; for, as no danger, either to the State or to the Church of Rome, could proceed from the Gitanos, it was a matter of perfect indifference to the holy office whether they lived without religion or not. The holy office has always reserved its anger for people very different; the Gitano having, at all times, been Gente barrata y despreciable.”
Should the Spanish Gipsies not now assist each other, to the extent they did when banditti, under the special proscription of the Government, it would be absurd to say that they were therefore not as much Gipsies as ever they were. The change in this respect arose, to some extent, from the toleration extended to them, as a people and as individuals, whether by the law, or society in general. Such Gipsies as Mr. Borrow seems to have associated with, in Spain, were not likely to be very reliable authority on the questions at issue; for he has described them as “being endowed with a kind of instinct, (in lieu of reason,) which assists them to a very limited extent, and no further.”
Might it not be in Spain as in Great Britain? Even in England, those that pass for Gipsies are few in number, compared to the mixed Gipsies, following various occupations; for a large part of the Gipsy blood in England has, as it were, been spread over a large surface of the white. In Scotland it is almost altogether so. There seems considerable reason for believing that Gipsydom is, perhaps, as much mixed in Spain as in Great Britain, although Mr. Borrow has taken no notice of it. We have seen, ([page 92.]) how severe an enactment was passed by Queen Elizabeth, against “any person, whether natural born or stranger, to be seen in the fellowship of the Gipsies, or disguised like them.” In the law of Ferdinand and Isabella, the first passed against the Gipsies, in Spain, a class of people is mentioned, in conjunction with them, but distinguished from them, by the name of “foreign tinkers.” Philip III., at Belan, in Portugal, in 1619, commands all Gipsies to quit the kingdom within six months. “Those who should wish to remain are to establish themselves in cities, and are not to be allowed to use the dress, name, and language, in order, that forasmuch as they are not such by nation,(!) this name, and manner of life, may be for evermore confounded and forgotten(!)” Philip IV., on the 8th May, 1633, declares “that they are not Gipsies by origin or nature, but have adopted this form of life(!)” This idea of “Gitanos not being Gitanos, and not proceeding from any infected root,” was not original with Charles III., in 1783; his proclamation having been in formal keeping with previous ones, whether of his own country, or, as in Scotland, in 1603, “recommended by the example of some other realm,” ([page 111].) There had evidently been a great curiosity to know who some of the “not Gipsies by origin and nature,” (evidently judging from their appearance,) could be; for Philip IV. enacts, “that they shall, within two months, leave the quarters where now they live with the denomination of Gitanos, and that they shall separate from each other, and mingle with the other inhabitants: that the ministers of justice are to observe, with particular diligence, whether they hold communication with each other, or marry among themselves.”
The “foreign tinkers” mentioned in the Act of Ferdinand and Isabella, and the individuals distinguished from the Gipsies in that of Queen Elizabeth, were doubtless mixed Gipsies; whose relationship with the Gipsies proper, and isolation from the common natives, are very distinctly pointed out in the above extract from the law of Philip IV. Mr. Borrow expresses a great difficulty to understand who these people could be, if not Gipsies. How easy it is to get quit of the difficulty, by concluding that they were Gipsies whose blood, perhaps for the most part, was native; and who had been brought into the body in the manner explained in the [Preface] to this work, and more fully illustrated in this [Disquisition]. If Mr. Borrow found in Spain a half-pay captain, in the service of Donna Isabel, with flaxen hair, a thorough Gipsy, who spoke Gipsy and Latin, with great fluency, and his cousin, Jara, in all probability another Gipsy, what difficulty can there be in believing, that the “foreign tinkers,” or tinkers of any kind, now to be met with in Spain, are, like the same class in Great Britain and Ireland, Gipsies of mixed blood? Indeed, the young Spaniard, to whom I have alluded, informs me that the Gipsies in Spain are very much mixed. Mr. Borrow himself admits that the Gipsy blood in Spain has been mixed; for, in speaking of the old Gipsy counts, he says: “It was the counts who determined what individuals were to be admitted into the fellowship and privileges of the Gitanos. . . . . They (the Gipsies) were not to teach the language to any but those who, by birth or inauguration, belonged to that sect.” And he gives a case in point, in the bookseller of Logrono, who was married to the only daughter of a Gitano count; upon whose death, the daughter and son-in-law succeeded to the authority which he had exercised in the tribe. If the Gipsies in Spain were not mixed in point of blood, why should they have taken Mr. Borrow for a Gipsy, as he said they did? The persecutions to which the race in Spain were subjected were calculated to lead to a mixture of the blood, as in Scotland, for the reasons given in the [Preface]; but, perhaps, not to the same extent; as the Spanish Acts seem to have given the tribe an opportunity of escape, under the condition of settling, &c., &c., which would probably be complied with, nominally, for the time being; while the face of part of the country would afford a refuge till the storm had blown over. (See [pages 71] and [114].)
It is very likely that the following people, described by Paget, in his travels in Central Europe, are mixed Gipsies. He says: “In almost every part of the Austrian dominions are to be found a kind of wandering tinkers, wire-workers, and menders of crockery, whose language appears to be that of the Sclaves, who travel about, and, at certain seasons, return to their own settlements, where the women and children remain during their absence.” The wandering Rothwelsh, perhaps the same mentioned by Paget, may be mixed Gipsies. In the Encyclopædia Britannica they are spoken of as “a vagabond people, in the south of Germany, who have sometimes been confounded with the Gipsies.” The appearance of such persons has nothing to do with their being, or not being, members of Gipsydom.[273]
I will now consider the present condition of the Scottish Gipsies. But, to commence with, what is the native capacity of a Gipsy? It is good. Take a common tinkering Gipsy, without a particle of education, and compare him with a common native, without a particle of education, and the tinker, in point of smartness, is worth, perhaps, a dozen of the other. If not a learned, he is at least a travelled, Athenian, considerably rubbed up by his intercourse with the world. This is the proper way by which to judge of the capacity of a Gipsy. It will differ somewhat according to the countries and circumstances in which he is found. Grellmann, about the year 1780, says, of evidently the more original kind of Hungarian Gipsies: “Imagine a people of childish thoughts, whose minds are filled with raw, undigested conceptions, guided more by sense than reason, and using understanding and reflection only so far as they promote the gratification of any particular appetite; and you have a perfect sketch of the general character of the Gipsies.” “They are lively, uncommonly loquacious, fickle to an extreme; consequently, inconstant in their pursuits.” Bischoff, in speaking of the German Gipsies, in 1827, says: “They have a good understanding, an excellent memory, are quick of comprehension, lively and talkative.” Mr. Borrow, in evident allusion to the very lowest, and most ignorant, class of the Spanish Gipsies, says: “They seem to hunt for their bread, as if they were not of the human, but rather of the animal, species, and, in lieu of reason, were endowed with a kind of instinct, which assists them to a very limited extent, and no further.” I admit that this class of Gipsies may have as little intellect as there is in an ant-catcher’s nose, but the remark can apply to them exclusively.
Without taking into account any opinion expressed by other writers on the Gipsies, Mr. Borrow says: “Should it be urged that certain individuals have found them very different from what they are represented in these volumes, (‘The Gipsies in Spain,’) he would frankly say that he yields no credit to the presumed fact.” And he refers his readers to his Spanish-Gipsy vocabulary for the words hoax and hocus, as a reason for such an opinion! He himself gives descriptions of quite a different caste. For example, he speaks of a rich Gipsy appearing in a fair, at Leon, in Spain, with a twenty thousand dollar credit in his pocket. And of another Gipsy, a native of Constantinople, who had visited the most remote and remarkable portions of the world, “passing over it like a cloud;” and who spoke several dialects of the Malay, and understood the original language of Java. This Gipsy, he says, dealt in precious stones and poisons; and that there is scarcely a bey or satrap in Persia, or Turkey, whom he has not supplied with both. In Moscow, he says, “There are not a few who inhabit stately houses, go abroad in elegant equipages, and are behind the higher orders of the Russians, neither in appearance nor mental acquirements.” From these specimens, one might naturally conclude that there was some room for discrimination among different classes of Gipsies, instead of rating them as having the intellect of ant-catchers.
When the Gipsies appeared in Scotland, the natives themselves, as I have already said, were nearly wholly uneducated. Many of the Gipsies, then, and long afterwards, being smart, presumptuous, overbearing, audacious fellows, seem to have assumed great importance, and been looked upon as no small people by the authorities and the inhabitants of the country. In every country in which they have settled, they seem to have instinctively and very readily appreciated the ways and spirit of the people, while, at the same time, they preserved what belonged particularly to themselves—their Gipsyism. Gipsydom being, in its very essence, a “working in among other people,” “a people within a people,” it followed, that marriages between adopted Gipsies, and even Gipsies themselves, and the ordinary natives, would be encouraged, were it only to contribute to their existence in the country. The issue of such marriages, go where they might, would become centres of little Gipsy circles, which, in their turn, would throw off members that would become the centres of other little Gipsy circles; the leaven of Gipsydom leavening into a lump everything that proceeded out of itself. To such an extent has this been followed, that, at the present day, the Scottish Gipsies—at least the generality of them—have every outward characteristic of Scotchmen. But the secret of being Gipsies, which they carry in their bosoms, makes them appear a little queer to others; they have a something about them that makes them look somewhat odd to the other Scotchman, who is not “one of them,” although he does not know the cause of it.
Upon, or shortly after, their arrival, they seem to have divided the country among themselves; each tribe exercising its rights over its own territory, to the exclusion of others, just as a native lord would have done against other natives; with a system of passes, regulated by councils of local or provincial chieftains, and a king, over all. The Scottish Gipsies, from the very first, seem to have been thoroughly versed in their vocation, from having had about a hundred years’ experience, in some other part of Europe, before they settled in Scotland; although stragglers of their race evidently had made their appearance in the country many years before. What might have been the number of Gipsies then in Scotland, it is impossible to conjecture; it must have been considerable, if we judge from what is said in Wraxall’s History of France, vol. 2, page 32, when, in reference to the Act of Queen Elizabeth, in 1563, he states, that, in her reign, the Gipsies throughout England were supposed to exceed ten thousand. The employments of the original Gipsies, within their respective districts, seem to have been what is described under the head of Tweed-dale and Clydesdale Gipsies; that is, tinkering, making spoons and other wares, petty trading, telling fortunes, living as much as possible at free-quarters, dealing in horses, and visiting fairs. It is extremely likely that those who travelled Tweed-dale, for example, always averaged about the same number, down to the time of the American Revolution, (except in times of civil commotion, when they would have the country pretty much to themselves,) and were confined to such of the families of the respective tribes, or the members of these families, in whom the right was hereditary. The consequence seems to have been, that perhaps the younger members of the family had to betake themselves to towns and villages, and engage in whatever they could possibly turn their hands to. Some would, of course, take to the highway, and kindred fields of industry. Admitting that the circumstances attending the Gipsies in Scotland, at that time, and subsequently, were the same, as regards the manner of making a living, which attend those in England, at the present day, (with this difference, that they could more easily roam at large then than now,) and we can have no difficulty in coming to a conclusion how the surplus of the tented Gipsy population was disposed of. Among the English Gipsies of to-day, taking year with year, and tent with tent, there is, yearly, a continual moving out of the tent; a kind of Gipsy crop is annually gathered from tented Gipsydom; and some of these gradually find themselves drawn into almost every kind of mechanical or manual labour, even to working in coal-mines and iron-works; others become peddlers, itinerant auctioneers, and tramps of almost every imaginable kind; not to speak of those who visit fairs, in various capacities, or engage in various settled traffic.
Put a Gipsy to any occupation you like, and he shows a capability and handiness that is astonishing, if he can only muster up steadiness in his new vocation. But it is difficult to break him off the tent; he will return, and lounge, for weeks together, about that of his father, or some other relative. But get him fairly out of the tent, married, and, in a degree, settled to some occupation, in a town where there are not too many of his own race in close proximity to him, but where he gets mixed up, in his daily avocation, with the common natives, and he sooner or later falls into the ranks. Still, his intimate associations are always with Gipsies; for his ardent attachment to his people, and a corresponding resentment of the prejudice that exists against it, keep him aloof from any intimate intercourse with the ordinary inhabitants; his associations with them hardly ever extending beyond the commons or the public-house. If he experiences an attack from his old habits, he will take to the tramp, from town to town, working at his mechanical occupation; leaving his wife and children at home. But it is not long before he returns. His children, having been born and reared in a town, become habituated to a settled life, like other people.
There is a vast amount of ambition about every Gipsy, which is displayed, among the humble classes, in all kinds of athletic exercises.[274] The same peculiarity is discernible among the educated Scottish Gipsies. Carrying about with them the secret of being Gipsies, which they assume would be a terrible imputation cast upon them by the ordinary natives, if they knew of it, they, as it were, fly up, like game-cocks, and show a disposition to surpass the others in one way or other; particularly as they consider themselves better than the common inhabitants. They must always be “cock of the company,” master of ceremonies, or stand at the top of the tree, if possible. The reader may ask, how do they consider themselves better than the ordinary natives? And I answer, that, from having been so long in Scotland, they are Scotchmen, (as indeed they are, for the most part, in point of blood,) and consider themselves as good as the others—nay, smarter than others in the same sphere, which, generally speaking, they are; and, in addition to that, being Gipsies, a great deal better. They pique themselves on their descent, and on being in possession of secrets which are peculiarly and exclusively theirs, and which they imagine no other knows, or will ever know. They feel that they are part and parcel of those mysterious beings who are an enigma to others, no less than to themselves. Besides this vanity, which is peculiar to the Gipsy everywhere, the Scottish Gipsies have chimed in with all the native Scotch ideas of clanism, kith, kin, and consequence, as regards family, descent, and so forth; and applied them so peculiarly to themselves, as to render their opinion of their body as something of no small importance. Some of them, whose descent leads them more directly back to the tented stock, speak of their families having possessed this district or the other district of the country, as much, almost, as we would expect to hear from some native Scottish chieftain.
As regards the various phases of history through which many of the Scottish Gipsies have passed, we can only form an estimate from what has been observed in recent times. The further back, however, we go, the greater were their facilities to rise to a position in society; for this reason, that a very little education, joined to good natural talents, were all that was necessary, in a mixed Gipsy, to raise himself in the world, at the time to which I allude. He could leave the district in which, when a youth, he had travelled, with his parents; settle in a town where he was not personally known; commence some traffic, and, by his industry, gradually raise himself up, and acquire wealth. He would not lack a proper degree of innate manners, or personal dignity, to deport himself with propriety in any ordinary company into which he might enter. Even at the present day, in Scotland, a poor Gipsy will commence life with a wheelbarrow, then get a donkey-cart, and, in a few years, have a very respectable crockery-shop. I am intimate with an English mixed Gipsy family, the father of which commenced life as a basket-maker, was afterwards a constable, and now occasionally travels with the tent. His son is an M. D., for I have seen his diploma; and is a smart, intelligent fellow, and quite an adept at chemistry. To illustrate the change that has taken place among some of the Scottish Gipsies, within the last fifty years, I may mention that the grand-children of a prominent Gipsy, mentioned in [chapter V.], follow, at the present day, the medical, the legal, and the mercantile professions. Such occurrences have been frequent in Scotland. There are the cases mentioned by our author; such as one of the Faas rising to such eminence in the mercantile world, at Dunbar; and another who rose to the rank of lieutenant in the East India Company’s service; and the Baillie family, which furnished a captain and a quarter-master to the army, and a country surgeon. These are but instances of many others, if they were but known. Some may object, that these were not full-blood Gipsies. That, I readily admit. But the objection is more nominal than real. ‘If a white were to proceed to the interior of the American continent, and cast his lot with a tribe of Indians, his children would, of course, be expected to be superior, in some respects, to the children of the native blood exclusively, owing to what the father might be supposed to teach them. But it is different in the case of a white marrying a Scottish Gipsy woman, born and reared in the same community with himself; for the white, in general cases, brings only his blood, which enables the children, if they take after himself, in appearance, to enter such places as the black Gipsies would not enter, or might not be allowed to enter. The white father, in such a case, might not even be so intelligent as the Gipsy mother. Be that as it may, the individuals to whom I have alluded were nothing but Gipsies; possibly they did not know when, or through whom, the white blood was introduced among them; they knew, at least, that they were Gipsies, and that the links which connected them with the past were substantially Gipsy links. Besides the Scottish Gipsies rising to respectable positions in life, by their own exertions, I can well believe that Gipsydom has been well brought up through the female line; especially at a time when females, and particularly country females, were rude and all but uneducated. Who more capable of doing that than the lady Baillies, of Tweed-dale, and the lady Wilsons, of Stirlingshire? Such Gipsy girls could “turn natives round their little fingers” and act, in a way, the lady at once; “turn over a new leaf,” and “pin it down;” and conduct themselves with great propriety.
Upon a superior Scottish Gipsy settling in a town, and especially a small town, and wishing to appear respectable, he would naturally take a pew in the church, and attend public worship, were it only, as our author asserts, to hide the fact of his being a Gipsy. Because, among the Scotch, there is that prying inquisitiveness into their neighbours’ affairs, that compels a person to be very circumspect, in all his actions, movements, and expressions, if he wishes to be thought anything of, at all. The habit of attending church would then become as regular, in the Gipsy’s family, as in the families of the ordinary natives, and, in a great measure, proceed from as legitimate a motive. The family would be very polite, indeed, extra polite, to their neighbours. After they had lulled to sleep every suspicion of what they were, or, by their really good conduct, had, according to the popular idea, “ceased to be Gipsies,” they would naturally encourage a formal acquaintance with respectable (and nothing but respectable,) people in the place. The Gipsy himself, a really good fellow at heart, honourable in his dealings, but fond of a bargain, when he could drive a bargain, and, moreover, a jovial fellow, would naturally make plenty of business and out-door friends, at least. Rising in circumstances and the public esteem, he makes up his mind that his children ought to be something better than himself, at all events; in short, that they ought not to be behind those of his respectable neighbours. Some of them he, therefore, educates for a liberal profession. The Gipsy himself becomes more and more ambitious: besides attending church, he must become an elder of the church; or it may be that the grace of God takes hold of him, and brings him into the fold. He and his wife conduct themselves with much propriety; but some of the boys are rather wild; the girls, however, behave well. Altogether, the whole family is very much thought of. Such is a Scottish Gipsy family, (the parents of which are now dead,) that I have in my mind at the present moment. No suspicion existed in regard to the father, but there was a breath of suspicion in regard to the mother. But what difference did that make? What knowledge had the public of the nature of Gipsydom?
Consider, then, that the process which I have attempted to describe has been going on, more or less, for at least the last three hundred and fifty years; and I may well ask, where might we not expect to meet with Gipsies, in Scotland, at the present day? And I reply, that we will meet with them in every sphere of Scottish life, not excepting, perhaps, the very highest. There are Gipsies among the very best Edinburgh families. I am well acquainted with Scotchmen, youths and men of middle age, of education and character, and who follow very respectable occupations, that are Gipsies, and who admit that they are Gipsies. But, apart from my own knowledge, I ask, is it not a fact, that, a few years ago, a pillar of the Scottish church, at Edinburgh, upon the occasion of founding a society for the reformation of the poor class of Scottish Gipsies, and frequently thereafter, said that he himself was a Gipsy? I ask, again, is not that a fact? It is a fact. And such a man! Such prayers! Such deep-toned, sonorous piety! Such candour! Such judgment! Such amiability of manners! How much respected! How worthy of respect! The good, the godly, the saintly doctor! When will we meet his like again?[275]
This leads me to speak of a high-class Scottish Gipsy family—the Falls, who settled at Dunbar, as merchants, alluded to under the chapter on [Border Gipsies].[276] Who can doubt that they were Gipsies to the last? How could they avoid being Gipsies? The Gipsies were their people; their blood was Gipsy blood. How could they get rid of their blood and descent? Could they throw either off, as they would an old coat? Could medical science rid them of either? Assuredly not. They admitted their descent, over their cups. But being descendants of Gipsies, and yet not Gipsies, is a contradiction in terms. The principles which regulate the descent of other Gipsy families applied equally to theirs. The fact that Mrs. Fall had the history of her people, in the act of leaving Yetholm, represented in tapestry, may be taken as but a straw that indicated how the wind blew. Was not old Will Faa, the Gipsy king, down to his death, at the end of the first American war, admitted to their hospitality as a relative? And do not the Scottish Gipsies, at the present day, claim them to have been Gipsies? Why might not the Falls glory in being Egyptians among themselves, but not to others? Were not their ancestors kings? “Wee kings,” no doubt, but still kings; one of them being the “loved John Faw,” of James V., whom all the tribe consider as a great man, (which, doubtless, he was, in that barbarous age,) and the principal of the thirteen patriarchs of Scottish Gipsydom. Was not a Gipsy king, (themselves being Gipsies,) an ancestor of far more respect, in their eyes, than the founder of a native family, in their neighbourhood; who, in the reign of Charles II., was a common country snip, and most likely commenced life with “whipping the cat” around the country, for fivepence a day, and victuals and clippings?[277]
The truth of the matter is, these Falls must have considered themselves a world better than other people, merely on account of their being Gipsies, as all Gipsies do, arising, in part, from that antagonistic spirit of opposition which the prejudice of their fellow-creatures is so much calculated to stir up in their minds. Saying, over their cups, that they were descended from the Faws, the historical Gipsy name in Scotland, did not divulge very much to the public. For what idea had the public of the working of Gipsydom—what idea of the Gipsy language? Did the public know of the existence of a Gipsy language in Scotland? In all probability, it generally did not. If the public heard a Tinkler use a strange word, all that it would think of it would be, that it was cant, confined to vagabonds strolling the country. Would it ever dream that what the vagabonds used was carefully preserved and spoken among the great Falls, of Dunbar, within the sanctity of their own dwellings, as it assuredly must have been? Would the public believe in such a thing, if even its own ears were made the witnesses to it? Was the love which the Falls had for their Yetholm connexion confined to a mere group of their ancestors worked in tapestry? Where was the Gipsy language, during all this time? Assuredly it was well preserved in their family. If it showed the least symptoms of falling off, how easily could the mothers bring into the family, as servants, other Gipsies, who would teach it to the children! For, besides the dazzling hold which the Gipsy language takes of the mind of a Gipsy, as the language of those black, mysterious heroes from whom he is descended, the keeping of it up forms the foundation of that self-respect which a Gipsy has for himself, amidst the prejudice of the world; from which, at the bottom of his heart, whatever his position in life, or character, or associations, may be, he considers himself separated. I am decidedly of opinion that all the domestics about this Fall family were Gipsies of one caste, colour, condition, or what not.
Then, we are told that Miss Fall, who married Sir John Anstruther, of Elie, baronet, was looked down upon by her husband’s friends, and received no other name than Jenny Faa; and that she was indirectly twitted with being a Gipsy, by the rabble, while attending an election in which Sir John was a candidate. What real satisfaction could Jenny, or any other Gipsy, have for ordinary natives of the country, when she was conscious of being what she was, and how she was spoken of, by her husband’s relatives and the public generally? She would take comfort in telling her “wonderful story” to her children, (for I presume she would have children,) who would sympathize with her; and in conversing with such of her own race as were near her, were it only her trusty domestics. It is the Gipsy woman who feels the prejudice that exists towards her race the most acutely; for she has the rearing of the children, and broods more over the history of her people. As the needle turns to the pole, so does the mind of the Gipsy woman to Gipsydom.
We are likewise told that this eminent Gipsy family were connected, by marriage, with the Footies, of Balgonie; the Coutts, afterwards bankers; Collector Whyte, of Kirkaldy, and Collector Melville, of Dunbar. We may assume, as a mathematical certainty, that Gipsydom, in a refined form, is in existence in the descendants of these families, particularly in such of them as were connected with this Gipsy family by the female side.[278]
A person who has never considered this subject, or any other cognate to it, may imagine that a Gipsy reproaches himself with his own blood. Pshaw! Where will you find a man, or a tribe of men, under the heavens, that will do that? It is not in human nature to do it. All men venerate their ancestors, whoever they have been. A Gipsy is, to an extraordinary degree, proud of his blood. “I have very little of the blood, myself,” said one of them, “but just come and see my wife!” But people may say that the ancestors of the Falls were thieves. And were not all the Borderers, in their way, the worst kind of thieves? They might not have stolen from their nearest relatives; but, with that exception, did they not steal from each other? Now, Gipsies never, or hardly ever, steal from each other. Were not all the Elliots and Armstrongs thieves of the first water? Were not the Scotts and the Kers thieves, long after the Gipsies entered Scotland? When the servants of Scott of Harden drove out his last cow, and said, “There goes Harden’s cow,” did not the old cow-stealer say, “It will soon be Harden’s kye“—meaning, that he would set out on a cow-stealing expedition? In fact, he lived upon spoil. Was it not his lady’s custom, on the last bullock being killed, to place on the table a dish, which, on being uncovered, was found to contain a pair of clean spurs—a hint, to her husband and his followers, that they must shift for their next meal? The descendants of these Scotts, and the Scottish public generally, look, with the utmost complacency and pride, upon the history of such families; yet would be very apt to make a great ado, if the ancestress of a Gipsy should, in such a predicament, have hung out a cock’s tail at the mouth of her tent, as a hint to her “laddies” to look after poultry. Common sense tells us, that, for one excuse to be offered for such conduct, on the part of the landed-gentry of the country, a hundred can be found for the ancestor of a Gipsy—an unfortunate wanderer on the face of the earth, who was hunted about, like a wolf of the forest.[279]
And what shall we say of our Highland thieves? Highlanders may be more touchy on this point, for their ancestors were the last of the British race to give up that kind of life. Talk of the laws passed against the Gipsies! Various of our Scottish monarchs issued decrees against “the wicked thieves and limmers of the clans and surnames, inhabiting the Highlands and Isles,” accusing “the chieftains principal of the branches worthy to be esteemed the very authors, fosterers, and maintainers, of the wicked deeds of the vagabonds of their clans and surnames.” Indeed, the doweries of the chiefs’ daughters were made up by a share of the booty collected on their expeditions. The Highlands were, at one time, little better than a nest of thieves; thieving from each other, and more particularly from their southern neighbours. It is notorious that robbery, in the Highlands, was “held to be a calling not merely innocent, but honourable;” and that a high-born Highland warrior was “much more becomingly employed, in plundering the lands of others, than in tilling his own.” At stated times of the year, such as at Candlemas, regular bands of Highlanders, the sons of gentlemen and what not, proceeded south in quest of booty, as part of their winter’s provisions. The Highlanders might even have been compared, at one time, to as many tribes of Afghans. Mr. Skene, the historian of the Highlands, and himself a Highlander, says that the Highlanders believed that they had a right to plunder the people of the low country, whenever it was in their power. We naturally ask, how did the Highlanders acquire this right of plunder? Were they ever proscribed? Were any of them hung, merely for being Highlanders? No. What plea, then, did the Highlanders set up, in justification of this wholesale robbery?—“They believed, from tradition, that the Lowlands, in old times, were the possessions of their ancestors.” (Skene.) But that was no excuse for their plundering each other.[280]
The Gipsy’s ordinary pilfering was confined to such petty things as “hens and peats at pleasure,” “cutting a bit lamb’s throat,” and “a mouthfu’ o’ grass and a pickle corn, for the cuddy”—“things that a farmer body ne’er could miss.” But your Highlanders did not content themselves with such “needles and pins;” they must have “horned cattle.” If the coast was clear, they would table their drawn dirks, and commence their spulzie, by making their victims furnish them with what was necessary to fill their bellies; upon the strength of which, they would “lift” whatever they could carry and drive, or take its equivalent in black-mail.
What an effort is made by our McGregors, at the present day, to scrape up kin with this or the other bandit McGregor; and yet how apt the McGregor is to turn up his nose—just as Punch, only, could make him turn it up—if a Gipsy were to step out, and say, that he was a descendant, and could speak the language, of Will Baillie, mentioned under the head of Tweed-dale and Clydesdale Gipsies: a Gipsy, described by my ancestor, (and he could judge,) to have been “the handsomest, the best dressed, the best looking, and the best bred, man he ever saw; and the best swordsman in Scotland, for, with his weapon in his hand, and his back at a wall, he could set almost everything, saving fire-arms, at defiance; a man who could act the gentleman, the robber, the sorner, and the tinker, whenever it answered his purpose.”[281] And yet, some of this man’s descendants will doubtless be found among our medical doctors, and even the clergy. I recollect our author pointing out a clergyman of the Scottish Church, who, he was pretty sure, was “one of them.” What name could have stood lower, at one time, than McGregor? Both by legal and social proscription, it was looked upon as vagabond; and doubtless the clan brought it, primarily and principally, upon themselves; but as for the rapine they practised upon their neighbours, and the helpless southerners, they were, at first, no worse, in that respect, than others of their nation. Are the McGregors sure that there are no Gipsies among them? There are plenty of Gipsies of, at least, the name of McGregor, known to both the Scottish and English Gipsies. What more likely than some of the McGregors, when “out,” and leading their vagabond lives, getting mixed up with the better kind of mixed Gipsies? They were both leading a wild life, and it is not unlikely that some of the McGregors, of even no small consequence, might have been led captive by such Gipsy girls as the lady Baillies, of Tweed-dale. Let a Gipsy once be grafted upon a native family, and she rises with it; leavens the little circle of which she is the centre, and leaves it, and its descendants, for all time coming, Gipsies.
I now come to ask, what constitutes a Gipsy at the present day? And common sense replies: the simple fact of knowing from whom he is descended, that is, who he is, in connection with having the Gipsy words and signs, although these are not absolutely necessary. It requires no argument to show that there is no tribe or nation but finds something that leads it to cling to its origin and descent, and not despise the blood that runs in its own veins, although it may despise the condition or conduct of some of its members. Where shall we find an exception to this rule? The Gipsy race is no exception to it. Civilize a Gipsy, and you make him a civilized Gipsy; educate him, and you make him an educated Gipsy; bring him up to any profession you like, Christianize him as much as you may, and he still remains a Gipsy; because he is of the Gipsy race, and all the influences of nature and revelation do not affect the questions of blood, tribe, and nationality. Take all the Gipsies that ever came out of the tent, or their descendants, including those brought into the body through the male and female line; and what are they now? Still Gipsies. They even pass into the other world Gipsies. “But they will forget that they are Gipsies,” say, perhaps, some of my readers. Forget that they are Gipsies! Will we hear, some of these days, that Scotch people, themselves, will get up of a morning, toss about their night-caps, and forget that they are Scotch? We may then see the same happen with the Gipsies. What I have said, of the Gipsy always being a Gipsy, is self-evident; but it has a wide difference of meaning from that contained in the quotation given by Mr. Borrow, in which it is said: “For that which is unclean by nature thou canst entertain no hope; no washing will turn the Gipsy white.”[282] But, taking the world all over, there will doubtless be Gipsies, in larger or smaller numbers, who will always be found following the original ways of their race.
What were the Hungarians, at one time, and what are they now? Pritchard says of them: “The Hungarians laid aside the habits of rude and savage hunters, far below the condition of the nomadic hordes, for the manners of civilized life. In the course of a thousand years, they have become a handsome people, of fine stature, regular European features, and have the complexion prevalent in that tract of Europe where they dwell.” Now the Gipsies have been in Scotland at least three hundred and fifty years; and what with the mixture of native blood, (which, at least, helped to remove the prejudice against the man’s appearance, and, consequently, gave him a larger and freer scope of action;) the hard laws of necessity, and the being tossed about by society, like pebbles on the seashore; the influences of civilization, education, and the grace of God itself; by such means as these, some of the Scottish Gipsies have risen to a respectable, even eminent, position in life. But some people may say: “These are not Gipsies; they have little of the blood in them.” That is nothing. Ask themselves what they are, and, if they are at all candid, they will reply that they are Gipsies. “No doubt,” they say, “we have fair, or red, or black, hair, (as the case may be;) we know nothing about that; but we know that we are Gipsies; that is all.” There is as much difference between such a high-class Gipsy and a poor Gipsian, as there is between a Scottish judge and the judge’s fourth cousin, who makes his living by clipping dogs’ ears. The principle of progression, the passing through one phase of history into another, while the race maintains its identity, holds good with the Gipsies, as well as with any other people.
Take a Gipsy in his original state, and we can find nothing really vulgar about him. What is popularly understood to be Gipsy life may be considered low life, by people who do not overmuch discriminate in such matters; but view it after its kind, and it is not really low; for a Gipsy is naturally polite and well mannered. He does not consider himself as belonging to the same race as the native, and would rather be judged by a different standard. The life which he leads is not that of the lowest class of the country in which he dwells, but the primitive, original state of a people of great antiquity, proscribed by law and society; himself an enemy of, and an enemy to, all around him; with the population so prejudiced against him, that attempts to change his condition, consistently with his feelings as a man, are frequently rendered in vain: so that, on the ground of strict morals, or even administrative justice, the man can be said to be only half responsible. The subject, however, assumes quite a different aspect, when we consider a Gipsy of education and refinement, like the worthy clergyman mentioned, between whose condition and that of his tented ancestor an interval of, perhaps, two or three centuries has elapsed. We should then put him on the footing of any other race having a barbarous origin, and entertain no prejudice against him on account of the race to which he belongs. He is then to be judged as we judge Highland and Border Scots, for the whole three were at one time robbers; and all the three having welled up to respectable life together, they ought to be judged on their merits, individually, as men, and treated accordingly. And the Gipsy ought to be the most leniently dealt with, on the principle that the actions of his ancestors were far more excusable, and even less heinous, than those of the others. And as regards antiquity of descent, the Gipsy’s infinitely surpasses the others, being probably no less than the shepherd kings, part of whose blood left Egypt, in the train of the Jews. I would place such a Gipsy on the footing of the Hungarian race; with this difference, that the Hungarians entered Europe in the ninth century, and became a people, occupying a territory; while the Gipsies appeared in the fifteenth century, and are now to be found, civilized and uncivilized, in almost every corner of the known world.
The admission of the good man alluded to casts a flood of light upon the history of the Scottish Gipsy race, shrouded as it is from the eye of the general population; but the information given by him was apt to fall flat upon the ear of the ordinary native, unless it was accompanied by some such exposition of the subject as is given in this work. Still, we can gather from it, where Gipsies are to be found, what a Scottish Gipsy is, and what the race is capable of; and what might be expected of it, if the prejudice of their fellow-creatures was withdrawn from the race, as distinguished from the various classes into which it may be divided, or, I should rather say, the personal conduct of each Gipsy individually. View the subject any way I may, I cannot resist coming to the conclusion that, under more favourable circumstances, it is difficult to say what the Gipsies might not attain to. But that would depend greatly upon the country in which they are to be found. Scotland has been peculiarly favourable for them, in some respects.
As regards the Scottish Gipsy population, at the present day, I can only adopt the language of the immortal Dominie Sampson, and say, that it must be “prodigious.” If we consider the number that appear to have settled in Scotland, the length of time they have been in Scotland, the great amount of white blood that has, by one means or other, been brought into, and mixed up with, the body, and its great natural encrease; the feelings that attach them to their descent—feelings that originate, more properly, within themselves, and feelings that press upon them from without—the various occupations and positions in life in which they are to be found; we cannot set any limit to their number. Gipsies are just like other people; they have their own sets or circles of associates, out of which, as a thing that is almost invariable, they will hide, if not deny, themselves to others of their race, for reasons which have already been given. So almost invariable is this, at the present day, amongst Gipsies that are not tented Gipsies, that, should an English Gipsy come across a settlement of them in America—German Gipsies, for example—and cast his sign, and address them in their own speech, they will pretend not to know what he means, although he sees the Gipsy in their faces and about their dwellings. But should he meet with them away from their homes, and where they are not known, they would answer, and be cheek-by-jowl with him, in a moment. I have found, by personal experience, that the same holds with the French and other continental Gipsies in America.[283] It is particularly so with the Scottish Gipsies. For these reasons, it seems to be beyond question that the number at which our author estimates them in Scotland, viz., 5,000, must be vastly below the real number. If I were to say 100,000, I do not think I would over-estimate them. The opinion of the Gipsies whom our author questioned was a guess, so far as it referred to the class to which they belonged, or with which they were acquainted; so that, if we take all kinds of Gipsies into account, it would be a very moderate estimate to set the Scottish Gipsies down at 100,000; and those in all the British Isles at 300,000. The number might be double what I have stated. The intelligent English Gipsies say that, in England, they are not only “dreadfully mixed,” but extremely numerous. There is not a race of men on the face of the earth more prolific than tented Gipsies; in a word, tented Gipsydom, if I may hazard such an expression, is, comparatively speaking, like a rabbit warren. The rough and uncouth kind of settled Gipsies are likewise very prolific; but the higher classes, as a rule, are by no means so much so. To set down any specific number of Gipsies to be found in the British Isles, would be a thing too arbitrary to serve any purpose; I think sufficient data have been given to enable the intelligent reader to form an opinion for himself.[284]
That many Gipsies were banished to America, in colonial times, from England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, sometimes for merely being “by habit and repute Gipsies,” is beyond dispute. “Your Welsh and Irish,” said an English Gipsy, in the United States, “were so mean, when they banished a Gipsy to the Plantations, as to make him find his own passage; but the English always paid the Gipsy’s passage for him.” The Scotch seem also to have made the Gipsy find his own passage, and failing that, to have hanged him. It greatly interests the English Gipsies arriving in America, to know about the native American Gipsies. I have been frequently in the company of an English Gipsy, in America, whose great-grandfather was so banished; but he did not relish the subject being spoken of. Gipsies may be said to have been in America almost from the time of its settlement. We have already seen how many of them found their way there, during the Revolution, by being impressed as soldiers, and taken as volunteers, for the benefit of the bounty and passage; and how they deserted on landing. Tented Gipsies have been seen about Baltimore for the last seventy years. In New England, a colony is known which has existed for about a hundred years, and has always been looked upon with a singular feeling of distrust and mystery by the inhabitants, who are the descendants of the early emigrants, and who did not suspect their origin till lately. These Gipsies have never associated, in the common sense of the word, with the other settlers, and, judging from their exterior, seem poor and miserable, whatever their circumstances may be. They follow pretty much the employment and modes of life of the same class in Europe; the most striking feature being, that the bulk of them leave the homestead for a length of time, scatter in different directions, and reunite, periodically, at their quarters, which are left in charge of some of the feeble members of the band.
It is not likely that many of the colonial Gipsies would take to the tent; for, arriving, for the most part, as individuals, separated from family relations, they were more apt to follow settled, semi-settled, or general itinerant occupations; and the more so, as the face of the country, and the thin and scattered settlements, would hardly admit of it. They were apt to squat on wild or unoccupied lands, in the neighbourhood of towns and settlements, like their brethren in Europe, when they took up their quarters on the borders of well-settled districts, with a wild country to fall back on, in times of danger or prosecution by the lawful authorities. Besides disposing of themselves, to some little extent, in this way, many of the Gipsies, banished, or going to the colonies of their own accord, would betake themselves to the various occupations common to the ordinary emigrants; the more especially as, when they arrived, they would find a field in which they were not known to be Gipsies; which would give them greater scope and confidence, and enable them to go anywhere, or enter upon any employment, where, not being known to be Gipsies, they would meet with no prejudice to contend with. Indeed, a new country, in which the people had, more or less, to be, in a sense, tinkers, that is, jacks-of-all-trades, and masters of none, was just the sphere of a handy Gipsy, who could “do a’ most of things.” They would turn to the tinkering, peddling, horse-dealing, tavern-keeping, and almost all the ordinary mechanical trades, and, among others, broom-making. Perhaps the foundation of the American broom manufacture was laid by the British Gipsies, by whom it may be partly carried on at the present day; a business they pretty much monopolize, in a rough way, in Great Britain. We will doubtless find, among the fraternity, some of those whittling, meddling Sam Slick peddlers, so often described: I have seen some of those itinerant venders of knife-sharpeners, and such “Yankee notions,” with dark, glistening eyes, that would “pass for the article.” Some of them would live by less legitimate business. I entertain no doubt, what from the general fitness of things, and the appearance of some of the men, that we will find some of the descendants of the old British mixed Gipsies members of the various establishments of Messrs. Peter Funks and Company,[285] of the city of New York, as well as elsewhere. And I entertain as little doubt that many of those American women who tell fortunes, and engage in those many curious bits of business that so often come up at trials, are descendants of the British plantation stock of Gipsies. But there are doubtless many of these Gipsies in respectable spheres of life. It would be extremely unreasonable to say that the descendants of the colonial Gipsies do not still exist as Gipsies, like their brethren in Great Britain, and other parts of the Old World. The English Gipsies in America entertain no doubt of it; the more especially as they have encountered such Gipsies, of at least two descents. I have myself met with such a Gipsy, following a decidedly respectable calling, whom I found as much one of the tribe, barring the original habits, as perhaps any one in Europe.
There are many Hungarian and German Gipsies in America; some of them long settled in Pennsylvania and Maryland, where they own farms. Some of them leave their farms in charge of hired hands, during the summer, and proceed South with their tents. In the State of Pennsylvania, there is a settlement of them, on the J—— river, a little way above H——, where they have saw-mills. About the Alleghany Mountains, there are many of the tribe, following somewhat the original ways of the race. In the United States generally, there are many Gipsy peddlers, British as well as continental. There are a good many Gipsies in New York—English, Irish, and continental—some of whom keep tin, crockery, and basket stores; but these are all mixed Gipsies, and many of them of fair complexion. The tin-ware which they make is generally of a plain, coarse kind; so much so, that a Gipsy tin store is easily known. They frequently exhibit their tin-ware and baskets on the streets, and carry them about the city. Almost all, if not all, of those itinerant cutlers and tinkers, to be met with in New York, and other American cities, are Gipsies, principally German, Hungarian, and French. There are a good many Gipsy musicians in America. “What!” said I, to an English Gipsy, “those organ-grinders?” “Nothing so low as that. Gipsies don’t grind their music, sir; they make it.” But I found in his house, when occupied by other Gipsies, a hurdy-gurdy and tambourine; so that Gipsies sometimes grind music, as well as make it. I know of a Hungarian Gipsy who is leader of a Negro musical band, in the city of New York; his brother drives one of the Avenue cars. There are a number of Gipsy musicians in Baltimore, who play at parties, and on other occasions. Some of the fortune-telling Gipsy women about New York will make as much as forty dollars a week in that line of business. They generally live a little way out of the city, into which they ride, in the morning, to their places of business. I know of one, who resides in New Jersey, opposite New York, and who has a place in the city, to which ladies, that is, females of the highest classes, address their cards, for her to call upon them. When she gets a chance of a young fellow with his female friend, she “puts the screws on;” for she knows well that he dare not “back out;” so she frequently manages to squeeze five dollars out of him.
Many hundred, perhaps several thousand, of English tented, and partly tented Gipsies, have arrived in America within the last ten years. They, for the most part, travel, and have travelled every State in the Union, east of the Rocky Mountains, as well as the British Provinces, as horse-dealers, peddlers, doctors, exhibitors, fortune-tellers, and tramps generally. Such English Gipsies, above all men in America, may, with the greatest propriety, say,
“No pent-up Utica contracts our powers,
But the whole boundless continent is ours.”
The fortune-tellers, every time they set out on their peregrinations, choose a new route; for they say it is more difficult to go over the same ground in America, than it is in England. The horse-dealers say that Jonathan is a good judge of a horse; that sometimes they get the advantage of him, and sometimes he of them; but that his demand for a warranty sometimes bothers them a deal. “What then?” I asked. “Well, we give him a warranty; and should the beast happen to turn out wrong, let him catch us if he can!” It is really astonishing how sensibly these English Gipsies talk of American affairs generally; they are very discriminating in their remarks, and wonderfully observant of places and localities. They do not like the Negroes. In their society they drop the name of king, and adopt that of president. “Cunning fellows,” said I, “to eschew the name of king, and look down upon Negroes. That will do, in America!”
I have found the above kind of Gipsies, in America, to be generally pretty well off; they all seem to flourish, and have plenty of money about them. The fortune-telling, horse-dealing, and peddling branches of them have a fine field for following their respective businesses. America, indeed, is a “great country” for the Gipsies; for it contains “no end” of chickens, to say nothing of ducks, geese, and turkeys, many of which are carried off by varmint, anyhow. There, they will find, for some time, many opportunities of gathering rich harvests, among what has been termed the shrewdest, but, in some things, the most gullible, of mortals, as an instance may illustrate. A Gipsy woman, known as such, drags, into the meshes of her necromancy, ‘cute Jonathan; who, with an infinite reliance on his own smartness, to “try the skill of the critter,” by her directions, ties up, in gold and paper, something like a thousand dollars, and, after she has passed her hands over it, and muttered a few cabalistic words, deposits it in his strong box. She sets a day, on which she calls, handles the “dimes,” while muttering some more expressions, rather accidentally drops them, then returns them to the box, and sets another day when she will call, and add much to his wealth. She does not appear, however, on the day mentioned. Our simpleton gets first anxious, then excited, then suspicious, then examines his “pile,” and finds it transformed into a lot of copper and old paper! For, in dropping the parcel, Meg does it adroitly about the folds of her dress, quickly substitutes another, exactly alike, and makes off with the fruits of her labour. Then come the hue and cry, telegraphing, and dispatching of warrants everywhere. But why need he trouble himself? So, after a harder day’s work than, perhaps, he ever underwent in his life, he returns home: but knowing the sympathy he will find there, he puts on his best face, and, to have the first word of it, (for he is not to be laughed at,) wipes his forehead, twitches his mouth, winks his eyes, and remarks: “Waal, I reckon I’ve been most darnedly sold, anyhow!” Such occurrences are very common among almost all classes of rural Americans. Sometimes it is to discover treasure on the individual’s lands, or in the neighbourhood; sometimes a mine, and sometimes an Indian, a trapper, a pirate, or a revolutionary deposit. When the Gipsy escapes with her spoil, she frequently makes for her home, but where that is, no one knows. On being molested, while there, she produces friends, in fair standing, who prove an alibi; and, with the further assistance of a well-feed lawyer, defies all the requisitions, made by the governors of neighbouring States, for her delivery. At other times, she will divide with the inferior authorities, or surrender the whole of the plunder; for, to go to jail she will not, if she can help it.[286]
In Virginia, the more original kind of Gipsies are very frequently to be met with. It is in the Slave States they are more apt to flourish in the olden form. The planters need not trouble themselves about their tampering with the Negroes, for they have no sympathy with them. Were it otherwise, they would soon be mum, on finding what the results would be to them. I have given some of them some useful hints on that score. The general disposition of the people, the want of learning among so many of them, the distances between dwellings, the small villages, the handy mechanical services of the Gipsies, the uncultivated tracts of land, the game of various kinds, and the climate, seem to point out some of the Slave States as an elysium for the Gipsies; unless the wealthier part of the inhabitants should use the poorer class as tools to drive them out of the country.[287]
There are a good many very respectable Scottish Gipsies in the United States; but I do not wish to be too minute in describing them. In Canada, I know of a doctor, a lawyer, and an editor, Scottish Gipsies. The fact of the matter is, that, owing to the mixture of the blood, the improvement, and perpetuation, and secrecy, of the race, there may be many, very many, Gipsies, in almost every place in the world, and other people not know of it: and it is not likely that, at the present time, they will say that they are Gipsies. Indeed, the intelligent English travelling Gipsies say that there are an immense number of Gipsies, of all countries, colours, and occupations, in America.
There is even some resemblance between the formation of Gipsydom and that of the United States. The children of emigrants, it is well known, frequently prove the most ultra Americans. Instead of the original colonists, at the Declaration of Independence, imagine the commencement of Gipsydom as proceeding from the original stock of Gipsies. The addition to their number, from without, differs from that which takes place among Americans, in this way: that all such additions to Gipsydom are made in such a manner, that the new blood gets innoculated, as it were, with the old, or part of the old; so that it may be said of the whole body,
One drop of blood makes all Gipsydom akin.
The simple fact of a person having Gipsy blood in his veins, in addition to the rearing of a Gipsy parent, acts upon him like a shock of electricity; it makes him spring to his feet, and—“snap his teeth at other dogs!” A very important circumstance contributing to this state of things is the antipathy which mankind have for the very name of Gipsy, which, as I have already said, they all take to themselves; insomuch that the better class will not face it. They imagine that, socially speaking, they are among the damned, and they naturally cast their lot with the damned. Still, the antagonistic spirit which would naturally arise towards society, in the minds of such Gipsies, remains, in a measure, latent; for they feel confident in their incognito, while moving among their fellow-creatures; which circumstance robs it of its sting.
Let a Lowlander, in times that are past, but have cast up a Highlander’s blood to him, and what would have been the consequences? “Her ainsel would have drawn her dirk, or whipped out her toasting-iron, and seen which was the prettiest man.” Let the same have been done to a Scottish Gipsy, in comparatively recent times, and he would have taken his own peculiar revenge. See how the Baillies, as mentioned under the chapter of [Tweed-dale and Clydesdale Gipsies], mounted on horseback, and with drawn swords in their hands, threatened death to all who opposed them, for an affront offered to their mother. Twit a respectable Gipsy with his blood, at the present day, and he would suffer in silence; for, by getting into a passion, he would let himself out. For this reason, it would be unmanly to hint it to him, in any tone of disparagement. The difference of feeling between the two races, at the present day, proceeds from positive ignorance on the part of the native towards the other; an ignorance in which the Gipsy would rather allow him to remain; for, let him turn himself in whatever direction he may, he imagines he sees, and perhaps does see, nothing but a dark mountain of prejudice existing between him and every other of his fellow-creatures. He would rather retain his incognito, and allow his race to go down to posterity shrouded in its present mystery. The history of the Gipsy race in Scotland, more, perhaps, than in any other country, shows, to the eye of the world, as few traces of its existence as would a fox, in passing over a ploughed field. The farmer might see the foot-prints of reynard, but how is he to find reynard himself? He must bring out the dogs and have a hunt for him. As an Indian of the prairie, while on the “war path,” cunningly arranges the long grass into its natural position, as he passes through it, to prevent his enemy following him, so has the Scottish Gipsy, as he entered upon a settled life, destroyed, to the eye of the ordinary native, every trace of his being a Gipsy. Still, I cannot doubt but that he has misgivings that, some day, he will be called up to judgment, and that all about him will be exposed to the world.
What is it that troubles the educated Gipsies? Nothing but the word Gipsy; a word which, however sweet when used among themselves, conveys an ugly, blackguard, and vagabond meaning to other people. The poet asks, What is there in a name? and I reply, Everything, as regards the name Gipsy. For a respectable Scottish Gipsy to say to the public, that “his mother is a Gipsy,” or, that “his wife is a Gipsy,” or, that “he is a Gipsy;” such a Gipsy simply could not do it. These Gipsies will hardly ever use the word among themselves, except in very select circles; but they will say “he’s one of us;” “he’s from Yetholm;” “he’s from the metropolis,” (Yetholm being the metropolis of Scottish Gipsydom;) or, “he’s a traveller.” If the company is not over classical, they will say “he’s from the black quarry,” or, “he’s been with the cuddies.” Imagine a select party of educated Scottish Gipsies, all closely related. They will then chatter Gipsy over their tea; but if a person should drop in, one of the party, who is not acquainted with him, will nudge and whisper to another, “Is he one of the tribe?” or, “Is he one of us?” The better class of Scottish Gipsies are very exclusive in matters of this kind.
All things considered, in what other position could the Gipsy race, in Scotland especially, be, at the present day, than that described? How can we imagine a race of people to act otherwise than hide themselves, if they could, from the odium that attaches to the name of Gipsy? And what estimate should we place on that charity which would lead a person to denounce a Gipsy, should he deny himself to be a Gipsy?[288] As a race, what can they offer to society at large to receive them within its circle? They can offer little, as a race; but, if we consider them as individuals, we will find many of them whose eduction, character, and position in life, would warrant their admission into any ordinary society, and some of them into any society. Notwithstanding all that, none will answer up to the name of Gipsy. It necessarily follows, that the race must remain shrouded in its present mystery, unless some one, not of the race, should become acquainted with its history, and speak for it. In Scotland, the prejudice towards the name of Gipsy might be safely allowed to drop, were it only for this reason: that the race has got so much mixed up with the native blood, and even with good families of the country, as to be, in plain language, a jumble—a pretty kettle of fish, indeed. One’s uncle, in seeking for a wife, might have stumbled over an Egyptian woman, and, either known or unknown to himself, had his children brought up bitter Gipsies; so that one’s cousins may be Gipsies, for anything one knows. A man may have a colony of Gipsies in his own house, and know nothing about it! The Gipsies died out? Oh, no. They commenced in Scotland by wringing the necks of one’s chickens, and now they sometimes . . . . . . ! But what is Gipsydom, after all, but a “working in among other people?”
In seeking for Gipsies among Scotch people, I know where to begin, but it puzzles me where to leave off. I would pay no regard to colour of hair or eyes, character, employment, position, or, indeed, any outward thing. The reader may say: “It must be a difficult matter to detect such mixed and educated Gipsies as those spoken of.” It is not only difficult, but outwardly impossible. Such Gipsies cannot even tell each other, from their personal appearance; but they have signs, which they can use, if the others choose to respond to them. If I go into a company which I have reason to believe is a Gipsy one, and it know nothing of me, so far as my pursuit is concerned, I will bring the subject of the Gipsies up, in a very roundabout way, and mark the effect which the conversation makes, or the turn it takes. What I know of the subject, and of the ignorance of mankind generally in regard to it, enables me to say, in almost every instance, who they are, let them make any remark they like, look as they like, pretend what they like, wriggle about as they like, or keep dead silent. As I gradually glide into the subject, and expatiate upon the “greatness of the society,” one remarks, “I know it;” upon the “respectability of some of its members,” and another emphatically exclaims, “That’s a fact;” and upon “its universality,” and another bawls out, “That’s so.” Indeed, by finding the Gipsies, under such circumstances, completely off their guard, (for they do not doubt their secret being confined to themselves,) I can generally draw forth, in one way or other, as much moral certainty, barring their direct admission, as to their being Gipsies, as a dog, by putting his nose into a hole, can tell whether a rat is there, or not.
The principle of the transmutation of Gipsy blood into white, in appearance, is illustrated, in the ninth chapter of Mr. Borrow’s “Bible in Spain,” by its changing into almost pure black. A Gipsy soldier, in the Spanish army, killed his sergeant, for “calling him calo, (Gipsy,) and cursing him,” and made his escape. His wife remained in the army, as a sutler, selling wine. Two years thereafter, a strange man came to her wine shop. “He was dressed like a Moor, (corahano,) and yet he did not look like one; he looked more like a black, and yet he was not a black, either, though he was almost black. And, as I looked upon him, I thought he looked something like the Errate, (Gipsies,) and he said to me, ‘Zincali, chachipé,’ (the Gipsy salutation.) And then he whispered to me, in queer language, which I could scarcely understand,’Your husband is waiting; come with me, my little sister, and I will take you to him.’ About a league from the town, beneath a hill, we found four people, men and women, all very black, like the strange man; and we joined ourselves with them, and they all saluted me, and called me ‘little sister.’ And away we marched, for many days, amidst deserts and small villages. The men would cheat with mules and asses, and the women told baji. I often asked him (her husband) about the black men, and he told me that he believed them to be of the Errate.” Her husband, then a soldier in the Moorish army, having been killed, this Gipsy woman married the black man, with whom she followed real Gipsy life. She said to him: “Sure I am amongst the Errate; . . . . and I often said that they were of the Errate; and then they would laugh, and say that it might be so; and that they were not Moors, (corahai,) but they could give no account of themselves.” From this it would seem that, while preserving their identity, wherever they go, there are Gipsies who may not be known to the world, or to the tribe, in other continents, by the same name.[289]
A word upon the universality of the Gipsies. English Gipsies, on arriving in America, feel quite taken aback, on coming across a tent or wigwam of Indians. “Didn’t you feel,” said I to some of them, “very like a dog when he comes across another dog, a stranger to him?” And, with a laugh, they said, “Exactly so.” After looking awhile at the Indians, they will approach them, and “cast their sign, and salute them in Gipsy;” and if no response is made, they will pass on. They then come to learn who the Indians are. The same curiosity is excited among the Gipsies on meeting with the American farmer, on the banks of the Mississippi or Missouri; who, in travelling to market, in the summer, will, to save expenses, unyoke his horses, at mid-day or evening, at the edge of the forest, light his fire, and prepare his meal. What with the “kettle and tented wagon,” the tall, lank, bony, and swarthy appearance of the farmer, the Gipsy will approach him, as he did the Indian; and pass on, when no response is made to his sign and salutation. Under such circumstances, the Gipsy would cast his sign, and give his salutation, whether on the banks of the Mississippi or the Ganges. Nay, a very respectable Scottish Gipsy boasted to me, that, by his signs alone, he could push his way to the wall of China, and even through China itself. And there are doubtless Gipsies in China. Mr. Borrow says, that when he visited the tribe at Moscow, they supposed him to be one of their brothers, who, they said, were wandering about in Turkey, China, and other parts. It is very likely that Russian Gipsies have visited China, by the route taken by Russian traders, and met with Gipsies there.[290] But it tickles the Gipsy most, when it is insinuated, that if Sir John Franklin had been fortunate in his expedition, he would have found a Gipsy tinkering a kettle at the North Pole.
The particulars of a meeting between English and American Gipsies are interesting. Some English Gipsies were endeavouring to sell some horses, in Annapolis, in the State of Maryland, to what had the appearance of being respectable American farmers; who, however, spoke to each other in the Gipsy language, dropping a word now and then, such as “this is a good one,” and so on. The English Gipsies felt amazed, and at last said: “What is that you are saying? Why, you are Gipsies!” Upon this, the Americans wheeled about, and left the spot as fast as they could. Had the English Gipsies taken after the Gipsy in their appearance, they would not have caused such a consternation to their American brethren, who showed much of “the blood” in their countenances; but as, from their blood being much mixed, they did not look like Gipsies, they gave the others a terrible fright, on their being found out. The English Gipsies said they felt disgusted at the others not owning themselves up. But I told them they ought rather to have felt proud of the Americans speaking Gipsy, as it was the prejudice of the world that led them to hide their nationality. On making enquiry in the neighbourhood, they found that these American Gipsies had been settled there since, at least, the time of their grandfather, and that they bore an English name.
There are Scottish Gipsies in the United States, following respectable callings, who speak excellent Gipsy, according to the judgment of intelligent English Gipsies. The English Gipsies say the same of the Gipsy families in Scotland, with whom they are acquainted; but that some of their words vary from those spoken in England. There is, however, a rivalry between the English and Scottish Gipsies, as to whose pronunciation of the words is the correct one: in that respect, they somewhat resemble the English and Scottish Latinists. One intelligent Gipsy gave it as his opinion, that the word great, baurie, in Scotland, was softer than boro, in England, and preferable, indeed, the right pronunciation of the word. The German Gipsies are said, by their English brethren, to speak Gipsy backwards; from which I would conclude, that it follows the construction of the German language, which differs so materially, in that respect, from the English.[291] It is a thing well-nigh impossible, to get a respectable Scottish Gipsy to own up to even a word of the Gipsy language. On meeting with a respectable—Scotchman, I will call him—in a company, lately, I was asked by him: “Are ye a’ Tinklers?” “We’re travellers,” I replied. “But who is he?” he continued, pointing to my acquaintance. Going up to him, I whispered “His dade is a baurie grye-femler,” (his father is a great horse-dealer;) and he made for the door, as if a bee had got into his ear. But he came back; oh, yes, he came back. There was a mysterious whispering of “pistols and coffee,” at another time.
It is beyond doubt that the Gipsy language in Great Britain is broken, but not so broken as to consist of words only; it consists, rather, of expressions, or pieces, which are tacked together by native words—generally small words—which are lost to the ordinary ear, when used in conversation. In that respect, the use of Gipsy may be compared to the revolutions of a wheel: we know that the wheel has spokes, but, in its velocity, we cannot distinguish the colour or material of each individual spoke; it is only when it stands still that that can be done. In the same manner, when we come to examine into the British Gipsy language, we perceive its broken nature. But it still serves the purpose of a speech. Let any one sit among English Gipsies, in America, and hear them converse, and he cannot pick up an idea, and hardly a word which they say. “I have always thought Dutch bad enough,” said an Irishman, who has often heard English Gipsies, in the State of New Jersey, speak among themselves; “but Gipsy is perfect gibble-gabble, like ducks and geese, for anything I can make of it.” Some Gipsies can, of course, speak Gipsy much better than others. It is most unlikely that the Scottish Gipsies, with the head, the pride, and the tenacity of native Scotch, would be the first to forget the Gipsy language. The sentiments of the people themselves are very emphatic on that head. “It will never be forgotten, sir; it is in our hearts, and, as long as a single Tinkler exists, it will be remembered,” ([page 297].) “So long as there existed two Gipsies in Scotland, it would never be lost,” ([page 316].) The English Gipsies admit that the language is more easily preserved in a settled life, but more useful to travelling and out-door Gipsies; and that it is carefully kept up by both classes of Gipsies. This information agrees with our author’s, in regard to the settled Scottish Gipsies. There is one very strong motive, among many, for the Gipsies keeping up their language, and that is, as I have already said, their self-respect. The best of them believe that it is altogether problematical how they would be received in society, were they to make an avowal of their being Gipsies, and lay bare the history of their race to the world. The prejudice that exists against the race, and against them, they imagine, were they known to be Gipsies, drives them back on that language which belongs exclusively to themselves; to say nothing of the dazzling hold which it takes of their imagination, as they arrive at years of reflection, and consider that the people speaking it have been transplanted from some other clime. The more intelligent the Gipsy, the more he thinks of his speech, and the more care he takes of it.
People often reprobate the dislike, I may say the hatred, which the more original Gipsy entertains for society; forgetting that society itself has had the greatest share in the origin of it. When the race entered Europe, they are not presumed to have had any hatred towards their fellow-creatures.[292] That hatred, doubtless, sprang from the severe reception, and universal persecution, which, owing to the singularity of their race and habits, they everywhere met with. The race then became born into that state of things. What would subsequent generations know of the origin of the feud? All that they knew was, that the law made them outlaws and outcasts; that they were subject, as Gipsies, to be hung, before they were born. Such a Gipsy might be compared to Pascal’s man springing up out of an island: casting his eyes around him, he finds nothing but a legal and social proscription hanging over his head, in whatever direction he may turn. Whatever might be assumed to have been the original, innate disposition of a Gipsy, the circumstances attending him, from his birth to his death, were certainly not calculated to improve him, but to make him much worse than he might otherwise have been. The worst that can be said of the Scottish Gipsies, in times past, has been stated by our author. With all their faults, we find a vein of genuine nobility of character running through all their actions, which is the more worthy of notice, considering that they were at war with society, and society at war with them. Not the least important feature is that of gratitude for kind and hospitable treatment. In that respect, a true Scottish Gipsy has always been as true as steel; and that is saying a great deal in his favour. The instance given by our author, ([pages 361]-[363],) is very touching, and to the point. I do not know how it may be, at the present day, in Scotland, where are to be found so many Irish Gipsies, of whom the Scottish and English Gipsies have not much good to say, notwithstanding the assistance they render each other when they meet, ([page 324].) If the English farmers are questioned, I doubt not that a somewhat similar testimony will be borne to the English Gipsies, to this extent, at least, that, when civilly and hospitably treated, and personally acquainted, they will respect the farmers’ property, and even keep others off it. Indeed, both Scottish and English Gipsies call this “Gipsy law.” It is certainly not the Scottish Gipsies, or, I may venture to say, the English Gipsies, to whom Mr. Borrow’s words may be applied, when he says: “I have not expatiated on their gratitude towards good people, who treat them kindly, and take an interest in their welfare; for I believe, that, of all beings in the world, they are the least susceptible of such a feeling.” Such a character may apply to the Spanish Gipsies for anything I know to the contrary; and the causes to which it may be attributed must be the influences which the Spanish character, and general deportment towards the tribe, have exercised over them. In speaking of the bloody and wolfish disposition which especially characterizes the Gitanos, Mr. Borrow says: “The cause to which this must be attributed, must be their residence in a country, unsound in every branch of its civil polity, where right has ever been in less esteem, and wrong in less disrepute, than in any other part of the world.” Grellmann bears as poor testimony to the character of the Hungarian Gipsies, in the matter of gratitude, as Mr. Borrow does to the Spanish Gipsies, to whom I apprehend his remarks are intended to apply. But both of these authors give an opinion, unaccompanied by facts. Their opinion may be correct, however, so far as it is applicable to the class of Gipsies, or the individuals, to whom they refer. Gratitude is even a characteristic of the lower animals. “For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed and hath been tamed of mankind,” saith St. James; the means of attaining to which is frequently kindness. I doubt not that the same can be said of Gipsies anywhere; for surely we can expect to find as much gratitude in them as can be called forth from things that creep, fly, or swim in the sea. It is unreasonable, however, to look for much gratitude from such Gipsies as the two authors in question have evidently alluded to; for this reason: that it is a virtue rarely to be met with from those “to whom much has been given;” and, consequently, very little should be required of those to whom nothing has been given, in the estimation of their fellow-creatures. In doing a good turn to a Gipsy, it is not the act itself that calls forth, or perhaps merits, a return in gratitude; but it is the way in which it is done: for, while he is doubtless being benefited, he is, frequently if not generally, as little sympathized with, personally, as if he were some loathsome creature to which something had been thrown.
As regards the improvement of the Gipsies, I would make the following suggestions: The facts and principles of the present work should be thoroughly canvassed and imprinted upon the public mind, and an effort made to bring, if possible, our high-class Gipsies to own themselves up to be Gipsies. The fact of these Gipsies being received into society, and respected, as Gipsies, (as it is with them, at present, as men,) could not fail to have a wonderful effect upon many of the humble, ignorant, or wild ones. They would perceive, at once, that the objections which the community had to them, proceeded, not from their being Gipsies, but from their habits, only. What is the feeling which Gipsies, who are known to be Gipsies, have for the public at large? The white race, as a race, is simply odious to them, for they know well the dreadful prejudice which it bears towards them. But let some of their own race, however mixed the blood might be, be respected as Gipsies, and it would, in a great measure, break down, at least in feeling, the wall of caste that separates them from the community at large. This is the first, the most important, step to be taken to improve the Gipsies, whatever may be the class to which they belong. Let the prejudice be removed, and it is impossible to say what might not follow. Before attempting to reform the Gipsies, we ought to reform, or, at least, inform, mankind in regard to them; and endeavour to reconcile the world to them, before we attempt to reconcile them to the world; and treat them as men, before we try to make them Christians. The poor Gipsies know well that there are many of their race occupying respectable positions in life; perhaps they do not know many, or even any, of them, personally, but they believe in it thoroughly. Still, they will deny it, at least hide it from strangers, for this reason, among others, that it is a state to which their children, or even they themselves, look forward, as ultimately awaiting them, in which they will manage to escape from the odium of their fellow-creatures, which clings to them in their present condition. The fact of the poor travelling Gipsies knowing of such respectable settled Gipsies, gives them a certain degree of respect in their own eyes, which leads them to repel any advance from the other race, let it come in almost whatever shape it may. The white race, as I have already said, is perfectly odious to them. This is exactly the position of the question. The more original kind of Gipsies feel that the prejudice which exists against the race to which they belong is such, that an intercourse cannot be maintained between them and the other inhabitants; or, if it does exist, it is of so clandestine a nature, that their appearance, and, it may be, their general habits, do not allow or lead them to indulge in it. I will make a few more remarks on this subject further on in this treatise.
What are the respectable, well-disposed Scottish Gipsies but Scotch people, after all? They are to be met with in almost every, if not every, sphere in which the ordinary Scot is to be found. The only difference between the two is, that, however mixed the blood of these Gipsies may be, their associations of descent and tribe go back to those black, mysterious heroes who entered Scotland, upwards of three hundred and fifty years ago; and that, with this descent, they have the words and signs of Gipsies. The possession of all these, with the knowledge of the feelings which the ordinary natives have for the very name of Gipsy, makes the only distinction between them and other Scotchmen. I do not say that the world would have any prejudice against these Gipsies, as Gipsies, still, they are morbidly sensitive that it would have such a feeling. The light of reason, of civilization, of religion, and the genius of Britons, forbid such an idea. What object more worthy of civilization, and of the age in which we live, than that such Gipsies would come forward, and, by their positions in society, their talents and characters, dispel the mystery and gloom that hang over the history of the Gipsy race!
But will these Gipsies do that? I have my misgivings. They may not do it now, but I am sanguine enough to think that it is an event that may take place at some future time. The subject must, in the meantime, be thoroughly investigated, and the mind of the public fully prepared for such a movement. The Gipsies themselves, to commence with, should furnish the public with information, anonymously, so far as they are personally concerned, or confidentially, through a person of standing, who can guarantee the trustworthiness of the Gipsy himself. I do not expect that they would give us any of the language; but they can furnish us with some idea of the position which the Gipsies occupy in the world, and throw a great deal of light upon the history of the race in Scotland, in, at least, comparatively recent times. In anticipation of such an occurrence, I would make this suggestion to them: that they must be very careful what they say, on account of the “court holding them interested witnesses;” and, whatever they may do, to deny nothing connected with the Gipsies. They certainly have kept their secret well; indeed, they have considered the subject, so far as the public is concerned, as dead and buried long ago. It is of no use, however, Gipsies; “murder will out;” the game is up; it is played out. I may say to you what the hunter said to the ‘coon, or rather what the ‘coon said to the hunter: “You may just as well come down the tree.” Yes! come down the tree; you have been too long up; come down, and let us know all about you.[293]
Scottish Gipsies! I now appeal to you as men. Am I not right, in asserting, that there is nothing you hold more dear than your Egyptian descent, signs, and language? And nothing you more dread than such becoming known to your fellow-men around you? Do you not read, with the greatest interest, any and everything printed, which comes in your way, about the Gipsies, and say, that you thank God all that is a thousand miles away from you? Whence this inconsistency? Ah! I understand it well. Shall the prejudice of mankind towards the name of Gipsy drive you from the position which you occupy? Can it drive you from it? No, it cannot. The Gipsies, you know, are a people; a “mixed multitude,” no doubt, but still a people. You know you are Gipsies, for your parents before you were Gipsies, and, consequently, that you cannot be anything but Gipsies. What effect, then, has the prejudice against the race upon you? Does it not sometimes appear to you as if, figuratively speaking, it would put a dagger into your hands against the rest of your species, should they discover that you belonged to the tribe? Or that it would lead you to immediately “take to your beds,” or depart, bed and baggage, to parts unknown? But then, Gipsies, what can you do? The thought of it makes you feel as if you were sheep. Some of you may be bold enough to face a lion in the flesh; but who so bold as to own to the world that he is a Gipsy? There is just one of the higher class that I know of, and he was a noble specimen of a man, a credit to human nature itself. Although you might shrink from such a step, would you not like, and cannot you induce, some one to take it? Take my word for it, respectable Scottish Gipsies, the thing that frightens you is, after all, a bug-bear—a scare-crow. But, failing some of you “coming out,” would you not rather that the world should now know that much of the history of the Gipsy race, as to show that it was no necessary disparagement in any of you to be a Gipsy? Would you not rather that a Gipsy might pass, anywhere, for a gentleman, as he does now, everywhere, for a vagabond; and that you and your children might, if they liked, show their true colours, than, as at present, go everywhere incog, and carry within them that secret which they are as afraid of being divulged to the world, as if you and all your kin were conspirators and murderers? The secret being out, the incognito of your race goes for nothing. Come then, Scottish Gipsy, make a clean breast of it, like a man. Which of you will exclaim,
“Thus from the grave I’ll rise, and save my love;
Draw all your swords, and quick as lightning move!
When I rush on, sure none will dare to stay;
‘Tis love commands, and glory leads the way!”
Will none of you move? Ah! Gipsies, you are “great hens,” and no wonder.
American Gipsies, descendants of the real old British stock! I make the same appeal to you. Let the world know how you are getting on, in this land of “liberty and equality;” and whether any of your race are senators, congressmen, and what not. I have heard of a Gipsy, a sheriff in the State of Pennsylvania; and I know of a Scottish Gipsy, who was lately returned a member of the Legislature of the State of New York.
The reader may ask: Is it possible that there is a race of men, residing in the British Isles, to be counted by its hundreds of thousands, occupying such a position as that described? And I reply, Alas! it is too true. Exeter Hall may hobnob with Negroes, Hottentots, and Bosjesmen—always with something or other from a distance; but what has it ever done for the Gipsies? Nothing! It will rail at the American prejudice towards the Negro, and entirely pass over a much superior race at its own door! The prejudice against the Negro proceeds from two causes—his appearance and the servitude in which he is, or has been, held. But there can be no prejudice against the Gipsy, on such grounds. It will not do to say that the prejudice is against the tented Gipsies, only; it is against the race, root and branch, as far as it is known. What is it but that which compels the Gipsy, on entering upon a settled life, to hide himself from the unearthly prejudice of his fellow-creatures? The Englishman, the Scotchman, and the Irishman may rail at the American for his peculiar prejudices; but the latter, if he can but capitalize the idea, has, in all conscience, much to throw back upon society in the mother country. Instead of a class of the British public spending so much of their time in an agitation against an institution thousands of miles away from home, and over which they have, and can expect to have, no control, they might direct their attention to an evil laying at their own doors—that social prejudice which is so much calculated to have a blasting influence upon the condition of so many of their fellow-subjects. It is beyond doubt that there cannot be less than a quarter of a million of Gipsies in the British Isles, who are living under a grinding despotism of caste; a despotism so absolute and odious, that the people upon whom it bears cannot, as in Scotland, were it almost to save their lives, even say who they are! Let the time and talents spent on the agitation in question be transferred, for a time, into some such channel as would be implied in a “British Anti-Gipsy-prejudice Association,” and a great moral evil may disappear from the face of British society. In such a movement, there would be none of that direct or indirect interest to be encountered, which lies on the very threshold of slavery, in whatever part of the world it exists; nor would there be any occasion to appeal to people’s pockets.[294] After the work mentioned has been accomplished, the British public might turn their attention to wrongs perpetrated in other climes. Americans, however, must not attempt to seek, in the British Gipsy-prejudice, an excuse for their excessive antipathy towards Negroes. I freely admit that the dislike of white men, generally, for the Negro, lies in something that is irremovable—something that is irrespective of character, or present or previous social condition. But it is not so with the Gipsy, for his race is, physically, among the finest that are to be found on the face of the earth. Americans ought also to consider that there are plenty of Gipsies among themselves, towards whom, however, there are none of those prejudices that spring from local tradition or association, but only such as proceed from literature, and that towards the tented Gipsy.
What is to be the future of the Gipsy race? A reply to this question will be found in the history of it during the past, as described; for it resolves itself into two very simple matters of fact. In the first place, we have a foreign race, deemed, by itself, to be, as indeed it is, universal, introduced into Scotland, for example, taken root there, spread, and flourished; a race that rests upon a basis the strongest imaginable. On the other hand, there is the prejudice of caste towards the name, which those bearing it escape, only, by assuming an incognito among their fellow-creatures. These two principles, acting upon beings possessing the feelings of men, will, of themselves, produce that state of things which will constitute the history of the Gipsies during all time coming, whatever may be the changes that may come over their character and condition. They may, in course of time, lose their language, as some of them, to a great extent, have done already; but they will always retain a consciousness of being Gipsies. The language may be lost, but their signs will remain, as well as so much of their speech as will serve the purpose of pass-words. “There is something there,” said an English Gipsy of intelligence, smiting his breast, “There is something there which a Gipsy cannot explain.” And, said a Scottish Gipsy: “It will never be forgotten; as long as the world lasts, the Gipsies will be Gipsies.” What idea can be more preposterous than that of saying, that a change of residence or occupation, or a little more or less of education or wealth, or a change of character or creed, can eradicate such feeling from the heart of a Gipsy; or that these circumstances can, by any human possibility, change his descent, his tribe, or the blood that is in his body? How can we imagine this race, arriving in Europe so lately as the fifteenth century, and in Scotland the century following, with an origin so distinct from the rest of the world, and so treated by the world, can possibly have lost a consciousness of nationality in its descent, in so short a time after arrival; or, that that can happen in the future, when there are so many circumstances surrounding it to keep alive a sense of its origin, and so much within it to preserve its identity in the history of the human family? Let the future history of the world be what it may, Gipsydom is immortal.[295]
In considering the question of the Gipsies being openly admitted, as a race, into the society of mankind, I ask, what possible reason could a British subject advance against such taking place with, at least, the better kind of Scottish Gipsies? Society, generally, would not be over-ready to lessen the distance between itself and the tented Gipsies, or those who live by means really objectionable; but it should have that much sense of justice, as to confine its peculiar feelings to the ways of life of these individuals, and not keep them up against their children, when they follow different habits. If, for example, I should have made the acquaintance of some Scottish Gipsies, associated with them, and acquired a respect for them, (as has happened with me,) how could I take exceptions to them, on account of it afterwards leaking out that they were Gipsies? A sense of ordinary justice would forbid me doing so. I can see nothing objectionable in their conduct, as distinguished from that of other people; and as for their appearance, any person, on being asked to point out the Gipsy, would, so far as colour of hair and eyes goes, pitch upon many a common native, in preference to them. A sense of ordinary justice, as I have said, would disarm me of any prejudice against them; nay, it would urge me to think the more of them, on account of their being Gipsies. To the ordinary eye, they are nothing but Scotch people, and pass, everywhere, for such. There is a Scottish Gipsy in the United States, with whom I am acquainted—a liberal-minded man, and good company—who carries on a wholesale trade, in a respectable article of merchandise, and he said to me: “I will not deny it, nor am I ashamed to say it—I come from Yetholm.” And I replied: “Why should you be ashamed of it?”
It is this hereditary prejudice of centuries towards the name, that constitutes the main difficulty in the way of recognition of these Gipsies by the world generally. How long it may be since they or their ancestors left the tent, is a thing of no importance; personal character, education, and position in life, are the only things that should be considered. The Gipsies to whom I allude do not require to be reformed, unless in that sense in which all men stand in need of reformation: what is wanted is, that the world should raise up the name of Gipsy. And why should not that be done by the people of Great Britain, and Scotland especially, in whose mouths are continually these words: “God hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth?” Will the British public spend its hundreds of thousands, annually, on every other creature under heaven, and refuse to countenance the Gipsy race? Will it squander its tens of thousands to convert, perhaps, on an average, one Jew, and refuse a kind word, nay, grudge a smile, towards that body, a member of which may be an official of that Missionary Society, or, it may be, the very chairman of it? I can conceive no liberal-minded Scotchman, possessing a feeling of true self-respect, entertaining a prejudice against such Gipsies. The only people in Scotland in whose mind such a prejudice might be supposed to exist, are those miserable old women around the neighbourhood of Stirling, who, under the influence of the old Highland feud, will look with the greatest contempt upon a person, if he but come from the north of the Ochils. I would class, with such old women, all of our Scotch people who would object to the Gipsies to whom I have alluded. A Scotchman should even have that much love of country, as to take hold of his own Gipsies, and “back them up” against those of other countries: and particularly should he do that, when the “Gipsies” might be his cousins, nay, his own children, for anything that he might know to the contrary. Scotch people should consider that the “Tinklers,” whom they see going about, at the present day, are, if not the very lowest kind of Gipsies, at least those who follow the original ways of their race; and are greatly inferior, not only relatively, but actually, to many of those who have gone before them. They should also consider that Gipsies are a race, however mixed the blood may be; subject, as a race, to be governed, in their descent, by those laws which regulate the descent of all races; and that a Gipsy is as much a Gipsy in a house as in a tent, in a “but and a ben” as in a palace.
Wherever a Gipsy goes, he carries his inherent peculiarities with him; and the objection to him he considers to be to something inseparable from himself—that which he cannot escape; but the confidence which he has in his incognito neutralizes, as I have already said, the feelings which such a circumstance would naturally produce. But, to disarm him altogether of this feeling, all that is necessary is to state his case, and have it admitted by the “honourable of the earth;” so that his mind may be set at perfect rest on that point. He would, doubtless, still hide the fact of his being a Gipsy, but he would enjoy, in his retreat, that inward self-respect, among his fellow-creatures, which such an admission would give him; and which is so much calculated to raise the people, generally, in every moral attribute. It is, indeed, a melancholy thing, to contemplate this cloud which hangs over such a man, as he mixes with other people, in his daily calling; but to dispel it altogether, the Gipsy himself must, in the manner described, give us some information about his race. Apart from the sense of justice which is implied in admitting these Gipsies, as Gipsies, to a social equality with others, a motive of policy should lead us to take such a step; for it can augur no good to society to have the Gipsy race residing in its midst, under the cloud that hangs over it. Let us, by a liberal and enlightened policy, at least blunt the edge of that antipathy which many of the Gipsy race have, and most naturally have, to society at large.
In receiving a Gipsy, as a Gipsy, into society, there should be no kind of officious sympathy shown him, for he is too proud to submit to be made the object of it. Should he say that he is a Gipsy, the remark ought to be received as a mere matter of course, and little notice taken of it; just as if it made no difference to the other party whether he was a Gipsy or not. A little surprise would be allowable; but anything like condolence would be out of the question. And let the Gipsy himself, rather, talk upon the subject, than a desire be shown to ask him questions, unless his remarks should allow them, in a natural way, to be put to him. As to the course to be pursued by the Gipsy, should he feel disposed to own himself up, I would advise him to do it in an off-handed, hearty manner; to show not the least appearance that he had any misgivings about any one taking exceptions to him on that account. Should he act otherwise, that is, hesitate, and take to himself shamefacedness, in making the admission, it would, perhaps, have been better for him not to have committed himself at all: for, in such a matter, it may be said, that “he that doubteth is damned.” The simple fact of a man, in Scotland, saying, after the appearance of this work there, that he is a Gipsy, if he is conscious of having the esteem of his neighbours, would probably add to his popularity among them; especially if they were men of good sense, and had before their eyes the expression of good-will of the organs of society towards the Gipsy race. Such an admission, on the part of a Gipsy, would presumptively prove, that he was a really candid and upright person; for few Scottish Gipsies, beyond those about Yetholm, would make such a confession. Having mentioned the subject, the Gipsy should allude to it, on every appropriate occasion, and boast of being in possession of those words and signs which the other is entirely ignorant of. He could well say: “What was Borrow to him, or he to Borrow; that, for his part, he could traverse the world over, and, in the centre of any continent, be received and feasted, by Gipsies, as a king.” If but one respectable Scottish Gipsy could be prevailed upon to act in this way, what an effect might it not have upon raising up the name of this singular race! But there is a very serious difficulty to be encountered in the outset of such a proceeding, and it is this, that if a Gipsy owns himself up, he necessarily “lets out,” perhaps, all his kith and kin; a regard for whom would, in all probability, keep him back. But there would be no such difficulty to be met with in the way of the Gipsy giving us information by writing. Let us, then, Gipsy, have some writing upon the Gipsies. It will serve no good purpose to keep such information back; the keeping of it back will not cast a doubt upon the facts and principles of the present work; for rest assured, Gipsy, that, upon its own merits, your secret is exploded. I would say this to you, young Scottish Gipsy; pay no regard to what that old Gipsy says, when he tells you, that “he is too old a bird to be caught with chaff in that way.”
The history of the Gipsies is the history of a people (mixed, in point of blood, as it is,) which exists; not the history of a people, like the Aborigines of North America, which has ceased to exist, or is daily ceasing to exist.[296] It is the history of a people within a people, with whom we come in contact daily, although we may not be aware of it. Any person of ordinary intelligence can have little difficulty in comprehending the subject, shrouded as it is from the eye of the world. But should he have any such difficulty, it will be dispelled by his coming in contact with a Gipsy who has the courage to own himself up to be a Gipsy. It is no argument to maintain that the Gipsy race is not a race, because its blood is mixed with other people. That can be said of all the races of Western Europe, the English more especially; and, in a much greater degree, of that of the United States of America. Every Gipsy has part of the Gipsy blood, and more or less of the words and signs; which, taken in connection with the rearing of Gipsies, act upon his mind in such a manner, that he is penetrated with the simple idea that he is a Gipsy; and create that distinct feeling of nationality which the matters of territory, and sometimes dialect, government, and laws, do with most of other races. Take a Gipsy from any country in the world you may, and the feeling of his being a Gipsy comes as naturally to him as does the nationality of a Jew to a Jew; although we will naturally give him a more definite name, to distinguish him; such as an English, Welsh, Scotch, or Irish Gipsy, or by whatever country of which the Gipsy happens to be a native.
But I am afraid that what has been said is not sufficiently explanatory to enable some people to understand this subject. These people know what a Gipsy, in the popular sense, means; they have either seen him, and observed his general mode of life, or had the same described to them in books. This idea of a Gipsy has been impressed upon their minds almost from infancy. But it puzzles most people to form any idea of a Gipsy of a higher order; such a Gipsy, for example, as preaches the gospel, or argues the law: that seems, hitherto, to have been almost incomprehensible to them. They know intuitively what is meant by any particular people who occupy a territory—any country, tract of land, or isle. They also know what is meant by the existence of the Jews. For the subject is familiar to them from infancy; it is wrapt up in their early reading; it is associated with the knowledge and practice of their religion, and the attendance, on the part of the Jews, at a place of worship. They have likewise seen and conversed with the Jews, or others who have done either or both; or they are acquainted with them by the current remarks of the world. But a people resembling, in so many respects, the Jews, without having any territory, or form of creed, peculiar to itself, or any history, or any peculiar outward associations or residences, or any material difference in appearance, character, or occupation, is something that the general mind of mankind would seem never to have dreamt of, or to be almost capable of realizing to itself. We have already seen how a writer in Blackwood’s Magazine gravely asserts, that, although “Billy Marshall left descendants numberless, the race, of which he was one, was in danger of becoming extinct;” when, in fact, it had only passed from its first stage of existence—the tent, into its second—tramping, without the tent; and after that, into its ultimate stage—a settled life. We have likewise seen how Sir Walter Scott imagines that the Scottish Gipsies have decreased, since the time of Fletcher, of Saltoun, about the year 1680, from 100,000 to 500, by “the progress of time, and encrease of the means of life, and the power of the laws.” Mr. Borrow has not gone one step ahead of these writers; and, although I naturally enough excuse them, I am not inclined to let him go scot-free, since he has set himself forward so prominently as an authority on the Gipsy question.[297]
In explaining this subject, it is by no means necessary to “crack an egg” for the occasion. There is doubtless a “hitch,” but it is a hitch so close under our very noses, that it has escaped the observation of the world. Still, the point can be readily enough realized by any one. Take, for example, the Walker family. Walker knows well enough who his father, grandfather, and so forth were; and holds himself to be a Walker. Is it not so with the Gipsies? What is it but a question of “folk?” A question more familiar to Scotch people than any other people. If one’s ancestors were all Walkers, is not the present Walker still a Walker? If such or such a family was originally of the Gipsy race, is it not so still? How did Billy Marshall happen to be a Gipsy? Was he a Gipsy because he lived in a tent? or, did he live in a tent, like a Gipsy of the old stock? If Billy was a Gipsy, surely Billy’s children must also have been Gipsies!
The error committed by writers, with reference to the so-called “dying-out” of the Gipsy race, arises from their not distinguishing between the questions of race, blood, descent, and language, and a style of life, or character, or mode of making a living. Suppose that a native Scottish cobbler should leave his last, and take to peddling, as a packman, and ultimately settle again in a town, as a respectable tradesman. On quitting “the roads,” he would cease to be a packman; nor could his children after him be called packmen, because the whole family were native Scotch from the first; following the pack having been only the occupation of the father, during part of his life. Should a company of American youths and maidens take to the swamp, cranberrying and gipsying, for a time, it could not be said that they had become Gipsies; for they were nothing but ordinary Americans. Should the society of Quakers dissolve into its original elements, it would just be English blood quakerized, returning to English blood before it was quakerized. But it is astonishing that intelligent men should conceive, and others retail, the ideas that have been expressed in regard to the destiny of the Gipsy race. What avails the lessons of history, or the daily experience of every family of the land, the common sense of mankind, or the instinct of a Hottentot, if no other idea of the fate of the Gipsy race can be given than that referred to? Upon the principle of the Gipsies “dying out,” by settling, and changing their habits, it would appear that, when at home, in the winter, they were not Gipsies; but that they were Gipsies, when they resumed their habits, in the spring! On the same principle, it would appear, that, if every Gipsy in the world were to disappear from the roads and the fields, and drop his original habits, there would be no Gipsies in the world, at all! What idea can possibly be more ridiculous?[298]
It is better, however, to compare the Gipsy tribe in Scotland, at the present day, to an ordinary clan in the olden time; although the comparison falls far short of the idea. We know perfectly well what it was to have been a member of this or that clan. Sir Walter Scott knew well that he was one of the Buccleuch clan, and a descendant of Auld Beardie; so that he could readily say that he was a Scott. Wherein, then, consists the difficulty in understanding what a Scottish Gipsy is? Is it not simply that he is “one of them;” a descendant of that foreign race of which we have such notice in the treaty of 1540, between James V. and John Faw, the then head of the Scottish Gipsy tribe? A Scottish Gipsy has the blood, the words, and the signs, of these men, and as naturally holds himself to be “one of them,” as a native Scotchman holds himself to be one of his father’s children. How, then, can a “change of habits” prevent a man from being his father’s son? How could a “change of habits” make a McGregor anything but a McGregor? How could the effects of any just and liberal law towards the McGregors lead to the decrease, and final extinction, of the McGregors? Every man, every family, every clan, and every people, are continually “changing their habits,” but still remain the same people. It would be a treat to have a treatise from Mr. Borrow upon the Gipsy race “dying out,” by “changing its habits,” or by the acts of any government, or by ideas of “gentility.”
I have already alluded to a resemblance between the position of the Gipsy race, at the present day, and that of the English and American races. Does any one say that the English race is not a race? Or that the American is not a race? And yet the latter is a compost of everything that migrates from the Old World. But take some families, and we will find that they are almost pure English, in descent, and hold themselves to be actually such. But ask them if they are English, and they will readily answer: “English? No, siree!” The same principle holds still more with the Gipsy race. It is not a question of country against country, or government against government, separated by an ocean; but the difference proceeds from a prejudice, as broad and deep as the ocean, that exists between two races—the native, and that of such recent introduction—dwelling in the same community.
I have explained the effect which the mixing of native blood with Gipsy has upon the Gipsy race, showing that it only modifies its appearance, and facilitates its passing into settled and respectable life. I will now substantiate the principle from what is daily observed among the native race itself. Take any native family—one of the Scotts, for example. Let us commence with a family, tracing its origin to a Scott, in the year 1600, and imagine that, in its descent, every representative of the name married a wife of another family, or clan, having no Scotts’ blood in her veins. In the seventh descent, there would be only one one-hundred and twenty-eighth part of the original Scott in the last representative of the family. Would not the last Scott be a Scott? The world recognizes him to be a Scott; he holds himself to be a Scott—“every inch a Scott;” and doubtless he is a Scott, as much as his ancestor who existed in the year 1600. What difficulty can there, therefore, be, in understanding how a man can be a Gipsy, whose blood is mixed, even “dreadfully mixed,” as the English Gipsies express it? Gipsies are Gipsies, let their blood be mixed as much as it may; whether the introduction of the native blood may have come into the family through the male or the female line.
In the descent of a native family, in the instance given, the issue follows the name of the family. But, with the Gipsy race, the thing to be transmitted is not merely a question of family, but a race distinct from any particular family. If a Gipsy woman marries into a native family, the issue retains the family name of the husband, but passes into the Gipsy tribe; if a Gipsy man marries into a native family, the issue retains his name, in the general order of society, and likewise passes into the Gipsy tribe; so that such intermarriages, which almost invariably take place unknown to the native race, always leave the issue Gipsy. For the Gipsy element of society is like a troubled spirit, which has been despised, persecuted, and damned; cross it out, to appearance, as much as you may, it still retains its Gipsy identity. It then assumes the form of a disembodied spirit, that will enter into any kind of tabernacle, in the manner described, dispel every other kind of spirit, clean or unclean, as the case may be, and come up, under any garb, colour, character, occupation, or creed—Gipsy. It is perfectly possible, but not very probable, to find a Gipsy a Jew, in creed, and, for the most part, in point of blood, in the event of a Jew marrying a mixed Gipsy. He might follow the creed of the Jewish parent, and be admitted into the synagogue; but, although outwardly recognised as a Jew, and having Jewish features, he would still be a chabo; for there are Gipsies of all creeds, and, like other people in the world, of no creed at all. But it is extremely disagreeable to a Gipsy to have such a subject mentioned in his hearing; for he heartily dislikes a Jew, and says that no one has any “chance” in dealing with him. A Gipsy likewise says, that the two races ought not to be mentioned in the same breath, or put on the same footing, which is very true; for reason tells us, that, strip the Gipsy of every idea connected with “taking bits o’ things,” and leading a wild life, and there should be no points of enmity between him and the ordinary native; certainly not that of creed, which exists between the Jew and the rest of the world, to which question I will by and by refer.
The subject of the Gipsies has hitherto been treated as a question of natural history, only, in the same manner as we would treat ant-bears. Writers have sat down beside them, and looked at them—little more than looked at them—described some of their habits, and reported their chaff. To get to the bottom of the subject, it is necessary to sound the mind of the Gipsy, lay open and dissect his heart, identify one’s self with his feelings, and the bearings of his ideas, and construct, out of these, a system of mental science, based upon the mind of the Gipsy, and human nature generally. For it is the mind of the Gipsy that constitutes the Gipsy; that which, in reference to its singular origin and history, is, in itself, indestructible, imperishable and immortal.
Consider, then, this race, which is of such recent introduction upon the stage of the European world, of such a singular origin and history, and of such universal existence, with such a prejudice existing against it, and the merest impulse of reflection, apart from the facts of the case, will lead us to conclude, that, as it has settled, it has remained true to itself, in the various associations of life. In whatever position, or under whatever circumstances, it is to be found, it may be compared, in reference to its past history, to a chain, and the early Gipsies, to those who have charged it with electricity. However mixed, or however polished, the metal of the links may have since become, they have always served to convey the Gipsy fluid to every generation of the race. It is even unnecessary to enquire, particularly, how that has been accomplished, for it is self-evident that the process which has linked other races to their ancestry, has doubly linked the Gipsy race to theirs. Indeed, the idea of being Gipsies never can leave the Gipsy race. A Gipsy’s life is like a continual conspiracy towards the rest of the world; he has always a secret upon his mind, and, from his childhood to his old age, he is so placed as if he were, in a negative sense, engaged in some gunpowder plot, or as if he had committed a crime, let his character be as good as it possibly may. Into whatever company he may enter, he naturally remarks to himself: “I wonder if there are any of us here.” That is the position which the mixed and better kind of Gipsy occupies, generally and passively. Of course, there are some of the race who are always actually hatching some plot or other against the rest of the world. Take a Gipsy of the popular kind, who appears as such to the world, and there are two ideas constantly before him—that of the Gorgio and Chabo: they may slumber while he is in his house, or in his tent, or when he is asleep, or his mind is positively occupied with something; but let any one come near him, or him meet or accost any one, and he naturally remarks, to himself, that the person “is not one of us,” or that he “is one of us.” He knows well what the native may be thinking or saying of him, and he as naturally responds in his own mind. This circumstance of itself, this frightful prejudice against the individual, makes, or at least keeps, the Gipsy wild; it calls forth the passion of resentment, and produces a feeling of reckless abandon, that might otherwise leave him. To that is to be added the feeling, in the Gipsy’s mind, of his race having been persecuted, for he knows little of the circumstances attending the origin of the laws passed against his tribe, and attributes them to persecution alone. He considers that he has a right to travel; that he has been deprived of rights to travel, which were granted to his tribe by the monarchs of past ages; and, moreover, that his ancestors—the “ancient wandering Egyptians”—always travelled. He feels perfectly independent of, and snaps his fingers at, everybody; and entertains a profound suspicion of any one who may approach him, inasmuch as he imagines that the stranger, however fair he may speak to him, has that feeling for him, as if he considered it pollution to touch him. But he is very civil and plausible when he is at home.
It is from such material that all kinds of settled Gipsies, at one time or other, have sprung. Such is the prejudice against the race, that, if they did not hide the fact of their being Gipsies from the ordinary natives, they would hardly have the “life of a dog” among them, because of their having sprung from a race which, in its original state, has been persecuted, and so much despised. By settling in life, and conforming with the ways of the rest of the community, they “cease to be Gipsies,” in the estimation of the world; for the world imagines that, when the Gipsy conforms to its ways, there is an end of his being a Gipsy. Barring the “habits,” such a Gipsy is as much a Gipsy as before, although he is one incog. The wonder is not that he and his descendants should be Gipsies; but the real wonder is, that they should not be Gipsies. Neither he nor his descendants have any choice in the matter. Does the settled Gipsy keep a crockery or tin establishment, or an inn, or follow any other occupation? Then his children cannot all follow the same calling; they must betake themselves to the various employments open to the community at large, and, their blood being mixed, they become lost to the general eye, amid the rest of the population. While this process is gradually going on, the Gipsy population which always remains in the tent—the hive from which the tribe swarms—attracts the attention of the public, and prevents it from thinking anything about the matter. In England, alone, we may safely assume that the tented Gipsy population, about the commencement of this century, must have encreased at least four-fold by this time, while, to the eye of the public, it would appear that “the Gipsies are gradually decreasing, so that, by and by, they will become extinct.”
The world, generally, has never even thought about this subject. When I have spoken to people promiscuously in regard to it, they have replied: “We suppose that the Gipsies, as they have settled in life, have got lost among the general population:” than which nothing can be more unfounded, as a matter of fact, or ridiculous, as a matter of theory. Imagine a German family settling in Scotland. The feeling of being Germans becomes lost in the first generation, who do not, perhaps, speak a word of German. There is no prejudice entertained for the family, but, on the contrary, much good-will and respect are shown it by its neighbours. The parents identify themselves with those surrounding them; the children, born in the country, become, or rather are, Scotch altogether; so that all that remains is the sense of a German extraction, which, but for the name of the family, would very soon be lost, or become a mere matter of tradition. In every other respect, the family, sooner or later, becomes lost amid the general population. In America, we daily see Germans getting mixed with, and lost among, Americans; but where is the evidence of such a process going on, or ever having taken place, in Great Britain, between the Gipsy and the native races? The prejudice which the ordinary natives have for the very name of Gipsy is sufficient proof that the Gipsy tribe has not been lost in any such manner. Still, it has not only got mixed, but “dreadfully mixed,” with the native blood; but it has worked up the additional blood within itself, having thoroughly gipsyfied it. The original Gipsy blood may be compared to liquid in a vessel, into which native liquid has been put: the mixture has, as a natural consequence, lost, in a very great measure, its original colour; but, inasmuch as the most important element in the amalgamation has been mind, the result is, that, in its descent, it has remained, as before, Gipsy. Instead, therefore, of the Gipsies having become lost among the native population, a certain part of the native blood has been lost among them, greatly adding to the number of the body.
We cannot institute any comparison between the introduction of the Gipsies and the Huguenots, the last body of foreigners that entered Great Britain, relative to the destiny of the respective foreign elements. For the Huguenots were not a race, as distinguished from every other creature in the world, but a religious party, taking refuge among a people of cognate blood and language, and congenial religious feelings and faith; and were, to say the least of it, on a par, in every respect, with the ordinary natives, with nothing connected with them to prevent an amalgamation with the other inhabitants; but, on the contrary, having this characteristic, in common with the nations of Europe, that the place of birth constitutes the fact, and, taken in connection with the residence, creates the feelings of nationality and race. Many of my readers are, doubtless, conversant with the history of the Huguenots. Even in some parts of America, nothing is more common than for people to say that they are Huguenots, that is, of Huguenot descent, which is very commonly made the foundation of the connections and intimate associations of life. The peculiarity is frequently shown in the appearance of the individuals, and in such mental traits as spring from the contemplation of the Huguenots as an historical and religious party, even when the individual now follows the Catholic faith. But these people differ in no essential respect from the other inhabitants.
But how different is the position always occupied by the Gipsies! Well may they consider themselves “strangers in the land;” for by whom have they ever been acknowledged? They entered Scotland, for example, and have encreased, progressed, and developed, with so great a prejudice against them, and so separated in their feelings from others around them, as if none had almost existed in the country but themselves, while they were “dwelling in the midst of their brethren;” the native blood that has been incorporated with them having the appearance as if it had come from abroad. They, a people distinct from any other in the world, have sprung from the most primitive stage of human existence—the tent, and their knowledge of their race goes no further back than when it existed in other parts of the world, in the same condition, more or less, as themselves. They have been a migratory tribe, wherever they have appeared or settled, and have never ceased to be the same peculiar race, notwithstanding the changes which they have undergone; and have been at home wherever they have found themselves placed. The mere place of birth, or the circumstance under which the individual has been reared, has had no effect upon their special nationality, although, as citizens of particular countries, they have assimilated, in their general ideas, with others around them. And not only have they had a language peculiar to themselves, but signs as exclusively theirs as are those of Freemasons. For Gipsies stand to Gipsies as Freemasons to Freemasons; with this difference—that Masons are bound to respond to and help each other, while such associations, among the Gipsies, are optional with the individual, who, however, is persuaded that the same people, with these exclusive peculiarities, are to be met with in every part of the world. A Gipsy is, in his way, a Mason born, and, from his infancy, is taught to hide everything connected with his race, from those around him. He is his own tyler, and tyles his lips continually. Imagine, then, a person taught, from his infancy, to understand that he is a Gipsy; that his blood, (at least part of it,) is Gipsy; that he has been instructed in the language, and initiated in all the mysteries, of the Gipsies; that his relations and acquaintances in the tribe have undergone the same experience; that the utmost reserve towards those who are not Gipsies has been continually inculcated upon him, and as often practised before his eyes; and what must be the leading idea, in that person’s mind, but that he is a Gipsy? His pedigree is Gipsy, his mind has been cast in a Gipsy mould, and he can no more “cease to be a Gipsy” than perform any other impossibility in nature. Thus it is that Gipsydom is not a work of man’s hand, nor a creed, that is “revealed from faith to faith;” but a work which has been written by the hand of God upon the heart of a family of mankind, and is reflected from the mind of one generation to that of another. It enters into the feelings of the very existence of the man, and such is the prejudice against his race, on the part of the ordinary natives, that the better kind of Scottish Gipsy feels that he, and more particularly she, would almost be “torn in pieces,” if the public really knew all about them.
These facts will sufficiently illustrate how a people, “resembling, in so many respects, the Jews, without having any territory, or form of creed, peculiar to itself, or any history, or any peculiar outward associations or residences, or any material difference in appearance, character, or occupation,” can be a people, living among other people, and yet be distinct from those among whom they live. The distinction consists in this people having blood, language, a cast of mind, and signs, peculiar to itself; the three first being the only elements which distinguish races; for religion is a secondary consideration; one religion being common to many distinct races. This principle, which is more commonly applied to people occupying different countries, is equally applicable to races, clans, families, or individuals, living within the boundary of a particular country, or dwelling in the same community. We can easily understand how two individuals can be two distinct individuals, notwithstanding their being members of the same family, and professing the same religion. We can still more easily understand the same of two families, and still more so of two septs or clans of the same general race. And, surely, there can be no difficulty in understanding that the Gipsy tribe, whatever may be its habits, is something different from any native tribe: for it has never yet found rest for the sole of its foot among the native race, although it has secured a shelter clandestinely; and of the extent, and especially of the nature, of its existence, the world may be said to be entirely ignorant. The position which the Gipsy race occupies in Scotland is that which it substantially occupies in every other country—unacknowledged, and, in a sense, damned, everywhere. There is, therefore, no wonder that it should remain a distinct family among mankind, cemented by its language and signs, and the knowledge of its universality. The phenomenon rests upon purely natural causes, and differs considerably from that of the existence of the Jews. For the Jews are, everywhere, acknowledged by the world, after a sort; they have neither language nor, as far as I know, signs peculiar to themselves, (although there are secret orders among them,) but possess the most ancient history, an original country, to which they, more or less, believe they will be restored, and a religion of divine origin, but utterly superseded by a new and better dispensation. Notwithstanding all that, the following remark, relative to the existence of the Jews, since the dispersion, may very safely be recalled: “The philosophical historian confesses that he has no place for it in all his generalizations, and refers it to the mysteries of Providence.” For the history of the Gipsies bears a very great resemblance to it; and, inasmuch as that is not altogether “the device of men’s hands,” it must, also, be referred to Providence, for Providence has a hand in everything.
It is very true that the “philosophical historian has no place, in all his generalizations, for the phenomenon of the existence of the Jews, since the dispersion,” for he has never investigated the subject inductively, and on its own merits. It is poor logic to assert that, because the American Indians are, to a great extent, and will soon be, extinct, therefore the existence of the Jews, to-day, is a miracle. And it would be nearly as poor logic to maintain the same of the Jews in connection with any of the ancient and extinct nations. There is no analogy between the history of the Jews, since the dispersion, and that of any other people, (excepting the Gipsies;) and, consequently, no comparison can be instituted between them.[299] Before asking how it is that the Jews exist to-day, it would be well to enquire by what possible process they could cease to be Jews. And by what human means the Jews, as a people, or even as individuals, will receive Christ as their Messiah, and thereby become Christian Jews. This idea of the Jews existing by a miracle has been carried to a very great length, as the following quotation, from an excellent writer, on the Evidences of Christianity, will show: “What is this,” says he, “but a miracle? connected with the prophecy which it fulfills, it is a double miracle. Whether testimony can ever establish the credibility of a miracle is of no importance here. This one is obvious to every man’s senses. All nations are its eye-witnesses. . . . . The laws of nature have been suspended in their case.” This writer, in a spirit of gambling, stakes the whole question of revelation upon his own dogma; and, according to his hypothesis, loses it. The laws of nature would, indeed, have been suspended, in their case, and a miracle would, indeed, have been wrought, if the Jews had ceased to be Jews, or had become anything else than what they are to-day. Writers on the Christian Evidences should content themselves with maintaining that the Jews have fulfilled the prophecies, and will yet fulfill them, and assert nothing further of them.
The writer alluded to compares the history of the Jews, since the dispersion, to the following phenomenon: “A mighty river, having plunged, from a mountain height, into the depths of the ocean, and been separated into its component drops, and thus scattered to the ends of the world, and blown about, by all winds, during almost eighteen centuries, is still capable of being disunited from the waters of the ocean; its minutest drops, never having been assimilated to any other, are still distinct, unchanged, and ready to be gathered.” Such language cannot be applied to the Jews; for the philosophy of their existence, to-day, is so very simple in its nature, as to have escaped the observation of mankind. I will give it further on in this [Disquisition]. The language in question is somewhat applicable to the Gipsies, for they have become worked into all other nations, in regard to blood and language, and are “still distinct and unchanged,” as to their being Gipsies, whatever their habits may be; and, although there is no occasion for them to be “gathered,” they would yet, outwardly or inwardly, heartily respond to any call addressed to them.[300]
There is, as I have already said, no real outward difference between many settled and educated Scottish Gipsies and ordinary natives; for such Gipsies are as likely to have fair hair and blue eyes, as black. Their characters and occupations may be the same; they may have intimate associations together; may be engaged in business as partners; may even be cousins, nay, half-brothers. But let them, on separate occasions, enter a company of Gipsies, and the reception shown to them will mark the difference in the two individuals. The difference between two such Scotchmen, (for they really are both Scotch,) the reader may remark, makes the Gipsy only a Gipsy nominally, which, outwardly, he is; but he is still a Gipsy, although, in point of colour, character, or condition, not one of the old stock; for he has “the blood,” and has been reared and instructed as a Gipsy. But such a Gipsy is not fond of entering a company of Gipsies, strangers to him, unless introduced by a friend in whom he has confidence, for he is afraid of being known to be a Gipsy. He is more apt to visit some of the more original kind of the race, where he is not known. On sitting down beside them, with a friendly air, they will be sure to treat him kindly, not knowing but that they may be entertaining a Gipsy unawares; for such original Gipsies, believing that “the blood” is to be found well up in life, feel very curious when they meet with such a person. If he “lets out” an idea in regard to the race, and expresses a kindly feeling towards “the blood,” the suspicions of his friends are at once excited, so that, if he, in an equivocal manner, remarks that he is “not one of them,” hesitates, stammers, and protests that he really is not one of them, they will as readily swear that he is one of them; for well does the blackguard Gipsy, (as the world calls him,) know the delicacy of such settled and educated Gipsies in owning the blood. There is less suspicion shown, on such occasions, when the settled Gipsy is Scotch, and the bush Gipsy English; and particularly so should the occasion be in America; for, when they meet in America, away from the peculiar relations under which they have been reared, and where they can “breathe,” as they express it, the respective classes are not so suspicious of each other.
Besides the difference just drawn between the Gipsy and ordinary native—that of recognizing and being recognized by another Gipsy—I may mention the following general distinction between them. The ordinary Scot knows that he is a Scot, and nothing more, unless it be something about his ancestors of two or three generations. But the Gipsy’s idea of Scotland goes back to a certain time, indefinite to him, as it may be, beyond which his race had no existence in the country. Where his ancestors sojourned, immediately, or at any time, before they entered Scotland, he cannot tell; but this much he knows of them, that they are neither Scottish nor European, but that they came from the East. The fact of his blood being mixed exercises little or no influence over his feelings relative to his tribe, for, mixed as it may be, he knows that he is one of the tribe, and that the origin of his tribe is his origin. In a word, he knows that he has sprung from the tent. Substitute the word Scotch for Moor, as related of the black African Gipsies, at [page 429], and he may say of himself and tribe: “We are not Scotch, but can give no account of ourselves.” It is a little different, if the mixture of his blood is of such recent date as to connect him with native families; in that case, he has “various bloods” to contend for, should they be assailed; but his Gipsy blood, as a matter of course, takes precedence. By marrying into the tribe, the connection with such native families gradually drops out of the memory of his descendants, and leaves the sensation of tribe exclusively Gipsy. Imagine, then, that the Gipsy has been reared a Gipsy, in the way so frequently described, and that he “knows all about the Gipsies,” while the ordinary native knows really nothing about them; and we have a general idea of what a Scottish Gipsy is, as distinguished from an ordinary Scotchman. If we admit that every native Scot knows who he is, we may readily assume that every Scottish Gipsy knows who he is. But, to place the point of difference in a more striking light, it may be remarked, that the native Scot will instinctively exclaim, that “the present work has no earthly relation either to him or his folk;” while the Scottish Gipsy will as instinctively exclaim: “It’s us, there’s no mistake about it;” and will doubtless accept it, in the main, with a high degree of satisfaction, as the history of his race, and give it to his children as such.
A respectable, indeed, any kind of, Scottish Gipsy does not contemplate his ancestors—the “Pilgrim Fathers,” and “Pilgrim Mothers,” too—as robbers, although he could do that with as much grace as any Highland or Border Scot, but as a singular people, who doubtless came from the Pyramids; and their language, as something about which he really does not know what to think; whether it is Egyptian, Sanscrit, or what it is. Still, he has part of it; he loves it; and no human power can tear it out of his heart. He knows that every intelligent being sticks to his own, and clings to his descent; and he considers it his highest pride to be an Egyptian—a descendant of those swarthy kings and queens, princes and princesses, priests and priestesses, and, of course, thieves and thievesses, that, like an apparition, found their way into, and, after wandering about, settled down in, Scotland. Indeed, he never knew anything else than that he was an Egyptian; for it is in his blood; and, what is more, it is in his heart, so that he cannot forget it, unless he should lose his faculties and become an idiot; and then he would be an Egyptian idiot. How like a Gipsy it was for Mrs. Fall, of Dunbar, to “work in tapestry the principal events in the life of the founder of her family, from the day the Gipsy child came to Dunbar, in its mother’s creel, until the same Gipsy child had become, by its own honourable exertions, the head of the first mercantile establishment then existing in Scotland.”
The Scottish Gipsies, when their appearance has been modified by a mixture of the white blood, have possessed, in common with the Highlanders, the faculty of “getting out” of the original ways of their race, and becoming superior in character, notwithstanding the excessive prejudice that exists against the nation of which they hold themselves members. Except his strong partiality for his blood and tribe, language, and signs, such a Gipsy becomes, in his general disposition and ways, like any ordinary native. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. Whenever a Gipsy, then, forsakes his original habits, and conforms with the ways of the other inhabitants, he becomes, for all practical purposes, an ordinary citizen of the Gipsy clan. If he is a man of good natural abilities, the original wild ambition of his race acquires a new turn; and his capacity fits him for any occupation. Priding himself on being an Egyptian, a member of this world-wide community, he acquires, as he gains information, a spirit of liberality of sentiment; he reads history, and perceives that every family of mankind has not only been barbarous, but very barbarous, at one time; and, from such reflections, he comes to consider his own origin, and very readily becomes confirmed in his early, but indistinct, ideas of his people, that they really are somebody. Indeed, he considers himself not only as good, but better than other people. His being forced to assume an incognito, and “keep as quiet as pussy,” chafes his proud spirit, but it does not render him gloomy, for his natural disposition is too buoyant for that. How, then, does such a Scottish Gipsy feel in regard to his ancestors? He feels exactly as Highlanders do, in regard to theirs, or, as the Scottish Borderers do, with reference to the “Border Ruffians,” as I have heard a Gipsy term them. Indeed, the gallows of Perth and Stirling, Carlisle and Jedburgh, could tell some fine tales of many respectable Scottish people, in times that are past.
The children of such a Gipsy differ very much from those of the same race in their natural state, although they may have the same amount of blood, and the same eye. The eye of the former is subdued, for his passions, in regard to his race, have never been called forth; while the eye of the latter rolls about, as if he were conscious that every one he meets with is remarking of him, “There goes a vagabond of a Gipsy.” Two fine specimens of the former kind of Gipsies attended the High School of Edinburgh, when I was at that institution. Hearing the family frequently spoken of at home, my attention was often taken up with the boys, without understanding what a Gipsy of that kind could mean; although I had a pretty good idea of the common Gipsy, or Tinkler, as he is generally called in Scotland. These two young Gipsies were what might be called sweet youths; modest and shy, among the other boys, as young tamed wild turkeys; very dark in colour, with an eye that could be caught in whatever way I might look at them. They now occupy very honourable positions in life. There were other Gipsies at the High School, at this time, but they were of the “brown sort.” I have met, in the United States, with a Scottish Gipsy, taking greatly after the Gipsy, in his appearance; a man very gentlemanly in his manner and bearing, and as neat and trim as if he had “come out of a box.” It is natural, indeed, to suppose that there must be a great difference, in many respects, between a wild, original Gipsy, and one of the tame and educated kind, whose descent is several, perhaps many, generations from the tent. In the houses of the former, things are generally found lying about, here-away, there-away, as if they were just going to be taken out and placed in the waggon, or on the ass’s back.
It is certainly a singular position which is occupied, from generation to generation, and century to century, by our settled Scottish, as well as other, Gipsies, who are not known to the world as such, yet maintain a daily intercourse with others not of their own tribe. It resembles a state of semi-damnation, with a drawn sword hanging over their heads, ready to fall upon them at any moment. But the matter cannot be mended. They are Gipsies, by every physical and mental necessity, and they accommodate themselves to their circumstances as they best may. This much is certain, that they have the utmost confidence in their incognito, as regards their descent, personal feelings, and exclusively private associations. The word “Gipsy,” to be applied to them by strangers, frightens them, in contemplation, far more than it does the children of the ordinary natives; for they imagine it a dreadful thing to be known to their neighbours as Gipsies. Still, they have never occupied any other position; they have been born in it, and reared in it; it has even been the nature of the race, from the very first, always to “work in the dark.” In all probability, it has never occurred to them to imagine that it will ever be otherwise: nor do they evidently wish it; for they can see no possible way to have themselves acknowledged, by the world, as Gipsies. The very idea horrifies them. So far from letting the world know anything of them, as Gipsies, their constant care is to keep it in perpetual darkness on the subject. Of all men, these Gipsies may say:
“ ...... rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others we know not of.”
Indeed, the only thing that worries such a Gipsy is the idea that the public should know all about him; otherwise, he feels a supreme satisfaction in being a Gipsy; as well as in having such a history of his race as I have informed him I proposed publishing, provided I do not in any way mix him up with it, or “let him out.” By bringing up the body in the manner done in this work, by making a sweep of the whole tribe, the responsibility becomes spread over a large number of people; so that, should the Gipsy become, by any means, known, personally, to the world, he would have the satisfaction of knowing that he had others to keep him company; men occupying respectable positions in life, and respected, by the world at large, as individuals.
Here, then, we have one of the principal reasons for everything connected with the Gipsies being hidden from the rest of mankind. They have always been looked upon as arrant vagabonds, while they have looked upon their ancestors as illustrious and immortal heroes. How, then, are we to bridge over this gulf that separates them, in feeling, from the rest of the world? The natural reply is, that we should judge them, not by their condition and character in times that are past, but by what they are to-day.
That the Gipsies were a barbarous race when they entered Europe, in the beginning of the fifteenth century, is just what could have been expected of any Asiatic, migratory, tented horde, at a time when the inhabitants of Europe were little better than barbarous, themselves, and many of them absolutely so. To speak of the Highland clans, at that time, as being better than barbarous, would be out of the question; as to the Irish people, it would be difficult to say what they really were, at the same time. Even the Lowland Scotch, a hundred years after the arrival of the Gipsies in Europe, were, with some exceptions, divided into two classes—“beggars and rascals,” as history tells us. Is it, therefore, unreasonable to say, that, in treating of the Gipsies of to-day, we should apply to them the same principles of judgment that have been applied to the ordinary natives? If we refer to the treaty between John Faw and James V., in 1540, we will very readily conclude that, three centuries ago, the leaders of the Gipsies were very superior men, in their way; cunning, astute, and slippery Oriental barbarians, with the experience of upwards of a century in European society generally; well up to the ways of the world, and the general ways of Church and State; and, in a sense, at home with kings, popes, cardinals, nobility, and gentry. That was the character of a superior Gipsy, in 1540. In 1840, we find the race represented by as fine a man as ever graced the Church of Scotland. “Grand was the repose of his lofty brow, dark eye, and aspect of soft and melancholy meaning. It was a face from which every evil and earthly passion seemed purged. A deep gravity lay upon his countenance, which had the solemnity, without the sternness, of one of our old reformers. You could almost fancy a halo completing its apostolic character.” Some of the Scottish Gipsies of to-day could very readily exclaim:
“And, if thou said’st I am not peer
To any one in Scotland here,
Highland or Lowland, far or near,
Oh, Donald, thou hast lied!”
But it is impossible for any one to give an account of the Gipsies in Scotland, from the year 1506, down to the present time. This much, however, can be said of them, that they are as much Gipsies now as ever they were; that is, the Gipsies of to-day are the representatives of the race as it appeared in Scotland three centuries and a half ago, and hold themselves to be Gipsies now, as, indeed, they always will do.
Ever since the race entered Scotland, we may reasonably assume that it has been dropping out of the tent into settled life, in one form or other, and sometimes to a greater extent at one time than another. It never has been a nomadic race, in the proper sense of the word; for a nomad is one who possesses flocks and herds, with which he moves about from pasturage to pasturage, as he does in Asia to-day. Mr. Borrow says that there are Gipsies who follow this kind of life, in Russia; but that, doubtless, arises from the circumstances in which they have found themselves placed.[301] “I think,” said an English Gipsy to me, “that we must take partly of the ancient Egyptians, and partly of the Arabs; from the Egyptians, owing to our settled ways, and from the Arabs, owing to our wandering habits.” Upon entering Europe, they must have wandered about promiscuously, for some short time, before pitching upon territories, which they would divide among themselves, under their kings and chieftains. Here we find the proper sphere of the Gipsy, in his original state. In 1506, Anthonius Gawino is represented, by James IV., to his uncle, the king of Denmark, as having “sojourned in Scotland in peaceable and catholic manner:” and John Faw, by James V., in 1540, during his “pilgrimage,” as “doing a lawful business;” which evidently had some meaning, as we find that seven pounds were paid to the Egyptians by the king’s chamberlain. In 1496, the Gipsies made musket-balls for the king of Hungary; and, in 1565, cannon-balls for the Turks. In short, they were travelling smiths, or what has since been called tinkers, with a turn for any kind of ordinary mechanical employment, and particularly as regards working in metals; dealers in animals, petty traders, musicians, and fortune-tellers, with a wonderful knack for “transferring money from other people’s pockets into their own;” living representatively, but apparently not wholly, in tents, and “helping themselves” to whatever they stood in need of.[302]
Speaking of the Gipsy chiefs mentioned in the act of James V., our author, as we have seen, very justly remarks: “It cannot be supposed that the ministers of three or four succeeding monarchs would have suffered their sovereigns to be so much imposed on, as to allow them to put their names to public documents styling poor and miserable wretches, as we at the present day imagine them to have been, ‘Lords and Earls of Little Egypt.’. . . . . I am disposed to believe that Anthonius Gawino, in 1506, and John Faw, in 1540, would personally, as individuals, that is, as Gipsy rajahs, have a very respectable and imposing appearance, in the eyes of the officers of the crown.” ([Page 108].)[303] We have likewise seen how many laws were passed, by the Scots parliament, against “great numbers of his majesty’s subjects, of whom some outwardly pretend to be famous and unspotted gentlemen,” for encouraging and supporting the Gipsies; and, in the case of William Auchterlony, of Cayrine, for receiving into their houses, and feasting them, their wives, children, servants, and companies. All this took place more than a hundred years after the arrival of the Gipsies in Scotland, and seventy-six years after the date of the treaty between James V. and John Faw. We can very readily believe that the sagacity displayed by this chief and his folk, to evade the demand made upon them to leave the country, was likewise employed to secure their perpetual existence in it; for, from the first, their intention was evidently to possess it. Hence their original story of being pilgrims, which would prevent the authorities from disturbing them, but which had no effect upon Henry VIII., whom, of all the monarchs of Europe, they did not hoax. Grellmann mentions their having obtained passports from the Emperor Sigismund, and other princes, as well as from the king of France, and the Pope.
Entering Scotland with the firm determination to “possess” the country, the Gipsies would, from the very first, direct their attention towards its occupation, and draw into their body much of the native blood, in the way which I have already described. And there was certainly a large floating population in the country, from which to draw it. It would little consist with the feelings of Highland or Lowland outlaws to exist without female society; nor was that female society easily to be found, apart from some kind of settled life; hence, in seeking for a home, which is inseparable from the society of a female, our native outlaw would very naturally and readily “haul up” with the Gipsy woman; for, being herself quite “at home,” in her tent, she would present just the desideratum which the other was in quest of. For, although “Gipsies marry with Gipsies,” it is only as a rule, the exceptions being many, and, in all probability, much more common, in the early stage of their European history. The present “dreadfully mixed” state of Gipsydom is a sufficient proof of this fact. The aversion, on the part of the Gipsy, to intermarry with the ordinary natives, proceeds, in the first place, from the feelings which the natives entertain for her race. Remove those feelings, and the Gipsies, as a body, would still marry among themselves; for their pride in their peculiar sept, and a natural jealousy of those outside of their mystic circle, would, alone, keep the world from penetrating their secrets, without its being extended to him who, by intermarriage, became “one of them.” There is no other obstacle in the way of marriages between the two races, excepting the general one, on the part of the Gipsies, and which is inherent in them, to preserve themselves as a branch of a people to be found in every country. Admitting the general aversion, on the part of the Gipsies, to marry with natives, and we at once see the unlikelihood of their women playing the wanton with them. Still, it is very probable that they, in some instances, bore children to some of the “unspotted gentlemen,” mentioned, by act of parliament, as having so greatly protected and entertained the tribe. Such illegitimate children would be put to good service by the Gipsy chiefs. By one means or other, there is no doubt but the Gipsies made a dead-set upon certain native families of influence. The capacity that could devise such a scheme for remaining in the country, as is contained in the act of 1540, and influence the courts of the regency, and of Queen Mary, to reinstate them in their old position, after the severe order of 1541, proclaiming banishment within thirty days, and death thereafter, even when the “lords understood, perfectly, the great thefts and skaiths, (damages,) done by the said Egyptians,” could easily execute plans to secure a hold upon private families. If to all this we add the very nature of Gipsydom; how it always remains true to itself, as it gets mixed with the native blood; how it works its way up in the world; and how its members “stick to each other;” we can readily understand how the tribe acquired important and influential friends in high places. Do not speak of the attachment of the Jewess to her people: that of the Gipsy is greater. A Jewess passes current, anywhere, as a Jewess; but the Gipsy, as she gets connected with a native circle, and moves about in the world, does so clandestinely, for, as a Gipsy, she is incog.; so that her attachment remains, at heart, with her tribe, and is all the stronger, from the feelings that are peculiar to her singularly wild descent. I am very much inclined to think that Mrs. Baillie, of Lamington, mentioned under the head of Tweed-dale and Clydesdale Gipsies, was a Gipsy; and the more so, from having learned, from two different sources, that the present Baillie, of ——, is a Gipsy. Considering that courts of justice have always stretched a point, to convict, and execute, Gipsies, it looks like something very singular, that William Baillie, a Gipsy, who was condemned to death, in 1714, should have had his sentence commuted to banishment, and been allowed to go at large, while others, condemned with him, were executed. And three times did he escape in that manner, till, at last, he was slain by one of his tribe. It also seems very singular, that James Baillie, another Gipsy, in 1772, should have been condemned for the murder of his wife, and, also, had his sentence commuted to banishment, and been allowed to go at large: and that twice, at least. Well might McLaurin remark: “Few cases have occurred in which there has been such an expenditure of mercy.” And tradition states that “the then Mistress Baillie, of Lamington, and her family, used all their interest in obtaining these pardons for James Baillie.” No doubt of it. But the reason for all this was, doubtless, different from that of “James Baillie, like his fathers before him, pretending that he was a bastard relative of the family of Lamington.”
A somewhat similar case of pardoning Gipsies is related by a writer in Blackwood’s Magazine, as having occurred towards the end of last century; the individual procuring the pardon being the excitable Duchess of Gordon, the same, I presume, whom Burns’ genius “fairly lifted off her feet.” The following are the circumstances, as given by this writer: A Berwickshire farmer had been missing sheep, and lay in wait, one night, with a servant, for the depredators. They seized upon Tam Gordon, the captain of the Spittal Gipsies, and his son-in-law, Ananias Faa, in the very act of stealing the sheep; when the captain drew a knife, to defend himself. They were convicted and condemned for the crime; “but afterwards, to the great surprise of their Berwickshire neighbours, obtained a pardon, a piece of unmerited and ill-bestowed clemency, for which, it was generally understood, they were indebted to the interest of a noble northern family, of their own name. We recollect hearing a sort of ballad upon Tam’s exploits, and his deliverance from the gallows, through the intercession of a celebrated duchess, but do not recollect any of the words.”[304]
A transaction like this must strike the reader as something very remarkable. Sheep-stealing, at the time mentioned, was a capital offence, for which there was almost no pardon; and more especially in the case of people who were of notorious “habit and repute Gipsies,” caught in the very act, which was aggravated by their drawing an “invasive weapon.” Not only were they condemned, but we may readily assume that the “country-side” were crying, “Hang and bury the vagabonds;” and death seemed certain; when in steps the duchess, and snatches them both from the very teeth of the gallows. What guarantee have we that the duchess was not a Gipsy? It certainly was not likely that a Gipsy woman would step out of her tent, and seize a coronet; but what cannot we imagine to have taken place, in “the blood” working its way up, during the previous 250 years? What guarantee have we that Professor Wilson was not “taking a look at the old thing,” when rambling with the Gipsies, in his youth? There are Gipsy families in Edinburgh, to-day, of as respectable standing, and of as good descent, as could be said of him, or many others who have distinguished themselves in the world.
We must not forget that, when the Gipsies entered Scotland, it was for better or for worse, just for what was to “turn up.” Very soon after their arrival, the country would become their country, as much as that of the ordinary natives; so that Scotland became their home, as much as if it had always been that of their race, except their retaining a tradition of their recent arrival from some part of the East, and a singular sense of being part and parcel of “the Egyptians that were scattered over the face of the earth;” neither of which the odious prejudice against “the blood” allowed them to forget; assuming that they were willing, and, moreover, that the cast of their minds allowed them, to do either. The idea which has been expressed by the world, generally, of the Gipsy tribe gradually assimilating with the native race, and ultimately “getting lost among it,” applies to the principle at issue; for, as I have already said, it has got greatly lost, in point of appearance, and general deportment, among the ordinary natives, but has remained, heart and soul, Gipsy, as before. Even with the native race, we will find that the blood of the lowly is always getting mixed with that in the higher circles of life. We have the case of a girl going to service with a London brewer, then becoming his wife, then his widow, then employing a lawyer to manage her affairs, and afterwards marrying him, who, in his turn, became Earl of Clarendon, and father, by her, of the queen of James II. Towards the end of last, or beginning of the present, century, we hear of a poor actress, who commenced life in a provincial theatre, marrying one of the Coutts, the bankers, and dying Duchess of St. Albans. Such events have been of much more common occurrence in less elevated spheres of life; and the Gipsy race has had its share of them. For this reason, it is really impossible to say, who, among the Scotch, are, and who are not, of the Gipsy tribe; such a thorough mess has the “mixing of the blood” made of the Scottish population. Notwithstanding all that, there is a certain definite number of “Gipsies” in Scotland, known to God only; while each Gipsy is known in his or her conscience to belong to the tribe. This much is certain, that we need not consult the census returns for the number of the tribe in Scotland. However easy, or however difficult, it may be, to define what a Gipsy, in regard to external or internal circumstances, is, this much is certain, that the feeling in his mind as to his being a Gipsy, is as genuine and emphatic as is the feeling in the mind of a Jew being a Jew.
The circumstances connected with the perpetuation of the Gipsy and Jewish races greatly resemble each other. Both races are scattered over the face of the earth. The Jew has had a home; he has a strong attachment to it, and looks forward to enter it at some future day. The Gipsy may be said never to have had a home, but is at home everywhere. “What part of England did you come from?” said I to an English semi-tented Gipsy, in America. “What part of England did I come from, did you say? I come from all over England!” The Scottish race, as a race, is confined to people born in Scotland; for the children of expatriated Scots are not Scotchmen. And so it is with people of other countries. The mere birth upon the soil constitutes their race or nationality, although subsequent events, in early life, may modify the feelings, or draw them into a new channel, by a change of domicile, in infancy. But the Jew’s nationality is everywhere; ‘tis in his family, and his associations with others of his race. Make the acquaintance of the Jews, and you will find that each generation of them tell their “wonderful story” to the following generation, and the story is repeated to the following, and the following. The children of Jews are taught to know they are Jews, before they can even lisp. Soon do they know that much of the phenomenon of their race, as regards its origin, its history, and its universality, to draw the distinction between them and those around them who are not Jews. Soon do they learn how their race has been despised and persecuted, and imbibe the love which their parents have for it, and the resentment of the odium cast upon it by others. It has been so from the beginning of their history out of Palestine, and even while there. Were it only religion, considered in itself, that has kept the Jews together as a people, they might have got lost among the rest of mankind; for among the Jews there are to be found the rankest of infidels; even Jewish priests will say that, “it signifies not what a man’s religion may be, if he is only sincere in it.” Is it a feeling, or a knowledge, of religion that leads a Jewish child, almost the moment it can speak, to say that it is a Jew? It is simply the workings of the phenomena of race that account for this; the religion peculiar to Jews having been introduced among them centuries after their existence as a people. Being exclusively theirs in its very nature, they naturally follow it, as other people do theirs; but, although, from the nature of its origin, it presents infinitely greater claims upon their intelligent belief and obedience, they have yielded no greater submission to its spirit and morals, or even to its forms, than many other people have done to their religion, made up, as that has been, of the most fabulous superstition, on the principle, doubtless, that
“The zealous crowds in ignorance adore,
And still, the less they know, they fear the more.”
The Jews being a people before they received the religion by which they are distinguished, it follows that the religion, in itself, occupies a position of secondary importance, although the profession of it acts and reacts upon the people, in keeping them separate from others. The most, then, that can be said of the religion of the Jews is, that, following in the wake of their history as a people, it is only one of the pillars by which the building is supported.[305] If enquiry is made of Jewish converts to Christianity, we will find that, notwithstanding their having separated from their brethren, on points of creed, they hold themselves as much Jews as before. But the conversions of Jews are,
“Like angels’ visits, few and far between.”
In the case of individuals forsaking the Jewish, and joining the Christian, Church, that is, believing in the Messiah having come, instead of to come, it is natural, I may say inevitable, for them to hold themselves Jews. They have feelings which the world cannot understand. But beyond the nationality, physiognomy, and feelings of Jews, there are no points of difference, and there ought to be no grounds of offense, between them and the ordinary inhabitants. While the points of antipathy between the Jew and Christian rest, not upon race, considered in itself, but mainly upon religion, and the relations proceeding from it, it has to be seen what is to be the feeling, on the part of the world, towards the Gipsy race; such part of it, at least, whose habits are unexceptionable. This is one of the questions which it is the object of this [Disquisition] to bring to an issue.
Substitute the language and signs of the Gipsies for the religion of the Jews, and we find that the rearing of the Gipsies is almost identical with that of the Jews; and in the same manner do they hold themselves to be Gipsies. But the one can be Gipsies, though ignorant of their language and signs, and the other, Jews, though ignorant of their religion; the mere sense of tribe and community being sufficient to constitute them members of their respective nationalities. The origin of the Gipsies is as distinct from that of the rest of the world, in three continents, at least, as is that of the Jews; and, laying aside the matter of religion, their history, so far as it is known to the world, is as different. If they have no religion peculiar to themselves, to assist in holding them together, like the Jews, they have that which is exclusively theirs—language and signs; about which there are no such occasions to quarrel, as in the affair of a religious creed. Indeed, the Gipsy race stands towards religions, as the Christian religion does towards races.
People are very apt to speak of the blood of the Jews being “purity itself;” than which nothing is more unfounded. If a person were asked, What is a pure Jew? he would feel puzzled to give an intelligent answer to the question. We know that Abraham and Sarah were the original parents of the Jewish race, but that much blood has been added to it, from other sources, ever since. Even four of the patriarchs, the third in descent from Abraham, were the sons of concubines, who were, doubtless, bought with money, from the stranger, (Gen. xvii. 12 and 13,) or the descendants of such, and were, in all probability, of as different a race from their mistresses, Leah and Rachel, as was the bondmaid, Hagar, the Egyptian, from her mistress, Sarah. Joseph married a daughter of the Egyptian priest of On, and Moses, a daughter of an Ethiopian priest of Midian. From a circumstance mentioned in the Exodus, it would appear that Egyptian blood, perhaps much of it, had been incorporated with that of the Jews, while in Egypt.[306] And much foreign blood seems to have been added to the body, between the Exodus and the Babylonian captivity, through the means of proselytes and captives, strange women and bondmaids, concubines and harlots. We read of Rahab, of Jericho, an innkeeper, or harlot, or both, marrying Salmon, one of the chief men in the tribe of Judah, and becoming the mother of Boaz, who married Ruth, a Moabitish woman, the daughter-in-law of Naomi, and grandmother of David, from whom Christ was lineally descended. Indeed, the Jews have always been receiving foreign blood into their body. We read of Timothy having been a Greek by the father’s side, and a Jew by the mother’s; and of his having been brought up a Jew. Such events are of frequent occurrence. There is no real bar to marriages between Jews and Christians, although circumstances render them difficult. The children of such marriages sometimes resemble the Jew, and sometimes the Christian; sometimes they cast their lot with the Jews, in the matter of religion, and sometimes with the Christians; but they generally follow the mother in that matter. Such, however, is the conceit which the Jew displays in regard to his race, that he is very reserved in speaking about this “mixing of the blood.” I once addressed a string of questions to a Christian-Jew preacher, on this subject, but he declined answering them. I am intimate with a family the parents of which are half-blood Jews, all of whom belong to the Jewish connexion, and I find that, notwithstanding the mixture of the blood, there is as little mental difference between them and the other Jews, as there is between Americans of six descents, by both sides of the house, and Americans whose descent, through one parent, goes as far back, while, through the other parent, it is from abroad. Purity of blood, as applicable to almost any race, and, among others, to the Jewish, is a figment. There are many Jews in the United States, and, doubtless, in other countries, who are not known to other people as Jews, either by their appearance or their attendance at the synagogue. As a general principle, no Jew will tell the world that he belongs to the race; he leaves that to be found out by other people. Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson says that the Jews of the East, to this day, often have red hair and blue eyes, and are quite unlike their brethren in Europe. He found the large nose at Jerusalem an invariable proof of mixture with a Western family. It is singular, however, how easy it is to detect the generality of Jews; the nose, the eyes, or the features, tell who they are, but not always so. What may be termed a “pure Jew,” is when the person has no knowledge of any other blood being in his veins than Jewish blood; or when his feelings are entirely Jewish as to nationality, although his creed may not be very strongly Jewish.
I will now consider the relative positions which the Jews and Gipsies occupy towards the rest of mankind. I readily admit that, in their original and wild state, the Gipsies have not been of any use to the world, but, on the contrary, a great annoyance. Still, that cannot be said altogether; for the handy turn of the Gipsies in some of the primitive mechanical arts, and their dealing in various wares, have been, in a measure, useful to a certain part of the rural population; and themselves the sources of considerable amusement; but, taking everything into account, they have been decidedly annoying to the world generally. In their wild state, they have never been charged by any one with an outward contempt for religion, whatever their inward feelings may have been for it; but, on the contrary, as always having shown an apparent respect for it. No one has ever complained of the Gipsy scoffing at religion, or even for not yielding to its general truths; what has been said of him is, that he is, at heart, so heedless and volatile in his disposition, that everything in regard to religion passes in at the one ear, and goes out at the other. There are, doubtless, Gipsies who will be “unco godly,” when they can make gain by it; but it more frequently happens that they will assume such an air, in the presence of a person of respectable appearance, to show him that they are really not the “horrible vagabonds” which, they never doubt, he holds them to be. They are then sure to overdo their part. As a general thing, they wish people to believe that “they are not savages, but have feelings like other people,” as “Terrible” expressed it. This much is certain, that whenever the Gipsy settles, and acquires an incognito, we hear of little or nothing of the canting in question. As regards the question of religion, it is very fortunate for the Gipsy race that they brought no particular one with them; for, objectionable as they have been held to be, the feeling towards them would have been worse, if they had had a system of priestcraft and heathen idolatry among them. But this circumstance greatly worries a respectable Gipsy; he would much rather have it said that his ancestors had some sort of religion, than that they none. It is generally understood that the Gipsies did not bring any particular religion with them; still, the ceremony of sacrificing horses at divorces, and, at one time, at marriages, has a strange and unaccountable significance.
Then, as regards the general ways of the Gipsies. If we consider them as those of a people who have emerged, or are emerging, from a state of barbarism, how trifling, how venial do they appear! Scotch people have suffered, in times past, far more at the hands of each other, than ever they knowingly did at the hands of the Gipsies. What was the nature of that system of black-mail which was levied by Highland gentlemen upon Southerners? Was it anything but robbery? So common, so unavoidable was the payment of black-mail, that the law had to wink at it, nay, regulate it. But after all, it was nothing but compounding for that which would otherwise have been stolen. It gave peace and security to the farmer, and a revenue to the Highland gentleman, whom it placed in the position of a nominal protector, but actually prevented from being a robber, in law or morals; for, let the payment of the black-mail but have been refused, and, perhaps the next day, the Southerner would have been ruined; so that the Highland gentleman would have obtained his rights, under any circumstances. For Highland people, by a process of reasoning peculiar to a people in a barbarous state, held, as we have seen, that they had a right to rob the Lowlanders, whenever it was in their power, and that two hundred years after the Gipsies entered Scotland.
Scottish Gipsies are British subjects, as much as either Highland or Lowland Scots; their being of foreign origin does not alter the case; and they are entitled to have that justice meted out to them that has been accorded to the ordinary natives. They are not a heaven-born race, but they certainly found their way into the country, as if they had dropped into it out of the clouds. As a race, they have that much mystery, originality, and antiquity about them, and that inextinguishable sensation of being a branch of the same tribe everywhere, that ought to cover a multitude of failings connected with their past history. Indeed, what we do know of their earliest history is not nearly so barbarous as that of our own; for we must contemplate our own ancestors, at one time, as painted and skin-clad barbarians. What we do know, for certainty, of the earliest history of the Scottish Gipsies, is contained, more particularly, in the Act of 1540; and we would naturally say, that, for a people in a barbarous state, such is the dignity and majesty, with all the roguishness, displayed in the conduct of the Gipsies of that period, one could hardly have a better, certainly not a more romantic, descent; provided the person whose descent it is is to be found amid the ranks of Scots, with talents, a character, and a position equal to those of others around him. For this reason, it must be said of the race, that whenever it shakes itself clear of objectionable habits, and follows any kind of ordinary industry, the cause of every prejudice against it is gone, or ought to disappear; for then, as I have already said, the Gipsies became ordinary citizens, of the Gipsy clan. It then follows, that in passing a fair judgment upon the Gipsy race, we ought to establish a principle of progression, and set our minds upon the best specimens of it, as well as the worst, and not judge of it, solely, from the poorest, the most ignorant, or the most barbarous part of it.[307]
What shall we say further of the relative positions which the Jews and Gipsies occupy towards the rest of the world? In the first place, the Jews entered Europe a civilized, and the Gipsies a barbarous, people; so that, in instituting any comparison between them, we should select Gipsies occupying positions in life similar to those of the Jews. The settled Scottish Gipsy, we find, appears to the eye of the world as a Scotchman, and nothing more. It is the weak position which the Gipsy race occupies in the world, as it enters upon a settled life, and engages in steady pursuits, that compels it to assume an incognito; for it has nothing to appeal to, as regards the past; no history, except it be acts of legislation passed against the race. In looking into a Dictionary or a Cyclopædia, the Gipsy finds his race described as vagabonds, always as vagabonds; and he may be said never to have heard a good word spoken of it, during the whole of his life. Hence he and his descendants “keep as quiet as pussy,” and pass from the observation of the world. Besides this, there is no prominent feature connected with his race, to bring it before the world, such as there is with the Jewish, viz., history, church, or literature. A history, the Gipsy, as we see, doubtless has; but anything connected with him, pertaining to the church or literature, he holds as a member of ordinary society. Still, it would not be incorrect to speak of Gipsy literature, as the work of a Gipsy, acquired from the sources common to other men; as we would say of the Jews, relative to the literature which they produce under similar circumstances. As to the Gipsy to whom I have alluded, it may be said that it is none of our business whether he is a Gipsy or not; there is certainly no prejudice against him as an individual, and there can be none as a Gipsy, except such as people may of their own accord conceive for him. Many of the Scottish Gipsies whom I have met with are civil enough, sensible enough, decent enough, and liberal and honourable enough in their conduct; decidedly well bred for their positions in life, and rather foolish and reckless with their means, than misers; and, generally speaking, what are called “good fellows.” It is no business of mine to ask them, how long it is since their ancestors left the tent, or, indeed, if they even know when that occurred; and still less, if they know when any of them ever did anything that was contrary to law. Still, one feels a little irksome in such a Gipsy’s company, until the Gipsy question has been fairly brought before the world, and the point settled, that a Gipsy may be a gentleman, and that no disparagement is necessarily connected with the name, considered in itself. Such Scottish Gipsies as I have mentioned are decidedly smart, and, Yankee-like, more adaptable in turning their hands to various employments, than the common natives; and are a fair credit to the country they come from, and absolutely a greater than many of the native Scotch that are to be met with in the New World. Let the name of Gipsy be as much respected, in Scotland, as it is now despised, and the community would stare to see the civilized Gipsies make their appearance; they would come buzzing out, like bees, emerging even from places where a person, not in the secret, never would have dreamt of.
If we consider, in a fair and philosophical manner, the origin of these people, we will find many excuses for the position which their ancestors have occupied. They were a tribe of men wandering upon the face of the earth, over which they have spread, as one wave follows and urges on another. Those that appeared in Europe seem to have been impelled, in their migration, by the same irresistible impulse; to say nothing of the circumstances connected with their coming in contact with the people whose territories they had invaded. No one generation could be responsible for the position in which it found itself placed. In the case of John Faw and his company, we find that, being on the face of the earth, they had to go somewhere, and invent some sort of excuse, to secure a toleration; and the world was bound to yield them a subsistence, of some kind, and in some way obtained. As a wandering, barbarous, tented tribe, with habits peculiar to itself, and inseparable from its very nature, great allowance ought to be made for the time necessary for its gradual absorption into settled society. That could only be the result of generations, even if the race had not been treated so harshly as it has been, or had such a prejudice displayed against it. The difficulties which a Gipsy has to encounter in leaving the tent are great, for he has been born in that state, and been reared in it. To leave his tent forever, and settle in a town, is a greater trial to the innate feelings of his nature, than would be the change from highly polished metropolitan life to a state of solitude, in a society away from everything that had hitherto made existence bearable. But the Gipsy will very readily leave his tent, temporarily, to visit a town, if it is to make money. It is astonishing how strong the circumstances are which bind him to his tent; even his pride and prejudices in being a “wandering Egyptian,” will, if it is possible to live by the tent, bind him to it. Then, there is the prejudice of the world—the objection to receive him into any community, and his children into any school—that commonly prevails, and which compels him to steal into settled life. It has always been so with the Gipsy race. Gipsies brought up in the tent have the same difficulties to encounter in leaving it to-day, that others had centuries ago. But, notwithstanding all that, they are always keeping moving out of the tent, and becoming settled and civilized.
Tented Gipsies will naturally “take bits o’ things;” many of them would think one simple if he thought they would not do it; some of them would even be insulted if he said they did not do it. After they leave the tent, and commence “tramping,” they (I do not say all of them) will still “take bits o’ things.” From this stage of their history, they keep gradually dropping into unexceptionable habits; and particularly so if they receive education. But we can very readily believe that, independent of every circumstance, there will be Gipsies who, in a great measure, always will be rogues. The law of necessity exercises a great influence over the destiny of the Gipsy race; their natural encrease is such, that, as they progress and develop, they are always pushing others out of the sphere which those further advanced occupy; so that it would not pay for all Gipsies to be rogues. There is, therefore, no alternative left to the Gipsy but to earn his bread like other men. If every Gipsy actually “helped himself” to whatever he stood in need of, it could hardly be said that the ordinary inhabitants would have anything that they could really call their own. Notwithstanding the manner how the Gipsies progress, or the origin from which they spring, it is quite sufficient for me to hold the race in respect, when I find them personally worthy of it.
As a Scotchman, as a citizen of the world, whether should my sympathies lay more with the Gipsies than with the Jews? With the Gipsies, unquestionably. For, a race, emerging from a state of barbarism, and struggling upwards to civilization, surrounded by so many difficulties, as is the Gipsy, is entitled to a world of charity and encouragement. Of the Jews, who, though blessed with the most exalted privileges, yet allowed themselves to be reduced to their present fallen and degraded estate, it may be said: “Ephraim is joined to his idols; let him alone.” The Gipsies are, and have always been, a rising people, although the world may be said to have known little of them hitherto. The Gipsy, as he emerges from his wild state, makes ample amends for his original offensiveness, by hiding everything relative to his being a Gipsy from his neighbours around him. In approaching one of this class, we should be careful not to express that prejudice for him as a Gipsy, which we might have for him as a man; for it is natural enough to feel a dislike for many people whom we meet with, and which, if the people were Gipsies, we might insensibly allow to fall upon them, on account of tribe alone; so difficult is it to shake one’s self clear of the prejudice of caste towards the Gipsy name. The Gipsy has naturally a happy disposition, which circumstances cannot destroy, however much they may be calculated to sour it. In their original state, they are, what Grellmann says of them, “always merry and blithe;” not apt to be surly dogs, unless made such; and are capable of considerable attachment, when treated civilly and kindly, without any attempt being made to commiserate them, and after an acquaintance has been fairly established with them. But, what are properly called their affections must, in the position which they occupy, always remain with their tribe. As for the other part of the race—those whose habits are unexceptionable—it is for us to convince them that no prejudice is entertained for them on account of their being Gipsies; but that it would rather be pleasing and interesting for us to know something of them as Gipsies, that is, about their feelings as Gipsies, and hear them talk some of this language which they have, or are supposed to have.
But how different is the position which the Jews occupy towards the rest of the world! They are, certainly, quiet and inoffensive enough as individuals, or as a community; whence, then, arises the dislike which most people have for them? The Gipsies may be said to be, in a sense, strangers amongst us, because they have never been acknowledged by us; but the Jews are, to a certain extent, strangers under any circumstances, and, more or less, look to entering Palestine at some day, it may be this year, or the following. If a Christian asks: “Who are the Jews, and what do they here?” the reply is very plain: “They are rebels against the Majesty of Heaven, and outcasts from His presence.” They are certainly entitled to every privilege, social and political, which other citizens enjoy; they have a perfect right to follow their own religion; but other people have an equal right to express their opinion in regard to it and them.
The Jew is an enigma to the world, unless looked at through the light of the Old and New Testaments. In studying the history of the Jews, we will find very little about them, as a nation, that is interesting, to the extent of securing our affections, whatever may be said of some of the members of it. What appears attractive, and, I may say, of personal importance, to the Christian, in their history, is, not what they have been or done, but what has been done for them by God. “What more could I have done for my vine than I have done?” And “Which of the prophets have they not persecuted?” “Wherefore, behold! I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city.” And thus it always was. “Elias saith of them, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars, and I am left alone, and they seek my life.” Indeed, the whole history of the Jews has given to infidels such occasion to rail at revelation, as has caused no little annoyance to Christians. What concerns the Christian in the Jewish history is more particularly that which refers to the ways of God, in preserving to Himself, in every generation, a seed who did not bow the knee to Baal, till the appearance of Him in whom all the nations of mankind were to be blessed. Beyond this, we find that the Jews, as a nation, have been the most rebellious, stiff-necked, perverse, ungrateful, and factious, of any recorded in history. How different from what might have been expected of them! Viewing the history of the Jews in this aspect, the mind even finds a relief in turning to profane history; but viewing their writings as the records of the dispensations of God to mankind, and they are worthy of universal reverence; although the most interesting part of them is, perhaps, that which reaches to the settlement of the race in Palestine. And to sum up, to complete, and crown the history of this singularly privileged people, previous to the destruction of their city and temple, and their dispersion among the nations, we find that the prophet whom Moses foretold them would be raised up to them, they wickedly crucified and slew; “delivering up and denying him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. But they denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto them; and killed the Prince of Life, whom God hath raised from the dead.” And Pilate “washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us and on our children.” And his blood is on their children at the present day; for while he is acknowledged by three hundred millions of mankind as their Lord and Master, the Jew teaches his children to regard him as an impostor, and spit at the very mention of his name. How great must be the infatuation of the poor Jew, how dark the mind, how thick the veil that hangs over his heart, how terrible the curse that rests upon his head! But the Jew is to be pitied, not distressed; he should be personally treated, in ordinary life, as his conduct merits.
The manner in which the Jew treats the claims of Jesus Christ disqualifies him for receiving the respect of the Christian. He knows well that Christianity is no production of any Gentile, but an emanation from people of his own nation. And so conceited is the Jew in this respect, that he will say: “Jesus Christ and his apostles were Jews: see what Jews have done!” He regards the existence of his race as a miracle, yet looks with indifference upon the history and results of Christianity. People have often wondered that Jews, as Jews, have written so little on the inspiration of the Old Testament; but what else could have been expected of them? How could they throw themselves prominently forward, in urging the claims of Moses, who was “faithful in all his house as a servant,” and totally ignore those of Christ, who was “a son over his own house?” So far from even entertaining the claims of the latter, the Jew proper has the most bitter hatred for the very mention of his name; he would almost, if he dared, tear out part of his Scriptures, in which the Messiah is alluded to. Does he take the trouble to give the claims of Christianity the slightest consideration? He will spit at it, but it is into his handkerchief; so much does he feel tied up in the position which he occupies in the world. He cannot say that he respects, or can respect, Christianity, whatever he may think of its morals; for, as a Jew, he must, and does, regard it as an imposture, and blindly so regards it. But all Jews are not of this description; for there are many of them who believe little in Moses or any other, or give themselves the least trouble about such matters.
The position which Jews occupy among Christians is that which they occupy among people of a different faith. They become obnoxious to people everywhere; for that which is so foreign in its origin, so exclusive in its habits and relations, and so conceited and antagonistic in its creed, will always be so, go where it may. Besides, they will not even eat what others have slain; and hold other people as impure. The very conservative nature of their creed is, to a certain extent, against them; were it aggressive, like the Christian’s, with a genius to embrace all within its fold, it would not stir up, or permanently retain, the same ill-will toward the people who profess it; for being of that nature which retires into the corner of selfish exclusiveness, people will naturally take a greater objection to them. Then, the keen, money-making, and accumulating habits of the Jews, make them appear selfish to those around them; while the greediness, and utter want of principle, that characterize some of them, have given a bad reputation to the whole body, however unjustly it is applied to them as a race.
The circumstances attending the Jews’ entry into any country, to-day, are substantially what they were before the advent of Christ; centuries before which era, they were scattered, in great numbers, over most part of the world; having synagogues, and visiting, or looking to, Jerusalem, as their home, as Catholics, in the matter of religion, have looked to Rome. In going abroad, Jews would as little contemplate forsaking their own religion, and worshipping the gods of the heathen, as do Christians, to-day, in Oriental countries; for they were as thoroughly persuaded that their religion was divine, and all others the inventions of man, as are Christians of theirs. Then, it was a religion exclusively Jewish, that is, the people following it were, with rare exceptions, exclusively Jews by nation. The ill-will which all these circumstances, and the very appearance of the people themselves, have raised against the Jews, and the persecutions, of various kinds, which have universally followed, have widened the separation between them and other people, which the genius of their religion made so imperative, and their feelings of nationality—nay, family—so exclusive. Before the dispersion, Palestine was their home; after the dispersion, the position and circumstances of those abroad at the time underwent no change; they would merely contemplate their nation in a new aspect—that of exiles, and consider themselves, for the time being, at home wherever they happened to be. Those that were scattered abroad, by the destruction of Jerusalem, would, in their persons, confirm the convictions of the others, and reconcile them to the idea that the Jewish nation, as such, was abroad on the face of the earth; and each generation of the race would entertain the same sentiments. After this, as before it, it can scarcely be said that the Jews have ever been tolerated; if not actually persecuted, they have, at least, always been disliked, or despised. The whole nation having been scattered abroad, with everything pertaining to them as a nation, excepting the temple, the high-priesthood, and the sacrifices, with such an ancient history, and so unequivocally divine a religion, so distinct from, and obnoxious to, those of other nations, it is no wonder that they, the common descendants of Abraham and Sarah, should have ever since remained a distinct people in the world; as all the circumstances surrounding them have universally remained the same till to-day.
A Jew of to-day has a much greater aversion to forsake the Jewish community than any other man has to renounce his country; and his associations of nationality are manifested wherever a Jewish society is to be found, or wherever he can meet with another Jew. This is the view which he takes of his race, as something distinct from his religion; for he contemplates himself as being of that people—of the same blood, features, and feelings, all children of Abraham and Sarah—that are to be found everywhere; that part of it to which he has an aversion being only such as apostatize from his religion, and more particularly such as embrace the Christian faith. In speaking of Jews, we are too apt to confine our ideas exclusively to a creed, forgetting that Jews are a race; and that Christian Jews are Jews as well as Jewish Jews. Were it possible to bring about a reformation among the Jews, by which synagogues would embrace the Christian faith, we would see Jewish Christian churches; the only difference being, that they would believe in Him whom their fathers pierced, and lay aside only such of the ceremonies of Moses as the Gospel had abrogated. If a movement of that kind were once fairly afoot, by which was presented to the Jew, his people as a community, however small it might be, there would be a great chance of his becoming a Christian, in one sense or other: he could then assume the position of a protesting Jew, holding the rest of his countrymen in error; and his own Christian-Jewish community as representing his race, as it ought to exist.
At present, the few Christian Jews find no others of their race with whom to form associations as a community; so that, to all intents and purposes, they feel as if they were a sort of outcasts, despised and hated by those of their own race, and separated from the other inhabitants by a natural law, over which neither have any control, however much they may associate with, and respect, each other. It requires a very powerful moral influence to constrain a Jew in embracing the Christian faith—almost nothing short of divine grace; and sometimes a very powerful immoral one in professing it—that which peculiarly characterizes Jews—the love of money. Were a community of Christian Jews firmly established, among whom were observed every tittle of the Jewish ceremonial, excepting such as the dispensation of Christ had positively abolished; or even observing most of that, (circumcision, for example,) as merely characteristic of a people, without attaching to it the meaning of a service recommending themselves, in any way, to the mercy of God; and many Jews would doubtless join such a society. They could believe in Christ as their Messiah—as their prophet, priest, and king; receive baptism in His name; and depend on Him for a place of happiness in a future state of existence. To such, the injunction, as declared by St. Paul, is: “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Romans x. 9.) And when they contemplate death, they might lay their heads down in peace, with the further assurance, as also declared by St. Paul: “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.” (I Thess. iv. 14.) This is the kind of Messiah which the Jew should contemplate, and seek after. He will find his conception and birth more particularly recorded in the two first, and his death, resurrection, and ascension, more fully detailed in the two last, chapters of the Gospel according to St. Luke. A person would naturally think that a Jew would have the natural curiosity to read this wonderful book called the “New Testament;” since, at its very lowest estimate, it is, with the exception of the writings of St. Luke, altogether a production of people of his own nation. Among the Jews, there are not a few who believe in Christ, yet, more or less, appear at the synagogue. They have no objections to become “spectacles to angels;” but they are not willing to make themselves such to men, by placing themselves in that isolated position which a public profession of Christianity would necessarily lead to. But, all things considered, one is rather apt to fall into Utopian ideas in speaking of the conversion of Jews, as a body, or even as individuals, unless the grace of God, in an especial degree, accompanies the means to that end.
It is no elevated regard for the laws of Moses, or any exalted sense of the principles contained in the Old Testament, that leads a Jew to lend a deaf ear to the claims of Christianity; for his respect for them has always been indifferent, even contemptible, enough. Indeed, the Talmud, which is the Jew’s gospel, may be characterized as being, in a very great part, a tissue of that which is silly and puerile, obscene and blasphemous. It is with the Jew now, as it was at the advent of Christ. “They have paid tithe of mint, and anise, and cummin, and omitted the weightier matters of the law—judgment, mercy, and faith.” “Laying aside the commandment of God, they have held the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups, and many other such-like things;” “making the word of God of none effect through their traditions which they have delivered.” “Full well have they rejected the commandments of God, that they might keep their own traditions.” “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” The main prop of a Jew for remaining a Jew, in regard to religion, rests much more upon the wonderful phenomena connected with the history of his nation—its antiquity, its associations, its universality, and the length of time which it has existed, since its dispersion, distinct from the rest of the world, and so unique, (as he imagines,) that he at once concludes it must have the special approbation of God for the position which it occupies; which is very true, although it proceeds from a different motive than that which the Jew so vainly imagines. The Jew imagines that God approves of his conduct, in his stubborn rebellion to the claims of Christianity, because he finds his race existing so distinct from the rest of the world; whereas, if he studies his own Scriptures, he will see that the condition of his race is the punishment due to its rebellion. Who knows but that the mark which is to be found upon the Jew answers, in a sense, the purpose of that which every one found upon Cain? Did not his ancestors call a solemn imprecation upon his head, when they compelled Pilate to crucify the “just person,” when he was determined to let him go; with no other excuse than, “His blood be on us, and on our children?” Will any genuine Jew repudiate the conduct of his ancestors, and say that Christ was not an impostor, that he was not a blasphemer, and that, consequently, he did not deserve, by the law of his nation, to be put to death?
The history of the Jews acts as a spell upon the unfortunate Jew, and proves the greatest bar to his conversion to Christianity. He vainly imagines that his race stands out from among all the races of mankind, by a miracle, wrought for that purpose, and with the special approbation of God upon it, for adhering to its religion; and that, therefore, Christianity is a delusion. But we must break this spell that enchants the Jew, and “provoke him to jealousy by them that are no people.” And who are this people? The Gipsies? Yes, the Gipsies! For they are numerous, though not as numerous, and ancient, though not as ancient, as the Jews.[308]
As to the Gipsy population, scattered over the world, I think that the intelligent reader will agree with me, after all that has been said, in estimating it as very large. There seems no reason for thinking that the Gipsies suffered so greatly, by the laws passed against them, as people have imagined; for the cunning of the Gipsy, and the wild, or partly uncultivated, face of all the countries of Europe would afford him many facilities to evade the laws passed against him. We have already seen what continental writers have said of the race, relative to the laws passed against it: “But, instead of passing the boundaries, they only slunk into hiding places, and, shortly after, appeared in as great numbers as before.” And this seems to have been invariably the case over the whole of Europe. Mr. Borrow, as we have already seen, speaks of every Spanish monarch, on succeeding to the crown, passing laws against the Gipsies. If former laws were put in force, there would be no occasion for making so many new ones; the very fact of so many laws having been passed against the Gipsy race, in Spain, is sufficient proof of each individual law never having been put to much execution, but rather, as has already been said, ([page 394],) of its having been customary for every king of Spain to issue such against them. It does not appear that any force was employed to hunt the Gipsies out of the country, but that matters were left to the ordinary local authorities, whom the tribe would, in many instances, manage to render passive, or beyond whose jurisdiction they would remove for the time being. The laws passed against the nobility and commonalty of Spain, for protecting the Gipsies, ([page 114],) is a very instructive commentary on those for the extermination of the body itself. But the case most in point is in the Scottish laws passed against the Gipsies. Upon the passing of the Act of James VI., in 1609, we find that the Gipsies “dispersed themselves in certain secret and obscure places of the country”; and that, when the storm was blown over, they “began to take new breath and courage, and unite themselves in infamous companies and societies, under commanders” ([page 114]). The extreme bitterness displayed in Scots acts of parliament against the best classes of the population, for protecting and entertaining the tribe, and, consequently, rendering the other acts nugatory, has a very important bearing upon the subject. We find that the Gipsies wandered up and down France for a hundred years, unmolested; and that, so numerous had they become, that, in 1545, the King of France entertained the idea of embodying four thousand of them, to act as pioneers in taking Boulogne, then in possession of England. The last notice which we have of the French Gipsies was that made by Grellmann, when he says: “In France, before the Revolution, there were but few, for the obvious reason, that every Gipsy who could be apprehended, fell a sacrifice to the police.” Grellmann, however, had not studied the subject sufficiently deep to account for the destiny of the race. If they were so very numerous in France, in 1545, the natural encrease, in whatever position in life it might be, must have been very great during the following 235 years. I have learned, from the best of authority, that there are many Gipsies in Flanders.[309] If the Gipsies in England were estimated at above ten thousand, during the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, how many may they not be now, including those of every kind of mixture of blood, character, and position in life? If there is one Gipsy in the British Isles, there cannot be less than a quarter of a million, and, possibly, as many as six hundred thousand; and, instead of there being sixty thousand in Spain, and constantly decreasing, (disappearing is the right word,) we may safely estimate them at three hundred thousand. The reader has already been informed of what becomes of all the Gipsies. As a case in point, I may ask, who would have imagined that there was such a thing in Edinburgh as a factory, filled, not merely with Gipsies, but with Irish Gipsies? The owner of the establishment was doubtless a Gipsy; for how did so many Gipsies come to work in it, or how did he happen to know that his workmen were all Gipsies, or that even one of them was a Gipsy?
Even to take Grellmann’s estimate of the Gipsies in Europe, at from 700,000 to 800,000, and the race must be very numerous to-day. Since his time, the Negroes in the United States have encreased from 500,000 to 4,000,000, and this much is certain, that Gipsies are, to say the least of it, as prolific as Negroes. The encrease in both includes much white blood added to the respective bodies. Some of the Gipsies have, doubtless, been hanged; but, on the other hand, many of the Negroes have been worked to death. There is a great difference, however, between the wild, independent Gipsy race and the Negroes in the New World. I should not suppose that the Gipsy race in Europe and America can be less than 4,000,000. It embraces, for certainty, as in Scotland, men ranging in character and position from a pillar of the Church down to a common tinker.[310]
Christians not only flatter but delude the Jew, when they say that his race is “purity itself;” they greatly flatter and delude him, when they say that the phenomenon of its existence, since the dispersion, is miraculous. There is nothing miraculous about it. There is nothing miraculous about the perpetuation of Quakerdom; yet Quakerdom has existed for two centuries. Although Quakerdom is but an artificial thing, that proceeded out from among common English people, it has somewhat the appearance of being a distinct race, among those surrounding it. As such, it appears, at first sight, to inexperienced youth, or people who have never seen, or perhaps heard, much of Quakers. But how much greater is the difference between Jews and Christians, than between Quakers and ordinary Englishmen, and Americans! And how much greater the certainty that Jews will keep themselves distinct from Christians, and all others in the world! It must be self-evident to the most unreflecting person, that the natural causes which keep Jews separated from other people, during one generation, continue to keep them distinct during every other generation. A miracle, indeed! We must look into the Old and New Testaments for miracles. A Jew will naturally delude himself about the existence of his race, since the dispersion, being a miracle; yet not believe upon a person, if he were even to rise from the dead! A little consideration of the philosophy of the Jewish question will teach us that, perhaps, the best way for Providence to preserve the Jews, as they have existed since their dispersion, would have been merely to leave them alone—leave them to their impenitence and unbelief—and take that much care of them that is taken of ravens.
The subject of the Gipsies is a mine which Christians should work, so as to countermine and explode the conceit of the Jew in the history of his people; for that, as I have already said, is the greatest bar to his conversion to Christianity. Still, it is possible that some people may oppose the idea that the Gipsies are the “mixed multitude” of the Exodus, from some such motive as that which induces others not merely to disbelieve, but revile, and even rave at some of the clear points of revelation.[311] What objection could any one advance against the Gipsies being the people that left Egypt, in the train of the Jews? Not, certainly, an objection as to race; for there must have been many captive people, or tribes, introduced into Egypt, from the many countries surrounding it. Pharaoh was a czar in his day, transplanting people at his pleasure. Of one of his cities it was said,
“That spreads her conquests o’er a thousand states,
And pours her heroes through a hundred gates:
Two hundred horsemen, and two hundred cars,
From each wide portal, issuing to the wars.”
That the “mixed multitude” travelled into India, acquired the language of that part of Asia, and, perhaps, modified its appearance there, and became the origin of the Gipsy race, we may very safely assume. This much is certain, that they are not Sudras, but a very ancient tribe, distinct from every other in the world. With the exception of the Jews, we have no certainty of the origin of any people; in every other case it is conjecture; even the Hungarians know nothing of their origin; and it is not wonderful that it should be the same with the Gipsies. Everything harmonizes so beautifully with the idea that the Gipsies are the “mixed multitude” of the Exodus, that it may be admitted by the world. Even in the matter of religion, we could imagine Egyptian captives losing a knowledge of their religion, as has happened with the Africans in the New World, and, not having had another taught them, leaving Egypt under Moses, without any religion at all.[312] After entering India, they would, in all probability, become a wandering people, and, for a certainty, live aloof from all others.
While the history of the Jews, since the dispersion, greatly illustrates that of the Gipsies, so does the history of the Gipsies greatly illustrate that of the Jews. They greatly resemble each other. Jews shuffle, when they say that the only difference between an Englishman and an English Jew, is in the matter of creed; for there is a great difference between the two, whatever they may have in common, as men born and reared on the same soil. The very appearance of the two is palpable proof that they are not of the same race. The Jew invariably, and unavoidably, holds his “nation” to mean the Jewish people, scattered over the world; and is reared in the idea that he is, not only in creed, but in blood, distinct from other men; and that, in blood and creed, he is not to amalgamate with them, let him live where he may. Indeed, what England is to an Englishman, this universally scattered people is to the Jew; what the history of England is to an Englishman, the Bible is to the Jew; his nation being nowhere in particular, but everywhere, while its ultimate destiny he, more or less, believes to be Palestine. Now, an Englishman has not only been born an Englishman, but his mind has been cast in a mould that makes him an Englishman; so that, to persecute him, on the ground of his being an Englishman, is to persecute him for that which can never be changed. It is precisely so with the Jew. His creed does not amount to much, for it is only part of the history of his race, or the law of his nation, traced to, and emanating from, one God, and Him the true God, as distinguished from the gods and lords many of other nations: such is the nature of the Jewish theocracy. To persecute a Gipsy, for being a Gipsy, would likewise be to persecute him for that which he could not help; for to prevent a person being a Gipsy, in the most important sense of the word, it would be necessary to take him, when an infant, and rear him entirely apart from his own race, so that he should never hear the “wonderful story,” nor have his mind filled with the Gipsy electric fluid. An English Gipsy went abroad, very young, as a soldier, and was many years from home, without having had a Gipsy companion, so that he had almost forgotten that he was a Gipsy; but, on his returning home, other Gipsies applied their magnetic battery to him, and gipsyfied him over again. A town Gipsy will occasionally send a child to a Gipsy hedge-schoolmaster, for the purpose of being extra gipsyfied.
The being a Gipsy, or a Jew, or a Gentile, consists in birth and rearing. The three may be born and brought up under one general roof, members of their respective nationalities, yet all good Christians. But the Jew, by becoming a Christian, necessarily cuts himself off from associations with the representative part of his nation; for Jews do not tolerate those who forsake the synagogue, and believe in Christ, as the Messiah having come; however much they may respect their children, who, though born into the Christian Church, and believing in its doctrines, yet maintain the inherent affection for the associations connected with the race, and more especially if they also occupy distinguished positions in life. So intolerant, indeed, are Jews of each other, in the matter of each choosing his own religion, extending sometimes to assassination in some countries, and invariably to the crudest persecutions in families, that they are hardly justified in asking, and scarcely merit, toleration for themselves, as a people, from the nations among whom they live. The present Disraeli doubtless holds himself to be a Jew, let his creed or Christianity be what it may; if he looks at himself in his mirror, he cannot deny it. We have an instance in the Cappadoce family becoming, and remaining for several generations, Christians, then returning to the synagogue, and, in another generation, joining the Christian church. The same vicissitude may attend future generations of this family. There should be no great obstacle in the way of it being allowed to pass current in the world, like any other fact, that a person can be a Jew and, at the same time, a Christian; as we say that a man can be an Englishman and a Christian, a McGregor and a Christian, a Gipsy and a Christian, or a Jew and a Christian, even should he not know when his ancestors attended the synagogue. Christianity was not intended, nor is it capable, to destroy the nationality of Jews, as individuals, or as a nation, any more than that of other people. We may even assume that a person, having a Jew for one parent, and a Christian for another, and professing the Christian faith, and having the influences of the Jew exercised over him from his infancy, cannot fail, with his blood and, it may be, physiognomy, to have feelings peculiar to the Jews; although he may believe them as blind, in the matter of religion, as do other Christians. But separate him, after the death of the Jewish parent, from all associations with Jews, and he may gradually lose those peculiarly Jewish feelings that are inseparable from a Jewish community, however small it may be. There are, then, no circumstances, out of and independent of himself and the other members of his family, to constitute him a Jew; and still less can it be so with his children, when they marry with ordinary Christians, and never come in intimate contact with Jews. The Jewish feeling may be ultimately crossed out in this way; I say ultimately, for it does not take place in the first descent, (and that is as far as my personal knowledge goes,) even although the mother is an ordinary Christian, and the children have been brought up exclusively to follow her religion.
Gipsydom, however, goes with the individual, and keeps itself alive in the family, and the private associations of life, let its creed be what it may; the original cast of mind, words, and signs, always remaining with itself. In this respect, the Gipsy differs from every other man. He cannot but know who he is to start life with, nor can he forget it; he has those words and signs within himself which, as he moves about in the world, he finds occasion to use. A Jew may boast of the peculiar cast of countenance by which his race is generally characterized, and how his nation is kept together by a common blood, history, and creed. But the phenomenon connected with the history of the Gipsy race is more wonderful than that which is connected with the Jewish; inasmuch as, let the blood of the Gipsy become as much mixed as it may, it always preserves its Gipsy identity; although it may not have the least outward resemblance to an original Gipsy. You cannot crush or cross out the Gipsy race; so thoroughly subtle, so thoroughly adaptable, so thoroughly capable, is it to evade every weapon that can be forged against it. The Gipsy soul, in whatever condition it may be found, or whatever may be the tabernacle which it may inhabit, is as independent, now, of those laws which regulate the disappearance of certain races among others, as when it existed in its wild state, roaming over the heath. The Gipsy race, in short, absorbs, but cannot be absorbed by, other races.
In my associations with Gipsies and Jews, I find that both races rest upon the same basis, viz.: a question of people. The response of the one, as to who he is, is that he is a Gipsy; and of the other, that he is a Jew. Each of them has a peculiarly original soul, that is perfectly different from each other, and others around them; a soul that passes as naturally and unavoidably into each succeeding generation of the respective races, as does the soul of the English or any other race into each succeeding generation. For each considers his nation as abroad upon the face of the earth; which circumstance will preserve its existence amid all the revolutions to which ordinary nations are subject. As they now exist within, and independent of, the nations among whom they live, so will they endure, if these nations were to disappear under the subjection of other nations, or become incorporated with them under new names. Many of the Gipsies and Jews might perish amid such convulsions, but those that survived would constitute the stock of their respective nations; while others might migrate from other countries, and contribute to their numbers. In the case of the Gipsy nation, as it gets crossed with common blood, the issue shows the same result as does the shaking of the needle on the card—it always turns to the pole: that pole, among the Gipsies, being a sense of its blood, and a sympathy with the same people in every part of the world. For this reason, the Gipsy race, like the Jewish, may, with regard to its future, be said to be even eternal.
The Gipsy soul is fresh and original, not only from its recent appearance in Europe, without any traditional knowledge of its existence anywhere else, but from having sprung from so singular an origin as a tent; so that the mystery that attaches to it, from those causes, and the contemplation of the Gipsy, in his original state, to-day, present to the Gipsy that fascination for his own history which the Jew finds in the antiquity of his race, and the exalted privileges with which it was at one time visited. The civilized Gipsy looks upon his ancestors, as they appeared in Europe generally, and Scotland especially, as great men, as heroes who scorned the company of anything below a gentleman. And he is not much out of the way; for John Faw, and Towla Bailyow, and the others mentioned in the act of 1540, were unquestionably heroes of the first water. He pictures to himself these men as so many swarthy, slashing heroes, dressed in scarlet and green, armed with pistols and broad-swords, mounted on blood-horses, with hawks and hounds in their train. True to nature, every Gipsy is delighted with his descent, no matter what other people, in their ignorance of the subject, may think of it, or what their prejudices may be in regard to it. One of the principal differences to be drawn between the history of the Gipsies and that of the Jews, is, as I have already stated, that the Jews left Palestine a civilized people, while the Gipsies entered Europe, in the beginning of the fifteenth century, in a barbarous state. But the difference is only of a relative nature; for when the Gipsies emerge from their original condition, they occupy as good positions in the world as the Jews; while they have about them none of those outward peculiarities of the Jews, that make them, in a manner, offensive to other people. In every sense but that of belonging to the Gipsy tribe, they are ordinary natives; for the circumstances that have formed the characters of the ordinary natives have formed theirs. Besides this, there is a degree of dignity about the general bearing of such people, rough as it sometimes is, that plainly shows that they are no common fellows, at least that they do not hold themselves to be such. For it is to be remarked, that such people do not directly apply to themselves the prejudice which exists towards what the world understands to be Gipsies; however much they may infer that such would be directed against them, should the world discover that they belonged to the tribe. In this respect, they differ from Jews, all of whom apply to themselves the prejudice of the rest of their species; which exercises so depressing an influence upon the character of a people. Indeed, one will naturally look for certain general superior points of character in a man who has fairly emerged from a wild and barbarous state, which he will not be so apt to find in another who has fallen from a higher position in the scale of nations, which the Jew has unquestionably done. A Jew, no matter what he thinks of the long-gone-by history of his race, looks upon it, now, as a fallen people; while the Gipsy has that subdued but, at heart, consequential, extravagance of ideas, springing from the wild independence and vanity of his ancestors, which frequently finds a vent in a lavish and foolish expenditure, so as not to be behind others in his liberality. A very good idea of such a cast of character may be formed from that of the superior class of Gipsies mentioned by our author, when the descendants of such have been brought up under more favourable circumstances, and enjoyed all the advantages of the ordinary natives of the country.
In considering the phenomenon of the existence of the Jews since the dispersion, I am not inclined to place it on any other basis than I would that of the Gipsies; for, with both, it is substantially a question of people. They are a people, scattered over the world, like the Gipsies, and have a history—the Bible, which contains both their history and their laws; and these two contain their religion. It would, perhaps, be more correct to say, that the religion of the Jews is to be found in the Talmud, and the other human compositions, for which the race have such a superstitious reverence; and even these are taken as interpreted by the Rabbis. A Jew has, properly speaking, little of a creed. He believes in the existence of God, and in Moses, his prophet, and observes certain parts of the ceremonial law, and some holidays, commemorative of events in the history of his people. He is a Jew, in the first place, as a simple matter of fact, and, as he grows up, he is made acquainted with the history of his race, to which he becomes strongly attached. He then holds himself to be one of the “first-born of the Lord,” one of the “chosen of the Eternal,” one of the “Lord’s aristocracy;” expressions of amazing import, in his worldly mind, that will lead him to almost die for his faith; while his religion is of a very low natural order, “standing only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances,” suitable for a people in a state of pupilage. The Jewish mind, in the matter of religion, is, in some respects, preëminently gross and material in its nature; its idea of a Messiah rising no higher than a conqueror of its own race, who will bring the whole world under his sway, and parcel out, among his fellow-Jews, a lion’s share of the spoils, consisting of such things as the inferior part of human nature so much craves for. And his ideas of how this Messiah is to be connected with the original tribes, as mentioned in the prophecies, are childish and superstitious in the extreme. Writers do, therefore, greatly err, when they say, that it is only a thin partition that separates Judaism from Christianity. There is almost as great a difference between the two, as there is between that which is material, and that which is spiritual. A Jew is so thoroughly bound, heart and soul, by the spell which the phenomena of his race exert upon him, that, humanly speaking, it is impossible to make anything of him in the matter of Christianity. And herein, in his own way of thinking, consists his peculiar glory. Such being the case with Christianity, it is not to be supposed that the Jew would forsake his own religion, and, of course, his own people, and believe in any religion having an origin in the spontaneous and gradual growth of superstition and imposture, modified, systematized, adorned, or expanded, by ambitious and superior minds, or almost wholly in the conceptions of these minds; having, for a foundation, an instinct—an intellectual and emotional want—as common to man, as instinct is to the brute creation, for the ends which it has to serve. We cannot separate the questions of race and belief, when we consider the Jews as a people, however it might be with individuals among them. It was as unreasonable to persecute a Jew, for not giving up his feelings as a Jew, and his religion, for the superstitions and impostures of Rome, as it was to persecute a Gipsy, for not giving up his feelings of nationality, and his language, as was specially attempted by Charles III., of Spain: for such are inherent in the respective races. The worst that can be said of any Gipsy, in the matter of religion, is, when we meet with one who admits that all that he really cares for is, “to get a good belly-full, and to feel comfortable o’ nights.” Here, we have an original soil to be cultivated; a soil that can be cultivated, if we only go the right way about doing it. Out of such a man, there is no other spirit to be cast, but that of “the world, the flesh, and the devil,” before another can take up its habitation in his mind. Bigoted as is the Jew against even entertaining the claims of Christ, as the Messiah, he is very indifferent to the practice, or even the knowledge, of his own religion, where he is tolerated and well-treated, as in the United States of America. Of the growing-up, or even the grown-up, Jews in that country, the ultra-Jewish organ, the “Jewish Messenger,” of New York, under date the 19th October, 1860, says that, “with the exception of a very few, who are really taught their religion, the great majority, we regret to state, know no more of their faith than the veriest heathen:” and, I might add, practise less of it; for, as a people, they pay very little regard to it, in general, or to the Sabbath, in particular, but are characterized as worldly beyond measure; having more to answer for than the Gipsy, whose sole care is “a good meal, and a comfortable crib at night.”[313]
Amid all the obloquy and contempt cast upon his race, amid all the persecutions to which it has been exposed, the Jew, with his inherent conceit in having Abraham for his father, falls back upon the history of his nation, with the utmost contempt for everything else that is human; forgetting that there is such a thing as the “first being last.” He boasts that his race, and his only, is eternal, and that all other men get everything from him! He vainly imagines that the Majesty of Heaven should have made his dispensations to mankind conditional upon anything so unworthy as his race has so frequently shown itself to be. If he has been so favoured by God, what can he point to as the fruits of so much loving-kindness shown him? What is his nation now, however numerous it may be, but a ruin, and its members, but spectres that haunt it? And what has brought it to its present condition? “Its sins.” Doubtless, its sins; but what particular sins? And how are these sins to be put away, seeing that the temple, the high-priesthood, and the sacrifices no longer exist? Or what effort, by such means as offer, has ever been made to mitigate the wrath of God, and prevail upon Him to restore the people to their exalted privileges? Or what could they even propose doing, to bring about that event? Questions like these involve the Jewish mind in a labyrinth of difficulties, from which it cannot extricate itself. The dispersion was not only foretold, but the cause of it given. The Scriptures declare that the Messiah was to have appeared before the destruction of the temple; and the time of his expected advent, according to Jewish traditions, coincided with that event. It is eighteen centuries since the destruction of the temple, before which the Messiah was to have come; and the Jew still “hopes against hope,” and, if it is left to himself, will do so till the day of judgment, for such a Messiah as his earthly mind seems to be only capable of contemplating. Has he never read the New Testament, and reflected on the sufferings of him who was meek and lowly, or on those of his disciples, inflicted by his ancestors, for generations, when he has come complaining of the sufferings to which his race has been exposed? He is entitled to sympathy, for all the cruelties with which his race has been visited; but he could ask it with infinitely greater grace, were he to offer any for the sufferings of the early Christians and their divine master, or were he, even, to tolerate any of his race following him to-day.
What has the Jew got to say to all this? He cannot now say that his main comfort and support, in his unbelief, consists in his contemplating what he vainly calls a miracle, wrapt up in the history of his people, since the dispersion. That prop and comfort are gone. No, O Jew! the true miracle, if miracle there is, is your impenitent unbelief. No one asks you to disbelieve in Moses, but, in addition to believing in Moses, to believe in him of whom Moses wrote. Do you really believe in Moses? You, doubtless, believe after a sort; you believe in Moses, as any other person believes in the history of his own country and people; but your belief in Moses goes little further. You glory in the antiquity of your race, and imagine that every other has perished. No, O Jew! the “mixed multitude” which left Egypt, under Moses, separated from him, and passed into India, has come up, in these latter times, again to vex you. Even it is entering, it may be, pressing, into the Kingdom of God, and leaving you out of it. Yes! the people from the “hedges and by-ways” are submitting to the authority of the true Messiah; while you, in your infatuated blindness, are denying him.
What may be termed the philosophy of the Gipsies, is very simple in itself, when we have before us its main points, its principles, its bearings, its genius; and fully appreciated the circumstances with which the people are surrounded. The most remarkable thing about the subject is, that people never should have dreamt of its nature, but, on the contrary, believed that “the Gipsies are gradually disappearing, and will soon become extinct.” The Gipsies have always been disappearing, but where do they go to? Look at any tent of Gipsies, when the family are all together, and see how prolific they are. What, then, becomes of this encrease? The present work answers the question. It is a subject, however, which I have found some difficulty in getting people to understand. One cannot see how a person can be a Gipsy, “because his father was a respectable man;” another, “because his father was an old soldier;” and another cannot see “how it necessarily follows that a person is a Gipsy, for the reason that his parents were Gipsies.” The idea, as disconnected from the use of a tent, or following a certain kind of life, may be said to be strange to the world; and, on that account, is not very easily impressed on the human mind. It would be singular, however, if a Scotchman, after all that has been said, should not be able to understand what is meant by the Scottish Gipsy tribe, or that it should ever cease to be that tribe as it progresses in life. In considering the subject, he need not cast about for much to look at, for he should exercise his mind, rather than his eyes, when he approaches it. It is, principally, a mental phenomenon, and should, therefore, be judged of by the faculties of the mind: for a Gipsy may not differ a whit from an ordinary native, in external appearance or character, while, in his mind, he may be as thorough a Gipsy as one could well imagine.
In contemplating the subject of the Gipsies, we should have a regard for the facts of the question, and not be led by what we might, or might not, imagine of it; for the latter course would be characteristic of people having the moral and intellectual traits of children. The race might, to a certain extent, be judged analogously, by what we know of other races; but that which is pre-eminently necessary, is to judge of it by facts: for facts, in a matter like this, take precedence of everything. Even in regard to the Gipsy language, broken as it is, people are very apt to say that it cannot exist at the present day; yet the least reflection will convince us, that the language which the Gipsies use is the remains of that which they brought with them into Europe, and not a make-up, to serve their purposes. The very genius peculiar to them, as an Oriental people, is a sufficient guarantee of this fact; and the more so from their having been so thoroughly separated, by the prejudice of caste, from others around them; which would so naturally lead them to use, and retain, their peculiar speech. But the use of the Gipsy language is not the only, not even the principal, means of maintaining a knowledge of being Gipsies; perhaps it is altogether unnecessary; for the mere consciousness of the fact of being Gipsies, transmitted from generation to generation, and made the basis of marriages, and the intimate associations of life, is, in itself, perfectly sufficient. The subject of two distinct races, existing upon the same soil, is not very familiar to the mind of a British subject. To acquire a knowledge of such a phenomenon, he should visit certain parts of Europe, or Asia, or Africa, or the New World. Since all (I may say all) Gipsies hide the knowledge of their being Gipsies from the other inhabitants, as they leave the tent, it cannot be said that any of them really deny themselves, even should they hide themselves from those of their own race. The ultimate test of a person being a Gipsy would be for another to catch the internal response of his mind to the question put to him as to the fact; or observe the workings of his heart in his contemplations of himself. It can hardly be said that any Gipsy denies, at heart, the fact of his being a Gipsy, (which, indeed, is a contradiction in terms,) let him disguise it from others as much as he may. If I could find such a man, he would be the only one of his race whom I would feel inclined to despise as such.
From all that has been said, the reader can have no difficulty in believing, with me, as a question beyond doubt, that the immortal John Bunyan was a Gipsy of mixed blood. He was a tinker. And who were the tinkers? Were there any itinerant tinkers in England, before the Gipsies settled there? It is doubtful. In all likelihood, articles requiring to be tinkered were carried to the nearest smithy. The Gipsies are all tinkers, either literally, figuratively, or representatively. Ask any English Gipsy, of a certain class, what he can do, and, after enumerating several occupations, he will add: “I can tinker, of course,” although he may know little or nothing about it. Tinkering, or travelling-smith work, is the Gipsy’s representative business, which he brought with him into Europe. Even the intelligent and respectable Scottish Gipsies speak of themselves as belonging to the “tinker tribe.” The Gipsies in England, as in Scotland, divided the country among themselves, under representative chiefs, and did not allow any other Gipsies to enter upon their walks or beats. Considering that the Gipsies in England were estimated at above ten thousand during the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, we can readily believe that they were much more numerous during the time of Bunyan. Was there, therefore, a pot or a kettle, in the rural parts of England, to be mended, for which there was not a Gipsy ready to attend to it? If a Gipsy would not tolerate any of his own race entering upon his district, was he likely to allow any native? If there were native tinkers in England before the Gipsies settled there, how soon would the latter, with their organization, drive every one from the trade by sheer force! What thing more like a Gipsy? Among the Scotch, we find, at a comparatively recent time, that the Gipsies actually murdered a native, for infringing upon what they considered one of their prerogatives—that of gathering rags through the country.
Lord Macaulay says, with reference to Bunyan: “The tinkers then formed a hereditary caste, which was held in no high estimation. They were generally vagrants and pilferers, and were often confounded with the Gipsies, whom, in truth, they nearly resembled.” I would like to know on what authority his lordship makes such an assertion; what he knows about the origin of this “hereditary tinker caste,” and if it still exists; and whether he holds to the purity-of-Gipsy-blood idea, advanced by the Edinburgh Review and Blackwood’s Magazine, but especially the former. How would he account for the existence of a hereditary caste of any kind, in England, and that just one—the “tinker caste”? There was no calling at that time hereditary in England, that I know of; and yet Bunyan was born a tinker. In Scotland, the collier and salter castes were hereditary, for they were in a state of slavery to the owners of these works.[314] But who ever heard of any native occupation, so free as tinkering, being hereditary in England, in the seventeenth century? Was not this “tinker caste,” at that time, exactly the same that it is now? If it was then hereditary, is it not so still? If not, by what means has it ceased to be hereditary? The tinkers existed in England, at that time, exactly as they do now. And who are they now but mixed Gipsies? It is questionable, very questionable indeed, if we will find, in all England, a tinker who is not a Gipsy. The class will deny it; the purer and more original kind of Gipsies will also deny it; still, they are Gipsies. They are all chabos, calos, or chals; but they will play upon the word Gipsy in its ideal, purity-of-blood sense, and deny that they are Gipsies. We will find in Lavengro two such Gipsies—the Flaming Tinman, and Jack Slingsby; the first, a half-blood, (which did not necessarily imply that either parent was white;) and the other, apparently, a very much mixed Gipsy. The tinman termed Slingsby a “mumping villain.” Now, “mumper,” among the English Gipsies, is an expression for a Gipsy whose blood is very much mixed. When Mr. Borrow used the word Petulengro,[315] Slingsby started, and exclaimed: “Young man, you know a thing or two.” I have used the same word with English Gipsies, causing the same surprise; on one occasion, I was told: “You must be a Scotch Gipsy yourself.” “Well,” I replied, “I may be as good a Gipsy as any of you, for anything you may know.” “That may be so,” was the answer I got. Then Slingsby was very careful to mention to Lavengro that his wife was a white, or Christian, woman; a thing not necessarily true because he asserted it, but it implied that he was different. These are but instances of, I might say, all the English tinkers. Almost every old countrywoman about the Scottish Border knows that the Scottish tinkers are Gipsies.[316]
The prejudice against the name of Gipsy was apparently as great in Bunyan’s time as in our own; and there was, evidently, as great a timidity, on the part of mixed, fair-haired Gipsies, to own the blood then, as now; and great danger, for then it was hangable to be a Gipsy, by the law of Queen Elizabeth, and “felony without benefit of clergy,” for “any person, being fourteen years, whether natural born subject or stranger, who had been seen in the fellowship of such persons, or disguised like them, and remained with them one month, at once, or at several times.” When the name of Gipsy, and every association connected with it, were so severely proscribed by law, what other name would the tribe go under but that of tinkers—their own proper occupation? Those only would be called Gipsies whose appearance indicated the pure, or nearly pure, Gipsy. Although there was no necessity, under any circumstances, for Bunyan to say that he was a Gipsy, and still less in the face of the law proscribing, so absolutely, the race, and every one countenancing it, he evidently wished the fact to be understood, or, I should rather say, took it for granted, that part of the public knew of it, when he said: “For my descent, it was, as is well known to many, of a low and inconsiderable generation; my father’s house being of that rank that is meanest and most despised of all the families of the land.” Of whom does Bunyan speak here, if not of the Gipsies? He says, of all the families of the land. And he adds: “After I had been thus for some considerable time, another thought came into my mind, and that was, whether we, (his family and relatives,) were of the Israelites or no? For, finding in the Scriptures, that they were once the peculiar people of God, thought I, if I were one of this race, (how significant is the expression!) my soul must needs be happy. Now, again, I found within me a great longing to be resolved about this question, but could not tell how I should; at last, I asked my father of it, who told me, No, we, (his father included,) were not.”[317] I have heard the same question put by Gipsy lads to their parent, (a very much mixed Gipsy,) and it was answered thus: “We must have been among the Jews, for some of our ceremonies are like theirs.” The best commentary that can be passed on the above extracts from Bunyan’s autobiography, will be found in our author’s account of his visit to the old Gipsy chief, whose acquaintance he made at St. Boswell’s fair, and to which the reader is referred, ([pages 309]-[318].) When did we ever hear of an ordinary Englishman taking so much trouble to ascertain whether he was a Jew, or not? No Englishman, it may be safely asserted, ever does that, or has ever done it; and no one in England could have done it, during Bunyan’s time, but a Gipsy. Bunyan seems to have been more or less acquainted with the history of the Jews, and how they were scattered over the world, though not publicly known to be in England, from which country they had been for centuries banished. About the time in question, the re-admission of the Jews was much canvassed in ecclesiastical as well as political circles, and ultimately carried, by the exertions of Manasseh Ben Israel, of Amsterdam. Under these circumstances, it was very natural for Bunyan to ask himself whether he belonged to the Jewish race, since he had evidently never seen a Jew; and that the more especially, as the Scottish Gipsies have even believed themselves to be Ethiopians. Such a question is entertained, by the Gipsies, even at the present day; for they naturally think of the Jews, and wonder whether, after all, their race may not, at some time, have been connected with them. How trifling it is for any one to assert, that Bunyan—a common native of England—while in a state of spiritual excitement, imagined that he was a Jew, and that he should, at a mature age, have put anything so absurd in his autobiography, and in so grave a manner as he did!
Southey, in his life of Bunyan, writes: “Wherefore this (tinkering) should have been so mean and despised a calling, is not, however, apparent, when it was not followed as a vagabond employment, but, as in this case, exercised by one who had a settled habitation, and who, mean as his condition was, was nevertheless able to put his son to school, in an age when very few of the poor were taught to read and write.” The fact is, that Bunyan’s father had, apparently, a town beat, which would give him a settled residence, prevent him using a tent, and lead him to conform with the ways of the ordinary inhabitants; but, doubtless, he had his pass from the chief of the Gipsies for the district. The same may be said of John Bunyan himself.
How little does a late writer in the Dublin University Magazine know of the feelings of a mixed Gipsy, like Bunyan, when he says: “Did he belong to the Gipsies, we have little doubt that he would have dwelt on it, with a sort of spiritual exultation; and that of his having been called out of Egypt would have been to him one of the proofs of Divine favour. We cannot imagine him suppressing the fact, or disguising it.” Where is the point in the reviewer’s remarks? His remarks have no point. How could the fact of a man being a Gipsy be made the grounds of any kind of spiritual exultation? And how could the fact of the tribe originating in Egypt be a proof of Divine favour towards the individual? What occasion had Bunyan to mention he was a Gipsy? What purpose would it have served? How would it have advanced his mission as a minister? Considering the prejudice that has always existed against that unfortunate word Gipsy, it would have created a sensation among all parties, if Bunyan had said that he was a Gipsy. “What!” the people would have asked, “a Gipsy turned priest? We’ll have the devil turning priest next!” Considering the many enemies which the tinker-bishop had to contend with, some of whom even sought his life, he would have given them a pretty occasion of revenging themselves upon him, had he said he was a Gipsy. They would have put the law in force, and stretched his neck for him.[318] The same writer goes on to say: “In one passage at least—and we think there are more in Bunyan’s works—the Gipsies are spoken of in such a way as would be most unlikely if Bunyan thought he belonged to that class of vagabonds.” I am not aware as to what the reviewer alludes; but, should Bunyan even have denounced the conduct of the Gipsies, in the strongest terms imaginable, would that have been otherwise than what he did with sinners generally? Should a clergyman denounce the ways and morals of every man of his parish, does that make him think less of being a native of the parish himself? Should a man even denounce his children as vagabonds, does that prevent him being their father? This writer illustrates what I have said of people generally—that they are almost incapable of forming an opinion on the Gipsy question, unaided by facts, and the bearings of facts, laid before them; so thoroughly is the philosophy of race, as it progresses and develops, unknown to the public mind, and so absolute is the prejudice of caste against the Gipsy race.[319]
I need hardly say anything further to show that Bunyan was a Gipsy. The only circumstance that is wanting to complete the evidence, would be for him to have added to his account of his descent: “In other words, I am a Gipsy.” But I have given reasons for such verbal admission being, in a measure, impossible. I do not ask for an argument in favour of Bunyan not being a Gipsy, but a common Englishman; for an argument of that kind, beyond such remarks as I have commented on, is impracticable; but what I ask for is, an exposition of the animus of the man who does not wish that he should have been a Gipsy; assuming that a man can be met with, who will so far forget what is due to the dignity of human nature, as to commit himself in any such way. That Bunyan was a Gipsy is beyond a doubt. That he is a Gipsy, now, in Abraham’s bosom, the Christian may readily believe. To the genius of a Gipsy and the grace of God combined, the world is indebted for the noblest production that ever proceeded from an uninspired man. Impugn it whoso list.
Of the Pilgrim’s Progress, Lord Macaulay, in his happy manner, writes: “For magnificence, for pathos, for vehement exhortation, for subtle disquisition, for every purpose of the poet, the orator, and the divine, this homely dialect—the dialect of plain working men—was perfectly sufficient. There is no book in our literature on which we would so readily stake the fame of the old, unpolluted, English language,” as the Pilgrim’s Progress; “no book which shows, so well, how rich that language is in its own proper wealth, and how little it has been improved by all that it has borrowed.” “Though there were many clever men in England, during the latter half of the seventeenth century, there were only two great creative minds. One of these minds produced the Paradise Lost; the other, the Pilgrim’s Progress”—the work of an English tinkering Gipsy.
It is very singular that religious writers should strive to make out that Bunyan was not a Gipsy. If these writers really have the glory of God at heart, they should rather attempt to prove that he was a member of this race, which has been so much despised. For, thereby, the grace of God would surely be the more magnified. Have they never heard that Jesus Christ came into the world to preach the Gospel to the poor, to break the chains of the oppressed, and raise up the bowed-down? Have they never heard that the poor publican who, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes to heaven, but smote his breast, and exclaimed: “God be merciful to me, a sinner,” went down justified rather than him who gave thanks for his not being like other men, or even as that publican? Have they never heard that God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and things which are despised, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence? I shall wait, with considerable curiosity, to see whether the next editor, or biographer, of this illustrious Gipsy will take any notice of the present work; or whether he will dispose of it somewhat in this strain: “One of Bunyan’s modern reviewers, by a strange mistake, construes his self-disparaging admissions to mean that he was the offspring of Gipsies!”
Sir Walter Scott admits that Bunyan was most probably a “Gipsy reclaimed;” and Mr. Offor, that “his father must have been a Gipsy.”[320] But, with these exceptions, I know not if any writer upon Bunyan has more than hinted at the possibility of even a connexion between him and the Gipsies. It is very easy to account for all this, by the ignorance of the world in regard to the Gipsy tribe, but, above all, by the extreme prejudice of caste which is entertained against it. Does caste exist nowhere but in India? Does an Englishman feel curious to know what caste can mean? In few parts of the world does caste reign so supreme, as it does in Great Britain, towards the Gipsy nation. What is it but the prejudice of caste that has prevented the world from acknowledging Bunyan to have been a Gipsy? The evidence of the fact of his having been a Gipsy is positive enough. Will any one say that he does not believe that Bunyan meant to convey to the world a knowledge of the fact of his being a Gipsy? Or that he does not believe that the tinkers are Gipsies? Has any writer on Bunyan ever taken the trouble to ascertain who the tinkers really are; and that, in consequence of his investigations, he has come to the conclusion that they are not Gipsies? If no writer on the subject of the illustrious dreamer has ever taken that trouble, to what must we attribute the fact but the prejudice of caste? It is caste, and nothing but caste. What is it but the prejudice of caste that has led Lord Macaulay to invent his story about the tinkers? For what he says of the tinkers is a pure invention, or, at best, a delusion, on his part. What is it but the prejudice of caste that has prevented others from saying, plainly, that Bunyan was a Gipsy? It would be more manly if they were to leave Bunyan alone, than receive his works, and damn the man, that is, his blood. It places them on the level of boors, when they allow themselves to be swayed by the prejudices that govern boors. When they speak of, or write about, Bunyan, let them exercise common honesty, and receive both the man and the man’s works: let them not be guilty of petit larceny, or rather, great robbery, in the matter.
Southey, in his life of Bunyan, writes: “John Bunyan has faithfully recorded his own spiritual history. Had he dreamed of being ‘forever known,’ and taking his place among those who may be called the immortals of the earth, he would probably have introduced more details of his temporal circumstances, and the events of his life. But, glorious dreamer as he was, this never entered into his imagination.[321] Less concerning him than might have been expected has been preserved by those of his own sect; and it is not likely that anything more should be recovered from oblivion.” Remarks like these come with a singular grace from a man with so many prejudices as Southey. John Bunyan has told us as much of his history as he dared to do. It was a subject upon which, in some respects, he doubtless maintained a great reserve; for it cannot be supposed that a man occupying so prominent and popular a position, as a preacher and writer, and of so singular an origin, should have had no investigations made into his history, and that of his family; if not by his friends, at least, by his enemies, who seemed to have been capable of doing anything to injure and discredit him. But, very probably, his being a tinker was, with friends and enemies, a circumstance so altogether discreditable, as to render any investigation of the kind perfectly superfluous. In mentioning that much of himself which he did, Bunyan doubtless imagined that the world understood, or would have understood, what he meant, and would, sooner or later, acknowledge the race to which he belonged. And yet it has remained in this unacknowledged state for two centuries since his time. How unreasonable it is to imagine that Bunyan should have said, in as many words, that he was a Gipsy, when the world generally is so apt to become fired with indignation, should we now say that he was one of the race. How applicable are the words of his wife, to Sir Matthew Hale, to the people of the present day: “Because he is a tinker, and a poor man, he is despised, and cannot have justice.”
Had Southey exercised that common sense which is the inheritance of most of Englishmen, and divested himself of this prejudice of caste, which is likewise their inheritance, he never could have had any difficulty in forming a proper idea of Bunyan, and everything concerning him. And the same may be said of any person at the present day. John Bunyan was simply a Gipsy of mixed blood, who must have spoken the Gipsy language in great purity; for, considering the extent to which it is spoken in England, to-day, we can well believe that it was very pure two centuries ago, and that Bunyan might have written works even in that language. But such is the childish prejudice against the name of Gipsy, such the silly incredulity towards the subject, that, in Great Britain, and, I am sorry to say, with some people in America, one has nearly as much difficulty in persuading others to believe in it, as St. Paul had in inducing the Greeks to believe in the resurrection of the dead. Why seemeth it unto thee incredible that Bunyan was a Gipsy? or that Bunyan’s race should now be found in every town, in every village, and, perhaps, in every hamlet, in Scotland, and in every sphere of life?[322]
To a candid and unprejudiced person, it should afford a relief, in thinking of the immortal dreamer, that he should have been a member of this singular race, emerging from a state of comparative barbarism, and struggling upwards, amid so many difficulties, rather than he should have been of the very lowest of our own race; for in that case, there is an originality and dignity connected with him personally, that could not well attach to him, in the event of his having belonged to the dregs of the common natives. Beyond being a Gipsy, it is impossible to say what his pedigree really was. His grandfather might have been an ordinary native, even of fair birth, who, in a thoughtless moment, might have “gone off with the Gipsies;” or his ancestor, on the native side of the house, might have been one of the “many English loiterers” who joined the Gipsies on their arrival in England, when they were “esteemed and held in great admiration;” or he might have been a kidnapped infant; or such a “foreign tinker” as is alluded to in the Spanish Gipsy edicts, and in the Act of Queen Elizabeth, in which mention is made of “strangers,” as distinguished from natural born subjects, being with the Gipsies. The last is most probable, as the name, Bunyan, would seem to be of foreign origin. It is, therefore, very likely, that there was not a drop of common English blood in Bunyan’s veins. John Bunyan belongs to the world at large, and England is only entitled to the credit of the formation of his character. Be all that as it may, Bunyan’s father seems to have been a superior, and therefore important, man in the tribe, from the feet, as Southey says, of his having “put his son to school in an age when very few of the poor were taught to read and write.”
The world never can do justice to Bunyan, unless it takes him up as a Gipsy; nor can the Christian, unless he considers him as being a Gipsy, in Abraham’s bosom. His biographers have not, even in one instance, done justice to him; for, while it is altogether out of the question to call him the “wicked tinker,” the “depraved Bunyan,” it is unreasonable to style him a “blackguard,” as Southey has done. He might have been a blackguard in that sense in which a youth, in a village, is termed a “young blackguard,” for being the ringleader among the boys; or on account of his wearing a ragged coat, and carrying a hairy wallet on his shoulder, which, in a conventional sense, constitute any man, in Great Britain, a blackguard. Bunyan’s sins were confined to swearing, cursing, blaspheming, and lying; and were rather intensely manifested by the impetuosity of his character, or vividly described by the sincerity of his piety, and the liveliness of his genius, than deeply rooted in his nature; for he shook off the habit of swearing, (and, doubtless, that of lying,) on being severely reproved for it, by a loose and ungodly woman. Three of the kindred vices mentioned, (and, we might add the fourth, lying,) more frequently proceed from the influence of bad example and habit, than from anything inherently vicious, in a youth with so many of the good points which characterized Bunyan. His youth was even marked by a tender conscience, and a strong moral feeling; for thus he speaks of himself in “Grace Abounding:” “But this I well remember, that though I could myself sin, with the greatest delight and ease, and also take pleasure in the vileness of my companions, yet, even then, if I had, at any time, seen wicked things in those who professed goodness, it would make my spirit tremble. As, once above all the rest, when I was in the height of vanity, yet hearing one swear that was reckoned for a religious man, it had so great a stroke upon my spirit, that it made my heart ache.” He was the subject of these experiences before he was ten years of age. It is unnecessary to speak of his dancing, ringing bells, and playing at tip-cat and hockey. Now, let us see what was Bunyan’s moral character. He was not a drunkard; and he says: “I know not whether there be such a thing as a woman breathing, under the copes of heaven, but by their apparel, their children, or by common fame, except my wife.” And he continues: “Had not a miracle of precious grace prevented, I had laid myself open even to the stroke of those laws which bring some to disgrace and open shame, before the face of the world.” The meaning of this is, evidently, that he never stole anything; but that it was “by a miracle of precious grace” he was prevented from doing it. In what sense, then, was Bunyan a blackguard? There was never such occasion for him to say of himself, what John Newton said of himself, as a criminal passed him, on the way to the gallows: “There goes John Bunyan, but for the grace of God.” But such was the depth of Bunyan’s piety, that hardly any one thought and spoke more disparagingly of himself than he did; although he would defend himself, with indignation, against unjust charges brought against him; for, however peaceable and humble he might be, he would turn most manfully upon his enemies, when they baited or badgered him. “It began, therefore, to be rumoured, up and down among the people, that I was a witch, a Jesuit, a highwayman, and the like. . . . . I also call those fools and knaves that have thus made it anything of their business to affirm any of these things aforesaid of me, namely, that I have been naught with other women, or the like. . . . My foes have missed their mark in this their shooting at me. I am not the man. I wish that they themselves be guiltless. If all the fornicators and adulterers in England were hanged up by the neck till they be dead, John Bunyan, the object of their envy, would be still alive and well.” The style of his language even indicated the Gipsy; for English Gipsies, as Mr. Borrow justly remarks, speak the English language much better than the natives of the lower classes; for this apparent reason, that they have not the dialect of any particular part of England, which would be, were they always to have resided in a particular place. It must have been more so before the middle of the seventeenth century, upwards of a hundred years after the arrival of the Gipsies in England; for, in acquiring the English language, they would keep clear of many of the rude dialects that so commonly prevail in that country. But Bunyan’s language was, doubtless, drawn principally from the Scriptures.
The illustrious pilgrim had many indignities cast upon him, by the lower and unthinking classes of the population, and by Quakers and strict Baptists. ‘Twas a man like John Owen who knew how to appreciate and respect him; for, said he to Charles II.: “I would readily part with all my learning, could I but preach like the tinker.” And what was it that supported Bunyan, amid all the abuse and obloquy to which he was exposed, as he obeyed the call of God, and preached the gospel, in season and out of season, to every creature around him? When they sneered at his origin, and the occupation from which he had risen, he said: “Such insults I freely bind unto me, as an ornament, among the rest of my reproaches, till the Lord shall wipe them off at his coming.” And again: “The poor Christian hath something to answer them that reproach him for his ignoble pedigree, and shortness of the glory of the wisdom of this world. I fear God. This is the highest and most noble; he hath the honour, the life, and glory that is lasting.”[323]
In Great Britain, the off-scourings of the earth can say who they are, and no prejudices are entertained against them. Half-caste Hindoos, Malays, Hottentots, and Negroes, are “sent home,” to be educated, and made pets of, and have the choice of white women given to them for wives; but the children of a Scottish Christian Gipsy gentleman, or of a Scottish Christian Gipsy gentlewoman, dare not say who they are, were it almost to save their lives. Scottish people will wonder at what caste in India can mean, deplore its existence, and pray to God to remove it, that “the gospel may have free course and be glorified;” yet scowl—silently and sullenly scowl—at the bare mention of John Bunyan having been a Gipsy! Scottish religious journals will not tolerate the idea to appear in their columns! To such people I would say, Offer up no more prayers to Almighty God, to remove caste from India, until they themselves have removed from the land this prejudice of caste, that hangs like an incubus upon so many of their fellow-subjects at home. It is quite time enough to carry such petitions to the Deity, when every Scottish Gipsy can make a return of himself in the census, or proclaim himself a Gipsy at the cross, or from the house-top, if need be; or, at least, after steps have been taken by the public to that end. But some of my countrymen may say: “What are we to do, under the circumstances?” And I reply: “Endeavour to be yourselves, and judge of this subject as it ought to be judged. You can, at least, try to guard against your children acquiring your own prejudices.” To the rising town generation, I would look with more hope to see a better feeling entertained for the name of Gipsy. But I look with more confidence to the English than Scottish people; for this question of “folk” is very apt to rankle and fester in the Scottish mind. I wish, then, that the British, and more especially the Scottish, public should consider itself as cited before the bar of the world, and not only the bar of the world, but the bar of posterity, to plead on the Gipsy question, that it may be seen if this is the only instance in which justice is not to be done to a part of the British population. With the evidence furnished in the present work, I submit the name of Bunyan, as a case in point, to test the principle at issue. Let British people beware how they approach this subject, for there are great principles involved in it. The social emancipation of the Gipsies is a question which British people have to consider for the future.
The day is gone by when it cannot be said who John Bunyan was. In Cowper’s time, his name dare not be mentioned, “lest it should move a sneer.” Let us hope that we are living in happier times. Tinkering was Bunyan’s occupation; his race the Gipsy—a fact that cannot be questioned. His having been a Gipsy adds, by contrast, a lustre to his name, and reflects an immortality upon his character; and he stands out, from among all the men of the latter half of the seventeenth century, in all his solitary grandeur, a monument of the grace of God, and a prodigy of genius. Let us, then, enroll John Bunyan as the first (that is known to the world) of eminent Gipsies, the prince of allegorists, and one of the most remarkable of men and Christians. What others of this race there may be who have distinguished themselves among mankind, are known to God and, it may be, some of the Gipsies. The saintly Doctor to whom I have alluded was one of this singular people; and one beyond question, for his admission of the fact cannot be denied by any one. Any life of John Bunyan, or any edition of his works, that does not contain a record of the fact of his having been a Gipsy, lacks the most important feature connected with the man that makes everything relating to him personally interesting to mankind. It should even contain a short dissertation on the Gipsies, and have, as a frontispiece, a Gipsy’s camp, with all its appurtenances. The reader may believe that such a thing may be seen, and that, perhaps, not before long.
It strikes me as something very singular, that Mr. Borrow, “whose acquaintance with the Gipsy race, in general, dates from a very early period of his life;” who “has lived more with Gipsies than Scotchmen;” and than whom “no one ever enjoyed better opportunities for a close scrutiny of their ways and habits,” should have told us so little about the Gipsies. In all his writings on the Gipsies, he alludes to two mixed Gipsies only—the Spanish half-pay captain, and the English flaming tinman—in a way as if these were the merest of accidents, and meant nothing. He has told us nothing of the Gipsies but what was known before, with the exception, as far as my memory serves me, of the custom of the Spanish Gipsy, dressing her daughter in such a way as to protect her virginity; the existence of the tribe, in a civilized state, in Moscow; and the habit of the members of the race possessing two names; all of which are, doubtless, interesting pieces of information. The Spanish Gipsy marriage ceremony was described, long before him, by Dr. Bright; and Twiss, as far back as 1723, bears testimony to the virtue of Gipsy females, inasmuch as they were not to be procured in any way. Twiss also bears very positive testimony on a point to which Mr. Borrow has not alluded, viz.: the honesty of Spanish Gipsy innkeepers, in one respect, at least, that, although he frequently left his linen, spoons, &c., at their mercy, he never lost an article belonging to him. He alludes, in his travels, to the subject of the Gipsies incidentally; and his testimony is, therefore, worthy of every credit, on the points on which he speaks. In Mr. Borrow’s writings upon the Gipsies, we find only sketches of certain individuals of the race, whom he seems to have fallen in with, and not a proper account of the nation. These writings have done more injury to the tribe than, perhaps, anything that ever appeared on the subject. I have met with Gipsies—respectable young men—who complained bitterly of Mr. Borrow’s account of their race; and they did that with good reason; for his attempt at generalization on the subject of the people, is as great a curiosity as ever I set my eyes upon. How unsatisfactory are Mr. Borrow’s opinions on the Gipsy question, when he speaks of the “decadence” of the race, when it is only passing from its first stage of existence—the tent. This he does in his Appendix to the Romany Rye; and it is nearly all that can be drawn from his writings on the Gipsies, in regard to their future history.
I do not expect to meet among American people, generally, with the prejudice against the name of Gipsy that prevails in Europe; for, in Europe, the prejudice is traditional—a question of the nursery—while, in America, it is derived, for the most part, from novels. American people will, of course, form their own opinion upon the tented or any other kind of Gipsies, as their behaviour warrants; but what prejudice can they have for the Gipsy race as such? As a race, it is, physically, as fine a one as ever came out of Asia; although, at the present day, it is so much mixed with the white blood, as hardly to be observable in many, and absolutely not so in others, who follow the ordinary vocations of other men. What prejudice can Americans have against Gipsy blood as such? What prejudice can they have to the Maryland farmers who have been settled, for at least two generations, near Annapolis, merely because they are Gipsies and speak Gipsy? If there is any people in the world who might be expected to view the subject of the Gipsies dispassionately, it ought to be the people of America; for surely they have prejudices enough in regard to race; prejudices, the object of which is independent of character or condition—something that stares them in the face, and cannot be got rid of. If they have the practical sagacity to perceive the bearings of the Gipsy question, they should at once take it up, and treat it in the manner which the age demands. They have certainly an opportunity of stealing a march upon English people in this matter.
Part of what I have said in reference to Bunyan, I was desirous of having inserted in a respectable American religious journal, but I did not succeed in it. “It would take up too much room in the paper, and give rise to more discussion than they could afford to print.”—“Perhaps you would not wish it to be said that John Bunyan was a Gipsy?”—“Oh, not at all,” replied the editor, colouring up a little. I found that several of these papers devoted a pretty fair portion of their space to such articles as funny monkey stories, and descriptions of rat-trap and cow-tail-holder patents; but for anything of so very little importance as that which referred to John Bunyan, they could afford no room whatever. Who cared to know who John Bunyan was? What purpose could it serve? Who would be benefited by it? But funny monkey stories are pleasant reading; every housewife should know how to keep down her rats; and every farmer should be taught how to keep his cows’ tails from whisking their milk in his face, while it is being drawn into the pail. Not succeeding with the religious papers, I found expression to my sentiments in one of the “ungodly weeklies,” which devote their columns to rats, monkeys, and cows, and a little to mankind; and there I found a feeling of sympathy for Bunyan. Let it not be said, in after times, that the descendants of the Puritans allowed themselves to be frightened by a scare-crow, or put to flight by the shake of a rag.
I am afraid that the native-born quarrelsomeness of disposition about “folk,” and things in general, which characterizes Scottish people, will prove a bar to the Gipsies owning themselves up in Scotland. Go into any Scottish village you like, and ascertain the feelings which the inhabitants entertain for each other, and you will find that such a one is a “poor grocer body;” that another belongs to a “shoemaker pack,” another to a “tailor pack,” another to a “cadger pack,” another to a “collier pack,” and another to a “low Tinkler pack;” another to a “bad nest,” and another to a “very bad nest.” And it is pretty much the same with the better classes. Now, how could the Gipsy tribe live amid such elements, if it did not keep everything connected with itself hidden from all the other “packs” surrounding it? And is it consonant with reason to say, that a Scotchman should be rated as standing at the bottom of all the various “packs” and “nests,” simply because he has Gipsy blood in his veins? Yet, I meet with Scotchmen in the New World, who express such a feeling towards the Gipsies. This quarrelling about “folk” reigns supreme in Scotland; and, what is worse, it is brought with the people to America. It is inherent in them to be personal and intolerant, among themselves, and to talk of, and sneer at, each other, and “cast up things.” In that respect, a community of Scotch people presents a peculiarity of mental feeling that is hardly to be found in one of any other people. When they come together, in social intercourse, there is frequently, if not generally, a hearty, if not a boisterous, flow of feeling, and, if the bottle contributes to the entertainment, a foam upon the surface; but the under-tow and ground-swell are frequently long in subsiding. Even in America, where they are reputed to have the clanishness of Jews, we will find within their respective circles, more heart-burnings, jealousies, envyings, and quarrellings, (but little or no Irish fighting, for they are rather given to “taking care of their characters,”) than is to be found among almost any other people. At the best, there may be said to be an armed truce always to be found existing among them. Still, all that is not known to people outside of these circles; for those within them are animated by a common national sentiment, which leads them to conceal such feelings from others, so as to “uphold the credit of their country,” wherever they go. It will be a difficult matter to get the Gipsies heartily acknowledged among such elements as equals; for it makes many a native Scot wild, to tell him that there are Scottish Gipsies as good, if not better, men than he is, or any kith or kin that belongs to him.
And yet, it is not the Scottish gentleman—the gentleman by birth, rearing, education, mind, or manners—who will be backward to assist in raising up, and dignifying, the name of Gipsy. No; it will be the low-minded and ignorant Scots; people who are always either fawning upon, or sneering at, those above them, or trampling, or attempting to trample, upon those below them. It is very apt to be that class which Lord Jeffrey describes as “having a double allowance of selfishness, with a top-dressing of pedantry and conceit,” and some of the “but and ben” gentry, who will sneer most at the word Gipsy. It is the flunkey, who lives and brings up his family upon the cast-off clothes and broken victuals of others, and out for whom such things would find their way to the rag-basket and the pigs; ‘tis he and his children who are too often the most difficult to please in the matter of descent, and the most likely to perpetuate the prejudice against the Gipsy tribe.
I have taken some trouble to ascertain the feelings of Scotchmen in America towards the Scottish Gipsies, such as they are represented in these pages; and I find that, among the really educated and liberally brought up classes, there are not to be discovered those prejudices against them, that are expressed by the lower classes, and especially those from country places. It is natural for the former kind of people to take the most liberal view of a question like the present; for they are, in a measure, satisfied with their position in life; while, with the lower classes, it is a feeling of restless discontentment that leads them to strive to get some one under them. No one would seem to like to be at the bottom of any society; and nowhere less so than in Scotland. A good education and up-bringing, and a knowledge of the world, likewise give a person a more liberal cast of mind, wherewith to form an opinion upon the subject of the Gipsies; and it is upon such that I would mainly rely in an attempt to raise up the name of Gipsy. Among the lower classes of my own countrymen, I find individuals all that could be desired in the matter of esteeming the Gipsies, according to the characters they bear, and the positions they occupy in life; but they are exceptions to the classes to which they belong. Here is a specimen of the kind of Scot the most difficult to break in to entertaining a proper feeling upon the subject of the Gipsies:
By birth, he is a child of that dependent class that gets a due share of the broken victuals and cast-off clothes of other people. His parents are decent and honest enough people, but very conceited and self-sufficient. Any person in the shape of a mechanic, a labourer, or a peasant, appears as nobody to them; although, in independence, and even circumstances, they are not to be compared to many a peasant. The “oldest bairn” takes his departure for the New World, “with the firm determination to show to the world that he is a man,” and “teach the Yankees something.” The first thing he does to “show the world that he is a man,” is to sneer, behave rudely, and attempt to pick quarrels with a better class of his own countrymen, when he comes in contact with them. Providence has not been over-indulgent with him in the matters of perceptors or reflectors; for, what little he knows, he has acquired in the manner that chickens pick up their food, when it is placed before them. But he has been gifted with a wonderful amount of self-conceit, which nothing can break down in him, however much it may be abashed for the moment. No one boasts more of his “family,” to those who do not know who his family are, although his family were brought up in a cage, and so small a cage, that some of them must have roosted on the spars overhead at night. No one is more independent, none more patriotic; no one boasts more of Wallace and Bruce, Burns and Scott, and all the worthies; to him there is no place in the world like “auld Scotland yet;” no one glories more in “the noble qualities of the Scot;” and none’s face burns with more importance in upholding, unchallenged, what he claims to be his character; yet the individual is a compound of conceit and selfishness, meanness and sordidness, and is estimated, wherever he goes, as a “perfect sweep.” Although no one is more given to toasting, “Brithers a’ the world o’er,” and, “A man’s a man for a’ that,” yet speak of the Gipsies to him, and he exclaims: “Thank God! there’s no a drap o’ Gipsy blood in me; no one drap o’t!” Not only is he unable to comprehend the subject, but he is unwilling to hear the word Gipsy mentioned. In short, he turns up his nose at the subject, and howls like a dog.[324]
It is the better kind of Scottish people, in whatever sphere of life they are to be found, on whom the greatest reliance is to be placed in raising up and dignifying the word Gipsy. This peculiar family of mankind has been fully three centuries and a half in the country, and it is high time that it should be acknowledged, in some form or other; high time, certainly, that we should know something about it. To an intelligent people it must appear utterly ridiculous that a prejudice is to be entertained against any Scotchman, without knowing who that Scotchman is, merely on account of his blood. Nor will any intelligent Scotchman, after the appearance of this work, be apt to say that he does not understand the subject of the Gipsies; or that they cease to be Gipsies by leaving the tent, or by a change of character or habits, or by their blood getting mixed. It will not do for any one to snap at the heels of this question: he must look at it steadily, and approach it with a clear head, a firm hand, and a Christian heart, and remove this stigma that has been allowed to attach to his country. No one in particular can be blamed for the position which the Gipsies occupy in the country: let by-gones be by-gones; let us look to the future for that expression of opinion which the subject calls for. This much I feel satisfied of, that if the Gipsy subject is properly handled, it would result in the name becoming as much an object of respect and attachment in many of the race, as it is now considered a reproach in others. There is much that is interesting in the name, and nothing necessarily low or vulgar associated with it; although there is much that is wild and barbarous connected with the descent, which is peculiar to the descent of all original tribes. It is unnecessary to say, that in a part of the race, we still find much that is wild, and barbarous, and roguish.
The latter part of the Gipsy nation, whether settled or itinerant, must be reached indirectly, for reasons which have already been given; for it does not serve much purpose to interfere too directly with them, as Gipsies. We should bring a reflective influence to bear upon them, by holding up to their observation, some of their own race in respectable positions in life, and respected by the world, as men, though not known to be Gipsies. I could propose no better plan to be adopted, with some of these people, than to give them a copy of the present work, along with the Pilgrim’s Progress, containing a short account of the Gipsies, and a Gipsy’s encampment for a frontispiece. The world may well believe that the Gipsies would read both of them, and be greatly benefited by the Pilgrim’s Progress; for, as a race, they are exceedingly vain about anything connected with themselves. Said I to some English Gipsies: “You are the vainest people in the world; you think a vast deal of yourselves.” “There is good reason for that,” they replied; “if we do not think something of ourselves, there are no others to do it for us.” Now since John Bunyan has become so famous throughout the world, and so honoured by all sects and parties, what an inimitable instrument Providence has placed in our hands wherewith to raise up the name of Gipsy! Through him we can touch the heart of Christendom! I am well aware that the Church of Scotland has, or at least had, a mission among the itinerant Scottish Gipsies. In addition to the means adopted by this mission, to improve these Gipsies, it would be well to take such steps as I have suggested, so as to raise up the name of Gipsy. For, in this way, the Gipsies, of all classes, would see that they are not outcasts; but that the prejudices which people entertain for them are applicable to their ways of life, only, and not to their blood or descent, tribe or language. Their hearts would then become more easily touched, their affections more readily secured; and the attempt made to improve them would have a much better chance of being successful. A little judgment is necessary in conducting an intercourse with the wild Gipsy, or, indeed, any kind of Gipsy; it is very advisable to speak well of “the blood,” and never to confound the race with the conduct of part of it. There is hardly anything that can give a poor Gipsy greater pleasure than to tell him something about his people, and particularly should they be in a respectable position in life, and be attached to their nation. It serves no great purpose to appear too serious with such a person, for that soon tires him. It is much better to keep him a little buoyant and cheerful, with anecdotes and stories, for that is his natural character; and to take advantage of occasional opportunities, to slip in advices that are to be of use to him. What is called long-facedness is entirely thrown away upon a Gipsy of this kind.
I am very much inclined to believe that a Gipsy, well up in the scale of Scottish society, experiences, in one respect, nearly the same feelings in coming in contact with a wild Gipsy, that are peculiar to any other person. These are of a very singular nature. At first, we feel as if we were going into the lair of a wild animal, or putting our finger into a snake’s mouth; such is the result of the prejudice in which we have been reared from infancy; but these feelings become greatly modified as we get accustomed to the people. The world has never had the opportunity of fairly contemplating any other kind of Gipsy; hence the extreme prejudice against the name. But when we get accustomed to meet with other kinds of Gipsies, and have associations with them, the feeling of prejudice changes to that of decided interest and attachment. I have met with various Scottish Gipsies of the female sex, in America, and, among others, one who could sit any day for an ideal likeness of the mother of Burns. She takes little of the Gipsy in her appearance. There is another, taking greatly after the Gipsy, born in Scotland, and reared in America; a very fine motherly person, indeed. I cannot, at the present stage of matters, mention the word Gipsy to her, but I know very well that she is a Gipsy. It takes some time for the feeling of prejudice for the word Gipsy to wear off, when contemplating even a passable kind of Gipsy. That object would be much more easily attained, were the people to own “the blood,” unreservedly and cheerfully; for the very reserve, to a great extent, creates, at least keeps alive, the prejudice. But that cannot well take place till the word “Gipsy” bears the signification of gentleman, in some of the race, as it does of vagabond, in others.
Some of my readers may still ask: “What is a Gipsy, after all that has been said upon the subject? Since it is not necessarily a question of colour of face, or hair, or eyes, or of creed, or character, or of any outward thing by which a human being can be distinguished; what is it that constitutes a Gipsy?” And I reply: “Let them read this work through, and thoroughly digest all its principles, and they can feel what a Gipsy is, should they stumble upon one, it may be, in their own sphere of life, and hear him, or her, admit the fact, and speak unreservedly of it. They will then feel their minds rubbing against the Gipsy mind, their spirits communing with the Gipsy spirit, and experience a peculiar mental galvanic shock, which they never felt before.”[325] It is impossible to say where the Gipsy soul may not exist at the present day, for there is this peculiarity about the tribe, as I have said before, that it always remains Gipsy, cross it out to the last drop of the original blood; for where that drop goes, the Gipsy soul accompanies it.[326]
It is the Christian who should be the most ready to take up and do justice to this subject; for he will find in it a very singular work of Providence—the most striking phenomenon in the history of man. In Europe, the race has existed, in an unacknowledged state, for a greater length of time than the Jews dwelt in Egypt. And it is time that it should be introduced to the family of mankind, in its aspect of historical development; embracing, as in Scotland, members ranging from what are popularly understood to be Gipsies, to those filling the first positions in Christian and social society. After perusing the present work, the reader will naturally pass on to reconsider the subject of the Jews; and he will perceive that, instead of its being a miracle by which the Jews have existed since the dispersion, it would have been a miracle had they been lost among the families of mankind. It is quite sufficient for the Christian to know that the Jews now exist, and that they have fulfilled, and will yet fulfill, the prophecies that have been delivered in regard to them, without holding that any miracle has been wrought for that end. A Christian ought to be more considerate in his estimate of what a miracle is: he ought to know that a miracle is something that is contrary to natural laws; and that the existence of the Jews, since the dispersion, is in exact harmony with every natural law. He should not maintain that it is a miracle, for nothing having the decent appearance of an argument can be advanced in support of any such theory; and far less should he, with his eyes open, do what the writer on the Christian Evidences, alluded to, ([page 459],) did, with his shut—gamble away both law and gospel.[327] He might give his attention, however, to a prophecy of Moses, quoted by St. Paul, in Rom. x. 19, from Deut. xxxii. 21, wherein it is said of the Jews: “I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you;” and lend his assistance towards its fulfillment.[328] The subject of the Gipsies is certainly calculated to do all that the prophet said would happen to the Jews; if Christians will only do their duty to them, and, by playing them off against the Jews, provoke and anger Israel beyond measure. That the Jews have existed, since the dispersion, by the Providence of God, is what can be said of any other people, and more especially of the Gipsies for the last four centuries and a half in Europe. It is as natural for the Gipsies to exist in their scattered state, as for other nations by the laws that preserve their identity; and although their history may be termed remarkable, it is in no sense of the word miraculous, notwithstanding the superstitious ideas held by many of the Gipsies on that head, in common with the Jews regarding their history. A thousand years hence the Gipsies will be found existing in the world; for, as a people, they cannot die out; and the very want of a religion peculiar to themselves is one of the means that will contribute to that end.[329] It is the Christian who should endeavour to have the prejudice against the name of Gipsy removed, so that every one of the race should freely own his blood to the other, and make it the basis of a kindly feeling, and a bond of brotherhood, all around the world.
I may be allowed to say a word or two to the Gipsies, and more especially the Scottish Gipsies. I wish them to believe, (what they, indeed, believe already,) that their blood and descent are good enough; and that Providence may reasonably be assumed to look upon both with as much complacency and satisfaction, as He does on any other blood and descent. All that they have to do is to “behave themselves;” for, after all, it is behaviour that makes the man. By all means “stick to the ship,” but sail her as an honourable merchantman. They need not be afraid at being discovered to be Gipsies; they should feel as much assured on the subject now, as before the publication of this work, and never entertain the least misgiving on that score. They will have an occasion to cultivate a proper degree of confidence in respect to themselves, and be so prepared as never to commit themselves, if they wish not to be known as Gipsies. I know there are few people who have nerve enough so to deport themselves, as to prevent moral detection, who have committed murder, when they are confronted with the objects of it; but if the individuals are perfectly satisfied of there being no evidence against them, they may confidently assume an appearance of innocence. It is so with the Gipsies in settled life, as to their being Gipsies. Generally speaking, their blood is so much mixed as almost to defy detection; although, for the future, some of them will be very apt to look at themselves in their mirrors, to see whether there is much of the “black deil” in their faces. But it rests with themselves to escape detection, and particularly so as regards the fair, brown, and red Gipsies.
I may also be allowed to say a word or two to the Church, and people generally. It says little for them, that, although two centuries have elapsed since Bunyan’s time, no one has acknowledged him. It surely might have occurred to them to ask, 1stly: What was that particular family, or tribe, of which Bunyan said he was a member? 2ndly: Who are the tinkers? 3dly: What was the meaning of Bunyan entertaining so much solicitude, and undergoing so much trouble, to ascertain whether he, (a common Englishman, forsooth!) was a Jew, or not? 4thly: Was John Bunyan a Gipsy? Let my reader reply to these questions, like a man of honour. Aye or nay, was John Bunyan a Gipsy? “He was a Gipsy.”
In modern times people will preach the gospel “around about Illyricum,” compass sea and land, and penetrate every continent, to bring home Christian trophies; while in Bunyan they have a trophy—a real case of “grace abounding;” and yet no one has acknowledged him, although his fame will be as lasting as the pyramids. John Bunyan was evidently a man who was raised up by God for some great purposes. One of these purposes he has served, and will yet serve; and it becomes us to enquire what further purpose he is destined to serve. It is showing a poor respect for Bunyan’s memory, to deny him his nationality, to rob him of his birth-right, and attempt to make him out to have been that which he positively was not. To gratify their own prejudices, people would degrade the illustrious dreamer, from being this great original, into being the off-scourings of all England. People imagine that they would degrade Bunyan by saying that he was a Gipsy. They degrade themselves who do not believe he was a Gipsy; they doubly degrade themselves who deny it. Jews may well taunt Christians in the matter of evidences, and that on a simple matter of fact, affecting no one’s interests, temporal or eternal, and as clear as the sun at mid-day; for by Bunyan’s own showing he was a Gipsy; but if any further evidence was wanted, how easily could it not have been collected, any time during the last two hundred years!
I have hitherto got the “cold shoulder” from the organs of most of the religious denominations on this subject: time will show whether it is always to be so. The Church should know what is its mission: it rests on evidence itself, and it should be the first to follow out its own principles. It should fight its own battles, and give the enemy no occasion to speak reproachfully of it. In approaching this subject, it would be well to do it cheerfully, and gracefully, and manfully, and not as if the person were dragged to it, with a rope around his neck. No one need imagine that by keeping quiet, this matter will blow over. For the Gipsy race cannot die out; nor is this work likely to die out soon; for unless it is superseded by some other, it will come up centuries hence, to judge the present generation on the Gipsy question. May such as have written on the great dreamer never lift up their heads, may his works turn to hot coals in their fingers, may their memories be outlawed, if they allow this unchristian, this unmanly, this silly, this childish, prejudice of caste to prevent them from doing justice to their hero. Nor need any one utter a murmur at the prospect of seeing the Pilgrim’s Progress prefaced by a dissertation on the Gipsies, with a Gipsy’s camp for a frontispiece. Such a feeling may be expressed by boors, snobs, and counterfeit religionists; but better things are to be expected from other people.
Let the reader now pause, and reflect upon the prejudice of caste that exists against the name of Gipsy, and he will fully realize how it is that we should know so little about the Gipsies, and why it is that the Gipsies, as they leave the tent, should hide their nationality from the rest of the world, and “stick to each other.”
In bringing this [Disquisition] on the Gipsies to a close, I may be allowed to say a word or two to some of the critics. In the first place, I may venture to assert, that the subject is worthy of a criticism the most disinterested and profound. I am well aware that the publication of the work places me in a position antagonistic alike to authors and critics who have written on the subject, as well as to the prejudices of mankind generally. If critics call in question any of the facts contained in the production, they must give their authorities; if they controvert any of the principles, they must give their reasons. It will not do to play the ostrich instead of the critic. For as the ostrich is said to hide its head in the sand, or in a bush, or, it may be, under its wing, and imagine that because it sees no one, so no one sees it; so there are people, sometimes to be met with, who will not only imagine, but assert, that because they know nothing of a thing, or because they do not understand it, therefore, the thing itself does not exist. This was the way in which Bruce’s travels in Africa were received. But we are not living in those times. Procedure such as that described, is playing the ostrich, not the critic. I refer more particularly, however, to what is contained in this [Disquisition]. Taking the work all through, I think there are sufficient materials contained in it, to enable the critics to settle the various questions among themselves.
To place myself in a position a little independent of publishers, (for I have had great difficulty in finding a publisher,) I had the [Introduction], ([pages 55]-[67]), printed, and circulated among some acquaintances in Canada, for subscribers.[330] A copy of it fell into the hands of an intelligent Scottish newspaper editor, in a small community, where every one knows every other’s business nearly as well as his own, and where all about the Prospectus was explained to those to whom it was given. It seems to have frightened and enraged the editor to such an extent, that I entertain little doubt he did not sleep comfortably, for nights in succession, on finding that subject brought to light at his own door, which has been considered, by some, as well-nigh dead and buried long ago. He imagines the circulation of the Prospectus to be confined pretty much to his own neighbourhood; and so he must crush the horrible thing out. But what can he say about it? How put it down? A capital idea occurs to him; he will father it upon Barnum! Let the reader glance again at the [Introduction], and imagine how a Scotchman, well posted up on Scotch affairs, past and present, should credit Barnum with the production. He heads his criticism, “The science of humbug,” and, in some long and bitter paragraphs, pitches into what he calls American literary quackery; the substance of which is, that the work represented by the Prospectus, is a rare tit-bit of genuine, Barnumized, American humbug!
He finds, however, that he has gone much too far in his description of the Prospectus; so he comes tumbling down a long way from the high position which he took at the start, and continues: “Now, we do not, at present, venture the assertion that the forthcoming ‘Scottish Gipsies’ is a Yankee get-up, a mere American humbug; but we say the Prospectus savours strongly of the Barnum school; and our reasons for so saying are the following: Firstly: It would be nothing less than a literary miracle, that a Scottish work of sufficient merit to command the highest commendations of Sir Walter Scott, and Blackwood’s Magazine, should be published, first of all in America, thirty years afterwards—published, by subscription, at one dollar, in a book of 400 pages. We assert, positively, that of such a work William Blackwood, alone, could have disposed of five thousand copies, at double the proposed price. [He is well acquainted with the prices of books in the two countries.] Secondly: There is no evidence to connect Sir Walter Scott’s note to Quentin Durward with Walter Simson, or any other particular individual; and the same may be said of the jingle of Professor Wilson, and the other allusions in Blackwood’s Magazine. Thirdly: There is neither danger nor difficulty in writing anything you please, and telling the public it is an extract of a private letter you had from some particular man of eminence, thirty years ago, provided your eminent friend has been many years in his grave. Such a fraud is not easily detected. And Fourthly: The reason assigned for publishing the ‘Scottish Gipsies’ . . . . . is totally upset by the simple fact, that there are no such people in existence, in so far as Scotland is concerned. [What an audacity he displays here! What a liberty he takes with the Scotch settlers in his neighbourhood! He is evidently afraid that he has gone too far; so he qualifies what he has said, by adding:] There are, it is true, a few families of itinerant tinkers, or Tinklers, according to our peculiar vernacular, who stroll the country, and subsist by making horn-spoons and sauce-pans, which they barter with the rural peasantry, for potatoes and other eatables. They are generally wild, reckless, and dishonest, and are a terror to children and old women. In nineteen cases out of twenty, they are natives of Ireland; and were any person idle enough to trace their genealogy, he would discover that their ancestors, not more than three generations back, were honest brogue-makers, pig-drovers, or, it may be, members of some more elevated occupation. [He has been ‘idle enough’ to give us a very odd account of the descent, in two senses of the word, of the Irish tinkering Gipsies now in Scotland.] The writer of these remarks is well acquainted with almost the whole Lowlands, and a portion of the West Highlands. He has been familiar with the shires of Fife and Linlithgow, with Annandale, the Upper Ward of Lanarkshire, and the other fabulously reputed haunts of the Gipsies [he seems to have done a little tramping in his time]; and he never saw twenty Scottish Tinklers in his whole life, nor one single individual corresponding to the description we have received of the Gipsies. [He has told us who the Irish Tinklers in Scotland were originally, but does not venture to say anything of the Scottish ones. He will not admit that there is a Gipsy in Scotland, or ever has been; and virtually denies that there are Gipsies in England; for he continues:] The nearest approach to the character is the hawkers from the Staffordshire potteries, who are found living in tents by the way-side, throughout the North Riding of Yorkshire, and the five northern counties of England. These are a kind of savages, who live in families, strolling the country, in large caravans, consisting frequently of half a dozen canvas-covered wagons and twice that number of horses. . . . . . These characters often cross the Border, at Langholm and Gretna Green, and infest Annandale, Roxburghshire, Dumfries-shire, and the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright. [He will not allude to the tented Gipsies in England.]
“These two classes of foreign vagrants [why does he call them foreign vagrants? why not say Gipsies?] which we mention, are to be found, occasionally, in certain localities of Scotland, [still nothing said of the Scottish Tinklers,] and are to be found as a dreaded, dangerous nuisance. But the idea of a race of Scottish Tinklers, or Scottish Gipsies, existing as a distinct and separate people, possessing a native, independent language, and peculiar habits, rites, and ceremonies, and bearing, in many features of their barbarous customs, and outcast destiny, a resemblance to the vagabond Jews; such an idea, we say, has as little foundation in fact, as has Swift’s story of the Lilliputians, or the romance of Guy Mannering itself! [It is astonishing what he would not attempt to palm upon the public. Still, he is evidently afraid that the subject will, somehow or other, bite him; and, after all that he has said, he concludes:] Still, we do not, at present, assert that the Prospectus we have received is another ‘cute move of American humbug; but we do say, if there is a James Simson in existence, who possesses such a manuscript, and such commendations of it as are set forth in this Prospectus, he has already erred sufficiently far to ensure his identification with Yankee quackery. He has been Barnumized into an egregious blunder.” [He is bound to discredit the whole affair, under any circumstances, even at the expense of the plainest consistency.]
Well might a brother editor reply to the foregoing, thus: “The bile of our excellent friend has just been agitated after a pestilent fashion. . . . . . The announcement [of the intended publication] hath all the ungenial effects upon our gossip that the exhibition of a pair of scarlet decencies produces upon a cranky bull. . . . . . Now, just listen to us quietly for a little. More than two years ago, the manuscript of the above-mentioned treatise on the Scoto-Egyptians came under our ken. We perused the affair with special appetite, and were decidedly of opinion that its publication would be a grateful and important boon to the republic of letters. Mr. Simson is neither a myth nor a disciple of Barnum.” Upon the back of this, the first editor writes: “We are pleased to be informed that the work is a bona fide production, and that Mr. Simson is no Yankee fiction. [As if he did not know that from the first.] And albeit he, [the other editor,] furnisheth neither facts nor arguments to satisfy us that our notions of the Gipsies of Scotland are heretical, we willingly accept his recommend that the ‘Scottish Gipsies’ will be, at least, an entertaining book, and reserve all further remarks till we see it.”[!]
The foregoing is a very curious criticism; and although I could say a great deal more about it, I refrain from doing so.
[258] This Spanish Gipsy is reported by Mr. Borrow to have said: “She, however, remembered her blood, and hated my father, and taught me to hate him likewise. When a boy, I used to stroll about the plain, that I might not see my father; and my father would follow me, and beg me to look upon him, and would ask me what I wanted; and I would reply, ‘Father, the only thing I want is to see you dead!’”
This is certainly an extreme instance of the result of the prejudice against the Gipsy race; and no opinion can be formed upon it, without knowing some of the circumstances connected with the feelings of the father, or his relations, toward the mother and the Gipsy race generally. This Gipsy woman seems to have been well brought up by her protector and husband; for she taught her child Gipsy from a MS., and procured a teacher to instruct him in Latin. There are many reflections to be drawn from the circumstances connected with this Spanish Gipsy family, but they do not seem to have occurred to Mr. Borrow.
[259] It is claimed, by some Scottish Gipsies, that there are full-blood Gipsies at Yetholm, but I do not believe it. This, I may venture to say, that there can be no certainty, but, on the contrary, great doubt, on the subject. But, after all, what is a pure Gipsy? Was the race pure when it entered Scotland, or even Europe? The idea is perfectly arbitrary.
[260] It would be interesting to know where these writers got such ideas about the purity of the Gipsy blood. It certainly was not from Mr. Borrow’s account of the Gipsies in Spain, whatever they may have inferred from that work.
[261] An instance of this kind of shuffling is given by Mr. Borrow, in the tenth chapter of the “Romany Rye,” in the person of Ursula, a full or nearly full-blood Gipsy. She confines the crossing of the blood to such instances as when a Gipsy dies and leaves his children to be provided for by “gorgios, trampers, and basket-makers, who live in caravans;” but she says, “I hate to talk of the matter.” When Mr. Borrow asked her, if a Gipsy woman, unless compelled by hard necessity, would have anything to do with a gorgio, she replied, “We are not over-fond of gorgios, and we hate basket-makers and folks that live in caravans.” Here she makes a very important distinction between gorgios, (native English,) and basket-makers and folks that live in caravans, (mixed Gipsies.) She does not deny that a Gipsy woman will intermarry with a native under certain circumstances. A pretty-pure Gipsy, when angry, will very readily call a mixed Gipsy a gorgio, or, indeed, by any other name.
[262] Grellmann evidently alludes to Gipsies of mixed blood, when he writes in the following manner: “Experience shows that the dark colour of the Gipsies, which is continued from generation to generation, is more the effect of education and manner of life than descent. Among those who profess music in Hungary, or serve in the imperial army, where they have learned to pay more attention to order and cleanliness, there are many to be found whose extraction is not at all discernible in their colour.” For my part, I cannot say that such language is applicable to full-blood Gipsies. Still, the change from tented to settled and tidy Gipsydom is apt to show its effects in modifying the complexion of such Gipsies, and to a much greater degree in their descendants.
[263] Mr. Offor, editor of a late edition of Bunyan’s works, writes, in “Notes and Queries,” thus: “I have avoided much intercourse with this class, fearing the fate of Mr. Hoyland, who, being a Quaker, was shot by one of Cupid’s darts from a black-eyed Gipsy girl; and J. S. may do well to be cautious.” Mr. Offor is not far wrong. A Gipsy girl can sometimes fascinate a “white fellow,” as a snake can a bird—make him flutter, and particularly so, should the “little Gipsy” be met with in some such dress as black silks and a white polka. This much can be said of Gipsy women, which cannot be said of all women, that they know their places, and are not apt to usurp the rights of the rajahs; they will even “work the nails off their fingers” to make them feel comfortable.
I should conclude, from what Mr. Offor says, that the Quaker married the Gipsy girl. If children were born of the union, they will be Gipsy-Quakers, or Quaker-Gipsies, whichever expression we choose to adopt.
[264] I have picked up quite a number of Scottish Gipsies of respectable character, from their having gone in their youth, to look at the “old thing.” It is the most natural thing in the world for them to do. What is it to look back to the time of James V., in 1540, when John Faw was lord-paramount over the Gipsies in Scotland? Imagine, then, the natural curiosity of a young Gipsy, brought up in a town, to look at something like the original condition of his ancestors. Such a Gipsy will leave Edinburgh, for example, and travel over the south of Scotland, “casting his sign,” as he passes through the villages, in every one of which he will find Gipsies. Some of these villages are almost entirely occupied by Gipsies. James Hogg is reported, in Blackwood’s Magazine, to say, that Lochmaben is “stocked” with them.
[265] Among the English Gipsies, fair-haired ones are looked upon by the purer sort, or even by those taking after the Gipsy, as “small potatoes.” The consequence is they have to make up for their want of blood, by smartness, knowledge of the language, or something that will go to balance the deficiency of blood. They generally lay claim to the intellect, while they yield the blood to the others. A full or nearly full-blood young English Gipsy looks upon herself with all the pride of a little duchess, while in the company of young male mixed Gipsies. A mixed Gipsy may reasonably be assumed to be more intelligent than one of the old stock, were it only for this reason, that the mixture softens down the natural conceit and bigotry of the Gipsy; while, as regards his personal appearance, it puts him in a more improvable position. Still, a full-blood Gipsy looks up to a mixed Gipsy, if he is anything of a superior man, and freely acknowledges the blood. Indeed, the two kinds will readily marry, if circumstances bring them together. To a couple of such Gipsies I said: “What difference does it make, if the person has the blood, and has his heart in the right place?” “That’s the idea; that’s exactly the idea,” they both replied.
[266] To thoroughly understand how a Gipsy, with fair hair and blue eyes, can be as much a Gipsy as one with black, may be termed “passing the pons assinorum of the Gipsy question.” Once over the bridge, and there are no difficulties to be encountered on the journey, unless it be to understand that a Gipsy can be a Gipsy without living in a tent or being a rogue.
[267] There is a considerable resemblance between Gipsyism, in its harmless aspect, and Freemasonry; with this difference, that the former is a general, while the latter is a special, society; that is to say, the Gipsies have the language, or some of the words, and the signs, peculiar to the whole race, which each individual or class will use for different purposes. The race does not necessarily, and does not in fact, have intercourse with every other member of it; in that respect, they resemble any ordinary community of men. Masonry, as my reader may be aware, is a society of what may be termed “a mixed multitude of good fellows, who are all pledged to befriend and help each other.” The radical elements of Masonry may be termed a “rope of sand,” which the vows of the Order work into the most closely and strongly formed coil of any to be found in the world. But it is altogether of an artificial nature; while Gipsyism is natural—something that, when separated from objectionable habits, one might almost call divine; for it is founded upon a question of race—a question of blood. The cement of a creed is weak, in comparison with that which binds the Gipsies together; for a people, like an individual, may have one creed to-day, and another to-morrow; it may be continually travelling round the circle of every form of faith; but blood, under certain circumstances, is absolute and immutable.
There are many Gipsies Freemasons; indeed, they are the very people to push their way into a Mason’s lodge; for they have secrets of their own, and are naturally anxious to pry into those of others, by which they may be benefited. I was told of a Gipsy who died lately, the Master of a Masons’ Lodge. A friend, a Mason, told me, the other day, of his having entered a house in Yetholm, where were five Gipsies, all of whom responded to his Masonic signs. Masons should therefore interest themselves in, and befriend, the Gipsies.
[268] The principle, or rather fact, here involved, simple as it is in itself, is evidently very difficult of comprehension by the native Scottish mind. Any person understands perfectly well how a Highlander, at the present day, is still a Highlander, notwithstanding the great change that has come over the character of his race. But our Scottish literati seem to have been altogether at sea, in comprehending the same principle as applicable to the Gipsies. They might naturally have asked themselves, whether Gipsies could have procreated Jews; and, if not Jews, how they could have procreated gorgios, (as English Gipsies term natives.) A writer in Blackwood’s Magazine says, in reference to Billy Marshall, a Gipsy chief, to whom allusion has already been made: “Who were his descendants I cannot tell; I am sure he could not do it himself, if he were living. It is known that they were prodigiously numerous; I dare say numberless.” And yet this writer gravely says that “the race is in some risk of becoming extinct(!)” Another writer in Blackwood says: “Their numbers may perhaps have since been diminished, in particular States, by the progress of civilization(!)” We would naturally pronounce any person crazy who would maintain that there were no Highlanders in Scotland, owing to their having “changed their habits.” We could, with as much reason, say the same of those who will maintain this opinion in regard to the Gipsies. There has been a great deal of what is called genius expended upon the Gipsies, but wonderfully little common sense.
As the Jews, during their pilgrimage in the Wilderness, were protected from their enemies by a cloud, so have the Gipsies, in their encrease and development, been shielded from theirs, by a mist of ignorance, which, it would seem, requires no little trouble to dispel.
[269] In Olmstead’s “Journey in the Seaboard Slave States” it is stated, that in Alexandria, Louisiana, when under the Spanish rule, there were “French and Spanish, Egyptians and Indians, Mulattoes and Negroes.” This author reports a conversation which he had with a planter, by which it appears that these Egyptians came from “some of the Northern Islands;” that they spoke a language among themselves, but could talk French and Spanish too; that they were black, but not very black, and as good citizens as any, and passed for white folk. The planter believed they married mostly with mulattoes, and that a good many of the mulattoes had Egyptian blood in them too. He believed these Egyptians had disappeared since the State became part of the Union. Mr. Olmstead remarks: “The Egyptians were probably Spanish Gipsies, though I have never heard of any of them being in America in any other way.”
[270] Mr. Borrow surely cannot mean that a Gipsy ceases to be a Gipsy, when he settles down, and “turns over a new leaf;” and that this “change of habits” changes his descent, blood, appearance, language and nationality! What, then, does he mean, when he says that the Spanish Gipsies have decreased by “a partial change of habits?”
And does an infusion of Spanish blood, implied in a “freer intercourse with the Spanish population,” lead to the Gipsy element being wiped out; or does it lead to the Spanish feeling being lost in Gipsydom? Which is the element to be operated upon—the Spanish or the Gipsy? Which is the leaven? The Spanish element is the passive, the Gipsy the active. As a question of philosophy, the most simple of comprehension, and, above all, as a matter of fact, the foreign element introduced, in detail, into the body of Gipsydom, goes with that body, and, in feeling, becomes incorporated with it, although, in physical appearance, it changes the Gipsy race, so that it becomes “confounded with the residue of the population,” but remains Gipsy, as before. A Spanish Gipsy is a Spaniard as he stands, and it would be hard to say what we should ask him to do, to become more a Spaniard than he is already.
[271] Mr. Borrow mentions, in the twenty-second chapter of the “Bible in Spain,” having met several cavalry soldiers from Granada, Gipsies incog. who were surprised at being discovered to be Gipsies. They had been impressed, but carried on a trade in horses, in league with the captain of their company. They said: “We have been to the wars, but not to fight; we left that to the Busné. We have kept together, and like true Caloré, have stood back to back. We have made money in the wars.”
[272] It would seem that the law in Spain, in regard to the Gipsies, stands pretty much where it did—that is, the people are, in a sense, tolerated, but that the use of their language is prohibited, as may be gathered from an incident mentioned in the ninth chapter of the “Bible in Spain,” by Mr. Borrow.
[273] Paget says these tinkers leave their women and children at home when on their travels. That is not customary with the tribe, although it may be their habit in the Austrian dominions.
[274] “I was one of these verminous ones, one of these great sin-breeders; I infected all the youth of the town where I was born with all manner of youthful vanities. The neighbours counted me so; my practice proved me so: wherefore Christ Jesus took me first, and taking me first, the contagion was much allayed all the town over.”—Bunyan.
[275] “Grand was the repose of his lofty brow, dark eye, and aspect of soft and melancholy meaning. It was a face from which every evil and earthly passion seemed purged. A deep gravity lay upon his countenance, which had the solemnity, without the sternness, of one of our old reformers. You could almost fancy a halo completing its apostolic character.”
[276] Burns alludes to this family, thus: “Passed through the most glorious corn country I ever saw, till I reached Dunbar, a neat little town. Dine with Provost Fall, an eminent merchant, and most respectable character, but indescribable, as he exhibits no marked traits. Mrs. Fall, a genius in painting; fully more clever in the fine arts and sciences than my friend Lady Wauchope, without her consummate assurance of her own abilities.”—Life of Burns, by Robert Chambers.
The crest of the Falls, of Dunbar, was three boars’ heads, couped; that of Baillie, of Lamington, is one boar’s head, couped. In the Statistical Account of Scotland, (1835,) appears the following notice of this family: “A family, of the name of Fall, established themselves at Dunbar, and became, during the last century, the most extensive merchants in Scotland. They were long the chief magistrates of the burgh, and preferred the public good to their own profit. They have left no one to bear their name, not even a stone to tell where they lie; but they will long be remembered for their enterprise and public spirit.” There is apparently a reason for “not even a stone being left to tell where they lie;” for in Hoyland’s “Survey of the Gipsies” appeared the account of Baillie Smith, in which it is said: “The descendants of Faa now take the name of Fall, from the Messrs. Fall, of Dunbar, who, they pride themselves in saying, are of the same stock and lineage;” which seems to have frightened their connexions at being known to be Gipsies.
Let all that has been said of the Falls be considered as their monument and epitaph; so that their memories may be preserved as long as this work exists.
It would be interesting to know who the Captain Fall was, who visited Dunbar, with an American ship-of-war, during the time of Paul Jones. He might have been a descendant of a Gipsy, sent to the plantations, in the olden times. There are, as I have said before, a great many scions of Gipsy Faas, under one name or other, scattered over the world.
[277] Whipping the cat: Tailoring from house to house. The cat is whipped by females, as well as males, in America, in some parts of which the expression is current.
[278] Of the Gipsies at Moscow, the following is the substance of what Mr. Borrow says: “Those who have been accustomed to consider the Gipsy as a wandering outcast . . . . . . will be surprised to learn that, amongst the Gipsies of Moscow, there are not a few who inhabit stately houses, go abroad in elegant equipages, and are behind the higher order of Russians neither in appearance nor mental acquirements. . . . . The sums obtained by the Gipsy females, by the exercise of their art (singing in the choirs of Moscow,) enable them to support their relatives in affluence and luxury. Some are married to Russians; and no one who has visited Russia can but be aware that a lovely and accomplished countess, of the noble and numerous family of Tolstoy is, by birth, a Zigana, and was originally one of the principal attractions of a Romany choir at Moscow.”
This short notice appears unsatisfactory, considering, as Mr. Borrow says, that one of his principal motives for visiting Moscow was to hold communication with the Gipsies. It might have occurred to him to enquire what relation the children of such marriages would bear to Gipsydom generally; that is, would they be initiated in the mysteries, and taught the language, and hold themselves to be Gipsies? It is evident, however, that the Gipsy-drilling process is going on among the Russian nobility.
[279] On his return with his gallant prey, he passed a very large hay-stack. It occurred to the provident laird that this would be extremely convenient to fodder his new stock of cattle; but, as no means of transporting it were obvious, he was fain to take leave of it, with the apostrophe, now become proverbial, “By my saul, had ye but four feet, ye should not stand lang there.” In short, as Froissart says of a similar class of feudal robbers. “Nothing came amiss to them that was not too heavy or too hot.” Sir Walter Scott speaks, in the most jocular manner, of an ancestress who had a curious hand at pickling the beef which her husband stole; and that there was not a stain upon his escutcheon, barring Border theft and high treason.—Lockhart’s Life of Sir Walter Scott.
We should never forget that a “hawk’s a hawk,” whether it is a falcon or a mosquito hawk, which is the smallest of all hawks.
[280] Sir Walter Scott makes Fitz-James, in the “Lady of the Lake,” say to Roderick Dhu:
“But then, thy chieftain’s robber life!—
Winning mean prey by causeless strife,
Wrenching from ruined Lowland swain
His herds and harvests reared in vain—
Methinks a soul like thine should scorn
The spoils from such foul foray borne.
The Gael beheld him, grim the while,
And answered with disdainful smile,—
•••••••
‘Where live the mountain chiefs, who hold
That plundering Lowland field and fold
Is aught but retribution true?
Seek other cause ‘gainst Roderick Dhu!’”
[281] See [page 202].
[282] In expatiating on the subject of the Gipsy race always being the Gipsy race, I have had it remarked to me: “Suppose Gipsies should not mention to their children the fact of their being Gipsies.” In that case, I replied, the children, especially if, for the most part, of white blood, would simply not be Gipsies; they would, of course, have some of “the blood,” but they would not be Gipsies if they had no knowledge of the fact. But to suppose that Gipsies should not learn that they are Gipsies, on account of their parents not telling them of it, is to presume that they had no other relatives. Their being Gipsies is constantly talked of among themselves; so that, if Gipsy children should not hear their “wonderful story” from their parents, they would readily enough hear it from their other relatives. This is assuming, however, that the Gipsy mind can act otherwise than the Gipsy mind; which it cannot.
It sometimes happens, as the Gipsies separate into classes, like all other races or communities of men, that a great deal of jealousy is stirred up in the minds of the poorer members of the tribe, on account of their being shunned by the wealthier kind. They are then apt to say that the exclusive members have left the tribe; which, with them, is an undefined and confused idea, at the best, principally on account of their limited powers of reflection, and the subject never being alluded to by the others. This jealousy sometimes leads them to dog these straggling sheep, so that, as far as lies in their power, they will not allow them to leave, as they imagine, the Gipsy fold. [See [second note] at page 532.]
[283] I very abruptly addressed a French Gipsy, in the streets of New York, thus: “Vous êtes un Romany chiel.” “Oui, monsieur,” was the reply which he, as abruptly, gave me. But, ever afterwards, he got cross, when I alluded to the subject. On one occasion, I gave him the sign, which he repeated, while he asked, with much tartness of manner, “What is that—what does it mean?” This was a roguish Gipsy, and was afterwards lodged in jail.
On one occasion, I met with a German cutler, in a place of business, in New York. I felt sure he was a Gipsy, although the world would not have taken him for one. Catching his eye, I commenced to look around the room, from those present to himself, as if there was to be something confidential between us, and then whispered to him, “Callo chabo,” (Gipsy, or black fellow;) and the effect was instantaneous. I afterwards visited his family, on a Sabbath evening, and took tea with them. They were from Wurtemberg, and appeared very decent people. The mother, a tall, swarthy, fine looking intelligent young woman, said grace, which was repeated by the children, whom I found learning their Sabbath-school lessons. The family regularly attend church. A fair-haired German called, and went to church with the Gipsy himself. What with the appearance of everything about the house, and the fine, clean, and neatly-dressed family of children, I felt very much pleased with my visit.
French and German Gipsies are very shy, owing to the severity of the laws against their race.
[284] Fletcher, of Saltoun, speaks of there being constantly a hundred thousand people in Scotland, leading the life (as Sir Walter Scott describes it,) of “Gipsies, Jockies, or Cairds.” Between the time alluded to and the date of John Faw’s league with James V., a period of 140 years had elapsed; and 174 years from the date of arrival of the race in the country: so that, from the natural encrease of the body, and the large amount of white blood introduced into it, the greater part, if not the whole, of the people mentioned, were doubtless Gipsies. But these Gipsies, according to Sir Walter’s opinion, “died out by a change of habits.” How strange it is that the very first class Scottish minds should have so little understood the philosophy of origin, blood, and descent, and especially as they applied to the Gipsies! For Sir Walter says: “The progress of time, and encrease both of the means of life and the power of the laws, gradually reduced this dreadful evil within more narrow bounds. . . . . Their numbers are so greatly diminished, that, instead of one hundred thousand, as calculated by Fletcher, it would now, perhaps, be impossible to collect above five hundred throughout all Scotland(!)” It is perfectly evident that Sir Walter Scott, in common with many others, never realized the idea, in all its bearings, of what a Gipsy was; or he never could have imagined that those, only, were of the Gipsy race, who followed the tent.
It is very doubtful if Anthonius Gawino, and his tribe, departed with their letter of introduction from James IV. to his uncle, the king of Denmark, in 1506. Having secured the favour of the king of Scots, by this recommendatory notice, he was more apt, by delaying his departure, to secure his position in the country. The circumstances attending the league with his successor, John Faw, show that the tribe had been long in the country; doubtless from as far back as 1506. From 1506 till 1579, with the exception of about one year, during the reign of James V., the tribe, as I have already said, ([page 109],) must have encreased prodigiously. The persecutions against the body extended over the reign of James VI., and part of that of Charles I.; for, according to Baron Hume, such was the terror which the executions inspired in the tribe, that, “for the space of more than 50 years from that time, (1624,) there is no trial of an Egyptian;” although our author shows that an execution of a band of them took place in 1636. But “towards the end of that century,” continues Baron Hume, “the nuisance seems to have again become troublesome;” in other words, that from the reign of Charles I. to the accession of William and Mary, the time to which Fletcher’s remark applies, the attention of all being taken up with the troubles of the times, the Gipsies had things pretty much their own way; but when peace was restored, they would be called to strict account.
For all these reasons, it may be said that the 100,000 people spoken of were doubtless Gipsies of various mixtures of blood; so that, at the present day, there ought to be a very large number of the tribe in Scotland. I admit that many of the Scottish Gipsies have been hanged, and many banished to the Plantations; but these would be in a small ratio to their number, and a still smaller to the natural encrease of the body. Suppose that such and such Gipsies were either hanged or banished; so young did they all marry, that, when they were hanged or banished, they might leave behind them families ranging from five to ten children. We may say, of the Scottish Gipsies generally, in days that are past, what a writer in Blackwood’s Magazine, already alluded to, said of Billy Marshall: “Their descendants were prodigiously numerous; I dare say, numberless.” Many of the Scottish Gipsies have migrated to England, as well as elsewhere. In Liverpool, there are many of them, following various mechanical occupations.
[285] Peter Funks & Co.: Mock auctioneers of mock jewelry, &c., &c.
[286] If the real characters of those “lady fortune-tellers,” who flourish so much in the large cities, and publicly profess to reveal all matters in “love and law, health and wealth, losses and crosses,” were to be ascertained, many of them would, in all probability, be found to belong to a superior class of Gipsies. And this may much more be said of the more humble ones, who trust to the gossipping of a class—and that a respectable class of females, for the advertising of their calling. For a certainty, those are Gipsies who stroll about, telling fortunes for dimes, clothes, or old bottles. The advertising members form a very small part of the fraternity. The extent to which such business is patronized, by Americans, of both sexes, and of almost all positions in society is such, that it is doubtful if the English reader would credit it, if it were put on record.
[287] When travelling on the stage, towards Lake Huron, in Canada, I was surprised at finding a Gipsy tent on the road-side, with a man sitting in front of it, engaged in the mysteries of the tinker. I met a camp of Gipsies on a vacant space, beside a clump of trees, in Hamilton, at the head of Lake Ontario, but I deferred visiting them till the following morning. When I returned to the spot, I found that the birds had flown. Feeling disappointed, I began to question a man who kept a toll-bar, immediately opposite to where their tents had been, as to their peculiarities generally; when he said: “They seemed droll kind o’ folk—quite like ourselves—no way foreign; yet I could not understand a word they were saying among themselves.” Shortly after this, a company of them entered a shop, in the same town, to buy tin, when I happened to be in it. I accosted one of the mothers of the company, in an abrupt but bland tone. “You’re a’ Nawkens (Gipsies) I see.”—“Ou ay, we’re Nawkens,” was her immediate reply, accompanied by a smile on her weather-beaten countenance. “You’ll aye speak the language?” I continued. “We’ll ne’er forget that,” she again replied. This seemed to be a company of Gipsies from the Scottish Border; for the woman spoke about the broadest Scotch I ever heard. They dressed well, and bore a good reputation in the neighbourhood.
[288] Mixed Gipsies tell no lies, when they say that they are not Gipsies; for, physiologically speaking, they are not Gipsies, but only partly Gipsies, as regards blood. In every other way they are Gipsies, that is, chabos, calos, or chals.
[289] The people above-mentioned are doubtless Gipsies. According to Grellmann, the race is even to be found in the centre of Africa. Mollien, in his travels to the sources of the Senegal and Gambia, in 1818, says: “Scattered among the Joloffs, we find a people not unlike our Gipsies, and known by the name of Laaubés. Leading a roving life, and without fixed habitation, their only employment is the manufacture of wooden vessels, mortars, and bedsteads. They choose a well-wooded spot, fell some trees, form huts with the branches, and work up the trunks. For this privilege, they must pay a sort of tax to the prince in whose states they thus settle. In general, they are both ugly and slovenly.
“The women, notwithstanding their almost frightful faces, are covered with amber and coral beads, presents heaped on them by the Joloffs, from a notion that the favours, alone, of these women will be followed by those of fortune. Ugly or handsome, all the young Laaubé females are in request among the Negroes.
“The Laaubés have nothing of their own but their money, their tools, and their asses; the only animals on which they travel. In the woods, they make fires with the dung of the flocks. Ranged round the fires, the men and women pass their leisure time in smoking. The Laaubés have not those characteristic features and high stature which mark the Joloffs, and they seem to form a distinct race. They are exempted from all military service. Each family has its chief, but, over all, there is a superior chief, who commands a whole tribe or nation. He collects the tribute, and communicates with such delegates of the king as receive the imposts: this serves to protect them from all vexation. The Laaubés are idolaters, speak the Poula language, and pretend to tell fortunes.”
[290] Bell, in an account of his journey to Pekin, [1721.] says that upwards of sixty Gipsies had arrived at Tobolsky, on their way to China, but were stopped by the Vice-Governor, for want of passports. They had roamed, during the summer season, from Poland, in small parties, subsisting by selling trinkets, and telling fortunes.
[291] Mr. Borrow says, with reference to the Spanish Gipsy language: “Its grammatical peculiarities have disappeared, the entire language having been modified and subjected to the rules of Spanish grammar, with which it now coincides in syntax, in the conjugation of verbs, and in the declension of its nouns.” We might have naturally expected that of the Gipsy language, in the course of four hundred years, from the people speaking it being so much scattered over the country, and coming so much in contact with the ordinary natives. But something different might be looked for, where the Gipsies have not been persecuted, but allowed to live together in a body, as in Hungary. Of the Hungarian Gipsy language, Mr. Borrow says, that in no part of the world is the Gipsy language better preserved than in Hungary; and that the roving bands of Gipsies from that country, who visit France and Italy, speak the pure Gipsy, with all its grammatical peculiarities. He estimates that the Spanish Gipsy language may consist of four or five thousand words; a sufficient number, one might suppose, to serve the purpose of everyday life. A late writer in the Dublin University Magazine estimates that five thousand words would serve the same purpose in the English language. Four thousand words is a very large language for the Gipsies of Spain to possess, in addition to the ordinary one of the country.
[292] I cannot agree with Mr. Borrow, when he says, that the Gipsies “travelled three thousand miles into Europe, with hatred in their hearts towards the people among whom they settled.” In none of the earliest laws passed against them, is anything said of their being other than thieves, cheats, &c., &c. They seem to have been too politic to commit murder; moreover, it appears to have been foreign to their disposition to do aught but obtain a living in the most cunning manner they could. There is no necessary connection between purloining one’s property and hating one’s person. As long as the Gipsies were not hardly dealt with, they could, naturally, have no actual hatred towards their fellow-creatures. Mr. Borrow attributes none of the spite and hatred of the race towards the community to the severity of the persecutions to which it was exposed, or to that hard feeling with which society has regarded it. These, and the example of the Spaniards, doubtless led the Gitanos to shed the blood of the ordinary natives.
[293] I accidentally got into conversation with an Irishman, in the city of New York, about secret societies, when he mentioned that he was a member of a great many such, indeed, “all of them,” as he expressed it. I said there was one society of which he was not a member, when he began to enumerate them, and at last came to the Zincali. “What,” said I, “are you a member of this society?” “Yes,” said he; “the Zincali, or Gipsy.” He then told me that there are many members of this society in the city of New York; not all members of it, under that name, but of its outposts, if I may so express it. The principal or arch-Gipsy for the city, he said, was a merchant, in —— street, who had in his possession a printed vocabulary, or dictionary, of the language, which was open only to the most thoroughly initiated. In the course of our conversation, it fell out that the native American Gipsy referred to at [page 420] was one of the thoroughly initiated; which circumstance explained a question he had put to me, and which I evaded, by saying that I was not in the habit of telling tales out of school.
In Spain, as we have seen, a Gipsy taught her language to her son from a MS. I doubt not there are MS. if not printed, vocabularies of the Gipsy language among the tribe in Scotland, as well as in other countries.
[294] Among the various means by which the name of Gipsy can be raised up, it may be mentioned, that beginning the word with a capital is one of no little importance. The almost invariable custom with writers, in that respect, has been as if they were describing rats and mice, instead of a race of men.
[295] This sensation, in the minds of the Gipsies, of the perpetuity of their race, creates, in a great measure, its immortality. Paradoxical as it may appear, the way to preserve the existence of a people is to scatter it, provided, however, that it is a race thoroughly distinct from others, to commence with. When, by the force of circumstances, it has fairly settled down into the idea that it is a people, those living in one country become conscious of its existence in others; and hence arises the principal cause of the perpetuity of its existence as a scattered people.
[296] The fact of these Indians, and the aboriginal races found in the countries colonised by Europeans, disappearing so rapidly, prevents our regarding them with any great degree of interest. This circumstance detracts from that idea of dignity which the perpetuity and civilization of their race would inspire in the minds of others.
[297] A writer in the Penny Cyclopædia illustrates this absurd idea, in very plain terms, when he says: “In England, the Gipsies have much diminished, of late years, in consequence of the enclosure of lands, and the laws against vagrants.” Sir Walter Scott’s idea of the Gipsies has been followed in a pictorial history of Scotland, lately issued from the Scottish press.
[298] The following singular remarks appeared in a very late number of Chambers’ Journal, on the subject of the Gipsies of the Danube: “As the wild cat, the otter, and the wolf, generally disappear before the advance of civilization, the wild races of mankind are, in like manner and degree, gradually coming to an end, and from the same causes(!) The waste lands get enclosed, the woods are cut down, the police becomes yearly more efficient, and the Pariahs vanish with their means of subsistence. [Where do they go to?] In England, there are, at most, 1,500 Gipsies(!) Before the end of the present century, they will probably be extinct over Western Europe(!)”
It is perfectly evident that the world, outside of Gipsydom, has to be initiated in the subject of the Gipsies, as in the first principles of a science, or as a child is instructed in its alphabet. And yet, the above-mentioned writer takes upon himself to chide Mr. Borrow, in the matter of the Gipsies.
[299] I leave out of view various scattered nations in Asia.
[300] It is interesting to hear the Gipsies speak of their race “taking of” this or the other race. Said an English Gipsy, to me, with reference to some Gipsies of whom we were speaking: “They take of the Arabians.”
[301] There is scarce a part of the habitable world where they are not to be found; their tents are alike pitched on the heaths of Brazil and the ridges of the Himalayan hills; and their language is heard at Moscow and Madrid, in the streets of London and Stamboul. They are found in all parts of Russia, with the exception of the Government of St. Petersburg, from which they have been banished. In most of the provincial towns, they are to be found in a state of half civilization, supporting themselves by trafficking in horses, or by curing the disorders incidental to those animals. But the vast majority reject this manner of life, and traverse the country in bands, like the ancient Hamaxobioi; the immense grassy plains of Russia affording pasturage for their herds of cattle, on which, and the produce of the chase, they chiefly depend for subsistence.—Borrow.
[302] Considering what is popularly understood to be the natural disposition and capacity of the Gipsies, we would readily conclude that to turn innkeepers would be the most unlikely of all their employments; yet that is very common. Mahommed said, “If the mountain will not come to us, we will go to the mountain.” The Gipsies say, “If we do not go to the people, the people must come to us;” and so they open their houses of entertainment.
[303] The following is a description of a superior Spanish Gipsy, in 1584, as quoted by Mr. Borrow, from the memoirs of a Spaniard, who had seen him: “At this time, they had a count, a fellow who spoke the Castilian idiom with as much purity as if he had been a native of Toledo. He was acquainted with all the ports of Spain, and all the difficult and broken ground of the provinces. He knew the exact strength of every city, and who were the principal people in each, and the exact amount of their property; there was nothing relative to the state, however secret, that he was not acquainted with; nor did he make a mystery of his knowledge, but publicly boasted of it.”
[304] I should suppose that this was Captain Gordon who behaved himself like a prince, at the North Queensferry. See [page 172].
[305] The only part of the religion of the Jews having an origin prior to the establishment of the Mosaic law was circumcision, which was termed the covenant made by God with Abraham and his seed. (Gen. xvii. 10-14.) The abolition of idols, and the worship of God alone, are presumed, although not expressed. The Jews lapsed into gross idolatry while in Egypt, but were not likely to neglect circumcision, as that was necessary to maintain a physical uniformity among the race, but did not enter into the wants, and hopes, and fears, inherent in the human breast, and stimulated by the daily exhibition of the phenomena of its existence. The second table of the moral law was, of course, written upon the hearts of the Jews, in common with those of the Gentiles. (Rom. ii. 14, 15.)
[306] It is an unnecessary stretch upon the belief in the Scriptures, to ask consent to the abstract proposition that the Jews, while in Egypt, encreased from seventy souls to “about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, besides children,” at the time of the Exodus. Following a pastoral life, in a healthy and fertile country, and inspired with the prophecy delivered to Abraham, as to his numberless descendants, the whole bent of the mind of the Jews was to multiply their numbers; and polygamy and concubinage being characteristic of the people, there is no reason to doubt that the Jews encreased to the number stated. The original emigrants, doubtless, took with them large establishments of bondmen and bondwomen, and purchased others while in Egypt; and these being circumcised, according to the covenant made with Abraham, would sooner or later become, on that account alone, part of the nation; and much more so by such amalgamation as is set forth by Rachel and Leah giving their maids to Jacob to have children by them. Abraham was, at best, the representative head of the Jewish nation, composed, as that was originally, of elements drawn from the idolatrous tribes surrounding him and his descendants.
[307] Tacitus gives the following glowing account of the destruction of the Druids, in the island of Anglesey: “On the opposite shore stood the Britons, closely embodied, and prepared for action. Women were seen rushing through the ranks in wild disorder; their apparel funereal; their hair loose to the wind, in their hands flaming torches, and their whole appearance resembling the frantic rage of the Furies. The Druids were ranged in order, with hands uplifted, invoking the gods, and pouring forth horrible imprecations. The novelty of the sight struck the Romans with awe and terror. They stood in stupid amazement, as if their limbs were benumbed, riveted to one spot, a mark for the enemy. The exhortation of the general diffused new vigour through the ranks, and the men, by mutual reproaches, inflamed each other to deeds of valour. They felt the disgrace of yielding to a troop of women, and a band of fanatic priests; they advanced their standards, and rushed on to the attack with impetuous fury. The Britons perished in the flames which they themselves had kindled. The island fell, and a garrison was established to retain it in subjection. The religious groves, dedicated to superstition and barbarous rites, were levelled to the ground. In those recesses, the natives imbrued their altars with the blood of their prisoners, and, in the entrails of men, explored the will of the gods.“—Murphy’s Translation.
[308] It would almost seem that the Gipsies are the people mentioned in Deut. xxxii. 21, and Rom. x. 19, where it is said: “I will provoke you, (the Jews,) to jealousy, by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.” For the history of the Gipsy nation thoroughly burlesques that of the Jews. But the Jews will be very apt to ignore the existence of the present work, should the rest of the world allow them to do it. Yet, excepting the Gipsies themselves, none are so capable of understanding this subject as the Jews, there being so much in it that is applicable to themselves.
[309] This information I obtained from some English Gipsies. Thereafter, the title of the following work came under my notice: “Historical Researches Respecting the Sojourn of the Heathens, or Egyptians, in the Northern Netherlands. By J. Dirks. Edited by the Provincial Utrecht Society of Arts and Sciences. Utrecht: 1850. pp. viii. and 160.”
Indeed, the Gipsies are scattered all over Europe, and are to be found in the condition described in the present work.
[310] There are, probably, 12,000,000 of Jews in the world. I have seen them estimated at from ten to twelve millions. It is impossible to obtain anything like a correct number of the Jews, in almost any country, leaving out of view the immense numbers scattered over the world, and living even in parts unexplored by Europeans.
[311] It is astonishing how superficially some passages of Scripture are interpreted. There is, for instance, the conduct of Gamaliel, before the Jewish council. (Acts v. 17-40.) The advice given by him, as a Pharisee, was nothing but a piece of specious party clap-trap, to discomfit a Sadducee. St. Paul, who was brought up at the feet of this Pharisee, and, doubtless, well versed in the factious tactics of his party, gives a beautiful commentary on the action of his old master, when, on being brought before the same tribunal, and perceiving that his enemies embraced both parties, he set them by the ears, by proclaiming himself a Pharisee, and raising the question, (the “hope and resurrection of the dead,”) on which they so bitterly disagreed. (Acts xxiii. 6-10.) There was much adroitness displayed by the Apostle, in so turning the wrath of his enemies against themselves, after having inadvertently reviled the high priest, in their presence, and within one of the holy places, in such language as the following: “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten, contrary to the law.” As it was, he was only saved from being “pulled in pieces” by his blood-thirsty persecutors—the one sect attacking, and the other defending him—by a company of Roman soldiers, dispatched to take him by force from among them. Nothing could be more specious than Gamaliel’s reasoning, for it could apply to almost anything, and was well suited to the feelings of a divided and excited assembly; or have less foundation, according to his theory, for the very steps which he advised the people against adopting, for the suppression of Christians, were used to destroy the false Messiahs to whom he referred. And yet people quote this recorded clap-trap of an old Pharisee, as an inspiration, for the guidance of private Christians, and Christian magistrates!
[312] Tacitus makes Caius Cassius, in the time of Nero, say: “At present, we have in our service whole nations of slaves, the scum of mankind, collected from all quarters of the globe; a race of men who bring with them foreign rites, and the religion of their country, or, probably, no religion at all.”—Murphy’s Translation.
[313] The following extract from “Leaves from the Diary of a Jewish Minister,” published in the above-mentioned journal, on the 4th April, 1862, may not be uninteresting to the Christian reader:
“In our day, the conscience of Israel is seldom troubled; it is of so elastic a character, that, like gutta percha, it stretches and is compressed, according to the desire of its owner. We seldom hear of a troubled conscience. . . . . Not that we would assert that our people are without a conscience; we merely state that we seldom hear of its troubles. It is more than probable, that when the latent feeling is aroused on matters of religion, and for a moment they have an idea that ‘their soul is not well,’ they take a homœopathic dose of spiritual medicine, and then feel quite convalescent.”
[314] See [pages 111] and [121].
[315] Petul, according to Mr. Borrow, means a horse-shoe; and Petulengro, a lord of the horse-shoe. It is evidently a very high catch-word among the English Gipsies.
[316] Various of the characters mentioned in Mr. Borrow’s “Lavengro,” and “Romany Rye,” are, beyond doubt, Gipsies. Old Fulcher is termed, in a derisive manner, by Ursula, “a gorgio and basket-maker.” She is one of the Hernes; a family which gorgio and basket-maker Gipsies describe as “an ignorant, conceited set, who think nothing of other Gipsies, owing to the quality and quantity of their own blood.” This is the manner in which the more original and pure and the other kind of English Gipsies frequently talk of each other. The latter will deny that they are Gipsies, at least hide it from the world; and, like the same kind of Scottish Gipsies, speak of the others, exclusively, as Gipsies. I am acquainted with a fair-haired English Gipsy, whose wife, now dead, was a half-breed. “But I am not a Gipsy,” said he to me, very abruptly, before I had said anything that could have induced him to think that I took him for one. He spoke Gipsy, like the others. I soon caught him tripping; for, in speaking of the size of Gipsy families, he slipped his foot, and said: “For example, there is our family; there were (so many) of us.” There is another Gipsy, a neighbour, who passes his wife off to the public as an Irish woman, while she is a fair-haired Irish Gipsy. Both, in short, played upon the word Gipsy; for, as regards fullness of blood, they really were not Gipsies.
The dialogue between the Romany Rye and the Horncastle jockey clearly shows the Gipsy in the latter, when his attention is directed to the figure of the Hungarian. The Romany Rye makes indirect reference to the Gipsies, and the jockey abruptly asks: “Who be they? Come, don’t be ashamed. I have occasionally kept queerish company myself.” “Romany chals! Whew! I begin to smell a rat.” The remainder of the dialogue, and the spree which follows, are perfectly Gipsy throughout, on the part of the jockey; but, like so many of his race, he is evidently ashamed to own himself up to be “one of them.” He says, in a way as if he were a stranger to the language: “And what a singular language they have got!” “Do you know anything of it?” said the Romany Rye. “Only a very few words; they were always chary in teaching me any.” He said he was brought up with the gorgio and basket-maker Fulcher, who followed the caravan. He is described as dressed in a coat of green, (a favourite Gipsy colour,) and as having curly brown or black hair; and he says of Mary Fulcher, whom he married: “She had a fair complexion, and nice red hair, both of which I liked, being a bit of a black myself.” How much this is in keeping with the Gipsies, who so frequently speak of each other, in a jocular way, as “brown and black rascals!”
I likewise claim Isopel Berners, in Lavengro, to be a thumping Gipsy lass, who travelled the country with her donkey-cart, taking her own part, and wapping this one, and wapping that one. It signifies not what her appearance was. I have frequently taken tea, at her house, with a young, blue-eyed, English Gipsy widow, perfectly English in her appearance, who spoke Gipsy freely enough. It did not signify what Isopel said of herself, or her relations. How did she come to speak Gipsy? Do Gipsies teach their language to strangers, and, more especially, to strange women? Assuredly not. Suppose that Isopel was not a Gipsy, but had married a Gipsy, then I could understand how she might have known Gipsy, and yet not have been a Gipsy, except by initiation. But it is utterly improbable that she, a strange woman, should have been taught a word of it.
In England are to be found Gipsies of many occupations; horse-dealers, livery stable-keepers, public-house keepers, sometimes grocers and linen-drapers; indeed, almost every occupation from these downwards. I can readily enough believe an English Gipsy, when he tells me, that he knows of an English squire a Gipsy. To have an English squire a Gipsy, might have come about even in this way: Imagine a rollicking or eccentric English squire taking up with, and marrying, say, a pretty mixed Gipsy bar or lady’s maid, and the children would be brought up Gipsies, for certainty.
There are two Gipsies, of the name of B——, farmers upon the estate of Lord Lister, near Massingham, in the county of Norfolk. They are described as good-sized, handsome men, and swarthy, with long black hair, combed over their shoulders. They dress in the old Gipsy stylish fashion, with a green cut-away, or Newmarket, coat, yellow leather breeches, buttoned to the knee, and top boots, with a Gipsy hat, ruffled breast, and turned-down collar. They occupy the position of any natives in society; attend church, take an interest in parish matters, dine with his lordship’s other tenants, and compete for prizes at the agricultural shows. They are proud of being Gipsies. I have also been told that there are Gipsies in the county of Kent, who have hop farms and dairies.
[317] Bunyan adds: “But, notwithstanding the meanness and inconsiderableness of my parents, it pleased God to put it into their hearts to put me to school, to learn me both to read and write; the which I also attained, according to the rate of other poor men’s children.”
He does not say, “According to the rate of poor men’s children,” but of “other poor men’s children:” a form of expression always used by the Gipsies when speaking of themselves, as distinguished from others. The language used by Bunyan, in speaking of his family, was in harmony with that of the population at large; but he, doubtless, had the feelings peculiar to all the tribe, with reference to their origin and race.
[318] Justice Keeling threatened Bunyan with this fate, even for preaching; for said he: “If you do not submit to go to hear divine service, and leave your preaching, you must be banished the realm: And if, after such a day as shall be appointed you to be gone, you shall be found in this realm, or be found to come over again, without special license from the king, you must stretch by the neck for it. I tell you plainly.”
Sir Matthew Hale tells us that, on one occasion, at the Suffolk assizes, no less than thirteen Gipsies were executed, under the old Gipsy statutes, a few years before the Restoration.
[319] Perhaps the following passage is the one alluded to by this writer: “I often, when these temptations had been with force upon me, did compare myself to the case of such a child, whom some Gipsy hath by force took up in her arms, and is carrying from friend and country.” Grace abounding. The use of a simile like this confirms the fact that Bunyan belonged to the tribe, rather than that he did not; unless we can imagine that Gipsies, when candid, do not what every other race has done—admit the peculiarities of theirs, while in a previous and barbarous state of existence. His admission confirms a fact generally believed, but sometimes denied, as in the case of the writer in Blackwood’s Magazine, mentioned at [page 375].
Bunyan, doubtless, “dwelt on it with a sort of spiritual exultation,” that he should have been “called”—not “out of Egypt,” but—“out of the tribe,” when, possibly, no others of it, to his knowledge, had been so privileged; but it was, certainly, “most unlikely” he would say that “he belonged to that class of vagabonds.”
[320] It is interesting to notice what these two writers say. If Bunyan’s father was a Gipsy, we may reasonably assume that his mother was one likewise; and, consequently, that Bunyan was one himself, or as Sir Walter Scott expresses it—a “Gipsy reclaimed.” A Gipsy being a question of race, and not a matter of habits, it should be received as one of the simplest of elementary truths, that once a Gipsy, always a Gipsy. We naturally ask, Why has not the fact of Bunyan having been a Gipsy stood on record, for the last two centuries? and, echo answers, Why?
[321] Although Bunyan probably never anticipated being held in high estimation by what are termed the “great ones” of the earth, yet what Southey has said cannot be predicated of him, if we consider the singularity of his origin and history, and the popularity which he enjoyed, as author of the Pilgrim’s Progress; a work affecting the mind of man in every age of the world. Of this work Bunyan writes:
“My Pilgrim’s book has travelled sea and land,
Yet could I never come to understand
That it was slighted, or turned out of door,
By any kingdom, were they rich or poor.
In France and Flanders, where men kill each other,
My Pilgrim is esteemed a friend, a brother.
In Holland, too, ‘tis said, as I am told,
My Pilgrim is, with some, worth more than gold.
Highlanders and Wild Irish can agree
My Pilgrim should familiar with them be.
‘Tis in New England under such advance,
Receives there so much loving countenance,
As to be trimmed, new clothed, and decked with gems,
That it may show its features, and its limbs.
Yet more, so public doth my Pilgrim walk,
That of him thousands daily sing and talk.”
[322] Bunsen writes: “Sound judgment is displayed rather in an aptness for believing what is historical, than in a readiness at denying it. . . . . . Shallow minds have a decided propensity to fall into the latter error. Incapability of believing on evidence is the last form of the intellectual imbecility of an enervated age.”
A writer who contributes frequently to “Notes and Queries,” after stating that he has read the works of Grellmann and Hoyland on the Gipsies, adds: “My conclusion is that the tribes have no more right to nationality, race, blood, or language, than the London thieves have—with their slang, some words of which may have their origin in the Hebrew, from their dealings with the lowest order of Jews.”
[323] That the rabble, or “fellows of the baser sort,” should have pelted Bunyan with all sorts of offensive articles, when he commenced to preach the gospel, is what could naturally have been expected; but it sounds strange to read what he has put on record of the abuse heaped upon him, by people professing to be the servants of Him “in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female.” See with what Christian humility he alludes to such treatment, as contrasted with the manly indignation which he displayed in repelling slanders. He speaks of “the Lord wiping off such insults at his coming;” when his enemies, with the utmost familiarity and assurance, may approach the judgment-seat, and demand their crowns. “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?” And it may be answered unto them: “I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
[324] It is interesting to compare this feeling with that of the lowest order of Spaniards, as described by Mr. Borrow. “The outcast of the prison and the presidio, who calls himself Spaniard, would feel insulted by being termed Gitano, and would thank God that he is not.” [Page 386].
[325] Let us suppose that a person, who has read all the works that have hitherto appeared on the Gipsies, and noticed the utter absence, in them, of everything of the nature of a philosophy of the subject, thoroughly masters all that is set forth in the present work. The knowledge which he then possesses puts him in such a position, that he approximates to being one of the tribe, himself; that is, if all that is contained therein be known to him and the tribe, only, it would enable him to pass current, in certain circles of Gipsydom, as one of themselves.
[326] There is a point which I have not explained so fully as I might have done, and it is this: “Is any of the blood ever lost? that is, does it ever cease to be Gipsy, in knowledge and feeling?” That is a question not easily answered in the affirmative, were it only for this reason: how can it ever be ascertained that the knowledge and feeling of being Gipsies become lost? Let us suppose that a couple of Gipsies leave England, and settle in America, and that they never come in contact with any of their race, and that their children never learn anything of the matter from any quarter. ([Page 413].) In such an extreme, I may say, such an unnatural, case, the children would not be Gipsies, but, if born in America, ordinary Americans. The only way in which the Gipsy blood—that is, the Gipsy feeling—can possibly be lost, is by a Gipsy, (a man especially,) marrying an ordinary native, ([page 381],) and the children never learning of the circumstance. But, as I have said before, how is that ever to be ascertained? The question might be settled in this way: Let the relatives of the Gipsy interrogate the issue, and if it answers, truly, that it knows nothing of the Gipsy connexion, and never has its curiosity in the matter excited, it holds, beyond dispute, that “the blood” has been lost to the tribe. For any loss the tribe may sustain, in that way, it gains, in an ample degree, by drawing upon the blood of the native race, and transmuting it into that of its own fraternity.
[327] It was the nature of man, in ancient times, as it is with the heathen to-day, to worship what could not be understood; while modern civilization seems to attribute such phenomena to miracles. It is even presumptuous to have recourse to such an alternative, for the enquirer may be deficient in the intellect necessary to prosecute such investigations, or he may not be in possession of sufficient data. If the European will, for example, ask himself, 1stly: what is the idea which he has of a Gipsy? 2ndly: what are the feelings which he entertains for him personally? And 3dly: what must be the response of the Gipsy to the sentiments of the other? he cannot avoid coming to the conclusion, that the race should “marry among themselves,” and that, “let them be in whatever situation of life they may, they all” should “stick to each other.” ([Page 369].)
[328] Viewing the Gipsies as they are described in this work, and contrasting their history with that of the nations of the world in general, and the Jews in particular, and considering that they have no religion peculiar to themselves, yet are scattered among, and worked into, all nations, but not acknowledged by, or even known to, others, we may, with the utmost propriety, call them, in the language of the prophet, “no people,” and a “foolish nation;” yet by no means a nation of fools, but rather more rogues than fools. Of all the ways in which the Gipsies have hoaxed other people, the manner in which they have managed to throw around themselves a sense of their non-existence to the minds of others, is the most remarkable.
[329] The prejudice of their fellow-creatures is a sufficiently potent cause, in itself, to preserve the identity of the Gipsy tribe in the world. It has made it to resemble an essence, hermetically sealed. Keep it in that position, and it retains its inherent qualities undiminished; but uncork the vessel containing it, and it might (I do not say it would) evaporate among the surrounding elements.
[330] The MS. of this work has undergone many vicissitudes. Among others, it may be mentioned that, in the state in which it was left by the author, it was twice lost, and once stolen; on which last occasion it was recovered, at an expense of one shilling! Then the original copy, in its present form, was stolen, and never recovered. In both instances did that happen under circumstances that such a fate was most unlikely to befall it. Then a copy of it was sent to Scotland, and never acknowledged, although I am in hopes it is now on its return, after a lapse of nearly three years; in which case, I will be more fortunate than the author, who gave the MS. to an individual and never got, and never could get, it back.