ROMANY LIFE
CHAPTER I
THE terms “gypsy” and “tramp” are by many considered synonymous. It is not, however, by any means the case, for while gypsies may be, and sometimes are, mistaken for tramps, the genuine professional tramp and the Tachey Romany, or true gypsy, have very little in common.
The tramp may perhaps be described as one who is dominated by the early instincts of our race,—instincts which in every one of us are but just below the veneer of civilization,—for we know that in the infancy of the human race man was perforce of a roving, restless and predatory disposition, driven by circumstances to wander in search of food, and, as in the case of plants which have been improved,—civilized, if you will, by cultivation,—there is always the tendency to return to the primitive state, so every civilized man is more or less insistently urged by Nature to disregard the conventions of Society, to live in the open air and to wander.
We may then take it that the professional tramp demonstrates this instinct combined with a detestation of honest toil. Such men sometimes depart from the ways of their kind and adopt the manner of life of the gypsy, and, when living under such conditions, they are, in some districts, designated “Mumpers.” Sometimes these mumpers intermarry with the gypsies, adopt their mode of living and assimilate many of their customs and portions of their language, with the result that their progeny exhibit many of the true Romany characteristics. Sometimes such half-caste gypsies are called “diddecoys,” but one also hears the term loosely applied to the true gypsy. I have heard it most frequently by the people of Hampshire, and occasionally by the gypsies themselves. A man once said to me, “I ain’t an old diddecoy like my missus; I was born in a house, but she’s always been a travelling lady.”
Of the caravan or tent dwellers it is difficult to say which are the more interesting, as owners of caravans may be frequently found camping in tents,—perhaps while the van is undergoing repairs, or because it will not accommodate the whole of the family. Again, a family will, for a time, take to “life under the tan” and later we may see them located in a van, it will therefore be better to make no invidious comparisons but treat of both van and tent dweller impartially. To the student, the life led by the habitual tent dwellers will appeal the more strongly as many of them have not associated with the outside world to quite the same extent as their caravan brethren and they are therefore, in some respects, the more interesting, and we can gain from them a much better idea of the primitive dwellings and general conditions under which most of the gypsies lived during those centuries of wandering both in India and after their emigration. Concerning much of their wanderings, history is dumb, but certain facts stand out in strong relief, for historians relate how in 1414 they appeared in Germany and France in bands, gaining a livelihood by the practice of fortune-telling.
Bands of them went to Persia as musicians, others engaged in various trades and scattered all over Europe. Their appearance in England dates from about 1480.
We read that the Persian monarch Behran Gour received from an Indian king 12,000 musicians of both sexes who were known as “Lûris” or “Lûlis,” and in this record of what is presumably the first emigration of the gypsies, the term “Lûris” is identical with that by which gypsies are known in Persia to-day. Pursuing the theme, we note the statement by old writers that “between al-Mansura and Mokrau the waters of the Indus have formed marshes, the borders of which are inhabited by certain Indian tribes called Zott, they are true nomads, living in huts like the Berbers.” We are told further that in the Arabic dictionary al-Kamus this entry occurs—“Zott arabicized from Jatt, a people of Indian origin.” Zott, by the way, is the name by which the gypsies are known to the Arabs.
Much space might, of course, be devoted to accounts of the life of these people after their departure from India to their arrival upon our shores, but it is a long, and often a sad story. A book, too, might be written on “The Arts and Devices used in Persecuting the Gypsies,” as in all countries,—not excepting our own,—they have received most inhuman treatment, and all who possess the smallest spark of Christian charity must feel ashamed of many of their countrymen. At the present day our methods differ it is true, but are we at heart more tolerant than our forefathers? do we not still drive the Romany chal and Romany chi from hedge to hedge? the only respite being when they are allowed to encamp for a short time on ground known to them as “Kekkeno mush’s poov,” or to us as “No man’s ground,” otherwise, a common. Both policeman and keeper appear to regard them as vermin and would fain treat them as such. Seldom—it would seem—do they seek to gain really reliable information concerning them, while the keeper, displaying the ignorance and bigotry usually associated with his office, and, coupling with it a desire to stand well in his employer’s opinion, goes even so far as to bear false witness against them. Such cases have been brought to my notice and it should, I think, be scarcely a matter for surprise if a keeper or office bearer of that ilk has the error of his ways forcibly demonstrated to him or upon him by one whom he has traduced.
A gypsy never forgets either a kindness or an intentional injury.