Various conjectures have been formed, and coincidences have been searched for, to obtain a solution of these queries. Some persons adverted to this or that name only of the Gipseys, without attending to other circumstances. Because they were likewise called Gipseys (Cingani), they must immediately derive their origin from the Grecian heretics, called Athingans: then again they must have wandered from the African province formerly called Zeugitana. [137] Another time they are supposed to be the fugitives driven from the city Singara, in Mesopotamia, by Julian the Apostate: others again transplanted them to Mount Caucasus, and made them Zochori; or to the Palus Mæotis, making them descendants from the Ziches. [138] Some people imagined that instead of Zigeuner, they should be called Zigarener, which they thought a corruption of Saracener, and they must certainly be Saracens. Another writer (to return to Africa) conducts them from the Mauritanian province Tingitane, and supposes them to be the Canaanites, who, being driven out by Joshua, settled here. Still another brings them from Mauritania, and, to corroborate his opinion by the name, calls them descendants of Chus; as he thinks nothing can have a greater affinity in sound, than Zigeuner and Chusener. Herbelot judges the coast of Zengebar to be their mother country. Bellonius, on the contrary, looks for them in Bulgaria and Wallachia, where their ancestors are said to have lived, under the name Sigynner. Cordova stumbled on Zigere, formerly a city of Thrace, which he assigns as their native soil. Some people fancied they had heard that the Gipseys called themselves More, and often used the name amori among one another (not amori, but Discha more—Get out, fellow!) and now they are Amorites!
Another party, besides this or that appellation for the Gipseys, considered their unsettled way of life, or selected some particular circumstance from their manners, by which they decided concerning their origin. Wherefore they were sometimes torlaques, faquirs, or kalendars; [139] sometimes the remains of Attila’s Huns, at other times the Avari, who were vanquished by Charles the Great: then again Petschenegers, who played their last stake in the twelfth century; or perhaps a mixture of all kinds of rascally people gathered together, having collectively no certain country, as their name Zigeuner indicates, signifying, ‘to wander up and down;’—for which reason, it is said, our German ancestors denominated every strolling vagrant Zichegan. By several writers they have been thought inhabitants of the Alps and Pyrenées; others suppose them to be Cain’s descendants, who, on account of the curse denounced against their stock, have been compelled to lead a wandering vagrant life. Because they pretend to tell fortunes, some have supposed them to be Chaldeans, or some Syrian religious sect. Brodæus formed his judgment from their clothes, in which he thought he discovered a resemblance to the Roman toga; and thence he imagined they were natives of Wallachia, descendants from the colony sent by Trajan into Dacia to keep this newly-conquered country steady in its allegiance. And, according to his assertion, people in Germany do really call them Wahlen (he writes Walachen), that is to say, Italians.
All these opinions are merely conjecture; it would therefore be useless to proceed with the list of them: but it may be proper to cite a few which seem to have a greater appearance of probability. Let us begin with Wagenseil. He considers the Gipseys to be German Jews; who about the middle of the fourteenth century, to escape the dreadful persecution which raged against them all over Europe, especially in Germany, secreted themselves in forests, [141] deserts, and subterraneous caverns. In these hiding-places they remained above half a century, not making their appearance again till the period of the Hussites: as the Hussish heresy then engrossed the public attention, with regard to the Jews all was safe. But not daring to declare themselves, they fell on the device of saying, that their respect for the Mosaic law would not permit them to become Christians, at the same time styling themselves, in general terms, Egyptian pilgrims. Those who did not yet know what they were, nor whence they came, from their wandering about (einherzichen) called them Gipseys (Zigeuner). To establish this supposition respecting the origin of the Gipseys, he refers to their language, which he says is a mixture of German and Hebrew, quoting, in proof of his assertion, near fifty words, which are evidently Hebrew. He then asks, Whence should the Gipseys have gotten so many Hebrew words into their language, if they were not Jews; at a time too when Hebrew was unknown to all other nations?—This opinion bears infinitely more the appearance of truth, than any one of those before cited. It must also have been deemed incontrovertible by the learned author, as he mentions it, in the introduction to his treatise, with great confidence, and as much self-congratulation as if he had discovered the philosopher’s-stone. Notwithstanding all this, the confutation is so short and easy, that very few words are sufficient to overturn the whole system; which rests entirely on the language:—the words quoted are taken from a gibberish vocabulary; but gibberish is not the Gipsey language. . . . What relates to the Jewish persecution is very just; but all the rest are mere, and frequently inconsistent, conjectures, founded on it by the learned writer.
A later opinion is, that the Gipseys are a horde of Tartars, which separated from the multitude under Timur, when he invaded western Asia, about the year 1401. The supposed proofs are:—First, because the Mongols (Mongols and Tartars are here reckoned one and the same people) are just as nomadic as the Gipseys. Secondly, because these have sometimes declared themselves to be Tartars. Thirdly, because the Gipsey king mentioned by Aventin, whose name was Zundel or Zindelo, a Mongol chan, was a descendant from the great Zingis: as Zindelo is a very easy change from Zingis. Fourthly, because among the several states into which the Mongol empire was divided after the death of Zingis, one was called Dsongar, and the members of it Dsongari, which agrees perfectly with Zingari. Fifthly, because the Tartar and Gipsey languages have a great affinity to each other; for during a late war between Russia and the Porte, a commander of Crim Tartars, by name Devlet Gueray, signalised himself very much; and this Devlet is perhaps derived from Devla, the Gipsey appellation for the Deity, and may be a name under which the Tartars reverence any thing respectable. Sixthly, and lastly, because the time of Timur’s expedition agrees very well with the first appearance of the Gipseys.—This is an opinion founded on six points; and one might add, in further conformation of it, that this hypothesis will reasonably determine how the Gipseys, such poor wretches in general, came to be so well stored with gold and silver at their first arrival in Europe, as Stumpf and others assert. If they were part of Timur’s followers, it was very likely to be plunder taken from the people they had conquered.
Of all these grounds, that adduced from the favourable concurrence of chronological events has the most weight, but proves neither more nor less than the bare possibility of the thing. With respect to the first point, it is not so clearly established. The Tartars are herdsmen, and the quality of the pasture for their cattle implies a fixed residence. Gipseys, on the contrary, are ignorant as to tending cattle, nor have they the smallest idea about breeding them. Further, whether they are Tartars, because they represent themselves as such, or have been declared such by other people; whether Zindelo is a Mongol chan, because his name is easily derived from Zingis; whether the language of the Tartars bears a near affinity to that of the Gipseys, because a native of Tartary was found whose name, Devlet, is perhaps derived from the Gipsey word Devla, and as that word among the Gipseys signifies God, it may possibly among the Tartars signify something like it;—all this must be left to the reader’s discretion. If such assertions are admitted for proofs, then the Gipseys must be Bohemians, because they are called so in France. Thus Chiflet must have been of Gipsey or Tartar descent, because his name may possibly be derived from Devla or Devlet. The Franks, too, are probably derived from the Trojans, because Pharamond, their king’s name, may be formed from Priamus. Dsongari and Zingari compared with each other do coincide, except that the latter is only the Latin termination given by the learned. But, besides all this, if the Gipseys must be Tartars at all events, where are the Tartars’ broad faces?—Where is their courage?—Where are the zealous religious principles with which the Tartars honour the Deity, and, upon occasion, fight for him? Finally, with regard to language, this contradicts rather than supports the opinion we are discussing. The language of the Tartars is Turkish; that of the Gipseys is quite different, as will be hereafter proved.
As these and the like arguments rather controvert the Tartar origin of the Gipseys, so can we as little agree with Mr. Pray, in supposing them to be [Tartars] of Asia Minor, from the Countries of the ancient Zichen, whose name the Gipseys are said to bear; nor with an older writer, Ekhard, who contends that they are Circassians, terrified from their habitations by Timur’s Mongols. Mr. Pray brings nothing further in support of his surmise, than the similarity of sound in the names Zigianer (Zichen or properly Zygier) and Zigeuner; together with the circumstance, that the latter appeared among us soon after Timur’s expedition into Asia Minor. Ekhard, on the contrary, who in like manner unites the names Zigeuner and Circassier—by endeavouring to prove that these, as possessors of the countries belonging to the Zichen, were by authors indifferently styled Circassier, Zygier, and Zichen—adds moreover, that the Circassian complexion was a brown yellow, exactly like that of the Gipseys; that they both suffer their hair to hang loose over the shoulders; that in their diet and clothes they are both equally dirty; and lastly, that among the Circassians, you meet with astrology, and all kinds of witchcraft, precisely the same as among the Gipseys. But this comparison, were it even better founded than it is, would only prove that you may make what you please of the Gipseys. Upon the same ground, they might just as well be supposed to be allied to the people of Otaheite, or any other uncivilised nation in any quarter of the globe. And yet the author draws this conclusion from it, that one egg is not more like another than the Circassian and the Gipsey; and he may confidently assert, that all who before his time have been of a different opinion, were mistaken.
We ought long ago to have spoken of the reputed Egyptian descent of the Gipseys; but as that has been a very current, and almost universally received, opinion, it merits a chapter by itself.
CHAPTER IV.
On the Egyptian Descent of the Gipseys.
The belief that Gipseys are of Egyptian origin, is parallel with the existence of these people in Europe. It arose from the report circulated by the first of them who arrived here that they were pilgrims from Egypt; and this statement has not only been universally adopted by the common people, but has also, here and there, obtained credit among men of learning. Had this opinion not been received at a time when every thing was taken upon trust without examination; had it not been propagated every-where by the first Gipseys, and obtained the sanction of time in following ages; it would have been impossible for it to have gained such general acceptation, or to have maintained itself even to the latest times.