Till the seventeenth century, the Egyptian descent of the Gipseys rested entirely on tradition. Thomasius was the first who endeavoured to establish this matter on satisfactory evidence. Those who, since him, have supported the same opinion, are principally the Englishman Salmon; and, lately, Signor Griselini. Before their vouchers are produced, it will be proper to mention that Thomasius speaks only of the Gipseys who travelled about Europe during the first seven years after their arrival; for he thinks that, after seven years were elapsed, these, excepting a very few, returned home again, and after their retreat the present set was produced, as has been already described. In this particular, he differs entirely from the other two writers, making the latter Gipseys a distinct race of people from those who first arrived. On the contrary, Salmon, as well as Griselini, consider the Gipseys that are now wandering in Europe, and with truth, as lineal descendants of the former, consequently bring them all from Egypt.
Thomasius says: “The first Gipseys never would allow themselves to be any people but Egyptians; asserting always, that the Lesser Egypt was their mother country: and they deserve credit, as they were an honourable worthy set of people.” One observation will be sufficient in reply:—Among the oldest writers who, prior to Stumpf, mention the Gipseys, not one seems to be acquainted with their worth. But Thomasius himself discovered the weakness of his first argument, and therefore hastens to another. “Be this as it may,” he proceeds, “they were in the earliest times, when doubtless something more certain was extant, always looked upon as Egyptians: so that it does not become us, who live two hundred years later, positively to reject what was at that time generally assented to.” Our author was not aware that this kind of reasoning proves too much; for by the same mode of arguing, every antiquated error, every ridiculous superstition, may be defended. If this be admitted, Satan gets his cloven foot again, of which modern unbelief had bereft him. Thus, Christian Thomasius acted unjustifiably when he laid violent hands on witches and sorcerers, and put an end to their existence, though credited from the highest antiquity. Thomasius imagines there were other proofs, beside the Gipseys’ own assertions, that they were Egyptians; this supposition, however, not only has nothing to support it, but is openly contradicted by Aventin, Kranz, and Münster. It is not authenticated because the chronicles universally mention it as a saying of the Gipseys, whenever they speak of their coming from Egypt. It is confuted by Aventin, who rejects their Egyptian descent; at the same time he alledges, that they wished to be thought from that country. In his time, nothing was known concerning them, but what came from their own mouths: and those who thought them Egyptians, rested their belief entirely on the veracity of their informants. This is collected with greater certainty from Kranz and Münster; for these declare expressly, that every thing which could be discovered, by any other means than their own assertions, contradicted rather than confirmed their Egyptian descent. Yet Thomasius has more proofs; he cites the resemblance between the Gipseys and the inhabitants of the Lesser Egypt, whence they say they came. But many people lay this difficulty in his way, that the name of Lesser Egypt is not to be found in any system of geography, but is a mere invention of the Gipseys. He rests his opinion on that of Vulcanius, who looks upon Nubia to be the Lesser Egypt, and thinks, for what reason does not appear, that the Nubians themselves called their country by that name. These are the similarities:—Nubians, as well as Gipseys, confess themselves Christians; both lead a wandering life, and both are of a dark brown complexion: to which some resemblances in shape between the Gipseys and Egyptians are introduced in general terms. Whether there be any affinity in their languages he leaves undetermined, because, he says, he knows nothing about it. That the name of Zigeuner is the same as Egyptian, and the former is derived from the latter, he proves in the following ingenious manner: “The Spaniards—who, instead of Egyptaner, call them Gitanos—have cut off the first syllable. Our forefathers, who exceeded the Spaniards in the art of mangling names, have rejected two syllables, and, instead of Egyptianer, first called them Cianer, afterwards, in order to fill up the chasm between i and a, Ciganer. Further, as we, instead of Italianer, say Italiener, we have also changed Ciganer into Cigener; and at last, as people in Upper Germany are very fond of diphthongs, Cigeuner, or Zigeuner, has been produced.” Now, if any thing can be proved by all this, in the same manner the several opinions quoted in the former chapter are likewise established. And yet, after all, who will say, that, instead of Egyptier, Egyptianer, whence Cianer, Ciganer, and thus progressively through all the changes, Zigeuner may be produced? With regard to the denomination of Lesser Egypt, ranked under the list of Gipsey fables, and brought as evidence to overset Thomasius’s system, because Egypt never was divided into Greater and Smaller, it is nevertheless a true geographical name, though certainly not to be found in the treatises on geography: it however appears in the title of a Turkish emperor. A declaration of war, made by Achmet IV. against John Casimir, king of Poland, in 1652, begins with the following words: “I sultan, a king and son of the Turkish emperor, a soldier of the God of the Greeks and Babylonians—king of the Greater and Lesser Egypt.” The Gipseys have therefore, in this instance, been falsely accused of a fiction: but whether by this Lesser Egypt, Lower Egypt be understood, cannot be determined.
Salmon believes the Gipseys to be Mamelukes, who were obliged to quit Egypt in 1517, when the Turkish emperor conquered this country, and thereby put an end to the Circassian government. They are reputed to have acquired the name of Zigeuner, or in the Turkish language Zinganies, from a Captain Zinganeus, who was very active in opposing the Turks. How all this is proved, will best appear from his own words: “They had no occasion for any testimony to shew they were of Egyptian descent. The blackness of their skin clearly indicated from what part they came. What confirms me, in my belief of this intelligence, concerning the origin of the Gipseys, is an act of Parliament, passed in the twenty-seventh year of the reign of Henry VIII.—that is, fourteen years after the victory obtained by Selim emperor of the Turks over Egypt—in which are the following words: Whereas certain outlandish people, who do not profess any craft or trade, whereby to maintain themselves; but go about, in great numbers, from place to place, using insidious underhand means to impose on his Majesty’s subjects, making them believe that they understand the art of foretelling to men and women their good or ill fortune, by looking in their hands, whereby they frequently defraud people of their money; likewise are guilty of thefts and highway robberies: it is hereby ordered, that the said vagrants, commonly called Egyptians, in case they remain one month in the kingdom, shall be proceeded against as thieves and rascals, and on the importation of any such Egyptian, he (the importer) shall forfeit 40l. . . . for every trespass.” He then quotes another act, passed during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, wherein the Gipseys are also called Egyptians.
From the blackness of their skins, therefore, with the official use of the name Egyptian, Salmon first draws the inference that they were really Egyptians: then, because the first decree published against the Gipseys in England was fourteen years after Selim’s conquest of Egypt, that they were Mamelukes. There is not any connection to be discovered in either conclusion. The Parliament used in the act the word Egyptian, because it was universally current in England. Whether the Gipseys were Egyptians or not, was a question of learning, totally irrelevant with the intention of the order; nor could it be determined by any juridical decree.
There is still less reason for supposing them Mamelukes who had travelled from Egypt on its being taken by Selim in 1517, and tracing their name from one of their leaders: as both they and their name were known in Europe at least a hundred years preceding the fall of Gäwry; or before Tumanbai, the latest hope of the Mamelukes, was hanged. [154]
Griselini advances numerous reasons in support of his opinion, and would certainly go a great way towards determining the Egyptian origin of the Gipseys, if, as in most investigations, more did not depend upon the quality than the number of the proofs. Yet he does not suppose them to be genuine Egyptians; and for this reason, because the greatest number of those resemblances which he has sought between Egyptians and Gipseys, intended to prove the latter descended from the former, are not applicable to the question. Besides, he finds himself under the necessity of looking for foreign helps; and what he cannot make coincide with the Egyptians, he meets with among the Ethiopians and Troglodytes: these he introduces promiscuously, kneads the whole together, and determines the Gipseys to be a mixture of Ethiopians, Egyptians, and Troglodytes. This very circumstance, even before his reasons are considered, renders the matter very suspicious. By the same means, it would not be very difficult to shew that the Italians are, in part, on account of their nastiness, Ostiacks; in part, because of their superstition, and admiration of magnificent edifices, Egyptians; and lastly, in part, for their dastardly treacherous revenge, Chinese.
Griselini begins his comparisons with the disposition of the Gipseys. He says,—
“They are inclined to melancholy, and are desperate in the first emotions of their anger:—Ammianus Marcellinus describes the Egyptians, of his time, in nearly the same terms.
“With regard to religion,” he proceeds, “the Gipseys of the Banat always conform to that which prevails in the village, be it the Roman-catholic or the Illyrian Greek. They have not the least comprehension of either; in which ignorance they perfectly resemble the Wallachians—except that they observe the strict fasts of the Greek church with more exactness. The Wallachians separate from their wives only during the last days of the great fasts: the Gipseys, on the contrary, avoid their society from the beginning to the end; also on the Ascension of the Blessed Virgin, in Advent, and especially all vigils.—Apuleius, and other writers of antiquity, take particular notice of the Egyptian fasts, whose strictness consisted chiefly in this, that the man held himself obliged to refrain from his consort’s bed.
“But, beside these solemn fasts, the Gipseys of the Banat observe a degree of temperance, and a choice in their diet, even on those days when all kinds of food are permitted. They abstain from frogs and tortoises; wherein they accord with the Wallachians, Räizes, and other Christians of the Greek church. Moreover, they refrain from some kinds of river fish, viz. the red-scaled bream, perch, and lampreys; of which it is known that, among the Egyptians, the race of Likopolis and Tagaroriopolis refused to taste. The Gipseys are adverse to all feathered game, and particularly to birds of prey. The stork, when he deigns to build on their wretched huts, is highly esteemed by them:—one of these birds, like its relation ibis, was an object of worship, with other symbolical Egyptian deities.
“Of four-footed animals, the Gipseys are most fond of swine’s flesh, particularly salted.—The Egyptians likewise consumed a great number of these creatures, though they looked upon their herds and keepers to be unclean.
“The Gipseys hang up large onions in their dwellings, but do not eat them.—Besides that the Egyptians honoured them, as well as many other vegetables, we are informed by Diodorus Siculus, that by the regulations relating to diet, observed in the different Egyptian provinces, onions were prohibited in some, but allowed in others.
“Like the old Egyptians, the Gipseys cannot bear the smell of beans; although their neighbours, the Wallachians, eat them with pleasure.
“When I was at Denta, in the district of Csakowa, curiosity led me into a Gipsey hut. The first object which arrested my attention was a young man covered with the itch, whose mother was feeding him with the boiled flesh of a small snake, on a dirty earthen plate.—In the same manner the Egyptians used the flesh of snakes, as the mildest and most effectual remedy for the elephantiasis.
“It is well known that, even to this day, fowls and others of the feathered tribe are hatched by art in Egypt.—I must confess I was not a little surprised when, in July, 1775, I went into a Gipsey hut before Karansebes, to find an old woman engaged in hatching geese and ducks eggs, in horse-dung. This was exactly the method of the old Egyptians.
“From all which has hitherto been produced, as well as that the Gipseys of the Banat, and others dispersed over the rest of Europe, declare themselves to be from Egypt, it is highly probable that they are of Egyptian origin. But see a nearer resemblance. So long ago as in Ælian’s time, the Egyptians were famous for their patience in enduring all kinds of torture; and would rather expire on the rack, than be brought to confession; which is a striking trait in the character of the Gipseys. When this equivocal means of learning the truth, the torture, was practised in the imperial royal hereditary dominions, several instances may be remembered of the Gipseys suffering themselves to be torn to pieces sooner than acknowledge crimes, even when the magistrates had the most indisputable proofs of them.”
Thus far has been to prove the Egyptian descent of the Gipseys. What follows is against it; and, from the similarity of their condition, is to convince us that they are of Æthiopian and Troglodytish origin.
“According to the most authentic writers, the Egyptians were solicitous to build themselves convenient habitations. They lived decently; and their attention to cleanliness, in the observance of certain rules of health, was so general, that even the peasants, and the lowest classes of people in the nation, were no exception to it.—The residences of the Gipseys in the Banat present a very different picture. . . . Miserable dwellings, consisting, partly of thorns and straw packed together, and partly of holes, ten or twelve feet deep, dug in the earth. Taken in this point of view, the Gipseys have more the appearance of being related to the hordes of Æthiopians and Troglodytes.
“Among the ancient Egyptians, agriculture was in high esteem; as it still is among the present Copts, their true descendants.—The Gipseys, on the contrary, are the worst, and most careless farmers: another argument for their being Ethiopians and Troglodytes.
“These and other African hordes, employ themselves in collecting gold out of the river sand;—in like manner, the Marosch, Nera, and other streams, have induced the Gipseys to become goldwashers.
“An inclination for strolling, to which the Egyptians were so very adverse, is the particular propensity of the Gipseys in general; nor are those of the Banat exempt from it.
“The more artful, particularly of the other sex, go about from house to house, where they tell fortunes, cast nativities, discover thefts, and pretend they possess remedies, to which they ascribe wonders and infallible cures. These nostrums consist, chiefly, of roots, amulets, certain small stones . . . mostly a kind of scoriæ.—Among the Egyptians, likewise, such impostors rambled up and down. These were Ethiopians by descent, who carried on a similar trade.
“From the last considerations, compared with the former, one would be inclined rather to deduce the origin of the Gipseys from the Ethiopians and Troglodytes, than from the Egyptians. But what I am going to add, will make it more probable that they are a mixture of all the three nations. [161]
“It is well known that people of both sexes, calling themselves Egyptian priests and priestesses, were, in ancient times, scattered through Italy, Greece, and all the provinces of the Roman empire: where they not only introduced the worship of the goddess Isis, but wandered from place to place, begged, and professed the same kinds of ingenuity in which the Gipseys of the Banat, and the rest of their brethren dispersed over Europe, are so thoroughly versed. These said priests and priestesses, which Apuleius ironically calls magnæ religionis sidera, not only knocked at people’s doors, in Rome, with their sistris, but even had the skill to persuade the common people, that to refuse them alms and to commit sacrilege were equally heinous. They even went so far as to threaten those who slighted them, in the name of their goddess Isis, to strike them with blindness, or the tympany (hydrops tympanites).—Aventin says, the Gipseys could so terrify the people in Bavaria, with the like threats, that they suffered themselves to be robbed by them with impunity. Likewise in the Banat, the women, particularly, are heard to vent the most horrid curses and imprecations if they are reprimanded, or not paid for their calculations of nativities, singing, or fortune-telling.
“The licentiousness and immorality of the Gipseys are extreme. In early youth, when yet young girls, they exhibit themselves, with their dances, before every person from whom they expect any present; and these dances always end in lascivious attitudes and shameful gestures. In like manner, the ordinary women in Egypt used to dance at their orgies, especially at the feast of Bubostes, and the procession of Canopus. The like scenes appeared at Rome, among the wives, daughters, and sponsors of the priests of Isis, agreeably to the mysteries of that goddess.”