Griselini now comes to the point:—To what nation did these priests and priestesses belong? And when did their emigration happen?
“It was after the time of Augustus,” he says, “that they began to wander through the different parts of Europe; in every district of which, they endeavoured to disseminate the worship of Isis.
“They practised astrology, and other kinds of superstitious impositions, with all sorts of vagrants’ tricks, in nearly the same manner as the Gipseys of our age deceive people.
“Now it is known that the Egyptian priests had stated incomes, from appropriated lands; which circumstance attached them to their native country: and hence they hated an unsettled life. Neither did they desire to make proselytes; and strangers, who wished to be initiated into the rites and mysteries of Isis, were obliged to submit to be circumcised;—this ceremony was indispensable: on the contrary, the before-mentioned priests of Isis wandering about the Roman provinces, never mentioned a word of circumcision to their new converts. Very sensible critics have produced palpable evidence that they were Ethiopians and Troglodytes, who could the more easily pass for Egyptians, as their features, persons, customs, and religion, were the same.
“Of all the writers who mention these emigrations, from Egypt, into Italy, Greece, and every part of the globe which was known in the time of the Romans, I shall refer only to Heliodorus. It was very possible that, sometimes, real Egyptians who had been driven by misfortunes from their native country, or perhaps some of the very lowest rank of people who had nothing to lose, might be mixed with these wanderers. From this mixture of Ethiopians, Troglodytes, and Egyptians, then, sprang a distinct wandering race, which partakes, in some measure, of all the three nations; and from which, according to the foregoing observations, we may reasonably conclude the Gipseys of our time to be descended; as in all of them we discover, sometimes the Troglodyte, sometimes the Ethiopian, and sometimes the Egyptian.
“That no mention is made of them in the Hungarian yearly publications before the year 1417, is by no means a proof that they were not known long before, both in that kingdom and the Banat. If we admit the Roman coins which are dug out of the earth as proof that the Romans have been inhabitants of any place, without the concurrent testimony of any historian; we are equally authorised to admit the little Egyptian idols, of bronze, which are dug up near them in the Banat, as proof for the Gipseys. Being dispersed all over the Roman conquest, why might they not as well, when Dacia became a province, have gone there likewise, and propagated the worship of Isis, Anubis, and other Egyptian deities, the same as in Italy?”
Such are Mr. Griselini’s arguments, stated very diffusely, as they may be found in his works: but it will be evident, that what he adduces in support of his opinion, is a direct proof that it cannot be established. Supposing any person charitable enough to allow there is good argument in his far-fetched similarities; yet the circumstance, that neither in the Hungarian nor in any other Journals, is the least notice taken of Gipseys before the year 1417, would overset the whole again. Griselini felt this himself; but what he urges in reply, is no answer to the objection. Nor is it just, that the Roman coins found in the Banat should be esteemed, without concurrent testimony, a proof of the Romans having formerly dwelt there. German crowns are, as Mr. Niebuhr informs us, the chief current coin in Yemen (Arabia Felix), and great numbers are yearly sent thither for coffee. If some centuries hence, when revolutions may have occasioned great changes, the said German money should be dug up, would any historical writer venture to assert as a truth, that Arabia Felix had formerly been inhabited by Germans! But it is unnecessary to enter into a laboured confutation of Mr. Griselini’s arguments; yet a few hints, with respect to his mode of proceeding, strike so forcibly, that we cannot forbear to notice them.
He relies chiefly upon certain similarities between the Gipseys, Egyptians, and Ethiopians, without reflecting whether they are distinctions peculiar to these people. Of this description the following are examples:—he thinks the Gipseys must be Troglodytes and Ethiopians, because they follow the employment of goldwashing; these latter, as well as some of the African hordes, do the same in their rivers which produce gold: he makes them Egyptians, because they eat swine’s flesh: again, he concludes they must be priests of Isis, because they exclaim against the hard-hearted, who refuse the boon they ask. Are these, then, distinctions which none but Egyptians and Ethiopians have in common with the Gipseys? Is it necessary to recur to the Egyptians, to find people, beside Gipseys, who eat pork?—Or to the priests of Isis, for sturdy beggars? And, with regard to goldwashers, how came he not to recollect that the Wallachians also follow this employment?—And that near Strasburgh, beside other places, hundreds of people who have not a drop of Gipsey blood in their veins get their living by it?
Further, the said Mr. Griselini, in order to render his system the more plausible, has made use of certain expedients at the expense of truth; and, in spite of all experience to the contrary, so modelled the properties of the Gipseys, as to give them the appearance of complete Egyptians. He makes them by nature inclined to melancholy; whereas their dispositions have not the least tincture of it: they are described as most conscientiously, nay rather superstitiously, attached to religious customs; and yet, according to the universal testimony of other observers of these people, they are totally indifferent as to every thing connected with religion. He says, they are adverse to eating onions; and as for beans, they abhor them: whereas Sulzer was a witness how much they liked the flavour of both. By proceeding in this manner, every thing may be made to answer all purposes. But woe to the records and histories which are used in this manner!
It will be seen, from what has been said on the subject, that the supposed Egyptian descent of the Gipseys is very far from being proved; notwithstanding it was formerly so generally credited, and even is to this day. Arguing on the supposition that they originated from Egypt, care was taken to inform us what kind of people they had been in that country. It is very confidently related, and to our great edification, that their forefathers were the same sorcerers who, in the presence of Pharaoh, imitated Moses’s miracles: moreover, that the Egyptian king set these people as taskmasters over the children of Israel, in order to render their labour the more grievous: and finally, that these were the very murderers employed by the inhuman Herod, to carry into effect his cruel decree respecting the children of Bethlehem. This kind of dreaming has been carried still further; it having been calculated to what degree of indolence these people had accustomed themselves in Egypt, living by the labour and sweat of others. Afterwards, when, contrary to expectation, the Children of Israel escaped from their servitude, the lucrative employment of these overseers, of course, had an end: instead of reconciling themselves to any kind of labour, they rather chose to decamp, with goods, wives, and children, from Egypt, in hopes, by cunning and fraud, to procure an easier subsistence in foreign countries. They pursued this shameful course of life through the following centuries; and have, at last, pushed their excursions into our territories.
But it is not sufficient that the Egyptian descent of these people is entirely destitute of proof; on the other side, the most positive proof is to be found to contradict it. Their language differs entirely from the Coptic; and their customs, as Ahasuerus Fritsch has remarked, are diametrically opposite to the Egyptian. To these facts must be added that weighty circumstance, of their wandering about like strangers in Egypt, where they form a distinct people; as not only Bellonius, but many later writers assure us. Muratori, therefore, is not in the wrong, when he thinks it ridiculous to account them Egyptians—people having no better authority for this belief, than their own unsupported opinion.
Thus, then, stands the argument, as well with respect to the derivation of the Gipseys in general, as in regard to the Egyptian descent of them in particular. While many men, and among these some very respectable for their learning, declare the origin of these people to remain an unsolved riddle, the opinion that they were not originally from Egypt, will, it is thought, by the contents of this and the foregoing chapter, be thoroughly confirmed. Notwithstanding the innumerable researches, the Gipseys still remain unacknowledged inmates in Europe.
It may nevertheless be doubted whether Swinburne is quite right, in asserting it to be impossible ever to find out the real home of these strangers. After so many unsuccessful endeavours, it is not without apprehension, though with the best-founded hope, we venture on another trial.