John Bunyan and the Gipsies

by James Simson

II.

In regard to what might be called the “nationality” of John Bunyan I said, in my letter of the 5th May, that “the question at issue is really not one of evidence, but of an unfortunate feeling of caste that bars the way against all investigation and proof.” I do not know what the congregation of Bunyan’s Church at Bedford consists of, but I presume it is composed of humble people, engaged in making a living and bringing up their children becomingly, and indulging in the simple conventionalities suitable to their positions in life. To ask them even to entertain the question whether the great dreamer was of the Gipsy race would apparently horrify them in their simplicity; and it might be useless to attempt to explain matters so as to “convert” them to a belief in it. Proof is perhaps not what such people want, nor would they all be likely to be able to say what it should consist of, or to appreciate it if it was laid before them. It is from no lack of charity or politeness on my part that I say this, and that I would attach little weight to what they might say were they to assert that it is only proof they require to satisfy them that John Bunyan was of the Gipsy race; or that the fact of it has not been proved. He was either of the Gipsy race, of mixed blood, or of the ordinary English one. What proof is there that he was of the latter one? If there is no proof of his having been of the ordinary English race, why assert it, and deny that he was of the Gipsy one, and refuse to investigate the meaning of what he said himself and people were and were not, which, if language has any meaning, clearly showed that he was of the Gipsy race? Why assume, without investigation, that he was not that, but of the ordinary English race, even in the face of his calling having been that of a tinker?

If the congregation of Bunyan’s chinch and the people living in the neighbourhood of it have a difficulty in judging of evidence in a matter like this, they can have none in explaining, in a general or more or less crude way at least, their feelings of antipathy to the idea of the illustrious pilgrim having been of the Gipsy race; and drawing the logical conclusion that he was not likely to have said plainly that he was one of it, in the face of the storm of indignation that seems to be entertained to-day; an indignation which is so great that it has not yet found expression.

If some highly educated men have missed the hinge on which the Gipsy question turns—that the race perpetuates itself in a settled condition, irrespective of character and other circumstances—and have had a difficulty in realizing it in all its bearings, we can easily excuse the congregation of Bunyan’s church for holding views similar to those of the community at large, on a subject that is more or less complex in its nature. But they can never expect to do justice to it unless they approach it with every desire to do what is proper, and not with the rooted aversion with which it has hitherto been regarded. What Bunyan told us of himself and family he said was “well known to many”; and he seems to have assumed that it was, or would have been, understood by the world. I have even suggested that he had been more precise with some of his friends, who might (as they very probably would) have suppressed what he told them in regard to the nationality of himself and his “father’s house.” If he had publicly said plainly that he was of the Gipsy race, that would have been a fact, which required no proof. But there was no necessity or occasion for him to have said what he did.

It appeals to every principle of fair play and abstract reason that a race that has been in Great Britain for 375 years must be considered in many respects British, whatever its origin, or whatever the habits of some of it may be. It would be very wrong to show and perpetuate a prejudice against the name, or blood as such, however little or however much there may be of it in the person possessing and claiming it. Everything else being equal, such a man, instead of having a prejudice entertained for him, is entitled to a greater respect than should be shown to another who labours under no such prejudice in regard to his blood. Apply this principle to Bunyan and he will stand higher than he has done. He was evidently a man that was “chosen of God” to shine brilliantly among the children of a common parent; and it becomes all of us to acknowledge him. It is to be hoped that the congregation of the church of which he was the honoured pastor will approach this subject at least with wariness, and not, against all evidence, reject him who was a divine instrument for the benefit of humanity, in its highest concernment; merely because he was a member of a particular “family in the land,” which has never yet been acknowledged in any shape or form, however numerous it is.

MR. LELAND ON THE GIPSIES. [11a]

I.

The History of the Gipsies, by Walter Simson, which I edited and published in 1865, was ready for the press in 1858. In a prefatory note to it I said:—

“In the present work the race has been treated of so fully and elaborately, in all its aspects, as in a great measure to fill and satisfy the mind, instead of being, as heretofore, little better than a myth to the understanding of the most intelligent person.”

In 1872 Mr. Leland published his work on The English Gipsies and their Language, in which no reference was made to mine, [that is, my part of it]. [11b]