Was John Bunyan a Gipsy?

by James Simson

IV. [17]

I said in my communication of the 8th that there was more than a possibility of Thomas Bonyon and his wife, in 1542, having been of the original stock of Gipsies, of mixed blood, that assumed the surname of a “good family in the land.” As illustrative of this question, we have a writ of the Scots’ parliament, of the 8th April, 1554, pardoning thirteen Gipsies for the slaughter of Ninian Small, their names being the following:—“Andro Faw, captain of the Egyptians, George Faw, Robert Faw, and Anthony Faw, his sons, Johnne Faw, Andrew George Nichoah, George Sebastiane Colyne, George Colyne, Julie Colyne, Johnne Colyne, James Haw, Johnne Browne, and George Browne, Egyptians.” There being thus Gipsies of the name of Brown (and, oddly enough, one called John Brown), in Scotland before 1554, we should have no difficulty in believing that there were, or might have been, some in England of the name of Bonyon in 1542. The only native name assumed by the tribe in Scotland before 1540, when they were noticed officially, was Bailyow, or Baillie. And how did we have Gipsies in Scotland of the name of Brown (apparently the only native name, except Baillie), in a public document before 1554? Between 1506 and 1579 was the “golden age” of the Gipsies in Scotland, excepting (nominally, at least) the year 1541–2, for, on the 6th June, 1541, they were ordered to leave the realm within thirty days, on pain of death, owing to an attack made by them on James V. while roaming over the country in disguise. “But the king, whom, according to tradition, they had personally so deeply offended, dying in the following year (1542), a new reign brought new prospects to the denounced wanderers” (His., p. 107). There is a tradition that the Gipsies were in Scotland before 1460, for McLellan of Bombie happening to kill a chief of some “Saracens or Gipsies from Ireland,” was reinstated in the Barony of Bombie, and took for his crest a Moor’s head, and “Think on” for his motto. And it is a tradition amongst all the Scottish Gipsies that their ancestors came by way of Ireland into Scotland. How, then, were there Gipsies described, in a writ of the Scots’ parliament, by the names of John and George Brown in 1554? In no other apparent way, during their “golden age,” than that a native or natives of that name had married into the tribe, and that the two Browns, perhaps brothers, mentioned were the issue, and grown-up men at that; so that the marriage could not have taken place later than 1533, and probably considerably earlier. There was little chance of a Scotch lawyer describing these two Browns as “Egyptians” unless they had been the children of a native father, or had previously assumed the surname of Brown; the first being the most probable. [18]

If we can imagine that William Bonyon, the first of the name mentioned by Mr. Brown, had been a native of England, and, like the Scotch Brown, had married a Gipsy, we would have found Thomas, in 1542, a member of the tribe. It was not necessary that he should have been 40 years old in 1542, or that the property of “Bunyan’s End” “had probably been in the possession of the family long before 1542”; or that William had not died in middle life, leaving Thomas a young man, born of a Gipsy mother. Even William might have been one of the original Gipsies, of mixed blood, that is, “such a ‘foreign tinker’ as is alluded to in the Spanish Gipsy edicts, and in the Act of Queen Elizabeth, in which mention is made of ‘strangers,’ as distinguished from natural-born subjects, being with the Gipsies . . . It is therefore very likely that there was not a drop of common English blood in Bunyan’s veins. John Bunyan belongs to the world at large, and England is only entitled to the credit of the formation of his character” (p. 518). He might have assumed the name of Bonyon and bought “Bunyan’s End,” when the severe law was passed by Henry VIII. against the race about 1530. Thomas might have been an ordinary native of England and married a Gipsy who was a “brewer and baker,” possibly of the second generation of the race born in England. She seems to have been a “lawless lass” of some kind, for Mr. Brown says that it is on record that “between 1542 and 1550 she was fined six or eight times for breaking the assize of beer and bread.” On this head I said in the Disquisition on the Gipsies:—“Considering what is popularly understood to be the natural disposition and capacity of the Gipsies, we would readily conclude that to turn innkeepers would be the most unlikely of all their employments; yet that is very common” (p. 467), all over Europe from almost the day of their arrival in it. It is no uncommon thing for English Gipsies who have the means to buy a small house with a little ground attached on landing in America, even should they not always occupy it personally. I have been informed of several such purchases, and knew the owner of one “homestead” intimately, and was often in his house. And this seems to have been a trait in the character of the superior Gipsies of mixed blood in Great Britain, perhaps from the time of their arrival.

With regard to the pedigree of John Bunyan, the most probable one seems to be the following:—William Bonyon and his wife were apparently ordinary English people, which would make Thomas of the same race. [19] His wife—the “lawless brewer and baker”—was either of the native race or of a superior class of mixed Gipsies, perhaps of the second generation born in England. If she was the former, the male heir of Thomas married a Gipsy while he kept his little wayside public-house, leading to their issue being turned into the Gipsy current in society. Thus the little property of “Bunyan’s End” (at least the cottage) would remain in the family, leading to a will being made to bequeath it from generation to generation. “Petty chapmen and tinkers” (using brazier instead of tinker) are the happiest words that could be used to describe many Gipsies of mixed blood in England to-day.

A remark in the Graphic for the 26th August, in adopting Mr. Brown’s theory that all that sprung from Thomas Bonyon, in 1542, were ordinary natives of England, makes it very plain what is the motive for not having it said that Bunyan was of the Gipsy race, viz.: to show that his were “positively respectable” people, and not “tinkering Gipsies.” Petty chapmen and tinkers, if of the native race, would be “positively respectable,” but not if they had had a “dash” of Gipsy blood in their veins (which might have improved them,) and held by the Gipsy connexion, if for no other reason than that the white blood would have disowned them if they had known of its existence. In this way they would be cut off from the native race, or would mix with it no further than was unavoidable; living thus as Gipsies incog., or as outcasts, for that is the right word to use till the Gipsy blood becomes acknowledged by the rest of the world. The Graphic “let the cat out of the bag,” and somewhat illustrated what I meant when I spoke of the “ferocious prejudice of caste against the name of Gipsy.”

I refer to the Disquisition on the Gipsies and my subsequent writings on John Bunyan and the Gipsies, and add a few extracts from the Disquisition; all of which should have been studied by Mr. Brown before “putting his foot into” the subject in the way he has done, for that is of too sacred a nature to be treated factiously or capriciously.

“The world generally has never even thought about this subject. When I have spoken to people promiscuously in regard to it, they have replied, ‘We suppose that the Gipsies as they have settled in life have got lost among the general population’; than which nothing can be more unfounded as a matter of fact, or ridiculous as a matter of theory” (p. 454).—“What difficulty can there therefore be in understanding how a man can be a Gipsy whose blood is mixed, even ‘dreadfully mixed,’ as the English Gipsies express it? Gipsies are Gipsies, let their blood be mixed as much as it may, whether the introduction of the native blood may have come into the family through the male or the female line. In the descent of . . . the Gipsy race, the thing to be transmitted is not merely a question of family, but a race distinct from any particular family” (p. 451).—“The principle of progression, the passing through one phase of history into another, while the race maintains its identity, holds good with the Gipsies as well as with any other people” (p. 414).—“Take a Gipsy from any country in the world you may, and the feeling of his being a Gipsy comes as naturally to him as does the nationality of a Jew to a Jew; although we will naturally give him a more definite name to distinguish him, such as an English, Welsh, Scotch, or Irish Gipsy, or by whatever country of which the Gipsy happens to be a native” (p. 447).—“But it is impossible for any one to give an account of the Gipsies in Scotland from the year 1506 down to the present time. This much, however, can be said of them, that they are as much Gipsies now as ever they were; that is, the Gipsies of to-day are the representatives of the race as it appeared in Scotland three centuries and a half ago, and hold themselves to be Gipsies now, as indeed they always will do” (p. 466).—“The admission of the good man alluded to casts a flood of light upon the history of the Scottish Gipsy race, shrouded as it is from the eye of the general population; but the information given by him was apt to fall flat upon the ear of the ordinary native unless it was accompanied by some such exposition of the subject as is given in this work. Still, we can gather from it where Gipsies are to be found, what a Scottish Gipsy is, and what the race is capable of, and what might be expected of it, if the prejudice of their fellow-creatures was withdrawn from the race, as distinguished from the various classes into which it may be divided, or, I should rather say, the personal conduct of each Gipsy individually” (p. 415).—“It is a subject, however, which I have found some difficulty in getting people to understand. One cannot see how a person can be a Gipsy ‘because his father was a respectable man’; another, ‘because his father was an old soldier’; and another cannot see ‘how it necessarily follows that a person is a Gipsy for the reason that his parents were Gipsies’” (p. 505).

Apart from the prejudice of caste now existing against the Gipsies, and the novelty of the light in which the race is now presented, there should be no difficulty in understanding the subject in all its bearings. Every other race entering England has had justice done to it; and the same should not be withheld from people who claim to be “members of the Gipsy tribe,” although their blood, perhaps in the most of instances, is more of the ordinary than of the Gipsy race.

Ever since entering Great Britain, about the year 1506, the Gipsies have been drawing into their body the blood of the ordinary inhabitants and conforming to their ways; and so prolific has the race been, that there cannot be less than 250,000 Gipsies of all castes, colours, characters, occupations, degrees of education, culture, and position in life, in the British Isles alone, and possibly double that number. There are many of the same race in the United States of America. Indeed, there have been Gipsies in America from nearly the first day of its settlement; for many of the race were banished to the plantations, often for very trifling offences, and sometimes merely for being by “habit and repute Egyptians.” But as the Gipsy race leaves the tent, and rises to civilization, it hides its nationality from the rest of the world, so great is the prejudice against the name of Gipsy. In Europe and America together, there cannot be less than 4,000,000 Gipsies in existence. John Bunyan, the author of the celebrated Pilgrim’s Progress, was one of this singular people, as will be conclusively shown in the present work. The philosophy of the existence of the Jews, since the dispersion, will also be discussed and established in it.

When the “wonderful story” of the Gipsies is told, as it ought to be told, it constitutes a work of interest to many classes of readers, being a subject unique, distinct from, and unknown to, the rest of the human family. 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.