A History of the Gipsies: with Specimens of the Gipsy Language

by Walter Simson

This leads me to speak of a high-class Scottish Gipsy family—the Falls, who settled at Dunbar, as merchants, alluded to under the chapter on [Border Gipsies].[276] Who can doubt that they were Gipsies to the last? How could they avoid being Gipsies? The Gipsies were their people; their blood was Gipsy blood. How could they get rid of their blood and descent? Could they throw either off, as they would an old coat? Could medical science rid them of either? Assuredly not. They admitted their descent, over their cups. But being descendants of Gipsies, and yet not Gipsies, is a contradiction in terms. The principles which regulate the descent of other Gipsy families applied equally to theirs. The fact that Mrs. Fall had the history of her people, in the act of leaving Yetholm, represented in tapestry, may be taken as but a straw that indicated how the wind blew. Was not old Will Faa, the Gipsy king, down to his death, at the end of the first American war, admitted to their hospitality as a relative? And do not the Scottish Gipsies, at the present day, claim them to have been Gipsies? Why might not the Falls glory in being Egyptians among themselves, but not to others? Were not their ancestors kings? “Wee kings,” no doubt, but still kings; one of them being the “loved John Faw,” of James V., whom all the tribe consider as a great man, (which, doubtless, he was, in that barbarous age,) and the principal of the thirteen patriarchs of Scottish Gipsydom. Was not a Gipsy king, (themselves being Gipsies,) an ancestor of far more respect, in their eyes, than the founder of a native family, in their neighbourhood; who, in the reign of Charles II., was a common country snip, and most likely commenced life with “whipping the cat” around the country, for fivepence a day, and victuals and clippings?[277]

The truth of the matter is, these Falls must have considered themselves a world better than other people, merely on account of their being Gipsies, as all Gipsies do, arising, in part, from that antagonistic spirit of opposition which the prejudice of their fellow-creatures is so much calculated to stir up in their minds. Saying, over their cups, that they were descended from the Faws, the historical Gipsy name in Scotland, did not divulge very much to the public. For what idea had the public of the working of Gipsydom—what idea of the Gipsy language? Did the public know of the existence of a Gipsy language in Scotland? In all probability, it generally did not. If the public heard a Tinkler use a strange word, all that it would think of it would be, that it was cant, confined to vagabonds strolling the country. Would it ever dream that what the vagabonds used was carefully preserved and spoken among the great Falls, of Dunbar, within the sanctity of their own dwellings, as it assuredly must have been? Would the public believe in such a thing, if even its own ears were made the witnesses to it? Was the love which the Falls had for their Yetholm connexion confined to a mere group of their ancestors worked in tapestry? Where was the Gipsy language, during all this time? Assuredly it was well preserved in their family. If it showed the least symptoms of falling off, how easily could the mothers bring into the family, as servants, other Gipsies, who would teach it to the children! For, besides the dazzling hold which the Gipsy language takes of the mind of a Gipsy, as the language of those black, mysterious heroes from whom he is descended, the keeping of it up forms the foundation of that self-respect which a Gipsy has for himself, amidst the prejudice of the world; from which, at the bottom of his heart, whatever his position in life, or character, or associations, may be, he considers himself separated. I am decidedly of opinion that all the domestics about this Fall family were Gipsies of one caste, colour, condition, or what not.

Then, we are told that Miss Fall, who married Sir John Anstruther, of Elie, baronet, was looked down upon by her husband’s friends, and received no other name than Jenny Faa; and that she was indirectly twitted with being a Gipsy, by the rabble, while attending an election in which Sir John was a candidate. What real satisfaction could Jenny, or any other Gipsy, have for ordinary natives of the country, when she was conscious of being what she was, and how she was spoken of, by her husband’s relatives and the public generally? She would take comfort in telling her “wonderful story” to her children, (for I presume she would have children,) who would sympathize with her; and in conversing with such of her own race as were near her, were it only her trusty domestics. It is the Gipsy woman who feels the prejudice that exists towards her race the most acutely; for she has the rearing of the children, and broods more over the history of her people. As the needle turns to the pole, so does the mind of the Gipsy woman to Gipsydom.

We are likewise told that this eminent Gipsy family were connected, by marriage, with the Footies, of Balgonie; the Coutts, afterwards bankers; Collector Whyte, of Kirkaldy, and Collector Melville, of Dunbar. We may assume, as a mathematical certainty, that Gipsydom, in a refined form, is in existence in the descendants of these families, particularly in such of them as were connected with this Gipsy family by the female side.[278]

A person who has never considered this subject, or any other cognate to it, may imagine that a Gipsy reproaches himself with his own blood. Pshaw! Where will you find a man, or a tribe of men, under the heavens, that will do that? It is not in human nature to do it. All men venerate their ancestors, whoever they have been. A Gipsy is, to an extraordinary degree, proud of his blood. “I have very little of the blood, myself,” said one of them, “but just come and see my wife!” But people may say that the ancestors of the Falls were thieves. And were not all the Borderers, in their way, the worst kind of thieves? They might not have stolen from their nearest relatives; but, with that exception, did they not steal from each other? Now, Gipsies never, or hardly ever, steal from each other. Were not all the Elliots and Armstrongs thieves of the first water? Were not the Scotts and the Kers thieves, long after the Gipsies entered Scotland? When the servants of Scott of Harden drove out his last cow, and said, “There goes Harden’s cow,” did not the old cow-stealer say, “It will soon be Harden’s kye“—meaning, that he would set out on a cow-stealing expedition? In fact, he lived upon spoil. Was it not his lady’s custom, on the last bullock being killed, to place on the table a dish, which, on being uncovered, was found to contain a pair of clean spurs—a hint, to her husband and his followers, that they must shift for their next meal? The descendants of these Scotts, and the Scottish public generally, look, with the utmost complacency and pride, upon the history of such families; yet would be very apt to make a great ado, if the ancestress of a Gipsy should, in such a predicament, have hung out a cock’s tail at the mouth of her tent, as a hint to her “laddies” to look after poultry. Common sense tells us, that, for one excuse to be offered for such conduct, on the part of the landed-gentry of the country, a hundred can be found for the ancestor of a Gipsy—an unfortunate wanderer on the face of the earth, who was hunted about, like a wolf of the forest.[279]

And what shall we say of our Highland thieves? Highlanders may be more touchy on this point, for their ancestors were the last of the British race to give up that kind of life. Talk of the laws passed against the Gipsies! Various of our Scottish monarchs issued decrees against “the wicked thieves and limmers of the clans and surnames, inhabiting the Highlands and Isles,” accusing “the chieftains principal of the branches worthy to be esteemed the very authors, fosterers, and maintainers, of the wicked deeds of the vagabonds of their clans and surnames.” Indeed, the doweries of the chiefs’ daughters were made up by a share of the booty collected on their expeditions. The Highlands were, at one time, little better than a nest of thieves; thieving from each other, and more particularly from their southern neighbours. It is notorious that robbery, in the Highlands, was “held to be a calling not merely innocent, but honourable;” and that a high-born Highland warrior was “much more becomingly employed, in plundering the lands of others, than in tilling his own.” At stated times of the year, such as at Candlemas, regular bands of Highlanders, the sons of gentlemen and what not, proceeded south in quest of booty, as part of their winter’s provisions. The Highlanders might even have been compared, at one time, to as many tribes of Afghans. Mr. Skene, the historian of the Highlands, and himself a Highlander, says that the Highlanders believed that they had a right to plunder the people of the low country, whenever it was in their power. We naturally ask, how did the Highlanders acquire this right of plunder? Were they ever proscribed? Were any of them hung, merely for being Highlanders? No. What plea, then, did the Highlanders set up, in justification of this wholesale robbery?—“They believed, from tradition, that the Lowlands, in old times, were the possessions of their ancestors.” (Skene.) But that was no excuse for their plundering each other.[280]

The Gipsy’s ordinary pilfering was confined to such petty things as “hens and peats at pleasure,” “cutting a bit lamb’s throat,” and “a mouthfu’ o’ grass and a pickle corn, for the cuddy”—“things that a farmer body ne’er could miss.” But your Highlanders did not content themselves with such “needles and pins;” they must have “horned cattle.” If the coast was clear, they would table their drawn dirks, and commence their spulzie, by making their victims furnish them with what was necessary to fill their bellies; upon the strength of which, they would “lift” whatever they could carry and drive, or take its equivalent in black-mail.

What an effort is made by our McGregors, at the present day, to scrape up kin with this or the other bandit McGregor; and yet how apt the McGregor is to turn up his nose—just as Punch, only, could make him turn it up—if a Gipsy were to step out, and say, that he was a descendant, and could speak the language, of Will Baillie, mentioned under the head of Tweed-dale and Clydesdale Gipsies: a Gipsy, described by my ancestor, (and he could judge,) to have been “the handsomest, the best dressed, the best looking, and the best bred, man he ever saw; and the best swordsman in Scotland, for, with his weapon in his hand, and his back at a wall, he could set almost everything, saving fire-arms, at defiance; a man who could act the gentleman, the robber, the sorner, and the tinker, whenever it answered his purpose.”[281] And yet, some of this man’s descendants will doubtless be found among our medical doctors, and even the clergy. I recollect our author pointing out a clergyman of the Scottish Church, who, he was pretty sure, was “one of them.” What name could have stood lower, at one time, than McGregor? Both by legal and social proscription, it was looked upon as vagabond; and doubtless the clan brought it, primarily and principally, upon themselves; but as for the rapine they practised upon their neighbours, and the helpless southerners, they were, at first, no worse, in that respect, than others of their nation. Are the McGregors sure that there are no Gipsies among them? There are plenty of Gipsies of, at least, the name of McGregor, known to both the Scottish and English Gipsies. What more likely than some of the McGregors, when “out,” and leading their vagabond lives, getting mixed up with the better kind of mixed Gipsies? They were both leading a wild life, and it is not unlikely that some of the McGregors, of even no small consequence, might have been led captive by such Gipsy girls as the lady Baillies, of Tweed-dale. Let a Gipsy once be grafted upon a native family, and she rises with it; leavens the little circle of which she is the centre, and leaves it, and its descendants, for all time coming, Gipsies.

I now come to ask, what constitutes a Gipsy at the present day? And common sense replies: the simple fact of knowing from whom he is descended, that is, who he is, in connection with having the Gipsy words and signs, although these are not absolutely necessary. It requires no argument to show that there is no tribe or nation but finds something that leads it to cling to its origin and descent, and not despise the blood that runs in its own veins, although it may despise the condition or conduct of some of its members. Where shall we find an exception to this rule? The Gipsy race is no exception to it. Civilize a Gipsy, and you make him a civilized Gipsy; educate him, and you make him an educated Gipsy; bring him up to any profession you like, Christianize him as much as you may, and he still remains a Gipsy; because he is of the Gipsy race, and all the influences of nature and revelation do not affect the questions of blood, tribe, and nationality. Take all the Gipsies that ever came out of the tent, or their descendants, including those brought into the body through the male and female line; and what are they now? Still Gipsies. They even pass into the other world Gipsies. “But they will forget that they are Gipsies,” say, perhaps, some of my readers. Forget that they are Gipsies! Will we hear, some of these days, that Scotch people, themselves, will get up of a morning, toss about their night-caps, and forget that they are Scotch? We may then see the same happen with the Gipsies. What I have said, of the Gipsy always being a Gipsy, is self-evident; but it has a wide difference of meaning from that contained in the quotation given by Mr. Borrow, in which it is said: “For that which is unclean by nature thou canst entertain no hope; no washing will turn the Gipsy white.”[282] But, taking the world all over, there will doubtless be Gipsies, in larger or smaller numbers, who will always be found following the original ways of their race.

What were the Hungarians, at one time, and what are they now? Pritchard says of them: “The Hungarians laid aside the habits of rude and savage hunters, far below the condition of the nomadic hordes, for the manners of civilized life. In the course of a thousand years, they have become a handsome people, of fine stature, regular European features, and have the complexion prevalent in that tract of Europe where they dwell.” Now the Gipsies have been in Scotland at least three hundred and fifty years; and what with the mixture of native blood, (which, at least, helped to remove the prejudice against the man’s appearance, and, consequently, gave him a larger and freer scope of action;) the hard laws of necessity, and the being tossed about by society, like pebbles on the seashore; the influences of civilization, education, and the grace of God itself; by such means as these, some of the Scottish Gipsies have risen to a respectable, even eminent, position in life. But some people may say: “These are not Gipsies; they have little of the blood in them.” That is nothing. Ask themselves what they are, and, if they are at all candid, they will reply that they are Gipsies. “No doubt,” they say, “we have fair, or red, or black, hair, (as the case may be;) we know nothing about that; but we know that we are Gipsies; that is all.” There is as much difference between such a high-class Gipsy and a poor Gipsian, as there is between a Scottish judge and the judge’s fourth cousin, who makes his living by clipping dogs’ ears. 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.