[278] Of the Gipsies at Moscow, the following is the substance of what Mr. Borrow says: “Those who have been accustomed to consider the Gipsy as a wandering outcast . . . . . . will be surprised to learn that, amongst the Gipsies of Moscow, there are not a few who inhabit stately houses, go abroad in elegant equipages, and are behind the higher order of Russians neither in appearance nor mental acquirements. . . . . The sums obtained by the Gipsy females, by the exercise of their art (singing in the choirs of Moscow,) enable them to support their relatives in affluence and luxury. Some are married to Russians; and no one who has visited Russia can but be aware that a lovely and accomplished countess, of the noble and numerous family of Tolstoy is, by birth, a Zigana, and was originally one of the principal attractions of a Romany choir at Moscow.”
This short notice appears unsatisfactory, considering, as Mr. Borrow says, that one of his principal motives for visiting Moscow was to hold communication with the Gipsies. It might have occurred to him to enquire what relation the children of such marriages would bear to Gipsydom generally; that is, would they be initiated in the mysteries, and taught the language, and hold themselves to be Gipsies? It is evident, however, that the Gipsy-drilling process is going on among the Russian nobility.
[279] On his return with his gallant prey, he passed a very large hay-stack. It occurred to the provident laird that this would be extremely convenient to fodder his new stock of cattle; but, as no means of transporting it were obvious, he was fain to take leave of it, with the apostrophe, now become proverbial, “By my saul, had ye but four feet, ye should not stand lang there.” In short, as Froissart says of a similar class of feudal robbers. “Nothing came amiss to them that was not too heavy or too hot.” Sir Walter Scott speaks, in the most jocular manner, of an ancestress who had a curious hand at pickling the beef which her husband stole; and that there was not a stain upon his escutcheon, barring Border theft and high treason.—Lockhart’s Life of Sir Walter Scott.
We should never forget that a “hawk’s a hawk,” whether it is a falcon or a mosquito hawk, which is the smallest of all hawks.
[280] Sir Walter Scott makes Fitz-James, in the “Lady of the Lake,” say to Roderick Dhu:
“But then, thy chieftain’s robber life!—
Winning mean prey by causeless strife,
Wrenching from ruined Lowland swain
His herds and harvests reared in vain—
Methinks a soul like thine should scorn
The spoils from such foul foray borne.
The Gael beheld him, grim the while,
And answered with disdainful smile,—
•••••••
‘Where live the mountain chiefs, who hold
That plundering Lowland field and fold
Is aught but retribution true?
Seek other cause ‘gainst Roderick Dhu!’”
[281] See [page 202].
[282] In expatiating on the subject of the Gipsy race always being the Gipsy race, I have had it remarked to me: “Suppose Gipsies should not mention to their children the fact of their being Gipsies.” In that case, I replied, the children, especially if, for the most part, of white blood, would simply not be Gipsies; they would, of course, have some of “the blood,” but they would not be Gipsies if they had no knowledge of the fact. But to suppose that Gipsies should not learn that they are Gipsies, on account of their parents not telling them of it, is to presume that they had no other relatives. Their being Gipsies is constantly talked of among themselves; so that, if Gipsy children should not hear their “wonderful story” from their parents, they would readily enough hear it from their other relatives. This is assuming, however, that the Gipsy mind can act otherwise than the Gipsy mind; which it cannot.
It sometimes happens, as the Gipsies separate into classes, like all other races or communities of men, that a great deal of jealousy is stirred up in the minds of the poorer members of the tribe, on account of their being shunned by the wealthier kind. They are then apt to say that the exclusive members have left the tribe; which, with them, is an undefined and confused idea, at the best, principally on account of their limited powers of reflection, and the subject never being alluded to by the others. This jealousy sometimes leads them to dog these straggling sheep, so that, as far as lies in their power, they will not allow them to leave, as they imagine, the Gipsy fold. [See [second note] at page 532.]
[283] I very abruptly addressed a French Gipsy, in the streets of New York, thus: “Vous êtes un Romany chiel.” “Oui, monsieur,” was the reply which he, as abruptly, gave me. But, ever afterwards, he got cross, when I alluded to the subject. On one occasion, I gave him the sign, which he repeated, while he asked, with much tartness of manner, “What is that—what does it mean?” This was a roguish Gipsy, and was afterwards lodged in jail.