And how does the Gipsy woman bring up her children in regard to her own

race? She tells them her "wonderful story"--informs them who they are,

and of the dreadful prejudice that exists against them, simply for being

Gipsies. She then tells them about Pharaoh and Joseph in Egypt, terming

her people, "Pharaoh's folk." In short, she dazzles the imagination of

the children, from the moment they can comprehend the simplest idea.

Then she teaches them her words, or language, as the "real Egyptian,"

and frightens and bewilders the youthful mind by telling them that they

are subject to be hanged if they are known to be Gipsies, or to speak

these words, or will be looked upon as wild beasts by those around them.

She then informs the children how long the Gipsies have been in the

country; how they lived in tents; how they were persecuted, banished,

and hanged, merely for being Gipsies. She then tells them of her people

being in every part of the world, whom they can recognize by the

language and signs which she is teaching them; and that her race will

everywhere be ready to shed their blood for them. She then dilates upon

the benefits that arise from being a Gipsy--benefits negative as well as

positive; for should they ever be set upon--garroted, for example--all

that they will have to do will be to cry out some such expression as

"_Biené raté, calo chabo_," (good-night, Gipsy, or black fellow,) when,

if there is a Gipsy near them, he will protect them. The children will

be fondled by her relatives, handed about and hugged as "little ducks of

Gipsies." The granny, while sitting at the fireside, like a witch,

performs no small part in the education of the children, making them

fairly dance with excitement. In this manner do the children of Gipsies

have the Gipsy soul literally breathed into them.[263]

[263] Mr. Offor, editor of a late edition of Bunyan's works, writes,

in "Notes and Queries," thus: "I have avoided much intercourse with

this class, fearing the fate of Mr. Hoyland, who, being a Quaker, was

shot by one of Cupid's darts from a black-eyed Gipsy girl; and _J. S.

may do well to be cautious_." Mr. Offor is not far wrong. A Gipsy girl

can sometimes fascinate a "white fellow," as a snake can a bird--make

him flutter, and particularly so, should the "little Gipsy" be met

with in some such dress as black silks and a white polka. This much

can be said of Gipsy women, which cannot be said of all women, that

they know their places, and are not apt to _usurp_ the rights of the

_rajahs_; they will even "work the nails off their fingers" to make

them feel comfortable.

I should conclude, from what Mr. Offor says, that the Quaker married

the Gipsy girl. If children were born of the union, they will be

Gipsy-Quakers, or Quaker-Gipsies, whichever expression we choose to

adopt.

In such a way--what with the supreme influence which the mother has

exercised over the mind of the child from its very infancy; the manner

in which its imagination has been dazzled; and the dreadful prejudice

towards the Gipsies, which they all apply, directly or indirectly, to

themselves--does the Gipsy adhere to his race. When he comes to be a

youth, he naturally enough endeavours to find his way to a tent, to have

a look at the "old thing." He does not, however, think much of it as a

reality; but it presents something very poetical and imaginative to his

mind, when he contemplates it as the state from which his mysterious

forefathers have sprung.[264] It makes very little difference, in the

case to which I have alluded, whether the father be a Gipsy or not; the

children all go with the mother, for they inherit the blood through her.

What with the blood, the education, the words, and the signs, they are

simply Gipsies, and will be such, as long as they retain a consciousness

of who they are, and any peculiarities exclusively Gipsy. As it

sometimes happens that the father, only, is a Gipsy, the attachment may

not be so strong, on the part of the children, as if the blood had come

through the mother; still, it likewise attaches them to the body. A

great deal of jealousy is shown by the Gipsies, when a son marries a

strange woman. A greater ado is not made by some Catholics, to bring up

their children Catholics, under such circumstances, than is exhibited by

Gipsies for their children knowing their secret--that is, the "wonderful

story;" which has the effect of leading them, in their turn, to marry

with Gipsies. The race is very jealous of "the blood" being lost; or

that their "wonderful story" should become known to those who are not

Gipsies.

[264] I have picked up quite a number of Scottish Gipsies of

respectable character, from their having gone in their youth, to look

at the "old thing." It is the most natural thing in the world for them

to do. What is it to look back to the time of James V., in 1540, when

John Faw was lord-paramount over the Gipsies in Scotland? Imagine,

then, the natural curiosity of a young Gipsy, brought up in a town, to

look at something like the original condition of his ancestors. Such a

Gipsy will leave Edinburgh, for example, and travel over the south of

Scotland, "casting his sign," as he passes through the villages, in

every one of which he will find Gipsies. Some of these villages are

almost entirely occupied by Gipsies. James Hogg is reported, in

Blackwood's Magazine, to say, that Lochmaben is "stocked" with them.

There are people who cannot imagine how a man can be a Gipsy and have

fair hair. They think that, from his having fair hair, he cannot have

the same feelings of what they imagine to be a true Gipsy, that is, a

black-haired one. One naturally asks, what effect can the matter of

colour of _hair_ have upon the _mind_ of a member of any community or

clan, whether the hair be black, brown, red, fair, or white, or the

person have no hair at all? Let us imagine a Gipsy with fair hair. How

long is it since the white blood was introduced among his ancestors?

Perhaps three hundred and fifty years. The race of which he comes has

been, more or less, mixing and crossing ever since, but always retaining

the issue within its own community. Is he fair-haired? Then he may be

half a Gipsy; he may be three-fourths Gipsy, and perhaps even more. At

the present day, the "points" of such a Gipsy are altogether arbitrary;

some profess to know their points, but it is a thing altogether

uncertain. All that they know and adhere to is, that they are Gipsies,

and nothing else. In this manner are the British Gipsies, (with the

exception of some English families, about whom there is no certainty,)

members of the Gipsy community, or nation, as such--each having some of

the blood; and not Gipsies of an ideal purity of race. What they know

is, that their parents and relatives are Gipsies; that Gipsies separate

them from the eternity that is past; and, consequently, that they are

Gipsies. They, indeed, accept their descent, blood, and nationality as

instinctively as they accept the very sex which God has given them.

Which of the two knows most of Gipsydom--the fair-haired or black?

Almost invariably the fair.[265]

[265] Among the English Gipsies, fair-haired ones are looked upon by

the purer sort, or even by those taking after the Gipsy, as "small

potatoes." The consequence is they have to make up for their want of

blood, by smartness, knowledge of the language, or something that will

go to balance the deficiency of blood. They generally lay claim to the

_intellect_, while they yield the _blood_ to the others. A full or

nearly full-blood young English Gipsy looks upon herself with all the

pride of a little duchess, while in the company of young male mixed

Gipsies. A mixed Gipsy may reasonably be assumed to be more

intelligent than one of the old stock, were it only for this reason,

that the mixture softens down the natural conceit and bigotry of the

Gipsy; while, as regards his personal appearance, it puts him in a

more improvable position. Still, a full-blood Gipsy looks up to a

mixed Gipsy, if he is anything of a superior man, and freely

acknowledges the blood. Indeed, the two kinds will readily marry, if

circumstances bring them together. To a couple of such Gipsies I said:

"What difference does it make, if the person _has the blood, and has

his heart in the right place_?" "That's the idea; that's exactly the

idea," they both replied.

We naturally ask, what effect has this difference in appearance upon two

such members of one family--the one with European, the other with Gipsy,

features and colour? and the answer is this: The first will hide the

fact of his being a Gipsy from strangers; indeed, he is ashamed to let

it be known that he is a Gipsy; and he is afraid that people, not

knowing how it came about, would laugh at him. "What!" they would ask,

"_you_ a Gipsy? The idea is absurd." Besides, it facilitates his getting

on in the world, to prevent it being known that he is a Gipsy. The other

member cannot deny that he is a Gipsy, because any one can see it. Such

are the Gipsies who are more apt to cling to the tent, or the more

original ways of the old stock. They are very proud of their

appearance; but it is a pride accompanied with disadvantages, and even

pain. For, after all, the beauty and pleasure in being a Gipsy is to

have the other cast of features and colour; he has as much of the blood

and language as the other, while he can go into any kind of company--a

sort of Jack-the-Giant-Killer in his invisible coat. The nearer the

Gipsy comes to the original colour of his race, the less chance is there

of improving him. He knows what he is like; and well does he know the

feeling that people entertain for him. In fact, he feels that there is

no use in being anything but what people call a Gipsy. But it is

different with those of European countenance and colour, or when these

have been modified or diluted by a mixture of white blood. They can,

then, enter upon any sphere of employment to which they have a mind, and

their personal advantages and outward circumstances will admit of.[266]

[266] To thoroughly understand how a Gipsy, with fair hair and blue

eyes, can be as much a Gipsy as one with black, may be termed "passing

the _pons assinorum_ of the Gipsy question." Once over the bridge, and

there are no difficulties to be encountered on the journey, unless it

be to understand that a Gipsy can be a Gipsy without living in a tent

or being a rogue.

Let us now consider the destiny of such European-like Gipsies. Suppose a

female of this description marries a native in settled life, which both

of them follow. She brings the children up as Gipsies, in the way

described. The children are apt to become ultra Gipsies. If they, in

their turn, marry natives, they do the same with their children; so

that, if the same system were always followed, they would continue

Gipsies forever. For all that is necessary to perpetuate the tribe, is

simply for the Gipsies to know who they are, and the prejudice that

exists toward the race of which they are a part; to say nothing of the

innate associations connected with their origin and descent. Such a

phenomenon may be fitly compared to the action of an auger; with this

difference, that the auger may lose its edge, but the Gipsy will drill

his way through generations of the ordinary natives, and, at the end,

come out as sharp as ever; all the circumstances attending the two races

being exactly the same at the end as at the beginning. In this way, let

their blood be mixed as it may, let even their blood-relationship

outside of their body be what it may, the Gipsies still remain, in their

private associations, a distinct people, into whatever sphere of human

action they may enter; although, in point of blood, appearance,

occupation, character, and religion, they may have drifted the breadth

of a hemisphere from the stakes and tent of the original Gipsy.

There can surely be no great difficulty in comprehending so simple an

idea as this. Here we have a foreign race introduced amongst us, which

has been proscribed, legally as well as socially. To escape the effects

of this double proscription, the people have hidden the fact of their

belonging to the race, although they have clung to it with an ardour

worthy of universal admiration. The proscription is toward the name and

race as such, that is, the blood; and is not general, but absolute; none

having ever been received into society as Gipsies. For this reason,

every Gipsy, every one who has Gipsy blood in his veins, applies the

proscription to himself. On the other hand, he has his own descent--the

Gipsy descent; and, as I have already said, he has naturally as little

desire to wish a different descent, as he has to have a different sex.

As Finns do not wish to have been born Englishmen, or Englishmen Finns,

so Gipsies are perfectly satisfied with their descent, nay, extremely

proud of it. They would not change it, if they could, for any

consideration. When Gipsies, therefore, marry natives, they do not only

willingly bring up their children as Gipsies, but by every moral

influence they are forced to do it, and cling to each other. In this way

has the race been absolutely cut off from that of the ordinary natives;

all intercourse between the two, unless on the part of the _bush_ Gipsy,

in the way of dealings, having been of a clandestine nature, on the side

of the Gipsy, or, in other words, _incog._ How melancholy it is to think

that such a state of things exists in the British Islands!

The Gipsy, born of a Gipsy mother and a native father, does, therefore,

most naturally, and, I may say, invariably, follow the Gipsy connexion;

the simplest impulse of manhood compels him to do it. Being born, or

becoming a member of settled society, he joins in the ordinary

amusements or occupations of his fellow-creatures of both races; which

he does the more readily when he feels conscious of the incognito which

he bears. But he has been brought up from his mother's knee a Gipsy; he

knows nothing else; his associations with his relatives have been Gipsy;

and he has in his veins that which the white damns, and, he doubts not,

would damn in him, were he to know of it. He has, moreover, the words

and signs of the Gipsy race; he is brought in contact with the Gipsy

race; he perceives that his feelings are reciprocated by them, and that

both have the same reserve and timidity for "outsiders." He does not

reason abstractly what he is _not_, but instinctively holds that he is

"one of them;" that he has in his mind, his heart, and his blood, that

which the common native has not, and which makes him a _chabo_, that is,

a Gipsy.

The mother, in the case mentioned, is certainly not a full-blood Gipsy,

nor anything like it; she does not know her real "points;" all that she

knows is, that she is a "Gipsy:" so that, if the youth's father is an

ordinary native, the youth holds himself to be a half-and-half,

nominally, though he does not know what he really is, as regards blood.

Imagine, then, that he takes such a half-and-half Gipsy for a wife, and

that both tell their children that they are "Gipsies:" the children,

perhaps, knowing nothing of the real origin of their parents, take up

the "wonderful story," and hand it down to their children, initiating

them, in their turn, in the "mysteries." These children never doubt that

_they_ are "Gipsies," although _their_ Gipsyism may, as I have already

said, have "drifted the breadth of a hemisphere from the stakes and tent

of the original Gipsy." In this manner is Gipsydom kept alive, by its

turning round and round in a perpetual circle. And in this manner does

it happen, that a native finds his own children Gipsies, from having, in

seeking for a wife, stumbled upon an Egyptian woman. Gipsydom is,

therefore, the aggregate of Gipsies, wherever, or under whatever

circumstances, they are to be found. It is, in two respects, an absolute

question; absolute as to blood, and absolute as to those teachings,

feelings, and associations, that, by a moral necessity, accompany the

possession of the blood.

This brings me to an issue with Mr. Borrow. Speaking of the destination

of the Spanish Gipsies, he says: "If the Gitanos are abandoned to

themselves, by which we mean, no arbitrary laws are again enacted for

their extinction, the sect will eventually cease to be, and its members

become confounded with the residue of the population." I can well

understand that such procedure, on the part of the Spanish Government,

was calculated to soften the ferocious disposition of the Gipsies; but

did it bring them a point nearer to an amalgamation with the people than

before? Mr. Borrow continues: "The position which they occupy is the

lowest. . . . . The outcast of the prison and the _presidio_, who calls

himself Spaniard, would feel insulted by being termed Gitano, and would

thank God that he is not." He continues: "It is, of course, by

intermarriage, alone, that the two races will ever commingle; and before

that event is brought about, much modification must take place amongst

the Gitanos, in their manners, in their habits, in their affections and

their dislikes, and perhaps _even in their physical peculiarities_, (yet

'no washing,' as Mr. Borrow approvingly quotes, 'will turn the Gipsy

white;') much must be forgotten on both sides, and everything is

forgotten in course of time." So great, indeed, was the prejudice

against the Gipsies, that the law of Charles III, in 1783, forbade the

people calling them Gitanos, under the penalty of being punished for

_slander!_ because, his majesty said: "I declare that those who go by

the name of Gitanos are not so by origin or nature; nor do they proceed

from any infected root(!)" What regard would the native Spaniards pay to

the injunction, that they would be punished for "slander," for calling

the Gipsies _Gitanos_, in place of _Spaniards_? We may well believe that

such a law would be a dead letter in Spain; where, according to Mr.

Borrow, "justice has invariably been a mockery; a thing to be bought and

sold, terrible only to the feeble and innocent, and an instrument of

cruelty and avarice."

Mr. Borrow leaves the question where he found it. Even remove the

prejudice that exists against the Gipsies, as regards their colour,

habits, and history; what then? Would they, as a people cease to be?

Would they amalgamate with the natives, _so as to be lost_? Assuredly

not. They may mix their blood, but they preserve their mental identity

in the world; even although, in point of physical appearance, habits,

manners, occupation, character, and creed, they might "become confounded

with the residue of the population." In that respect, they are the most

exclusive people of almost any to be found in the world. We have only to

consider what Freemasonry is, and we can form an idea of what Gipsyism

is, in one of its aspects. It rests upon the broadest of all

bases--flesh and blood, a common and mysterious origin, a common

language, a common history, a common persecution, and a common odium, in

every part of the world. Remove the prejudice against the Gipsies, make

it as respectable to be Gipsies, as the world, with its ignorance of

many of the race, deem it desreputable; what then? Some of them might

come out with their "tents and encampments," and banners and mottoes:

the "cuddy and the creel, the hammer and tongs, the tent and the tin

kettle" forever. People need not sneer at the "cuddy and the creel." The

idea conveys a world of poetry to the mind of a Gipsy. Mrs. Fall, of

Dunbar, thought it so poetical, that she had it, as we have seen, worked

in tapestry; and it is doubtless carefully preserved, as an heir-loom,

among her collateral descendants.[267]

[267] There is a considerable resemblance between Gipsyism, in its

harmless aspect, and Freemasonry; with this difference, that the

former is a general, while the latter is a special, society; that is

to say, the Gipsies have the language, or some of the words, and the

signs, peculiar to the whole race, which each individual or class will

use for different purposes. The race does not necessarily, and does

not in fact, have intercourse with every other member of it; in that

respect, they resemble any ordinary community of men. Masonry, as my

reader may be aware, is a society of what may be termed "a mixed

multitude of good fellows, who are all pledged to befriend and help

each other." The radical elements of Masonry may be termed a "rope of

sand," which the vows of the Order work into the most closely and

strongly formed coil of any to be found in the world. But it is

altogether of an artificial nature; while Gipsyism is

natural--something that, when separated from objectionable habits, one

might almost call divine; for it is founded upon a question of race--a

question of blood. The cement of a creed is weak, in comparison with

that which binds the Gipsies together; for a people, like an

individual, may have one creed to-day, and another to-morrow; it may

be continually travelling round the circle of every form of faith; but

blood, under certain circumstances, is absolute and immutable.

There are many Gipsies Freemasons; indeed, they are the very people to

push their way into a Mason's lodge; for they have secrets of their

own, and are naturally anxious to pry into those of others, by which

they may be benefited. I was told of a Gipsy who died lately, the

Master of a Masons' Lodge. A friend, a Mason, told me, the other day,

of his having entered a house in Yetholm, where were five Gipsies, all

of whom responded to his Masonic signs. Masons should therefore

interest themselves in, and befriend, the Gipsies.

Mr. Borrow speaks of the Gipsies "declining" in Spain. Ask a Scotchman

about the Scottish Gipsies, and he will answer: "The Scotch Gipsies have

pretty much died out." "Died out?" I ask; "that is impossible; for who

are more prolific than Gipsies?" "Oh, then, they have become settled,

and civilized." "And _ceased to be Gipsies_?" I continue. "Exactly so,"

he replies. What idea can be more ridiculous than that of saying, that

if a Gipsy leaves the tent, settles in a town, and attends church, he

ceases to be a Gipsy; and that, if he takes to the tent again, he

becomes a Gipsy again? What has a man's occupation, habits, or

character, to do with his clan, tribe, or nationality? Does education,

does religion, remove from his mind a knowledge of who he is, or change

his blood? Are not our own Borderers and Highlanders as much Borderers

and Highlanders as ever they were? Are not Spanish Gipsies still Spanish

Gipsies, although a change may have come over the characters and

circumstances of some of them? It would be absurd to deny it.[268]

[268] The principle, or rather fact, here involved, simple as it is in

itself, is evidently very difficult of comprehension by the native

Scottish mind. Any person understands perfectly well how a Highlander,

at the present day, is still a Highlander, notwithstanding the great

change that has come over the character of his race. But our Scottish

_literati_ seem to have been altogether at sea, in comprehending the

same principle as applicable to the Gipsies. They might naturally have

asked themselves, whether _Gipsies_ could have procreated _Jews_; and,

if not Jews, how they could have procreated _gorgios_, (as English

Gipsies term natives.) A writer in Blackwood's Magazine says, in

reference to Billy Marshall, a Gipsy chief, to whom allusion has

already been made: "Who were his descendants I cannot tell; I am sure

he could not do it himself, if he were living. It is known that they

were prodigiously numerous; I dare say numberless." And yet this

writer gravely says that "the _race_ is in some risk of becoming

extinct(!)" Another writer in Blackwood says: "Their numbers may

perhaps have since been diminished, in particular States, by _the

progress of civilization_(_!_)" We would naturally pronounce any

person crazy who would maintain that there were no Highlanders in

Scotland, owing to their having "changed their habits." We could, with

as much reason, say the same of those who will maintain this opinion

in regard to the Gipsies. There has been a great deal of what is

called genius expended upon the Gipsies, but wonderfully little common

sense.

As the Jews, during their pilgrimage in the Wilderness, were protected

from their enemies by a cloud, so have the Gipsies, in their encrease

and development, been shielded from theirs, by a mist of ignorance,

which, it would seem, requires no little trouble to dispel.

Mr. Borrow has not sufficiently examined into Spanish Gipsyism to pass a

reliable opinion upon it. He says: "One thing is certain, in the history

of the Gitanos; that the sect flourished and encreased, so long as the

law recommended and enjoined measures the most harsh and severe for its

suppression. . . . The caste of the Gitanos still exists, but is neither so

extensive, nor so formidable, as a century ago, when the law, in

denouncing Gitanismo, proposed to the Gitanos the alternatives of death

for persisting in their profession, or slavery for abandoning it." These

are very singular alternatives. The latter is certainly not to be found

in any of the Spanish laws quoted by Mr. Borrow. I am at a loss to

perceive the point of his reasoning. There can be no difficulty in

believing that Gipsies would rather _encrease_ in a state of peace, than

if they were hunted from place to place, like wild beasts; and

consequently, having renounced their former mode or life, they would, in

Mr. Borrow's own words, "cease to play a distinct part in the history of

Spain, and the _law_ would no longer speak of them as a distinct

people." And the same might, to a certain extent, be said of the Spanish

_people_. Mr. Borrow again says: "That the Gitanos are not so numerous

as in former times, witness those _barrios_, in various towns, still

denominated _Gitanerias_, but from whence the Gitanos have disappeared,

even like the Moors from the _Morerias_." But Mr. Borrow himself, in the

same work, gives a good reason for the disappearance of the Gipsies from

these _Gitanerias_; for he says: "The _Gitanerias_ were soon considered

as public nuisances, on which account the Gitanos were forbidden to live

together in particular parts of the town, to hold meetings, and even to

intermarry with each other." If the disappearance of the Gipsies from

Spain was like that of the Moors, it would appear that they had left, or

been expelled from, the country; a theory which Mr. Borrow does not

advance. The Gipsies, to a certain extent, may have left these barriers,

or been expelled from them, and settled, as tradesmen, mechanics, and

what not, in other parts of the same or other towns; so as to be in a

position the more able to get on in the world. Still, many of them are

in the colonies. In Cuba there are many, as soldiers and musicians,

dealers in mules and red pepper, which businesses they almost

monopolize, and jobbers and dealers in various wares; and doubtless

there are some of them innkeepers, and others following other

occupations. In Mexico there are not a few. I know of a Gitano who has a

fine wholesale and retail cigar store in Virginia.[269]

[269] In Olmstead's "Journey in the Seaboard Slave States" it is

stated, that in Alexandria, Louisiana, when under the Spanish rule,

there were "French and Spanish, _Egyptians_ and Indians, Mulattoes and

Negroes." This author reports a conversation which he had with a

planter, by which it appears that these Egyptians came from "some of

the Northern Islands;" that they spoke a language among themselves,

but could talk French and Spanish too; that they were black, but not

very black, and as good citizens as any, and passed for white folk.

The planter believed they married mostly with mulattoes, and that a

good many of the mulattoes had Egyptian blood in them too. He believed

these Egyptians had disappeared since the State became part of the

Union. Mr. Olmstead remarks: "The Egyptians were probably Spanish

Gipsies, though I have never heard of any of them being in America in

any other way."

Mr. Borrow concludes, in regard to the Spanish Gipsies, thus: "We have

already expressed our belief that the caste has diminished of latter

years; whether this diminution was the result of one or many causes

combined; of a _partial change of habits_, of pestilence or sickness, of

war or famine, or of a _freer intercourse with the Spanish population_,

we have no means of determining, and shall abstain from offering

conjectures on the subject." In this way does he leave the question just

where he found it. Is there any reason to doubt that Gipsydom is

essentially the same in Spain as in Great Britain; or that its future

will be guided by any other principles than those which regulate that of

the British Gipsies? Indeed, I am astonished that Mr. Borrow should

advance the idea that Gipsies should _decrease_ by "changing their

habits;" they might not _encrease so fast_, in a settled life, as when

more exposed to the air, and not molested by the Spanish Government. I

am no less astonished that he should think they would decrease by "a

freer intercourse with the Spanish population;" when, in fact, such

mixtures are well known to go with the Gipsies; the mixture being, in

the estimation of the British Gipsies, calculated to strengthen and

invigorate the race itself. Had Mr. Borrow kept in mind the case of the

half-blood Gipsy captain, he could have had no difficulty in learning

what became of mixed Gipsies.[270]

[270] Mr. Borrow surely cannot mean that a Gipsy ceases to be a Gipsy,

when he settles down, and "turns over a new leaf;" and that this

"change of habits" changes his descent, blood, appearance, language

and nationality! What, then, does he mean, when he says that the

Spanish Gipsies have decreased by "a partial change of habits?"

And does an infusion of Spanish blood, implied in a "freer intercourse

with the Spanish population," lead to the Gipsy element being wiped

out; or does it lead to the Spanish feeling being lost in Gipsydom?

Which is the element to be operated upon--the Spanish or the Gipsy?

Which is the _leaven_? The Spanish element is the _passive_, the Gipsy

the _active_. As a question of philosophy, the most simple of

comprehension, and, above all, as a matter of fact, the foreign

element introduced, _in detail_, into the _body_ of Gipsydom, goes

with that body, and, in feeling, becomes incorporated with it,

although, in physical appearance, it changes the Gipsy race, so that

it becomes "confounded with the residue of the population," but

remains Gipsy, as before. A Spanish Gipsy is a Spaniard as he stands,

and it would be hard to say what we should ask him to do, to become

more a Spaniard than he is already.

It doubtless holds in Spain, as in Great Britain, that as the Gipsy

enters into settled life, and engages in a respectable calling, he hides

his descent, and even mixes his blood with that of the country, and

becomes ashamed of the name before the public; but is as much, at heart,

a Gipsy, as any others of his race. And this theory is borne out by Mr.

Borrow himself, when he speaks of "the unwillingness of the Spanish

Gipsies to utter, when speaking of themselves, the detested expression

Gitano; a word which seldom escapes their mouths." We might therefore

conclude, that the Spanish Gipsies, with the exception of the more

original and bigoted stock, would _hide their nationality_ from the

common Spaniards, and so escape their notice. It is not at all likely

that the half-pay Gipsy captain would mention to the public that he was

a Gipsy, although he admitted it to Mr. Borrow, under the peculiar

circumstances in which he met him. My Spanish acquaintance informs me

that the Gitanos, generally, hide their nationality from the rest of the

world.

Such a case is evidently told by Mr. Borrow, in the vagabond Gipsy,

Antonio, at Badajoz, who termed a rich Gipsy, living in the same town, a

hog, because he evidently would not countenance him. Antonio may

possibly have been kicked out of his house, in attempting to enter it.

He accused him of having married a Spaniard, and of fain attempting to

pass himself for a Spaniard. As regards the wife, she might have been a

Gipsy with very little of "the blood" in her veins; or a Spaniard,

reared by Gipsies; or an ordinary Spanish maiden, to whom the Gipsy

would teach his language, as sometimes happens among the English

Gipsies. His wishing to pass for a Spaniard had nothing to do with his

being, but not wishing to be known as, a Gipsy. The same is done by

almost all our Scottish Gipsies. In England, those who do not follow the

tent--I mean the more mixed and better-class--are even afraid of each

other. "Afraid of what?" said I, to such an English Gipsy; "ashamed of

being Gipsies?" "No, sir," (with great emphasis;) "not ashamed of being

Gipsies, but of being _known to other people as Gipsies_." "A world of

difference," I replied. What does the world hold to be a _Gipsy_, and

what does it hold to be the _feelings of a man_? If we consider these

two questions, we can have little difficulty in understanding the wish

of such Gipsies to disguise themselves. It is in this way, and in the

mixing of the blood, that this so-called "dying out of the Gipsies" is

to be accounted for.[271]

[271] Mr. Borrow mentions, in the twenty-second chapter of the "Bible

in Spain," having met several cavalry soldiers from Granada, Gipsies

_incog._ who were surprised at being discovered to be Gipsies. They

had been impressed, but carried on a trade in horses, in league with

the captain of their company. They said: "We have been to the wars,

but not to fight; we left that to the Busné. We have kept together,

and like true Caloré, have stood back to back. We have made money in

the wars."

It is singular that Mr. Borrow should attribute the change which has

come over the Spanish Gipsies, so much to the law passed by Charles III.

in 1783; and that he should characterize it as an enlightened, wise, and

liberal law; distinguished by justice and clemency; and as being

calculated to exert considerable influence over the destiny of the race;

nay, as being the principal, if not the only, cause for the "decline" of

it in Spain. It was headed: "Rules for _repressing_ and _chastising_ the

vagrant mode of life, and other excesses, of those who are called

Gitanos." Article II. forbids, under penalties, the Gipsies "using their

_language_, dress, or vagrant kind of life, which they had hitherto

followed." Article XI. prohibits them from "wandering about the roads

and uninhabited places, even with the pretext of _visiting markets and

fairs_." Article IX. reads thus: "Those _who have abandoned the dress,

name, language or jargon, associations and manners of Gitanos_, and

shall have, moreover, chosen and established a domicile, but shall not

have devoted themselves to any office or employment, though it be only

that of day-labourer, shall be _proceeded against as common vagrants_."

Articles XVI. and XVII. enact, that "the children, and young people of

both sexes, who are not above sixteen years of age, shall be separated

from their parents, _who wander about and have no employment_, [which

was forbidden by the law itself,] and shall be destined to learn

something, or shall be placed out in hospices or houses of instruction."

Article XX. _dooms to death, without remission, Gipsies who, for the

second time, relapse into their old habits_.

I cannot agree with Mr. Borrow, when he says, that this law "differs in

_character_" from any which had hitherto been enacted, in connection

with the body in Spain, if I take those preceding it, as given by

himself. The only difference between it and some of the previous laws

is, that it allowed the Gipsy to be admitted to whatever office or

employment _to which he might apply himself_, and likewise to any guilds

or communities; but it prohibited him from settling in the capital, or

any of the royal residences; and forbade him, _on pain of death_, to

publicly profess what he was--that is, a Gipsy. With the trifling

exceptions mentioned, the law of Charles III. was as foolish a one as

ever was passed against the Gipsies. These very exceptions show what the

letter, whatever the execution, of previous laws must have been. Nor can

we form any opinion as to the effects the law in question had upon the

Gipsies, unless we know how it was carried out. The law of the Empress

Maria Theresa produced no effect upon the Gipsies in Hungary. "In

Hungary," says Mr. Borrow, "two classes are free to do what they

please--the nobility and the Gipsies--the one above the law, the other

below it." And what did Mr. Borrow find the Gipsies in Hungary? In

England, the last instances of condemnation, under the old sanguinary

laws, happened a few years before the Restoration, although these were

not repealed till 23d Geo. III., c. 54. The Gipsies in England can

follow any employment, common to the ordinary natives, they please: and

how has Mr. Borrow described them there? In Scotland, the tribe have

been allowed to do nothing, not even acknowledge their existence, as

Gipsies: and this work describes what they are in that country.

Instead of the law of Charles III. exercising any great beneficial

influence over the character of the Spanish Gipsies, I would attribute

the change in question to what Mr. Borrow himself says: "It must be

remembered that during the last seventy years, a revolution has been

progressing in Spain, slowly it is true; and such a revolution may have

affected the Gitanos." The Spanish Gipsy proverb, "Money is to be found

in the town, not in the country," has had its influence on bringing the

race to settle in towns. And by residing in towns, and not being

persecuted, they have, in Mr. Borrow's own words, "insensibly become

more civilized than their ancestors, and their habits and manners less

ferocious." The only good which the law of Charles III. seems to have

done to the Spanish Gipsies was, as already said, to permit them to

follow any occupation, and be admitted to any guilds, or communities,

(barring the capital, and royal residences,) they pleased; but only on

the condition, and that _on the pain of death_, that they _renounced

every imaginable thing connected with their tribe_; which, we may

reasonably assume, no Gipsy submitted to, however much in appearance he

might have done so.

But it is doubtful if the law of Charles III. was anything but the one

which it was customary for every Spanish monarch to issue against the

tribe. Mr. Borrow says: "Perhaps there is no country in which more laws

have been framed, having in view the suppression and extinction of the

Gipsy name, race, and manner of life, than Spain. Every monarch, during

a period of three hundred years, appears, at his accession to the

throne, to have considered that one of his first and most imperative

duties consisted in suppressing and checking the robberies, frauds, and

other enormities of the Gitanos, with which the whole country seems to

have resounded since the time of their first appearance." The fact of so

many laws being passed against the Gipsies, is, to my mind, ample proof,

as I shall afterwards explain, that few, if any, of them were put, to

any extent, in force; and that the act in question, viewed in itself, as

distinct from the laws previously in existence, was little more than a

form. It contains a flourish of liberality, implied in the Gitanos being

allowed to enter, if they pleased, any guilds, (which they were not

likely to do,) or communities, (where they were doubtless already;) but

it debars, (that is, expels,) them from the king's presence, at the

capital or any of the royal residences. Moreover, it allowed the Gitano

to be "admitted to whatever office or employment to which he might apply

himself," (against which, there probably was, or should have been, no

law in existence.) His majesty must also impose his pragmatical conceit

upon his loyal subjects, by telling them, that "Gitanos are _not_

Gitanos"--that they "do _not_ proceed from any infected root;" and

threaten them, that if they maintain the contrary, and call them

Gitanos, he will have them punished for slander!

The Gipsies, after a residence of 350 years in the country, would have

comparatively little notice taken of them, under this law, except when

they made themselves really obnoxious, or gave an official an occasion

to display his authority, or his zeal for the public service.[272]

Whatever may have been the treatment which the Gipsies experienced at

the hands of the _civil_ authorities, the _church_ does not seem to have

disturbed, and far less distressed, them. Mr. Borrow represents a priest

of Cordova, formerly an Inquisitor, saying to him: "I am not aware of

one case of a Gitano having been tried or punished by the Inquisition.

The Inquisition always looked upon them with too much contempt, to give

itself the slightest trouble concerning them; for, as no danger, either

to the State or to the Church of Rome, could proceed from the Gitanos,

it was a matter of perfect indifference to the holy office whether they

lived without religion or not. The holy office has always reserved its

anger for people very different; the Gitano having, at all times, been

_Gente barrata y despreciable_."

[272] It would seem that the law in Spain, in regard to the Gipsies,

stands pretty much where it did--that is, the people are, in a sense,

tolerated, but that the use of their language is prohibited, as may be

gathered from an incident mentioned in the ninth chapter of the "Bible

in Spain," by Mr. Borrow.

Should the Spanish Gipsies not now assist each other, to the extent they

did when banditti, under the special proscription of the Government, it

would be absurd to say that they were therefore not as much Gipsies as

ever they were. The change in this respect arose, to some extent, from

the toleration extended to them, as a people and as individuals, whether

by the law, or society in general. Such Gipsies as Mr. Borrow seems to

have associated with, in Spain, were not likely to be very reliable

authority on the questions at issue; for he has described them as "being

endowed with a kind of instinct, (in lieu of reason,) which assists them

to a very limited extent, and no further."

Might it not be in Spain as in Great Britain? Even in England, those

that pass for Gipsies are few in number, compared to the mixed Gipsies,

following various occupations; for a large part of the Gipsy blood in

England has, as it were, been spread over a large surface of the white.

In Scotland it is almost altogether so. There seems considerable reason

for believing that Gipsydom is, perhaps, as much mixed in Spain as in

Great Britain, although Mr. Borrow has taken no notice of it. We have

seen, (page 92.) how severe an enactment was passed by Queen Elizabeth,

against "any person, whether natural born or _stranger_, to be seen in

the fellowship of the Gipsies, or disguised like them." In the law of

Ferdinand and Isabella, the first passed against the Gipsies, in Spain,

a class of people is mentioned, in conjunction with them, but

distinguished from them, by the name of "foreign tinkers." Philip III.,

at Belan, in Portugal, in 1619, commands all Gipsies to quit the kingdom

within six months. "Those who should wish to remain are to establish

themselves in cities, and are not to be allowed to use the dress, name,

and language, in order, that forasmuch as they are not such by

nation,(!) this name, and manner of life, may be for evermore confounded

and forgotten(!)" Philip IV., on the 8th May, 1633, declares "that they

are not Gipsies by origin or nature, but have adopted this form of

life(!)" This idea of "Gitanos _not_ being Gitanos, and _not_ proceeding

from any infected root," was not original with Charles III., in 1783;

his proclamation having been in formal keeping with previous ones,

whether of his own country, or, as in Scotland, in 1603, "recommended by

the example of some other realm," (page 111.) There had evidently been a

great curiosity to know who some of the "not Gipsies by origin and

nature," (evidently judging from their appearance,) could be; for Philip

IV. enacts, "that they shall, within two months, leave the quarters

where now they _live with the denomination of Gitanos_, and that they

shall _separate from each other_, and _mingle with the other

inhabitants_: that the ministers of justice are to observe, _with

particular diligence_, whether they _hold communication with each

other_, or _marry among themselves_."

The "foreign tinkers" mentioned in the Act of Ferdinand and Isabella,

and the individuals distinguished from the Gipsies in that of Queen

Elizabeth, were doubtless _mixed_ Gipsies; whose relationship with the

Gipsies proper, and isolation from the common natives, are very

distinctly pointed out in the above extract from the law of Philip IV.

Mr. Borrow expresses a great difficulty to understand who these people

could be, _if not Gipsies_. How easy it is to get quit of the

difficulty, by concluding that they were Gipsies whose blood, perhaps

for the most part, was native; and who had been brought into the body in

the manner explained in the Preface to this work, and more fully

illustrated in this Disquisition. If Mr. Borrow found in Spain a

half-pay captain, in the service of Donna Isabel, with _flaxen_ hair, a

_thorough Gipsy_, who spoke Gipsy and Latin, with great fluency, and his

cousin, Jara, in all probability another Gipsy, what difficulty can

there be in believing, that the "foreign tinkers," or tinkers of any

kind, now to be met with in Spain, are, like the same class in Great

Britain and Ireland, Gipsies of mixed blood? Indeed, the young Spaniard,

to whom I have alluded, informs me that the Gipsies in Spain are very

much mixed. Mr. Borrow himself admits that the Gipsy blood in Spain has

been mixed; for, in speaking of the old Gipsy counts, he says: "It was

the counts who determined what individuals were to be admitted into the

fellowship and privileges of the Gitanos. . . . . They (the Gipsies)

were not to teach the language to any but those who, by birth or

_inauguration_, belonged to that sect." And he gives a case in point, in

the bookseller of Logrono, who was married to the only daughter of a

Gitano count; upon whose death, the daughter and son-in-law succeeded to

the authority which he had exercised in the tribe. If the Gipsies in

Spain were not mixed in point of blood, why should they have taken Mr.

Borrow for a Gipsy, as he said they did? The persecutions to which the

race in Spain were subjected were calculated to lead to a mixture of the

blood, as in Scotland, for the reasons given in the Preface; but,

perhaps, not to the same extent; as the Spanish Acts seem to have given

the tribe an opportunity of escape, under the condition of settling,

&c., &c., which would probably be complied with, nominally, for the time

being; while the face of part of the country would afford a refuge till

the storm had blown over. (See pages 71 and 114.)

It is very likely that the following people, described by Paget, in his

travels in Central Europe, are mixed Gipsies. He says: "In almost every

part of the Austrian dominions are to be found a kind of wandering

tinkers, wire-workers, and menders of crockery, whose language appears

to be that of the Sclaves, who travel about, and, at certain seasons,

return to their own settlements, where the women and children remain

during their absence." The wandering Rothwelsh, perhaps the same

mentioned by Paget, may be mixed Gipsies. In the Encyclopædia Britannica

they are spoken of as "a vagabond people, in the south of Germany, who

have sometimes been confounded with the Gipsies." The _appearance_ of

such persons has nothing to do with their being, or not being, members

of Gipsydom.[273]

[273] Paget says these tinkers leave their women and children at home

when on their travels. That is not customary with the tribe, although

it may be their habit in the Austrian dominions.

I will now consider the present condition of the Scottish Gipsies. But,

to commence with, what is the native capacity of a Gipsy? It is good.

Take a common tinkering Gipsy, without a particle of education, and

compare him with a common native, without a particle of education, and

the tinker, in point of smartness, is worth, perhaps, a dozen of the

other. If not a learned, he is at least a travelled, Athenian,

considerably rubbed up by his intercourse with the world. This is the

proper way by which to judge of the capacity of a Gipsy. It will differ

somewhat according to the countries and circumstances in which he is

found. Grellmann, about the year 1780, says, of evidently the more

original kind of Hungarian Gipsies: "Imagine a people of childish

thoughts, whose minds are filled with raw, undigested conceptions,

guided more by sense than reason, and using understanding and reflection

only so far as they promote the gratification of any particular

appetite; and you have a perfect sketch of the general character of the

Gipsies." "They are lively, uncommonly loquacious, fickle to an extreme;

consequently, inconstant in their pursuits." Bischoff, in speaking of

the German Gipsies, in 1827, says: "They have a good understanding, an

excellent memory, are quick of comprehension, lively and talkative." Mr.

Borrow, in evident allusion to the very lowest, and most ignorant, class

of the Spanish Gipsies, says: "They seem to hunt for their bread, as if

they were not of the human, but rather of the animal, species, and, in

lieu of reason, were endowed with a kind of instinct, which assists them

to a very limited extent, and no further." I admit that this class of

Gipsies may have as little intellect as there is in an ant-catcher's

nose, but the remark can apply to them exclusively.

Without taking into account any opinion expressed by other writers on

the Gipsies, Mr. Borrow says: "Should it be urged that certain

individuals have found them very different from what they are

represented in these volumes, ('The Gipsies in Spain,') he would frankly

say that he yields no credit to the presumed fact." And he refers his

readers to his Spanish-Gipsy vocabulary for the words _hoax_ and

_hocus_, as a reason for such an opinion! He himself gives descriptions

of quite a different caste. For example, he speaks of a rich Gipsy

appearing in a fair, at Leon, in Spain, with a twenty thousand dollar

credit in his pocket. And of another Gipsy, a native of Constantinople,

who had visited the most remote and remarkable portions of the world,

"passing over it like a cloud;" and who spoke several dialects of the

Malay, and understood the original language of Java. This Gipsy, he

says, dealt in precious stones and poisons; and that there is scarcely a

bey or satrap in Persia, or Turkey, whom he has not supplied with both.

In Moscow, he says, "There are not a few who inhabit stately houses, go

abroad in elegant equipages, and are behind the higher orders of the

Russians, neither in appearance nor mental acquirements." From these

specimens, one might naturally conclude that there was some room for

discrimination among different classes of Gipsies, instead of rating

them as having the intellect of ant-catchers.

When the Gipsies appeared in Scotland, the natives themselves, as I have

already said, were nearly wholly uneducated. Many of the Gipsies, then,

and long afterwards, being smart, presumptuous, overbearing, audacious

fellows, seem to have assumed great importance, and been looked upon as

no small people by the authorities and the inhabitants of the country.

In every country in which they have settled, they seem to have

instinctively and very readily appreciated the ways and spirit of the

people, while, at the same time, they preserved what belonged

particularly to themselves--their Gipsyism. Gipsydom being, in its very

essence, a "working in among other people," "a people within a people,"

it followed, that marriages between adopted Gipsies, and even Gipsies

themselves, and the ordinary natives, would be encouraged, were it only

to contribute to their existence in the country. The issue of such

marriages, go where they might, would become centres of little Gipsy

circles, which, in their turn, would throw off members that would become

the centres of other little Gipsy circles; the leaven of Gipsydom

leavening into a lump everything that proceeded out of itself. To such

an extent has this been followed, that, at the present day, the Scottish

Gipsies--at least the generality of them--have every outward

characteristic of Scotchmen. But the secret of being Gipsies, which they

carry in their bosoms, makes them appear a little queer to others; they

have a something about them that makes them look somewhat odd to the

other Scotchman, who is not "one of them," although he does not know the

cause of it.

Upon, or shortly after, their arrival, they seem to have divided the

country among themselves; each tribe exercising its rights over its own

territory, to the exclusion of others, just as a native lord would have

done against other natives; with a system of passes, regulated by

councils of local or provincial chieftains, and a king, over all. The

Scottish Gipsies, from the very first, seem to have been thoroughly

versed in their vocation, from having had about a hundred years'

experience, in some other part of Europe, before they settled in

Scotland; although stragglers of their race evidently had made their

appearance in the country many years before. What might have been the

number of Gipsies then in Scotland, it is impossible to conjecture; it

must have been considerable, if we judge from what is said in Wraxall's

History of France, vol. 2, page 32, when, in reference to the Act of

Queen Elizabeth, in 1563, he states, that, in her reign, the Gipsies

throughout England were supposed to exceed ten thousand. The employments

of the original Gipsies, within their respective districts, seem to have

been what is described under the head of Tweed-dale and Clydesdale

Gipsies; that is, tinkering, making spoons and other wares, petty

trading, telling fortunes, living as much as possible at free-quarters,

dealing in horses, and visiting fairs. It is extremely likely that those

who travelled Tweed-dale, for example, always averaged about the same

number, down to the time of the American Revolution, (except in times of

civil commotion, when they would have the country pretty much to

themselves,) and were confined to such of the families of the respective

tribes, or the members of these families, in whom the right was

hereditary. The consequence seems to have been, that perhaps the younger

members of the family had to betake themselves to towns and villages,

and engage in whatever they could possibly turn their hands to. Some

would, of course, take to the highway, and kindred fields of industry.

Admitting that the circumstances attending the Gipsies in Scotland, at

that time, and subsequently, were the same, as regards the manner of

making a living, which attend those in England, at the present day,

(with this difference, that they could more easily roam at large then

than now,) and we can have no difficulty in coming to a conclusion how

the surplus of the tented Gipsy population was disposed of. Among the

English Gipsies of to-day, taking year with year, and tent with tent,

there is, yearly, a continual moving out of the tent; a kind of Gipsy

crop is annually gathered from tented Gipsydom; and some of these

gradually find themselves drawn into almost every kind of mechanical or

manual labour, even to working in coal-mines and iron-works; others

become peddlers, itinerant auctioneers, and _tramps_ of almost every

imaginable kind; not to speak of those who visit fairs, in various

capacities, or engage in various settled traffic.

Put a Gipsy to any occupation you like, and he shows a capability and

handiness that is astonishing, if he can only muster up steadiness in

his new vocation. But it is difficult to break him off the tent; he will

return, and lounge, for weeks together, about that of his father, or

some other relative. But get him fairly out of the tent, married, and,

in a degree, settled to some occupation, in a town where there are not

too many of his own race in close proximity to him, but where he gets

mixed up, in his daily avocation, with the common natives, and he sooner

or later falls into the ranks. Still, his intimate associations are

always with Gipsies; for his ardent attachment to his people, and a

corresponding resentment of the prejudice that exists against it, keep

him aloof from any intimate intercourse with the ordinary inhabitants;

his associations with them hardly ever extending beyond the commons or

the public-house. If he experiences an attack from his old habits, he

will take to the tramp, from town to town, working at his mechanical

occupation; leaving his wife and children at home. But it is not long

before he returns. His children, having been born and reared in a town,

become habituated to a settled life, like other people.

There is a vast amount of ambition about every Gipsy, which is

displayed, among the humble classes, in all kinds of athletic

exercises.[274] The same peculiarity is discernible among the educated

Scottish Gipsies. Carrying about with them the secret of being Gipsies,

which they assume would be a terrible imputation cast upon them by the

ordinary natives, if they knew of it, they, as it were, fly up, like

game-cocks, and show a disposition to surpass the others in one way or

other; particularly as they consider themselves better than the common

inhabitants. They must always be "cock of the company," master of

ceremonies, or stand at the top of the tree, if possible. The reader may

ask, how do they consider themselves better than the ordinary natives?

And I answer, that, from having been so long in Scotland, they are

Scotchmen, (as indeed they are, for the most part, in point of blood,)

and consider themselves as good as the others--nay, smarter than others

in the same sphere, which, generally speaking, they are; and, in

addition to that, being Gipsies, a great deal better. They pique

themselves on their descent, and on being in possession of secrets which

are peculiarly and exclusively theirs, and which they imagine no other

knows, or will ever know. They feel that they are part and parcel of

those mysterious beings who are an enigma to others, no less than to

themselves. Besides this vanity, which is peculiar to the Gipsy

everywhere, the Scottish Gipsies have chimed in with all the native

Scotch ideas of clanism, kith, kin, and consequence, as regards family,

descent, and so forth; and applied them so peculiarly to themselves, as

to render their opinion of their body as something of no small

importance. Some of them, whose descent leads them more directly back to

the tented stock, speak of their families having possessed this district

or the other district of the country, as much, almost, as we would

expect to hear from some native Scottish chieftain.

[274] "I was one of these verminous ones, one of these great

sin-breeders; I infected all the youth of the town where I was born

with all manner of youthful vanities. The neighbours counted me so; my

practice proved me so: wherefore Christ Jesus took me first, and

taking me first, the contagion was much allayed all the town

over."--_Bunyan._

As regards the various phases of history through which many of the

Scottish Gipsies have passed, we can only form an estimate from what has

been observed in recent times. The further back, however, we go, the

greater were their facilities to rise to a position in society; for this

reason, that a very little education, joined to good natural talents,

were all that was necessary, in a mixed Gipsy, to raise himself in the

world, at the time to which I allude. He could leave the district in

which, when a youth, he had travelled, with his parents; settle in a

town where he was not personally known; commence some traffic, and, by

his industry, gradually raise himself up, and acquire wealth. He would

not lack a proper degree of innate manners, or personal dignity, to

deport himself with propriety in any ordinary company into which he

might enter. Even at the present day, in Scotland, a poor Gipsy will

commence life with a wheelbarrow, then get a donkey-cart, and, in a few

years, have a very respectable crockery-shop. I am intimate with an

English mixed Gipsy family, the father of which commenced life as a

basket-maker, was afterwards a constable, and now occasionally travels

with the tent. His son is an M. D., for I have seen his diploma; and is

a smart, intelligent fellow, and quite an adept at chemistry. To

illustrate the change that has taken place among some of the Scottish

Gipsies, within the last fifty years, I may mention that the

grand-children of a prominent Gipsy, mentioned in chapter V., follow, at

the present day, the medical, the legal, and the mercantile professions.

Such occurrences have been frequent in Scotland. There are the cases

mentioned by our author; such as one of the Faas rising to such eminence

in the mercantile world, at Dunbar; and another who rose to the rank of

lieutenant in the East India Company's service; and the Baillie family,

which furnished a captain and a quarter-master to the army, and a

country surgeon. These are but instances of many others, if they were

but known. Some may object, that these were not full-blood Gipsies.

That, I readily admit. But the objection is more nominal than real. 'If

a white were to proceed to the interior of the American continent, and

cast his lot with a tribe of Indians, his children would, of course, be

expected to be superior, in some respects, to the children of the native

blood exclusively, owing to what the father might be supposed to teach

them. But it is different in the case of a white marrying a Scottish

Gipsy woman, born and reared in the same community with himself; for the

white, in general cases, brings only his blood, which enables the

children, if they take after himself, in appearance, to enter such

places as the black Gipsies would not enter, or might not be allowed to

enter. The white father, in such a case, might not even be so

intelligent as the Gipsy mother. Be that as it may, the individuals to

whom I have alluded were nothing but Gipsies; possibly they did not know

when, or through whom, the white blood was introduced among them; they

knew, at least, that they were Gipsies, and that the links which

connected them with the past were substantially Gipsy links. Besides the

Scottish Gipsies rising to respectable positions in life, by their own

exertions, I can well believe that Gipsydom has been well brought up

through the female line; especially at a time when females, and

particularly country females, were rude and all but uneducated. Who more

capable of doing that than the lady Baillies, of Tweed-dale, and the

lady Wilsons, of Stirlingshire? Such Gipsy girls could "turn natives

round their little fingers" and act, in a way, the lady at once; "turn

over a new leaf," and "pin it down;" and conduct themselves with great

propriety.

Upon a superior Scottish Gipsy settling in a town, and especially a

small town, and wishing to appear respectable, he would naturally take a

pew in the church, and attend public worship, were it only, as our

author asserts, to hide the fact of his being a Gipsy. Because, among

the Scotch, there is that prying inquisitiveness into their neighbours'

affairs, that compels a person to be very circumspect, in all his

actions, movements, and expressions, if he wishes to be thought anything

of, at all. The habit of attending church would then become as regular,

in the Gipsy's family, as in the families of the ordinary natives, and,

in a great measure, proceed from as legitimate a motive. The family

would be very polite, indeed, extra polite, to their neighbours. After

they had lulled to sleep every suspicion of what they were, or, by their

really good conduct, had, according to the popular idea, "ceased to be

Gipsies," they would naturally encourage a formal acquaintance with

respectable (and nothing but respectable,) people in the place. The

Gipsy himself, a really good fellow at heart, honourable in his

dealings, but fond of a bargain, when he could drive a bargain, and,

moreover, a jovial fellow, would naturally make plenty of business and

out-door friends, at least. Rising in circumstances and the public

esteem, he makes up his mind that his children ought to be something

better than himself, at all events; in short, that they ought not to be

behind those of his respectable neighbours. Some of them he, therefore,

educates for a liberal profession. The Gipsy himself becomes more and

more ambitious: besides attending church, he must become an elder of the

church; or it may be that the grace of God takes hold of him, and brings

him into the fold. He and his wife conduct themselves with much

propriety; but some of the boys are rather wild; the girls, however,

behave well. Altogether, the whole family is very much thought of. Such

is a Scottish Gipsy family, (the parents of which are now dead,) that I

have in my mind at the present moment. No suspicion existed in regard to

the father, but there was a breath of suspicion in regard to the mother.

But what difference did that make? What knowledge had the public of the

nature of Gipsydom?

Consider, then, that the process which I have attempted to describe has

been going on, more or less, for at least the last three hundred and

fifty years; and I may well ask, where might we _not_ expect to meet

with Gipsies, in Scotland, at the present day? And I reply, that we will

meet with them in every sphere of Scottish life, not excepting, perhaps,

the very highest. There are Gipsies among the very best Edinburgh

families. I am well acquainted with Scotchmen, youths and men of middle

age, of education and character, and who follow very respectable

occupations, that are Gipsies, and who admit that they are Gipsies. But,

apart from my own knowledge, I ask, is it not a fact, that, a few years

ago, a pillar of the Scottish church, at Edinburgh, upon the occasion of

founding a society for the reformation of the poor class of Scottish

Gipsies, and frequently thereafter, said that he himself was a Gipsy? I

ask, again, is not that a fact? It is a fact. And such a man! Such

prayers! Such deep-toned, sonorous piety! Such candour! Such judgment!

Such amiability of manners! How much respected! How worthy of respect!

The good, the godly, the saintly doctor! When will we meet his like

again?[275]

[275] "Grand was the repose of his lofty brow, dark eye, and aspect of

soft and melancholy meaning. It was a face from which every evil and

earthly passion seemed purged. A deep gravity lay upon his

countenance, which had the solemnity, without the sternness, of one of

our old reformers. You could almost fancy a halo completing its

apostolic character."

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]

[276] Burns alludes to this family, thus: "Passed through the most

glorious corn country I ever saw, till I reached Dunbar, a neat little

town. Dine with Provost Fall, an eminent merchant, and most

respectable character, but indescribable, as he exhibits no marked

traits. Mrs. Fall, a genius in painting; fully more clever in the fine

arts and sciences than my friend Lady Wauchope, without her consummate

assurance of her own abilities."--_Life of Burns, by Robert Chambers._

The crest of the Falls, of Dunbar, was _three_ boars' heads, couped;

that of Baillie, of Lamington, is _one_ boar's head, couped. In the

Statistical Account of Scotland, (1835,) appears the following notice

of this family: "A family, of the name of Fall, established themselves

at Dunbar, and became, during the last century, the most extensive

merchants in Scotland. They were long the chief magistrates of the

burgh, and preferred the public good to their own profit. They have

left no one to bear their name, _not even a stone to tell where they

lie_; but they will long be remembered for their enterprise and public

spirit." There is apparently a reason for "not even a stone being left

to tell where they lie;" for in Hoyland's "Survey of the Gipsies"

appeared the account of Baillie Smith, in which it is said: "The

descendants of Faa now take the name of Fall, from the Messrs. Fall,

of Dunbar, who, they pride themselves in saying, _are of the same

stock and lineage_;" which seems to have frightened their connexions

at being known to be Gipsies.

Let all that has been said of the Falls be considered as their

monument and epitaph; so that their memories may be preserved as long

as this work exists.

It would be interesting to know who the Captain Fall was, who visited

Dunbar, with an American ship-of-war, during the time of Paul Jones.

He might have been a descendant of a Gipsy, sent to the plantations,

in the olden times. There are, as I have said before, a great many

scions of Gipsy Faas, under one name or other, scattered over the

world.

[277] _Whipping the cat_: Tailoring from house to house. The _cat_ is

_whipped_ by females, as well as males, in America, in some parts of

which the expression is current.

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]

[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.

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]

[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.

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]

[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!'"

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.

[281] See page 202.

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.

[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.]

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.

Take a Gipsy in his original state, and we can find nothing really

_vulgar_ about him. What is popularly understood to be Gipsy life may be

considered low life, by people who do not overmuch discriminate in such

matters; but view it after its kind, and it is not really low; for a

Gipsy is naturally polite and well mannered. He does not consider

himself as belonging to the same race as the native, and would rather be

judged by a different standard. The life which he leads is not that of

the lowest class of the country in which he dwells, but the primitive,

original state of a people of great antiquity, proscribed by law and

society; himself an enemy of, and an enemy to, all around him; with the

population so prejudiced against him, that attempts to change his

condition, consistently with his feelings as a man, are frequently

rendered in vain: so that, on the ground of strict morals, or even

administrative justice, the man can be said to be only half responsible.

The subject, however, assumes quite a different aspect, when we consider

a Gipsy of education and refinement, like the worthy clergyman

mentioned, between whose condition and that of his tented ancestor an

interval of, perhaps, two or three centuries has elapsed. We should then

put him on the footing of any other race having a barbarous origin, and

entertain no prejudice against him on account of the race to which he

belongs. He is then to be judged as we judge Highland and Border Scots,

for the whole three were at one time robbers; and all the three having

welled up to respectable life together, they ought to be judged on their

merits, individually, as men, and treated accordingly. And the Gipsy

ought to be the most leniently dealt with, on the principle that the

actions of his ancestors were far more excusable, and even less heinous,

than those of the others. And as regards antiquity of descent, the

Gipsy's infinitely surpasses the others, being probably no less than the

shepherd kings, part of whose blood left Egypt, in the train of the

Jews. I would place such a Gipsy on the footing of the Hungarian race;

with this difference, that the Hungarians entered Europe in the ninth

century, and became a people, occupying a territory; while the Gipsies

appeared in the fifteenth century, and are now to be found, civilized

and uncivilized, in almost every corner of the known world.

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. View the subject any way I may, I cannot resist coming to

the conclusion that, under more favourable circumstances, it is

difficult to say what the Gipsies might not attain to. But that would

depend greatly upon the country in which they are to be found. Scotland

has been peculiarly favourable for them, in some respects.

As regards the Scottish Gipsy population, at the present day, I can only

adopt the language of the immortal Dominie Sampson, and say, that it

must be "prodigious." If we consider the number that appear to have

settled in Scotland, the length of time they have been in Scotland, the

great amount of white blood that has, by one means or other, been

brought into, and mixed up with, the body, and its great natural

encrease; the feelings that attach them to their descent--feelings that

originate, more properly, within themselves, and feelings that press

upon them from without--the various occupations and positions in life in

which they are to be found; we cannot set any limit to their number.

Gipsies are just like other people; they have their own sets or circles

of associates, out of which, as a thing that is almost invariable, they

will hide, if not deny, themselves to others of their race, for reasons

which have already been given. So almost invariable is this, at the

present day, amongst Gipsies that are not tented Gipsies, that, should

an English Gipsy come across a settlement of them in America--German

Gipsies, for example--and cast his sign, and address them in their own

speech, they will pretend not to know what he means, although he sees

the Gipsy in their faces and about their dwellings. But should he meet

with them away from their homes, and where they are not known, they

would answer, and be cheek-by-jowl with him, in a moment. I have found,

by personal experience, that the same holds with the French and other

continental Gipsies in America.[283] It is particularly so with the

Scottish Gipsies. For these reasons, it seems to be beyond question

that the number at which our author estimates them in Scotland, viz.,

5,000, must be vastly below the real number. If I were to say 100,000, I

do not think I would over-estimate them. The opinion of the Gipsies whom

our author questioned was a guess, so far as it referred to the class to

which they belonged, or with which they were acquainted; so that, if we

take all kinds of Gipsies into account, it would be a very moderate

estimate to set the Scottish Gipsies down at 100,000; and those in all

the British Isles at 300,000. The number might be double what I have

stated. The intelligent English Gipsies say that, in England, they are

not only "dreadfully mixed," but extremely numerous. There is not a race

of men on the face of the earth more prolific than tented Gipsies; in a

word, tented Gipsydom, if I may hazard such an expression, is,

comparatively speaking, like a rabbit warren. The rough and uncouth kind

of settled Gipsies are likewise very prolific; but the higher classes,

as a rule, are by no means so much so. To set down any specific number

of Gipsies to be found in the British Isles, would be a thing too

arbitrary to serve any purpose; I think sufficient data have been given

to enable the intelligent reader to form an opinion for himself.[284]

[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.

On one occasion, I met with a German cutler, in a place of business,

in New York. I felt sure he was a Gipsy, although the world would not

have taken him for one. Catching his eye, I commenced to look around

the room, from those present to himself, as if there was to be

something confidential between us, and then whispered to him, "_Callo

chabo_," (Gipsy, or black fellow;) and the effect was instantaneous. I

afterwards visited his family, on a Sabbath evening, and took tea with

them. They were from Wurtemberg, and appeared very decent people. The

mother, a tall, swarthy, fine looking intelligent young woman, said

grace, which was repeated by the children, whom I found learning their

Sabbath-school lessons. The family regularly attend church. A

fair-haired German called, and went to church with the Gipsy himself.

What with the appearance of everything about the house, and the fine,

clean, and neatly-dressed family of children, I felt very much pleased

with my visit.

French and German Gipsies are very shy, owing to the severity of the

laws against their race.

[284] Fletcher, of Saltoun, speaks of there being constantly a hundred

thousand people in Scotland, leading the life (as Sir Walter Scott

describes it,) of "Gipsies, Jockies, or Cairds." Between the time

alluded to and the date of John Faw's league with James V., a period

of 140 years had elapsed; and 174 years from the date of arrival of

the race in the country: so that, from the natural encrease of the

body, and the large amount of white blood introduced into it, the

greater part, if not the whole, of the people mentioned, were

doubtless Gipsies. But these Gipsies, according to Sir Walter's

opinion, "died out by a change of habits." How strange it is that the

very first class Scottish minds should have so little understood the

philosophy of origin, blood, and descent, and especially as they

applied to the Gipsies! For Sir Walter says: "The progress of time,

and encrease both of the means of life and the power of the laws,

gradually reduced this dreadful evil within more narrow bounds.

. . . . Their numbers are so greatly diminished, that, instead of one

hundred thousand, as calculated by Fletcher, it would now, perhaps, be

impossible to collect above five hundred throughout all Scotland(!)"

It is perfectly evident that Sir Walter Scott, in common with many

others, never realized the idea, in all its bearings, of what a Gipsy

was; or he never could have imagined that those, only, were of the

Gipsy race, who followed the tent.

It is very doubtful if Anthonius Gawino, and his tribe, departed with

their letter of introduction from James IV. to his uncle, the king of

Denmark, in 1506. Having secured the favour of the king of Scots, by

this recommendatory notice, he was more apt, by delaying his

departure, to secure his position in the country. The circumstances

attending the league with his successor, John Faw, show that the tribe

had been long in the country; doubtless from as far back as 1506. From

1506 till 1579, with the exception of about one year, during the reign

of James V., the tribe, as I have already said, (page 109,) must have

encreased prodigiously. The persecutions against the body extended

over the reign of James VI., and part of that of Charles I.; for,

according to Baron Hume, such was the terror which the executions

inspired in the tribe, that, "for the space of more than 50 years from

that time, (1624,) there is no trial of an Egyptian;" although our

author shows that an execution of a band of them took place in 1636.

But "towards the end of that century," continues Baron Hume, "the

nuisance seems to have again become troublesome;" in other words, that

from the reign of Charles I. to the accession of William and Mary, the

time to which Fletcher's remark applies, the attention of all being

taken up with the troubles of the times, the Gipsies had things pretty

much their own way; but when peace was restored, they would be called

to strict account.

For all these reasons, it may be said that the 100,000 people spoken

of were doubtless Gipsies of various mixtures of blood; so that, at

the present day, there ought to be a very large number of the tribe in

Scotland. I admit that many of the Scottish Gipsies have been hanged,

and many banished to the Plantations; but these would be in a small

ratio to their number, and a still smaller to the natural encrease of

the body. Suppose that such and such Gipsies were either hanged or

banished; so young did they all marry, that, when they were hanged or

banished, they might leave behind them families ranging from five to

ten children. We may say, of the Scottish Gipsies generally, in days

that are past, what a writer in Blackwood's Magazine, already alluded

to, said of Billy Marshall: "Their descendants were prodigiously

numerous; I dare say, numberless." Many of the Scottish Gipsies have

migrated to England, as well as elsewhere. In Liverpool, there are

many of them, following various mechanical occupations.

That many Gipsies were banished to America, in colonial times, from

England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, sometimes for merely being "by

habit and repute Gipsies," is beyond dispute. "Your Welsh and Irish,"

said an English Gipsy, in the United States, "were so mean, when they

banished a Gipsy to the Plantations, as to make him find his own

passage; but the English always paid the Gipsy's passage for him." The

Scotch seem also to have made the Gipsy find his own passage, and

failing that, to have hanged him. It greatly interests the English

Gipsies arriving in America, to know about the native American Gipsies.

I have been frequently in the company of an English Gipsy, in America,

whose great-grandfather was so banished; but he did not relish the

subject being spoken of. Gipsies may be said to have been in America

almost from the time of its settlement. We have already seen how many of

them found their way there, during the Revolution, by being impressed as

soldiers, and taken as volunteers, for the benefit of the bounty and

passage; and how they deserted on landing. Tented Gipsies have been seen

about Baltimore for the last seventy years. In New England, a colony is

known which has existed for about a hundred years, and has always been

looked upon with a singular feeling of distrust and mystery by the

inhabitants, who are the descendants of the early emigrants, and who did

not suspect their origin till lately. These Gipsies have never

associated, in the common sense of the word, with the other settlers,

and, judging from their exterior, seem poor and miserable, whatever

their circumstances may be. They follow pretty much the employment and

modes of life of the same class in Europe; the most striking feature

being, that the bulk of them leave the homestead for a length of time,

scatter in different directions, and reunite, periodically, at their

quarters, which are left in charge of some of the feeble members of the

band.

It is not likely that many of the colonial Gipsies would take to the

tent; for, arriving, for the most part, as individuals, separated from

family relations, they were more apt to follow settled, semi-settled, or

general itinerant occupations; and the more so, as the face of the

country, and the thin and scattered settlements, would hardly admit of

it. They were apt to squat on wild or unoccupied lands, in the

neighbourhood of towns and settlements, like their brethren in Europe,

when they took up their quarters on the borders of well-settled

districts, with a wild country to fall back on, in times of danger or

prosecution by the lawful authorities. Besides disposing of themselves,

to some little extent, in this way, many of the Gipsies, banished, or

going to the colonies of their own accord, would betake themselves to

the various occupations common to the ordinary emigrants; the more

especially as, when they arrived, they would find a field in which they

were not known to be Gipsies; which would give them greater scope and

confidence, and enable them to go anywhere, or enter upon any

employment, where, not being known to be Gipsies, they would meet with

no prejudice to contend with. Indeed, a new country, in which the

people had, more or less, to be, in a sense, tinkers, that is,

jacks-of-all-trades, and masters of none, was just the sphere of a handy

Gipsy, who could "do a' most of things." They would turn to the

tinkering, peddling, horse-dealing, tavern-keeping, and almost all the

ordinary mechanical trades, and, among others, broom-making. Perhaps the

foundation of the American broom manufacture was laid by the British

Gipsies, by whom it may be partly carried on at the present day; a

business they pretty much monopolize, in a rough way, in Great Britain.

We will doubtless find, among the fraternity, some of those whittling,

meddling Sam Slick peddlers, so often described: I have seen some of

those itinerant venders of knife-sharpeners, and such "Yankee notions,"

with dark, glistening eyes, that would "pass for the article." Some of

them would live by less legitimate business. I entertain no doubt, what

from the general fitness of things, and the appearance of some of the

men, that we will find some of the descendants of the old British mixed

Gipsies members of the various establishments of Messrs. Peter Funks and

Company,[285] of the city of New York, as well as elsewhere. And I

entertain as little doubt that many of those American women who tell

fortunes, and engage in those many curious bits of business that so

often come up at trials, are descendants of the British plantation stock

of Gipsies. But there are doubtless many of these Gipsies in respectable

spheres of life. It would be extremely unreasonable to say that the

descendants of the colonial Gipsies do not still exist as Gipsies, like

their brethren in Great Britain, and other parts of the Old World. The

English Gipsies in America entertain no doubt of it; the more especially

as they have encountered such Gipsies, of at least two descents. I have

myself met with such a Gipsy, following a decidedly respectable calling,

whom I found as much one of the tribe, barring the original habits, as

perhaps any one in Europe.

[285] _Peter Funks & Co._: Mock auctioneers of mock jewelry, &c., &c.