That the Gipsies were a barbarous race when they entered Europe, in the

beginning of the fifteenth century, is just what could have been

expected of any Asiatic, migratory, tented horde, at a time when the

inhabitants of Europe were little better than barbarous, themselves, and

many of them absolutely so. To speak of the Highland clans, at that

time, as being better than barbarous, would be out of the question; as

to the Irish people, it would be difficult to say what they really were,

at the same time. Even the Lowland Scotch, a hundred years after the

arrival of the Gipsies in Europe, were, with some exceptions, divided

into two classes--"beggars and rascals," as history tells us. Is it,

therefore, unreasonable to say, that, in treating of the Gipsies of

to-day, we should apply to them the same principles of judgment that

have been applied to the ordinary natives? If we refer to the treaty

between John Faw and James V., in 1540, we will very readily conclude

that, three centuries ago, the leaders of the Gipsies were very superior

men, in their way; cunning, astute, and slippery Oriental barbarians,

with the experience of upwards of a century in European society

generally; well up to the ways of the world, and the general ways of

Church and State; and, in a sense, at home with kings, popes, cardinals,

nobility, and gentry. That was the character of a superior Gipsy, in

1540. In 1840, we find the race represented by as fine a man as ever

graced the Church of Scotland. "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." Some of the Scottish Gipsies of to-day could very

readily exclaim:

"And, if thou said'st I am not peer

To any _one_ in Scotland here,

Highland or Lowland, far or near,

_Oh, Donald_, thou hast lied!"

But it is impossible for any one to give an account of the Gipsies in

Scotland, from the year 1506, down to the present time. This much,

however, can be said of them, that they are as much Gipsies now as ever

they were; that is, the Gipsies of to-day are the representatives of the

race as it appeared in Scotland three centuries and a half ago, and hold

themselves to be Gipsies now, as, indeed, they always will do.

Ever since the race entered Scotland, we may reasonably assume that it

has been dropping out of the tent into settled life, in one form or

other, and sometimes to a greater extent at one time than another. It

never has been a nomadic race, in the proper sense of the word; for a

nomad is one who possesses flocks and herds, with which he moves about

from pasturage to pasturage, as he does in Asia to-day. Mr. Borrow says

that there are Gipsies who follow this kind of life, in Russia; but

that, doubtless, arises from the circumstances in which they have found

themselves placed.[301] "I think," said an English Gipsy to me, "that

we must take partly of the ancient Egyptians, and partly of the Arabs;

from the Egyptians, owing to our settled ways, and from the Arabs, owing

to our wandering habits." Upon entering Europe, they must have wandered

about promiscuously, for some short time, before pitching upon

territories, which they would divide among themselves, under their kings

and chieftains. Here we find the proper sphere of the Gipsy, in his

original state. In 1506, Anthonius Gawino is represented, by James IV.,

to his uncle, the king of Denmark, as having "sojourned in Scotland in

peaceable and catholic manner:" and John Faw, by James V., in 1540,

during his "pilgrimage," as "doing a lawful business;" which evidently

had some meaning, as we find that seven pounds were paid to the

Egyptians by the king's chamberlain. In 1496, the Gipsies made

musket-balls for the king of Hungary; and, in 1565, cannon-balls for the

Turks. In short, they were travelling smiths, or what has since been

called tinkers, with a turn for any kind of ordinary mechanical

employment, and particularly as regards working in metals; dealers in

animals, petty traders, musicians, and fortune-tellers, with a wonderful

knack for "transferring money from other people's pockets into their

own;" living representatively, but apparently not wholly, in tents, and

"helping themselves" to whatever they stood in need of.[302]

[301] There is scarce a part of the habitable world where they are not

to be found; their tents are alike pitched on the heaths of Brazil and

the ridges of the Himalayan hills; and their language is heard at

Moscow and Madrid, in the streets of London and Stamboul. They are

found in all parts of Russia, with the exception of the Government of

St. Petersburg, from which they have been banished. In most of the

provincial towns, they are to be found in a state of half

civilization, supporting themselves by trafficking in horses, or by

curing the disorders incidental to those animals. But the vast

majority reject this manner of life, and traverse the country in

bands, like the ancient Hamaxobioi; the immense grassy plains of

Russia affording pasturage for their herds of cattle, on which, and

the produce of the chase, they chiefly depend for

subsistence.--_Borrow._

[302] Considering what is popularly understood to be the natural

disposition and capacity of the Gipsies, we would readily conclude

that to turn innkeepers would be the most unlikely of all their

employments; yet that is very common. Mahommed said, "If the mountain

will not come to us, we will go to the mountain." The Gipsies say, "If

we do not go to the people, the people must come to us;" and so they

open their houses of entertainment.

Speaking of the Gipsy chiefs mentioned in the act of James V., our

author, as we have seen, very justly remarks: "It cannot be supposed

that the ministers of three or four succeeding monarchs would have

suffered their sovereigns to be so much imposed on, as to allow them to

put their names to public documents styling poor and miserable

wretches, as we at the present day imagine them to have been, 'Lords and

Earls of Little Egypt.' . . . . . I am disposed to believe that

Anthonius Gawino, in 1506, and John Faw, in 1540, would personally, as

individuals, that is, as Gipsy rajahs, have a very respectable and

imposing appearance, in the eyes of the officers of the crown." (Page

108.)[303] We have likewise seen how many laws were passed, by the Scots

parliament, against "great numbers of his majesty's subjects, of whom

some outwardly pretend to be famous and unspotted gentlemen," for

encouraging and supporting the Gipsies; and, in the case of William

Auchterlony, of Cayrine, for receiving into their houses, and feasting

them, their wives, children, _servants_, and companies. All this took

place more than a hundred years after the arrival of the Gipsies in

Scotland, and seventy-six years after the date of the treaty between

James V. and John Faw. We can very readily believe that the sagacity

displayed by this chief and his folk, to evade the demand made upon them

to leave the country, was likewise employed to secure their perpetual

existence in it; for, from the first, their intention was evidently to

possess it. Hence their original story of being pilgrims, which would

prevent the authorities from disturbing them, but which had no effect

upon Henry VIII., whom, of all the monarchs of Europe, they did not

hoax. Grellmann mentions their having obtained passports from the

Emperor Sigismund, and other princes, as well as from the king of

France, and the Pope.

[303] The following is a description of a superior Spanish Gipsy, in

1584, as quoted by Mr. Borrow, from the memoirs of a Spaniard, who had

seen him: "At this time, they had a count, a fellow who spoke the

Castilian idiom with as much purity as if he had been a native of

Toledo. He was acquainted with all the ports of Spain, and all the

difficult and broken ground of the provinces. He knew the exact

strength of every city, and who were the principal people in each, and

the exact amount of their property; there was nothing relative to the

state, however secret, that he was not acquainted with; nor did he

make a mystery of his knowledge, but publicly boasted of it."

Entering Scotland with the firm determination to "possess" the country,

the Gipsies would, from the very first, direct their attention towards

its occupation, and draw into their body much of the native blood, in

the way which I have already described. And there was certainly a large

floating population in the country, from which to draw it. It would

little consist with the feelings of Highland or Lowland outlaws to exist

without female society; nor was that female society easily to be found,

apart from some kind of settled life; hence, in seeking for a home,

which is inseparable from the society of a female, our native outlaw

would very naturally and readily "haul up" with the Gipsy woman; for,

being herself quite "at home," in her tent, she would present just the

desideratum which the other was in quest of. For, although "Gipsies

marry with Gipsies," it is only as a rule, the exceptions being many,

and, in all probability, much more common, in the early stage of their

European history. The present "dreadfully mixed" state of Gipsydom is a

sufficient proof of this fact. The aversion, on the part of the Gipsy,

to intermarry with the ordinary natives, proceeds, in the first place,

from the feelings which the natives entertain for her race. Remove those

feelings, and the Gipsies, as a body, would still marry among

themselves; for their pride in their peculiar sept, and a natural

jealousy of those outside of their mystic circle, would, alone, keep the

world from penetrating their secrets, without its being extended to him

who, by intermarriage, became "one of them." There is no other obstacle

in the way of marriages between the two races, excepting the general

one, on the part of the Gipsies, and which is inherent in them, to

preserve themselves as a branch of a people to be found in every

country. Admitting the general aversion, on the part of the Gipsies, to

_marry_ with natives, and we at once see the unlikelihood of their women

_playing the wanton_ with them. Still, it is very probable that they, in

some instances, bore children to some of the "unspotted gentlemen,"

mentioned, by act of parliament, as having so greatly protected and

entertained the tribe. Such illegitimate children would be put to good

service by the Gipsy chiefs. By one means or other, there is no doubt

but the Gipsies made a dead-set upon certain native families of

influence. The capacity that could devise such a scheme for remaining in

the country, as is contained in the act of 1540, and influence the

courts of the regency, and of Queen Mary, to reinstate them in their old

position, after the severe order of 1541, proclaiming banishment within

thirty days, and death thereafter, even when the "lords understood,

perfectly, the great thefts and _skaiths_, (damages,) done by the said

Egyptians," could easily execute plans to secure a hold upon private

families. If to all this we add the very nature of Gipsydom; how it

always remains true to itself, as it gets mixed with the native blood;

how it works its way up in the world; and how its members "stick to each

other;" we can readily understand how the tribe acquired important and

influential friends in high places. Do not speak of the attachment of

the Jewess to her people: that of the Gipsy is greater. A Jewess passes

current, anywhere, as a Jewess; but the Gipsy, as she gets connected

with a native circle, and moves about in the world, does so

clandestinely, for, as a Gipsy, she is _incog._; so that her attachment

remains, at heart, with her tribe, and is all the stronger, from the

feelings that are peculiar to her singularly wild descent. I am very

much inclined to think that Mrs. Baillie, of Lamington, mentioned under

the head of Tweed-dale and Clydesdale Gipsies, was a Gipsy; and the more

so, from having learned, from two different sources, that the present

Baillie, of ----, is a Gipsy. Considering that courts of justice have

always stretched a point, to convict, and _execute_, Gipsies, it looks

like something very singular, that William Baillie, a Gipsy, who was

condemned to death, in 1714, should have had his sentence commuted to

banishment, _and been allowed to go at large_, while others, condemned

with him, were executed. And three times did he escape in that manner,

till, at last, he was slain by one of his tribe. It also seems very

singular, that James Baillie, another Gipsy, in 1772, should have been

condemned for the murder of his wife, and, also, had his sentence

commuted to banishment, and been allowed to go at large: and that twice,

at least. Well might McLaurin remark: "Few cases have occurred in which

there has been such an expenditure of mercy." And tradition states that

"the then Mistress Baillie, of Lamington, and her family, used all their

interest in obtaining these pardons for James Baillie." No doubt of it.

But the reason for all this was, doubtless, different from that of

"James Baillie, like his fathers before him, _pretending_ that he was a

bastard relative of the family of Lamington."

A somewhat similar case of pardoning Gipsies is related by a writer in

Blackwood's Magazine, as having occurred towards the end of last

century; the individual procuring the pardon being the excitable Duchess

of Gordon, the same, I presume, whom Burns' genius "fairly lifted off

her feet." The following are the circumstances, as given by this writer:

A Berwickshire farmer had been missing sheep, and lay in wait, one

night, with a servant, for the depredators. They seized upon Tam Gordon,

the captain of the Spittal Gipsies, and his son-in-law, Ananias Faa, in

the very act of stealing the sheep; when the captain drew a knife, to

defend himself. They were convicted and condemned for the crime; "but

afterwards, to the great surprise of their Berwickshire neighbours,

obtained a pardon, a piece of unmerited and ill-bestowed clemency, for

which, it was generally understood, they were indebted to the interest

of a noble northern family, of their own name. We recollect hearing a

sort of ballad upon Tam's exploits, and his deliverance from the

gallows, through the intercession of a celebrated duchess, but do not

recollect any of the words."[304]

[304] I should suppose that this was Captain Gordon who behaved

himself like a prince, at the North Queensferry. _See page 172._

A transaction like this must strike the reader as something very

remarkable. Sheep-stealing, at the time mentioned, was a capital

offence, for which there was almost no pardon; and more especially in

the case of people who were of notorious "habit and repute Gipsies,"

caught in the very act, which was aggravated by their drawing an

"invasive weapon." Not only were they condemned, but we may readily

assume that the "country-side" were crying, "Hang and bury the

vagabonds;" and death seemed certain; when in steps the duchess, and

snatches them both from the very teeth of the gallows. What guarantee

have we that the duchess was not a Gipsy? It certainly was not likely

that a Gipsy woman would step out of her tent, and seize a coronet; but

what cannot we imagine to have taken place, in "the blood" working its

way up, during the previous 250 years? What guarantee have we that

Professor Wilson was not "taking a look at the old thing," when rambling

with the Gipsies, in his youth? There are Gipsy families in Edinburgh,

to-day, of as respectable standing, and of as good descent, as could be

said of him, or many others who have distinguished themselves in the

world.

We must not forget that, when the Gipsies entered Scotland, it was for

better or for worse, just for what was to "turn up." Very soon after

their arrival, the country would become their country, as much as that

of the ordinary natives; so that Scotland became their home, as much as

if it had always been that of their race, except their retaining a

tradition of their recent arrival from some part of the East, and a

singular sense of being part and parcel of "the Egyptians that were

scattered over the face of the earth;" neither of which the odious

prejudice against "the blood" allowed them to forget; assuming that they

were willing, and, moreover, that the cast of their minds allowed them,

to do either. The idea which has been expressed by the world, generally,

of the Gipsy tribe gradually assimilating with the native race, and

ultimately "getting lost among it," applies to the principle at issue;

for, as I have already said, it _has_ got greatly lost, in point of

appearance, and general deportment, among the ordinary natives, but has

remained, heart and soul, Gipsy, as before. Even with the native race,

we will find that the blood of the lowly is always getting mixed with

that in the higher circles of life. We have the case of a girl going to

service with a London brewer, then becoming his wife, then his widow,

then employing a lawyer to manage her affairs, and afterwards marrying

him, who, in his turn, became Earl of Clarendon, and father, by her, of

the queen of James II. Towards the end of last, or beginning of the

present, century, we hear of a poor actress, who commenced life in a

provincial theatre, marrying one of the Coutts, the bankers, and dying

Duchess of St. Albans. Such events have been of much more common

occurrence in less elevated spheres of life; and the Gipsy race has had

its share of them. For this reason, it is really impossible to say, who,

among the Scotch, are, and who are not, of the Gipsy tribe; such a

thorough mess has the "mixing of the blood" made of the Scottish

population. Notwithstanding all that, there is a certain definite number

of "Gipsies" in Scotland, known to God only; while each Gipsy is known

in his or her conscience to belong to the tribe. This much is certain,

that we need not consult the census returns for the number of the tribe

in Scotland. However easy, or however difficult, it may be, to define

what a Gipsy, in regard to external or internal circumstances, is, this

much is certain, that the feeling in his mind as to his being a Gipsy,

is as genuine and emphatic as is the feeling in the mind of a Jew being

a Jew.

The circumstances connected with the perpetuation of the Gipsy and

Jewish races greatly resemble each other. Both races are scattered over

the face of the earth. The Jew has had a home; he has a strong

attachment to it, and looks forward to enter it at some future day. The

Gipsy may be said never to have had a home, but is at home everywhere.

"What part of England did you come from?" said I to an English

semi-tented Gipsy, in America. "What _part_ of England did I come from,

did you say? I come from _all over England!_" The Scottish race, as a

race, is confined to people born in Scotland; for the children of

expatriated Scots are not Scotchmen. And so it is with people of other

countries. The mere birth upon the soil constitutes their race or

nationality, although subsequent events, in early life, may modify the

feelings, or draw them into a new channel, by a change of domicile, in

infancy. But the Jew's nationality is everywhere; 'tis in his family,

and his associations with others of his race. Make the acquaintance of

the Jews, and you will find that each generation of them tell _their_

"wonderful story" to the following generation, and the story is repeated

to the following, and the following. The children of Jews are taught to

know they are Jews, before they can even lisp. Soon do they know that

much of the phenomenon of their race, as regards its origin, its

history, and its universality, to draw the distinction between them and

those around them who are not Jews. Soon do they learn how their race

has been despised and persecuted, and imbibe the love which their

parents have for it, and the resentment of the odium cast upon it by

others. It has been so from the beginning of their history out of

Palestine, and even while there. Were it only religion, considered in

itself, that has kept the Jews together as a people, they might have got

lost among the rest of mankind; for among the Jews there are to be found

the rankest of infidels; even Jewish priests will say that, "it

signifies not what a man's religion may be, if he is only sincere in

it." Is it a feeling, or a knowledge, of religion that leads a Jewish

child, almost the moment it can speak, to say that it is a Jew? It is

simply the workings of the phenomena of race that account for this; the

religion peculiar to Jews having been introduced among them centuries

after their existence as a people. Being exclusively theirs in its very

nature, they naturally follow it, as other people do theirs; but,

although, from the nature of its origin, it presents infinitely greater

claims upon their intelligent belief and obedience, they have yielded no

greater submission to its spirit and morals, or even to its forms, than

many other people have done to their religion, made up, as that has

been, of the most fabulous superstition, on the principle, doubtless,

that

"The zealous crowds in ignorance adore,

And still, the less they know, they fear the more."

The Jews being a people before they received the religion by which they

are distinguished, it follows that the religion, in itself, occupies a

position of secondary importance, although the profession of it acts and

reacts upon the people, in keeping them separate from others. The most,

then, that can be said of the religion of the Jews is, that, following

in the wake of their history as a people, it is only one of the pillars

by which the building is supported.[305] If enquiry is made of Jewish

converts to Christianity, we will find that, notwithstanding their

having separated from their brethren, on points of creed, they hold

themselves as much Jews as before. But the conversions of Jews are,

"Like angels' visits, few and far between."

[305] The only part of the religion of the Jews having an origin prior

to the establishment of the Mosaic law was circumcision, which was

termed the covenant made by God with Abraham and his seed. (Gen. xvii.

10-14.) The abolition of idols, and the worship of God alone, are

presumed, although not expressed. The Jews lapsed into gross idolatry

while in Egypt, but were not likely to neglect circumcision, as that

was necessary to maintain a physical uniformity among the race, but

did not enter into the wants, and hopes, and fears, inherent in the

human breast, and stimulated by the daily exhibition of the phenomena

of its existence. The second table of the moral law was, of course,

written upon the hearts of the Jews, in common with those of the

Gentiles. (Rom. ii. 14, 15.)

In the case of individuals forsaking the Jewish, and joining the

Christian, Church, that is, believing in the Messiah having come,

instead of to come, it is natural, I may say inevitable, for them to

hold themselves Jews. They have feelings which the world cannot

understand. But beyond the nationality, physiognomy, and feelings of

Jews, there are no points of difference, and there ought to be no

grounds of offense, between them and the ordinary inhabitants. While

the points of antipathy between the Jew and Christian rest, not upon

race, considered in itself, but mainly upon religion, and the relations

proceeding from it, it has to be seen what is to be the feeling, on the

part of the world, towards the Gipsy race; such part of it, at least,

whose habits are unexceptionable. This is one of the questions which it

is the object of this Disquisition to bring to an issue.

Substitute the language and signs of the Gipsies for the religion of the

Jews, and we find that the rearing of the Gipsies is almost identical

with that of the Jews; and in the same manner do they hold themselves to

be Gipsies. But the one can be Gipsies, though ignorant of their

language and signs, and the other, Jews, though ignorant of their

religion; the mere sense of tribe and community being sufficient to

constitute them members of their respective nationalities. The origin of

the Gipsies is as distinct from that of the rest of the world, in three

continents, at least, as is that of the Jews; and, laying aside the

matter of religion, their history, so far as it is known to the world,

is as different. If they have no religion peculiar to themselves, to

assist in holding them together, like the Jews, they have that which is

exclusively theirs--language and signs; about which there are no such

occasions to quarrel, as in the affair of a religious creed. Indeed, the

Gipsy race stands towards religions, as the Christian religion does

towards races.

People are very apt to speak of the blood of the Jews being "purity

itself;" than which nothing is more unfounded. If a person were asked,

What is a pure Jew? he would feel puzzled to give an intelligent answer

to the question. We know that Abraham and Sarah were the original

parents of the Jewish race, but that much blood has been added to it,

from other sources, ever since. Even four of the patriarchs, the third

in descent from Abraham, were the sons of concubines, who were,

doubtless, bought with money, from the stranger, (Gen. xvii. 12 and 13,)

or the descendants of such, and were, in all probability, of as

different a race from their mistresses, Leah and Rachel, as was the

bondmaid, Hagar, the Egyptian, from her mistress, Sarah. Joseph married

a daughter of the Egyptian priest of On, and Moses, a daughter of an

Ethiopian priest of Midian. From a circumstance mentioned in the Exodus,

it would appear that Egyptian blood, perhaps much of it, had been

incorporated with that of the Jews, while in Egypt.[306] And much

foreign blood seems to have been added to the body, between the Exodus

and the Babylonian captivity, through the means of proselytes and

captives, strange women and bondmaids, concubines and harlots. We read

of Rahab, of Jericho, an innkeeper, or harlot, or both, marrying Salmon,

one of the chief men in the tribe of Judah, and becoming the mother of

Boaz, who married Ruth, a Moabitish woman, the daughter-in-law of Naomi,

and grandmother of David, from whom Christ was lineally descended.

Indeed, the Jews have always been receiving foreign blood into their

body. We read of Timothy having been a Greek by the father's side, and a

Jew by the mother's; and of his having been brought up a Jew. Such

events are of frequent occurrence. There is no real bar to marriages

between Jews and Christians, although circumstances render them

difficult. The children of such marriages sometimes resemble the Jew,

and sometimes the Christian; sometimes they cast their lot with the

Jews, in the matter of religion, and sometimes with the Christians; but

they generally follow the mother in that matter. Such, however, is the

conceit which the Jew displays in regard to his race, that he is very

reserved in speaking about this "mixing of the blood." I once addressed

a string of questions to a Christian-Jew preacher, on this subject, but

he declined answering them. I am intimate with a family the parents of

which are half-blood Jews, all of whom belong to the Jewish connexion,

and I find that, notwithstanding the mixture of the blood, there is as

little mental difference between them and the other Jews, as there is

between Americans of six descents, by both sides of the house, and

Americans whose descent, through one parent, goes as far back, while,

through the other parent, it is from abroad. Purity of blood, as

applicable to almost any race, and, among others, to the Jewish, is a

figment. There are many Jews in the United States, and, doubtless, in

other countries, who are not known to other people as Jews, either by

their appearance or their attendance at the synagogue. As a general

principle, no Jew will tell the world that he belongs to the race; he

leaves that to be found out by other people. Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson

says that the Jews of the East, to this day, often have red hair and

blue eyes, and are quite unlike their brethren in Europe. He found the

large nose at Jerusalem an invariable proof of mixture with a Western

family. It is singular, however, how easy it is to detect the generality

of Jews; the nose, the eyes, or the features, tell who they are, but not

always so. What may be termed a "pure Jew," is when the person has no

knowledge of any other blood being in his veins than Jewish blood; or

when his feelings are entirely Jewish as to nationality, although his

creed may not be very strongly Jewish.

[306] It is an unnecessary stretch upon the belief in the Scriptures,

to ask consent to the abstract proposition that the Jews, while in

Egypt, encreased from seventy souls to "about six hundred thousand on

foot that were men, besides children," at the time of the Exodus.

Following a pastoral life, in a healthy and fertile country, and

inspired with the prophecy delivered to Abraham, as to his numberless

descendants, the whole bent of the mind of the Jews was to multiply

their numbers; and polygamy and concubinage being characteristic of

the people, there is no reason to doubt that the Jews encreased to the

number stated. The original emigrants, doubtless, took with them large

establishments of bondmen and bondwomen, and purchased others while in

Egypt; and these being circumcised, according to the covenant made

with Abraham, would sooner or later become, on that account alone,

part of the nation; and much more so by such amalgamation as is set

forth by Rachel and Leah giving their maids to Jacob to have children

by them. Abraham was, at best, the representative head of the Jewish

nation, composed, as that was originally, of elements drawn from the

idolatrous tribes surrounding him and his descendants.

I will now consider the relative positions which the Jews and Gipsies

occupy towards the rest of mankind. I readily admit that, in their

original and wild state, the Gipsies have not been of any use to the

world, but, on the contrary, a great annoyance. Still, that cannot be

said altogether; for the handy turn of the Gipsies in some of the

primitive mechanical arts, and their dealing in various wares, have

been, in a measure, useful to a certain part of the rural population;

and themselves the sources of considerable amusement; but, taking

everything into account, they have been decidedly annoying to the world

generally. In their wild state, they have never been charged by any one

with an outward contempt for religion, whatever their inward feelings

may have been for it; but, on the contrary, as always having shown an

apparent respect for it. No one has ever complained of the Gipsy

scoffing at religion, or even for not yielding to its general truths;

what has been said of him is, that he is, at heart, so heedless and

volatile in his disposition, that everything in regard to religion

passes in at the one ear, and goes out at the other. There are,

doubtless, Gipsies who will be "unco godly," when they can make gain by

it; but it more frequently happens that they will assume such an air, in

the presence of a person of respectable appearance, to show him that

they are really not the "horrible vagabonds" which, they never doubt, he

holds them to be. They are then sure to overdo their part. As a general

thing, they wish people to believe that "they are not savages, but have

feelings like other people," as "Terrible" expressed it. This much is

certain, that whenever the Gipsy settles, and acquires an incognito, we

hear of little or nothing of the canting in question. As regards the

question of religion, it is very fortunate for the Gipsy race that they

brought no particular one with them; for, objectionable as they have

been held to be, the feeling towards them would have been worse, if they

had had a system of priestcraft and heathen idolatry among them. But

this circumstance greatly worries a respectable Gipsy; he would much

rather have it said that his ancestors had some sort of religion, than

that they none. It is generally understood that the Gipsies did not

bring any particular religion with them; still, the ceremony of

sacrificing horses at divorces, and, at one time, at marriages, has a

strange and unaccountable significance.

Then, as regards the general ways of the Gipsies. If we consider them as

those of a people who have emerged, or are emerging, from a state of

barbarism, how trifling, how venial do they appear! Scotch people have

suffered, in times past, far more at the hands of each other, than ever

they knowingly did at the hands of the Gipsies. What was the nature of

that system of black-mail which was levied by Highland gentlemen upon

Southerners? Was it anything but robbery? So common, so unavoidable was

the payment of black-mail, that the law had to wink at it, nay, regulate

it. But after all, it was nothing but compounding for that which would

otherwise have been stolen. It gave peace and security to the farmer,

and a revenue to the Highland gentleman, whom it placed in the position

of a nominal protector, but actually prevented from being a robber, in

law or morals; for, let the payment of the black-mail but have been

refused, and, perhaps the next day, the Southerner would have been

ruined; so that the Highland gentleman would have obtained his rights,

under any circumstances. For Highland people, by a process of reasoning

peculiar to a people in a barbarous state, held, as we have seen, that

they had a right to rob the Lowlanders, whenever it was in their power,

and that two hundred years after the Gipsies entered Scotland.

Scottish Gipsies are British subjects, as much as either Highland or

Lowland Scots; their being of foreign origin does not alter the case;

and they are entitled to have that justice meted out to them that has

been accorded to the ordinary natives. They are not a heaven-born

race, but they certainly found their way into the country, as if

they had dropped into it out of the clouds. As a race, they have

that much mystery, originality, and antiquity about them, and that

inextinguishable sensation of being a branch of the same tribe

everywhere, that ought to cover a multitude of failings connected with

their past history. Indeed, what we do know of their earliest history is

not nearly so barbarous as that of our own; for we must contemplate our

own ancestors, at one time, as painted and skin-clad barbarians. What we

do know, for certainty, of the earliest history of the Scottish Gipsies,

is contained, more particularly, in the Act of 1540; and we would

naturally say, that, for a people in a barbarous state, such is the

dignity and majesty, with all the roguishness, displayed in the conduct

of the Gipsies of that period, one could hardly have a better, certainly

not a more romantic, descent; provided the person whose descent it is is

to be found amid the ranks of Scots, with talents, a character, and a

position equal to those of others around him. For this reason, it

must be said of the race, that whenever it shakes itself clear of

objectionable habits, and follows any kind of ordinary industry, the

cause of every prejudice against it is gone, or ought to disappear; for

then, as I have already said, the Gipsies became ordinary citizens, of

the Gipsy clan. It then follows, that in passing a fair judgment upon

the Gipsy race, we ought to establish a principle of progression, and

set our minds upon the best specimens of it, as well as the worst, and

not judge of it, solely, from the poorest, the most ignorant, or the

most barbarous part of it.[307]

[307] Tacitus gives the following glowing account of the destruction

of the Druids, in the island of Anglesey: "On the opposite shore stood

the Britons, closely embodied, and prepared for action. Women were

seen rushing through the ranks in wild disorder; their apparel

funereal; their hair loose to the wind, in their hands flaming

torches, and their whole appearance resembling the frantic rage of the

Furies. The Druids were ranged in order, with hands uplifted, invoking

the gods, and pouring forth horrible imprecations. The novelty of the

sight struck the Romans with awe and terror. They stood in stupid

amazement, as if their limbs were benumbed, riveted to one spot, a

mark for the enemy. The exhortation of the general diffused new vigour

through the ranks, and the men, by mutual reproaches, inflamed each

other to deeds of valour. They felt the disgrace of yielding to a

troop of women, and a band of fanatic priests; they advanced their

standards, and rushed on to the attack with impetuous fury. The

Britons perished in the flames which they themselves had kindled. The

island fell, and a garrison was established to retain it in

subjection. _The religious groves, dedicated to superstition and

barbarous rites, were levelled to the ground. In those recesses, the

natives imbrued their altars with the blood of their prisoners, and,

in the entrails of men, explored the will of the gods._"--_Murphy's

Translation._

What shall we say further of the relative positions which the Jews and

Gipsies occupy towards the rest of the world? In the first place, the

Jews entered Europe a civilized, and the Gipsies a barbarous, people; so

that, in instituting any comparison between them, we should select

Gipsies occupying positions in life similar to those of the Jews. The

settled Scottish Gipsy, we find, appears to the eye of the world as a

Scotchman, and nothing more. It is the weak position which the Gipsy

race occupies in the world, as it enters upon a settled life, and

engages in steady pursuits, that compels it to assume an incognito; for

it has nothing to appeal to, as regards the past; no history, except it

be acts of legislation passed against the race. In looking into a

Dictionary or a Cyclopædia, the Gipsy finds his race described as

vagabonds, always as vagabonds; and he may be said never to have heard a

good word spoken of it, during the whole of his life. Hence he and his

descendants "keep as quiet as pussy," and pass from the observation of

the world. Besides this, there is no prominent feature connected with

his race, to bring it before the world, such as there is with the

Jewish, viz., history, church, or literature. A history, the Gipsy, as

we see, doubtless has; but anything connected with him, pertaining to

the church or literature, he holds as a member of ordinary society.

Still, it would not be incorrect to speak of Gipsy literature, as the

work of a Gipsy, acquired from the sources common to other men; as we

would say of the Jews, relative to the literature which they produce

under similar circumstances. As to the Gipsy to whom I have alluded, it

may be said that it is none of our business whether he is a Gipsy or

not; there is certainly no prejudice against him as an individual, and

there can be none as a Gipsy, except such as people may of their own

accord conceive for him. Many of the Scottish Gipsies whom I have met

with are civil enough, sensible enough, decent enough, and liberal and

honourable enough in their conduct; decidedly well bred for their

positions in life, and rather foolish and reckless with their means,

than misers; and, generally speaking, what are called "good fellows." It

is no business of mine to ask them, how long it is since their ancestors

left the tent, or, indeed, if they even know when that occurred; and

still less, if they know when any of them ever did anything that was

contrary to law. Still, one feels a little irksome in such a Gipsy's

company, until the Gipsy question has been fairly brought before the

world, and the point settled, that a Gipsy may be a gentleman, and that

no disparagement is necessarily connected with the name, considered in

itself. Such Scottish Gipsies as I have mentioned are decidedly smart,

and, Yankee-like, more adaptable in turning their hands to various

employments, than the common natives; and are a fair credit to the

country they come from, and absolutely a greater than many of the native

Scotch that are to be met with in the New World. Let the name of Gipsy

be as much respected, in Scotland, as it is now despised, and the

community would stare to see the civilized Gipsies make their

appearance; they would come buzzing out, like bees, emerging even from

places where a person, not in the secret, never would have dreamt of.

If we consider, in a fair and philosophical manner, the origin of these

people, we will find many excuses for the position which their ancestors

have occupied. They were a tribe of men wandering upon the face of the

earth, over which they have spread, as one wave follows and urges on

another. Those that appeared in Europe seem to have been impelled, in

their migration, by the same irresistible impulse; to say nothing of the

circumstances connected with their coming in contact with the people

whose territories they had invaded. No one generation could be

responsible for the position in which it found itself placed. In the

case of John Faw and his company, we find that, being on the face of

the earth, they had to go somewhere, and invent some sort of excuse, to

secure a toleration; and the world was bound to yield them a

subsistence, of some kind, and in some way obtained. As a wandering,

barbarous, tented tribe, with habits peculiar to itself, and inseparable

from its very nature, great allowance ought to be made for the time

necessary for its gradual absorption into settled society. That could

only be the result of generations, even if the race had not been treated

so harshly as it has been, or had such a prejudice displayed against it.

The difficulties which a Gipsy has to encounter in leaving the tent are

great, for he has been born in that state, and been reared in it. To

leave his tent forever, and settle in a town, is a greater trial to the

innate feelings of his nature, than would be the change from highly

polished metropolitan life to a state of solitude, in a society away

from everything that had hitherto made existence bearable. But the Gipsy

will very readily leave his tent, temporarily, to visit a town, if it is

to make money. It is astonishing how strong the circumstances are which

bind him to his tent; even his pride and prejudices in being a

"wandering Egyptian," will, if it is possible to live by the tent, bind

him to it. Then, there is the prejudice of the world--the objection to

receive him into any community, and his children into any school--that

commonly prevails, and which compels him to _steal_ into settled life.

It has always been so with the Gipsy race. Gipsies brought up in the

tent have the same difficulties to encounter in leaving it to-day, that

others had centuries ago. But, notwithstanding all that, they are always

keeping moving out of the tent, and becoming settled and civilized.

Tented Gipsies will naturally "take bits o' things;" many of them would

think one simple if he thought they would not do it; some of them would

even be insulted if he said they did not do it. After they leave the

tent, and commence "tramping," they (I do not say all of them) will

still "take bits o' things." From this stage of their history, they keep

gradually dropping into unexceptionable habits; and particularly so if

they receive education. But we can very readily believe that,

independent of every circumstance, there will be Gipsies who, in a great

measure, always will be rogues. The law of necessity exercises a great

influence over the destiny of the Gipsy race; their natural encrease is

such, that, as they progress and develop, they are always pushing others

out of the sphere which those further advanced occupy; so that it would

not pay for all Gipsies to be rogues. There is, therefore, no

alternative left to the Gipsy but to earn his bread like other men. If

every Gipsy actually "helped himself" to whatever he stood in need of,

it could hardly be said that the ordinary inhabitants would have

anything that they could really call their own. Notwithstanding the

manner how the Gipsies progress, or the origin from which they spring,

it is quite sufficient for me to hold the race in respect, when I find

them personally worthy of it.

As a Scotchman, as a citizen of the world, whether should my sympathies

lay more with the Gipsies than with the Jews? With the Gipsies,

unquestionably. For, a race, emerging from a state of barbarism, and

struggling upwards to civilization, surrounded by so many difficulties,

as is the Gipsy, is entitled to a world of charity and encouragement. Of

the Jews, who, though blessed with the most exalted privileges, yet

allowed themselves to be reduced to their present fallen and degraded

estate, it may be said: "Ephraim is joined to his idols; let him alone."

The Gipsies are, and have always been, a rising people, although the

world may be said to have known little of them hitherto. The Gipsy, as

he emerges from his wild state, makes ample amends for his original

offensiveness, by hiding everything relative to his being a Gipsy from

his neighbours around him. In approaching one of this class, we should

be careful not to express that prejudice for him as a Gipsy, which we

might have for him as a man; for it is natural enough to feel a dislike

for many people whom we meet with, and which, if the people were

Gipsies, we might insensibly allow to fall upon them, on account of

tribe alone; so difficult is it to shake one's self clear of the

prejudice of caste towards the Gipsy name. The Gipsy has naturally a

happy disposition, which circumstances cannot destroy, however much they

may be calculated to sour it. In their original state, they are, what

Grellmann says of them, "always merry and blithe;" not apt to be surly

dogs, unless made such; and are capable of considerable attachment, when

treated civilly and kindly, without any attempt being made to

commiserate them, and after an acquaintance has been fairly established

with them. But, what are properly called their affections must, in the

position which they occupy, always remain with their tribe. As for the

other part of the race--those whose habits are unexceptionable--it is

for us to convince them that no prejudice is entertained for them on

account of their being Gipsies; but that it would rather be pleasing and

interesting for us to know something of them as Gipsies, that is, about

their feelings as Gipsies, and hear them talk some of this language

which they have, or are supposed to have.

But how different is the position which the Jews occupy towards the rest

of the world! They are, certainly, quiet and inoffensive enough as

individuals, or as a community; whence, then, arises the dislike which

most people have for them? The Gipsies may be said to be, in a sense,

strangers amongst us, because they have never been acknowledged by us;

but the Jews are, to a certain extent, strangers under any

circumstances, and, more or less, look to entering Palestine at some

day, it may be this year, or the following. If a Christian asks: "Who

are the Jews, and what do they here?" the reply is very plain: "They are

rebels against the Majesty of Heaven, and outcasts from His presence."

They are certainly entitled to every privilege, social and political,

which other citizens enjoy; they have a perfect right to follow their

own religion; but other people have an equal right to express their

opinion in regard to it and them.

The Jew is an enigma to the world, unless looked at through the light of

the Old and New Testaments. In studying the history of the Jews, we will

find very little about them, as a nation, that is interesting, to the

extent of securing our affections, whatever may be said of some of the

members of it. What appears attractive, and, I may say, of personal

importance, to the Christian, in their history, is, not what they have

been or done, but what has been done for them by God. "What more could I

have done for my vine than I have done?" And "Which of the prophets have

they not persecuted?" "Wherefore, behold! I send unto you prophets, and

wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and

some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from

city to city." And thus it always was. "Elias saith of them, Lord, they

have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars, and I am left

alone, and they seek my life." Indeed, the whole history of the Jews has

given to infidels such occasion to rail at revelation, as has caused no

little annoyance to Christians. What concerns the Christian in the

Jewish history is more particularly that which refers to the ways of

God, in preserving to Himself, in every generation, a seed who did not

bow the knee to Baal, till the appearance of Him in whom all the nations

of mankind were to be blessed. Beyond this, we find that the Jews, as a

nation, have been the most rebellious, stiff-necked, perverse,

ungrateful, and factious, of any recorded in history. How different from

what might have been expected of them! Viewing the history of the Jews

in this aspect, the mind even finds a relief in turning to profane

history; but viewing their writings as the records of the dispensations

of God to mankind, and they are worthy of universal reverence; although

the most interesting part of them is, perhaps, that which reaches to the

settlement of the race in Palestine. And to sum up, to complete, and

crown the history of this singularly privileged people, previous to the

destruction of their city and temple, and their dispersion among the

nations, we find that the prophet whom Moses foretold them would be

raised up to them, they wickedly crucified and slew; "delivering up and

denying him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him

go. But they denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to

be granted unto them; and killed the Prince of Life, whom God hath

raised from the dead." And Pilate "washed his hands before the

multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see

ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us and

on our children." And his blood is on their children at the present day;

for while he is acknowledged by three hundred millions of mankind as

their Lord and Master, the Jew teaches his children to regard him as an

impostor, and spit at the very mention of his name. How great must be

the infatuation of the poor Jew, how dark the mind, how thick the veil

that hangs over his heart, how terrible the curse that rests upon his

head! But the Jew is to be pitied, not distressed; he should be

personally treated, in ordinary life, as his conduct merits.

The manner in which the Jew treats the claims of Jesus Christ

disqualifies him for receiving the respect of the Christian. He knows

well that Christianity is no production of any Gentile, but an emanation

from people of his own nation. And so conceited is the Jew in this

respect, that he will say: "Jesus Christ and his apostles were Jews: see

what Jews have done!" He regards the existence of his race as a miracle,

yet looks with indifference upon the history and results of

Christianity. People have often wondered that Jews, as Jews, have

written so little on the inspiration of the Old Testament; but what else

could have been expected of them? How could they throw themselves

prominently forward, in urging the claims of Moses, who was "faithful in

all his house as a servant," and totally ignore those of Christ, who was

"a son over his own house?" So far from even entertaining the claims of

the latter, the Jew proper has the most bitter hatred for the very

mention of his name; he would almost, if he dared, tear out part of his

Scriptures, in which the Messiah is alluded to. Does he take the trouble

to give the claims of Christianity the slightest consideration? He will

spit at it, but it is into his handkerchief; so much does he feel tied

up in the position which he occupies in the world. He cannot say that he

respects, or can respect, Christianity, whatever he may think of its

morals; for, as a Jew, he must, and does, regard it as an imposture, and

blindly so regards it. But all Jews are not of this description; for

there are many of them who believe little in Moses or any other, or give

themselves the least trouble about such matters.

The position which Jews occupy among Christians is that which they

occupy among people of a different faith. They become obnoxious to

people everywhere; for that which is so foreign in its origin, so

exclusive in its habits and relations, and so conceited and antagonistic

in its creed, will always be so, go where it may. Besides, they will not

even eat what others have slain; and hold other people as impure. The

very conservative nature of their creed is, to a certain extent, against

them; were it aggressive, like the Christian's, with a genius to embrace

_all_ within its fold, it would not stir up, or permanently retain, the

same ill-will toward the people who profess it; for being of that nature

which retires into the corner of selfish exclusiveness, people will

naturally take a greater objection to them. Then, the keen,

money-making, and accumulating habits of the Jews, make them appear

selfish to those around them; while the greediness, and utter want of

principle, that characterize some of them, have given a bad reputation

to the whole body, however unjustly it is applied to them as a race.

The circumstances attending the Jews' entry into any country, to-day,

are substantially what they were before the advent of Christ; centuries

before which era, they were scattered, in great numbers, over most part

of the world; having synagogues, and visiting, or looking to, Jerusalem,

as their home, as Catholics, in the matter of religion, have looked to

Rome. In going abroad, Jews would as little contemplate forsaking their

own religion, and worshipping the gods of the heathen, as do Christians,

to-day, in Oriental countries; for they were as thoroughly persuaded

that their religion was divine, and all others the inventions of man, as

are Christians of theirs. Then, it was a religion exclusively Jewish,

that is, the people following it were, with rare exceptions, exclusively

Jews by nation. The ill-will which all these circumstances, and the very

appearance of the people themselves, have raised against the Jews, and

the persecutions, of various kinds, which have universally followed,

have widened the separation between them and other people, which the

genius of their religion made so imperative, and their feelings of

nationality--nay, _family_--so exclusive. Before the dispersion,

Palestine was their home; after the dispersion, the position and

circumstances of those abroad at the time underwent no change; they

would merely contemplate their nation in a new aspect--that of exiles,

and consider themselves, for the time being, at home wherever they

happened to be. Those that were scattered abroad, by the destruction of

Jerusalem, would, in their persons, confirm the convictions of the

others, and reconcile them to the idea that the Jewish nation, as such,

was abroad on the face of the earth; and each generation of the race

would entertain the same sentiments. After this, as before it, it can

scarcely be said that the Jews have ever been tolerated; if not actually

persecuted, they have, at least, always been disliked, or despised. The

whole nation having been scattered abroad, with everything pertaining

to them as a nation, excepting the temple, the high-priesthood, and the

sacrifices, with such an ancient history, and so unequivocally divine a

religion, so distinct from, and obnoxious to, those of other nations, it

is no wonder that they, the common descendants of Abraham and Sarah,

should have ever since remained a distinct people in the world; as all

the circumstances surrounding them have universally remained the same

till to-day.

A Jew of to-day has a much greater aversion to forsake the Jewish

community than any other man has to renounce his country; and his

associations of nationality are manifested wherever a Jewish society is

to be found, or wherever he can meet with another Jew. This is the view

which he takes of his race, as something distinct from his religion; for

he contemplates himself as being of that people--of the same blood,

features, and feelings, all children of Abraham and Sarah--that are to

be found everywhere; that part of it to which he has an aversion being

only such as apostatize from his religion, and more particularly such as

embrace the Christian faith. In speaking of Jews, we are too apt to

confine our ideas exclusively to a creed, forgetting that Jews are a

race; and that Christian Jews are Jews as well as Jewish Jews. Were it

possible to bring about a reformation among the Jews, by which

synagogues would embrace the Christian faith, we would see Jewish

Christian churches; the only difference being, that they would believe

in Him whom their fathers pierced, and lay aside only such of the

ceremonies of Moses as the Gospel had abrogated. If a movement of that

kind were once fairly afoot, by which was presented to the Jew, his

people as a community, however small it might be, there would be a great

chance of his becoming a Christian, in one sense or other: he could then

assume the position of a protesting Jew, holding the rest of his

countrymen in error; and his own Christian-Jewish community as

representing his race, as it ought to exist.

At present, the few Christian Jews find no others of their race with

whom to form associations as a community; so that, to all intents and

purposes, they feel as if they were a sort of outcasts, despised and

hated by those of their own race, and separated from the other

inhabitants by a natural law, over which neither have any control,

however much they may associate with, and respect, each other. It

requires a very powerful moral influence to constrain a Jew in embracing

the Christian faith--almost nothing short of divine grace; and sometimes

a very powerful immoral one in professing it--that which peculiarly

characterizes Jews--the love of money. Were a community of Christian

Jews firmly established, among whom were observed every tittle of the

Jewish ceremonial, excepting such as the dispensation of Christ had

positively abolished; or even observing most of that, (circumcision, for

example,) as merely characteristic of a people, without attaching to it

the meaning of a service recommending themselves, in any way, to the

mercy of God; and many Jews would doubtless join such a society. They

could believe in Christ as their Messiah--as their prophet, priest, and

king; receive baptism in His name; and depend on Him for a place of

happiness in a future state of existence. To such, the injunction, as

declared by St. Paul, is: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord

Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from

the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Romans x. 9.) And when they contemplate

death, they might lay their heads down in peace, with the further

assurance, as also declared by St. Paul: "For if we believe that Jesus

died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God

bring with him." (I Thess. iv. 14.) This is the kind of Messiah which

the Jew should contemplate, and seek after. He will find his conception

and birth more particularly recorded in the two first, and his death,

resurrection, and ascension, more fully detailed in the two last,

chapters of the Gospel according to St. Luke. A person would naturally

think that a Jew would have the natural curiosity to read this wonderful

book called the "New Testament;" since, at its very lowest estimate, it

is, with the exception of the writings of St. Luke, altogether a

production of people of his own nation. Among the Jews, there are not a

few who believe in Christ, yet, more or less, appear at the synagogue.

They have no objections to become "spectacles to angels;" but they are

not willing to make themselves such to men, by placing themselves in

that isolated position which a public profession of Christianity would

necessarily lead to. But, all things considered, one is rather apt to

fall into Utopian ideas in speaking of the conversion of Jews, as a

body, or even as individuals, unless the grace of God, in an especial

degree, accompanies the means to that end.

It is no elevated regard for the laws of Moses, or any exalted sense of

the principles contained in the Old Testament, that leads a Jew to lend

a deaf ear to the claims of Christianity; for his respect for them has

always been indifferent, even contemptible, enough. Indeed, the Talmud,

which is the Jew's gospel, may be characterized as being, in a very

great part, a tissue of that which is silly and puerile, obscene and

blasphemous. It is with the Jew now, as it was at the advent of Christ.

"They have paid tithe of mint, and anise, and cummin, and omitted the

weightier matters of the law--judgment, mercy, and faith." "Laying aside

the commandment of God, they have held the tradition of men, as the

washing of pots and cups, and many other such-like things;" "making the

word of God of none effect through their traditions which they have

delivered." "Full well have they rejected the commandments of God, that

they might keep their own traditions." "In vain do they worship me,

teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." The main prop of a Jew

for remaining a Jew, in regard to religion, rests much more upon the

wonderful phenomena connected with the history of his nation--its

antiquity, its associations, its universality, and the length of time

which it has existed, since its dispersion, distinct from the rest of

the world, and so unique, (as he imagines,) that he at once concludes it

must have the special approbation of God for the position which it

occupies; which is very true, although it proceeds from a different

motive than that which the Jew so vainly imagines. The Jew imagines that

God approves of his conduct, in his stubborn rebellion to the claims of

Christianity, because he finds his race existing so distinct from the

rest of the world; whereas, if he studies his own Scriptures, he will

see that the condition of his race is the punishment due to its

rebellion. Who knows but that the mark which is to be found upon the Jew

answers, in a sense, the purpose of that which every one found upon

Cain? Did not his ancestors call a solemn imprecation upon his head,

when they compelled Pilate to crucify the "just person," when he was

determined to let him go; with no other excuse than, "His blood be on

us, and on our children?" Will any genuine Jew repudiate the conduct of

his ancestors, and say that Christ was not an impostor, that he was not

a blasphemer, and that, consequently, he did not deserve, by the law of

his nation, to be put to death?

The history of the Jews acts as a spell upon the unfortunate Jew, and

proves the greatest bar to his conversion to Christianity. He vainly

imagines that his race stands out from among all the races of mankind,

by a miracle, wrought for that purpose, and with the special approbation

of God upon it, for adhering to its religion; and that, therefore,

Christianity is a delusion. But we must break this spell that enchants

the Jew, and "provoke him to jealousy by them that are no people." And

who are this people? The Gipsies? Yes, the Gipsies! For they are

numerous, though not as numerous, and ancient, though not as ancient, as

the Jews.[308]

[308] It would almost seem that the Gipsies are the people mentioned

in Deut. xxxii. 21, and Rom. x. 19, where it is said: "I will provoke

you, (the Jews,) to jealousy, by them that are no people, and by a

foolish nation I will anger you." For the history of the Gipsy nation

thoroughly burlesques that of the Jews. But the Jews will be very apt

to ignore the existence of the present work, should the rest of the

world allow them to do it. Yet, excepting the Gipsies themselves, none

are so capable of understanding this subject as the Jews, there being

so much in it that is applicable to themselves.

As to the Gipsy population, scattered over the world, I think that the

intelligent reader will agree with me, after all that has been said, in

estimating it as very large. There seems no reason for thinking that the

Gipsies suffered so greatly, by the laws passed against them, as people

have imagined; for the cunning of the Gipsy, and the wild, or partly

uncultivated, face of all the countries of Europe would afford him many

facilities to evade the laws passed against him. We have already seen

what continental writers have said of the race, relative to the laws

passed against it: "But, instead of passing the boundaries, they only

slunk into hiding places, and, shortly after, appeared in as great

numbers as before." And this seems to have been invariably the case over

the whole of Europe. Mr. Borrow, as we have already seen, speaks of

every Spanish monarch, on succeeding to the crown, passing laws against

the Gipsies. If former laws were put in force, there would be no

occasion for making so many new ones; the very fact of so many laws

having been passed against the Gipsy race, in Spain, is sufficient

proof of each individual law never having been put to much execution,

but rather, as has already been said, (page 394,) of its having been

customary for every king of Spain to issue such against them. It does

not appear that any force was employed to hunt the Gipsies out of the

country, but that matters were left to the ordinary local authorities,

whom the tribe would, in many instances, manage to render passive, or

beyond whose jurisdiction they would remove for the time being. The laws

passed against the nobility and commonalty of Spain, for protecting the

Gipsies, (page 114,) is a very instructive commentary on those for the

extermination of the body itself. But the case most in point is in the

Scottish laws passed against the Gipsies. Upon the passing of the Act of

James VI., in 1609, we find that the Gipsies "dispersed themselves in

certain secret and obscure places of the country"; and that, when the

storm was blown over, they "began to take new breath and courage, and

unite themselves in infamous companies and societies, under commanders"

(page 114). The extreme bitterness displayed in Scots acts of parliament

against the best classes of the population, for protecting and

entertaining the tribe, and, consequently, rendering the other acts

nugatory, has a very important bearing upon the subject. We find that

the Gipsies wandered up and down France for a hundred years, unmolested;

and that, so numerous had they become, that, in 1545, the King of France

entertained the idea of embodying four thousand of them, to act as

pioneers in taking Boulogne, then in possession of England. The last

notice which we have of the French Gipsies was that made by Grellmann,

when he says: "In France, before the Revolution, there were but few, for

the obvious reason, that every Gipsy who could be apprehended, fell a

sacrifice to the police." Grellmann, however, had not studied the

subject sufficiently deep to account for the destiny of the race. If

they were so very numerous in France, in 1545, the natural encrease, in

whatever position in life it might be, must have been very great during

the following 235 years. I have learned, from the best of authority,

that there are many Gipsies in Flanders.[309] If the Gipsies in England

were estimated at above ten thousand, during the early part of the reign

of Queen Elizabeth, how many may they not be now, including those of

every kind of mixture of blood, character, and position in life? If

there is one Gipsy in the British Isles, there cannot be less than a

quarter of a million, and, possibly, as many as six hundred thousand;

and, instead of there being sixty thousand in Spain, and constantly

_decreasing_, (_disappearing_ is the right word,) we may safely estimate

them at three hundred thousand. The reader has already been informed of

what becomes of all the Gipsies. As a case in point, I may ask, who

would have imagined that there was such a thing in Edinburgh as a

factory, filled, not merely with Gipsies, but with _Irish_ Gipsies? The

owner of the establishment was doubtless a Gipsy; for how did so many

Gipsies come to work in it, or how did he happen to know that his

workmen were _all_ Gipsies, or that even _one_ of them was a Gipsy?

[309] This information I obtained from some English Gipsies.

Thereafter, the title of the following work came under my notice:

"Historical Researches Respecting the Sojourn of the Heathens, or

Egyptians, in the Northern Netherlands. By J. Dirks. Edited by the

Provincial Utrecht Society of Arts and Sciences. Utrecht: 1850. pp.

viii. and 160."

Indeed, the Gipsies are scattered all over Europe, and are to be found

in the condition described in the present work.

Even to take Grellmann's estimate of the Gipsies in Europe, at from

700,000 to 800,000, and the race must be very numerous to-day. Since his

time, the Negroes in the United States have encreased from 500,000 to

4,000,000, and this much is certain, that Gipsies are, to say the least

of it, as prolific as Negroes. The encrease in both includes much white

blood added to the respective bodies. Some of the Gipsies have,

doubtless, been hanged; but, on the other hand, many of the Negroes have

been worked to death. There is a great difference, however, between the

wild, independent Gipsy race and the Negroes in the New World. I should

not suppose that the Gipsy race in Europe and America can be less than

4,000,000. It embraces, for certainty, as in Scotland, men ranging in

character and position from a pillar of the Church down to a common

tinker.[310]

[310] There are, probably, 12,000,000 of Jews in the world. I have

seen them estimated at from ten to twelve millions. It is impossible

to obtain anything like a correct number of the Jews, in almost _any_

country, leaving out of view the immense numbers scattered over the

world, and living even in parts unexplored by Europeans.

Christians not only flatter but delude the Jew, when they say that his

race is "purity itself;" they greatly flatter and delude him, when they

say that the phenomenon of its existence, since the dispersion, is

miraculous. There is nothing miraculous about it. There is nothing

miraculous about the perpetuation of Quakerdom; yet Quakerdom has

existed for two centuries. Although Quakerdom is but an artificial

thing, that proceeded out from among common English people, it has

somewhat the appearance of being a distinct race, among those

surrounding it. As such, it appears, at first sight, to inexperienced

youth, or people who have never seen, or perhaps heard, much of Quakers.

But how much greater is the difference between Jews and Christians, than

between Quakers and ordinary Englishmen, and Americans! And how much

greater the certainty that Jews will keep themselves distinct from

Christians, and all others in the world! It must be self-evident to the

most unreflecting person, that the natural causes which keep Jews

separated from other people, during one generation, continue to keep

them distinct during every other generation. A miracle, indeed! We must

look into the Old and New Testaments for miracles. A Jew will naturally

delude himself about the existence of his race, since the dispersion,

being a miracle; yet not believe upon a person, if he were even to rise

from the dead! A little consideration of the philosophy of the Jewish

question will teach us that, perhaps, the best way for Providence to

preserve the Jews, as they have existed since their dispersion, would

have been merely to leave them alone--leave them to their impenitence

and unbelief--and take that much care of them that is taken of ravens.

The subject of the Gipsies is a mine which Christians should work, so as

to countermine and explode the conceit of the Jew in the history of his

people; for that, as I have already said, is the greatest bar to his

conversion to Christianity. Still, it is possible that some people may

oppose the idea that the Gipsies are the "mixed multitude" of the

Exodus, from some such motive as that which induces others not merely to

disbelieve, but revile, and even rave at some of the clear points of

revelation.[311] What objection could any one advance against the

Gipsies being the people that left Egypt, in the train of the Jews? Not,

certainly, an objection as to race; for there must have been many

captive people, or tribes, introduced into Egypt, from the many

countries surrounding it. Pharaoh was a czar in his day, transplanting

people at his pleasure. Of one of his cities it was said,

"That spreads her conquests o'er a thousand states,

And pours her heroes through a hundred gates:

Two hundred horsemen, and two hundred cars,

From each wide portal, issuing to the wars."

[311] It is astonishing how superficially some passages of Scripture

are interpreted. There is, for instance, the conduct of Gamaliel,

before the Jewish council. (Acts v. 17-40.) The advice given by him,

as a Pharisee, was nothing but a piece of specious party clap-trap, to

discomfit a Sadducee. St. Paul, who was brought up at the feet of this

Pharisee, and, doubtless, well versed in the factious tactics of his

party, gives a beautiful commentary on the action of his old master,

when, on being brought before the same tribunal, and perceiving that

his enemies embraced both parties, he set them by the ears, by

proclaiming himself a Pharisee, and raising the question, (the "hope

and resurrection of the dead,") on which they so bitterly disagreed.

(Acts xxiii. 6-10.) There was much adroitness displayed by the

Apostle, in so turning the wrath of his enemies against themselves,

after having inadvertently reviled the high priest, in their presence,

and within one of the holy places, in such language as the following:

"God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me

after the law, and commandest me to be smitten, contrary to the law."

As it was, he was only saved from being "pulled in pieces" by his

blood-thirsty persecutors--the one sect attacking, and the other

defending him--by a company of Roman soldiers, dispatched to take him

by force from among them. Nothing could be more specious than

Gamaliel's reasoning, for it could apply to almost anything, and was

well suited to the feelings of a divided and excited assembly; or have

less foundation, according to his theory, for the very steps which he

advised the people against adopting, for the suppression of

Christians, were used to destroy the false Messiahs to whom he

referred. And yet people quote this recorded clap-trap of an old

Pharisee, as an inspiration, for the guidance of private Christians,

and Christian magistrates!

That the "mixed multitude" travelled into India, acquired the language

of that part of Asia, and, perhaps, modified its appearance there, and

became the origin of the Gipsy race, we may very safely assume. This

much is certain, that they are not Sudras, but a very ancient tribe,

distinct from every other in the world. With the exception of the Jews,

we have no certainty of the origin of any people; in every other case it

is conjecture; even the Hungarians know nothing of their origin; and it

is not wonderful that it should be the same with the Gipsies. Everything

harmonizes so beautifully with the idea that the Gipsies are the "mixed

multitude" of the Exodus, that it may be admitted by the world. Even in

the matter of religion, we could imagine Egyptian captives losing a

knowledge of their religion, as has happened with the Africans in the

New World, and, not having had another taught them, leaving Egypt under

Moses, without any religion at all.[312] After entering India, they

would, in all probability, become a wandering people, and, for a

certainty, live aloof from all others.

[312] Tacitus makes Caius Cassius, in the time of Nero, say: "At

present, we have in our service whole nations of slaves, the scum of

mankind, collected from all quarters of the globe; a race of men who

bring with them foreign rites, and the religion of their country, _or,

probably, no religion at all_."--_Murphy's Translation._

While the history of the Jews, since the dispersion, greatly illustrates

that of the Gipsies, so does the history of the Gipsies greatly

illustrate that of the Jews. They greatly resemble each other. Jews

shuffle, when they say that the only difference between an Englishman

and an English Jew, is in the matter of creed; for there is a great

difference between the two, whatever they may have in common, as men

born and reared on the same soil. The very appearance of the two is

palpable proof that they are not of the same race. The Jew invariably,

and unavoidably, holds his "nation" to mean the Jewish people, scattered

over the world; and is reared in the idea that he is, not only in creed,

but in blood, distinct from other men; and that, in blood and creed, he

is not to amalgamate with them, let him live where he may. Indeed, what

England is to an Englishman, this universally scattered people is to the

Jew; what the history of England is to an Englishman, the Bible is to

the Jew; his nation being nowhere in particular, but everywhere, while

its ultimate destiny he, more or less, believes to be Palestine. Now, an

Englishman has not only been born an Englishman, but his mind has been

cast in a mould that makes him an Englishman; so that, to persecute him,

on the ground of his being an Englishman, is to persecute him for that

which can never be changed. It is precisely so with the Jew. His creed

does not amount to much, for it is only part of the history of his race,

or the law of his nation, traced to, and emanating from, one God, and

Him the true God, as distinguished from the gods and lords many of other

nations: such is the nature of the Jewish theocracy. To persecute a

Gipsy, for being a Gipsy, would likewise be to persecute him for that

which he could not help; for to prevent a person being a Gipsy, in the

most important sense of the word, it would be necessary to take him,

when an infant, and rear him entirely apart from his own race, so that

he should never hear the "wonderful story," nor have his mind filled

with the Gipsy electric fluid. An English Gipsy went abroad, very young,

as a soldier, and was many years from home, without having had a Gipsy

companion, so that he had almost forgotten that he was a Gipsy; but, on

his returning home, other Gipsies applied their magnetic battery to him,

and gipsyfied him over again. A town Gipsy will occasionally send a

child to a Gipsy hedge-schoolmaster, for the purpose of being extra

gipsyfied.

The being a Gipsy, or a Jew, or a Gentile, consists in birth and

rearing. The three may be born and brought up under one general roof,

members of their respective nationalities, yet all good Christians. But

the Jew, by becoming a Christian, necessarily cuts himself off from

associations with the representative part of his nation; for Jews do not

tolerate those who forsake the synagogue, and believe in Christ, as the

Messiah having come; however much they may respect their children, who,

though born into the Christian Church, and believing in its doctrines,

yet maintain the inherent affection for the associations connected with

the race, and more especially if they also occupy distinguished

positions in life. So intolerant, indeed, are Jews of each other, in the

matter of each choosing his own religion, extending sometimes to

assassination in some countries, and invariably to the crudest

persecutions in families, that they are hardly justified in asking, and

scarcely merit, toleration for themselves, as a people, from the nations

among whom they live. The present Disraeli doubtless holds himself to be

a Jew, let his creed or Christianity be what it may; if he looks at

himself in his mirror, he cannot deny it. We have an instance in the

Cappadoce family becoming, and remaining for several generations,

Christians, then returning to the synagogue, and, in another generation,

joining the Christian church. The same vicissitude may attend future

generations of this family. There should be no great obstacle in the way

of it being allowed to pass current in the world, like any other fact,

that a person can be a Jew and, at the same time, a Christian; as we say

that a man can be an Englishman and a Christian, a McGregor and a

Christian, a Gipsy and a Christian, or a Jew and a Christian, even

should he not know when his ancestors attended the synagogue.

Christianity was not intended, nor is it capable, to destroy the

nationality of Jews, as individuals, or as a nation, any more than that

of other people. We may even assume that a person, having a Jew for one

parent, and a Christian for another, and professing the Christian faith,

and having the influences of the Jew exercised over him from his

infancy, cannot fail, with his blood and, it may be, physiognomy, to

have feelings peculiar to the Jews; although he may believe them as

blind, in the matter of religion, as do other Christians. But separate

him, after the death of the Jewish parent, from all associations with

Jews, and he may gradually lose those peculiarly Jewish feelings that

are inseparable from a Jewish community, however small it may be. There

are, then, no circumstances, out of and independent of himself and the

other members of his family, to constitute him a Jew; and still less can

it be so with his children, when they marry with ordinary Christians,

and never come in intimate contact with Jews. The Jewish feeling may be

ultimately crossed out in this way; I say ultimately, for it does not

take place in the first descent, (and that is as far as my personal

knowledge goes,) even although the mother is an ordinary Christian, and

the children have been brought up exclusively to follow her religion.

Gipsydom, however, goes with the individual, and keeps itself alive in

the family, and the private associations of life, let its creed be what

it may; the original cast of mind, words, and signs, always remaining

with itself. In this respect, the Gipsy differs from every other man. He

cannot but know who he is to start life with, nor can he forget it; he

has those words and signs within himself which, as he moves about in the

world, he finds occasion to use. A Jew may boast of the peculiar cast of

countenance by which his race is generally characterized, and how his

nation is kept together by a common blood, history, and creed. But the

phenomenon connected with the history of the Gipsy race is more

wonderful than that which is connected with the Jewish; inasmuch as, let

the blood of the Gipsy become as much mixed as it may, it always

preserves its Gipsy identity; although it may not have the least outward

resemblance to an original Gipsy. You cannot crush or cross out the

Gipsy race; so thoroughly subtle, so thoroughly adaptable, so

thoroughly capable, is it to evade every weapon that can be forged

against it. The Gipsy soul, in whatever condition it may be found, or

whatever may be the tabernacle which it may inhabit, is as independent,

now, of those laws which regulate the disappearance of certain races

among others, as when it existed in its wild state, roaming over the

heath. The Gipsy race, in short, absorbs, but cannot be absorbed by,

other races.

In my associations with Gipsies and Jews, I find that both races rest

upon the same basis, viz.: a question of people. The response of the

one, as to who he is, is that he is a Gipsy; and of the other, that he

is a Jew. Each of them has a peculiarly original soul, that is perfectly

different from each other, and others around them; a soul that passes as

naturally and unavoidably into each succeeding generation of the

respective races, as does the soul of the English or any other race into

each succeeding generation. For each considers his nation as abroad upon

the face of the earth; which circumstance will preserve its existence

amid all the revolutions to which ordinary nations are subject. As they

now exist within, and independent of, the nations among whom they live,

so will they endure, if these nations were to disappear under the

subjection of other nations, or become incorporated with them under new

names. Many of the Gipsies and Jews might perish amid such convulsions,

but those that survived would constitute the stock of their respective

nations; while others might migrate from other countries, and contribute

to their numbers. In the case of the Gipsy nation, as it gets crossed

with common blood, the issue shows the same result as does the shaking

of the needle on the card--it always turns to the pole: that pole, among

the Gipsies, being a sense of its blood, and a sympathy with the same

people in every part of the world. For this reason, the Gipsy race, like

the Jewish, may, with regard to its future, be said to be even eternal.

The Gipsy soul is fresh and original, not only from its recent

appearance in Europe, without any traditional knowledge of its existence

anywhere else, but from having sprung from so singular an origin as a

tent; so that the mystery that attaches to it, from those causes, and

the contemplation of the Gipsy, in his original state, to-day, present

to the Gipsy that fascination for his own history which the Jew finds

in the antiquity of his race, and the exalted privileges with which it

was at one time visited. The civilized Gipsy looks upon his ancestors,

as they appeared in Europe generally, and Scotland especially, as great

men, as heroes who scorned the company of anything below a gentleman.

And he is not much out of the way; for John Faw, and Towla Bailyow, and

the others mentioned in the act of 1540, were unquestionably heroes of

the first water. He pictures to himself these men as so many swarthy,

slashing heroes, dressed in scarlet and green, armed with pistols and

broad-swords, mounted on blood-horses, with hawks and hounds in their

train. True to nature, every Gipsy is delighted with his descent, no

matter what other people, in their ignorance of the subject, may think

of it, or what their prejudices may be in regard to it. One of the

principal differences to be drawn between the history of the Gipsies and

that of the Jews, is, as I have already stated, that the Jews left

Palestine a civilized people, while the Gipsies entered Europe, in the

beginning of the fifteenth century, in a barbarous state. But the

difference is only of a relative nature; for when the Gipsies emerge

from their original condition, they occupy as good positions in the

world as the Jews; while they have about them none of those outward

peculiarities of the Jews, that make them, in a manner, offensive to

other people. In every sense but that of belonging to the Gipsy tribe,

they are ordinary natives; for the circumstances that have formed the

characters of the ordinary natives have formed theirs. Besides this,

there is a degree of dignity about the general bearing of such people,

rough as it sometimes is, that plainly shows that they are no common

fellows, at least that they do not hold themselves to be such. For it is

to be remarked, that such people do not directly apply to themselves the

prejudice which exists towards what the world understands to be Gipsies;

however much they may infer that such would be directed against them,

should the world discover that they belonged to the tribe. In this

respect, they differ from Jews, all of whom apply to themselves the

prejudice of the rest of their species; which exercises so depressing an

influence upon the character of a people. Indeed, one will naturally

look for certain general superior points of character in a man who has

fairly emerged from a wild and barbarous state, which he will not be so

apt to find in another who has fallen from a higher position in the

scale of nations, which the Jew has unquestionably done. A Jew, no

matter what he thinks of the long-gone-by history of his race, looks

upon it, now, as a fallen people; while the Gipsy has that subdued but,

at heart, consequential, extravagance of ideas, springing from the wild

independence and vanity of his ancestors, which frequently finds a vent

in a lavish and foolish expenditure, so as not to be behind others in

his liberality. A very good idea of such a cast of character may be

formed from that of the superior class of Gipsies mentioned by our

author, when the descendants of such have been brought up under more

favourable circumstances, and enjoyed all the advantages of the ordinary

natives of the country.

In considering the phenomenon of the existence of the Jews since the

dispersion, I am not inclined to place it on any other basis than I

would that of the Gipsies; for, with both, it is substantially a

question of people. They are a people, scattered over the world, like

the Gipsies, and have a history--the Bible, which contains both their

history and their laws; and these two contain their religion. It would,

perhaps, be more correct to say, that the religion of the Jews is to be

found in the Talmud, and the other human compositions, for which the

race have such a superstitious reverence; and even these are taken as

interpreted by the Rabbis. A Jew has, properly speaking, little of a

creed. He believes in the existence of God, and in Moses, his prophet,

and observes certain parts of the ceremonial law, and some holidays,

commemorative of events in the history of his people. He is a Jew, in

the first place, as a simple matter of fact, and, as he grows up, he is

made acquainted with the history of his race, to which he becomes

strongly attached. He then holds himself to be one of the "first-born of

the Lord," one of the "chosen of the Eternal," one of the "Lord's

aristocracy;" expressions of amazing import, in his worldly mind, that

will lead him to almost die for his _faith_; while his _religion_ is of

a very low natural order, "standing only in meats and drinks, and divers

washings, and carnal ordinances," suitable for a people in a state of

pupilage. The Jewish mind, in the matter of religion, is, in some

respects, preëminently gross and material in its nature; its idea of a

Messiah rising no higher than a conqueror of its own race, who will

bring the whole world under his sway, and parcel out, among his

fellow-Jews, a lion's share of the spoils, consisting of such things as

the inferior part of human nature so much craves for. And his ideas of

how this Messiah is to be connected with the original tribes, as

mentioned in the prophecies, are childish and superstitious in the

extreme. Writers do, therefore, greatly err, when they say, that it is

only a thin partition that separates Judaism from Christianity. There is

almost as great a difference between the two, as there is between that

which is material, and that which is spiritual. A Jew is so thoroughly

bound, heart and soul, by the spell which the phenomena of his race

exert upon him, that, humanly speaking, it is impossible to make

anything of him in the matter of Christianity. And herein, in his own

way of thinking, consists his peculiar glory. Such being the case with

Christianity, it is not to be supposed that the Jew would forsake his

own religion, and, of course, his own people, and believe in any

religion having an origin in the spontaneous and gradual growth of

superstition and imposture, modified, systematized, adorned, or

expanded, by ambitious and superior minds, or almost wholly in the

conceptions of these minds; having, for a foundation, an instinct--an

intellectual and emotional want--as common to man, as instinct is to the

brute creation, for the ends which it has to serve. We cannot separate

the questions of race and belief, when we consider the Jews as a people,

however it might be with individuals among them. It was as unreasonable

to persecute a Jew, for not giving up his feelings as a Jew, and his

religion, for the superstitions and impostures of Rome, as it was to

persecute a Gipsy, for not giving up his feelings of nationality, and

his language, as was specially attempted by Charles III., of Spain: for

such are inherent in the respective races. The worst that can be said of

any Gipsy, in the matter of religion, is, when we meet with one who

admits that all that he really cares for is, "to get a good belly-full,

and to feel comfortable o' nights." Here, we have an original soil to be

cultivated; a soil that can be cultivated, if we only go the right way

about doing it. Out of such a man, there is no other spirit to be cast,

but that of "the world, the flesh, and the devil," before another can

take up its habitation in his mind. Bigoted as is the Jew against even

entertaining the claims of Christ, as the Messiah, he is very

indifferent to the practice, or even the knowledge, of his own religion,

where he is tolerated and well-treated, as in the United States of

America. Of the growing-up, or even the grown-up, Jews in that country,

the ultra-Jewish organ, the "Jewish Messenger," of New York, under date

the 19th October, 1860, says that, "with the exception of a very few,

who are really taught their religion, the great majority, we regret to

state, know no more of their faith than the veriest heathen:" and, I

might add, practise less of it; for, as a people, they pay very little

regard to it, in general, or to the Sabbath, in particular, but are

characterized as worldly beyond measure; having more to answer for than

the Gipsy, whose sole care is "a good meal, and a comfortable crib at

night."[313]

[313] The following extract from "Leaves from the Diary of a Jewish

Minister," published in the above-mentioned journal, on the 4th April,

1862, may not be uninteresting to the Christian reader:

"In our day, the conscience of Israel is seldom troubled; it is of so

elastic a character, that, like gutta percha, it stretches and is

compressed, according to the desire of its owner. We seldom hear of a

troubled conscience. . . . . Not that we would assert that our people

are without a conscience; we merely state that we seldom hear of its

troubles. It is more than probable, that when the latent feeling is

aroused on matters of religion, and for a moment they have an idea

that 'their soul is not well,' they take a hom[oe]opathic dose of

spiritual medicine, and then feel quite convalescent."

Amid all the obloquy and contempt cast upon his race, amid all the

persecutions to which it has been exposed, the Jew, with his inherent

conceit in having Abraham for his father, falls back upon the history of

his nation, with the utmost contempt for everything else that is human;

forgetting that there is such a thing as the "first being last." He

boasts that his race, and his only, is eternal, and that all other men

get everything from _him_! He vainly imagines that the Majesty of Heaven

should have made his dispensations to mankind conditional upon anything

so unworthy as his race has so frequently shown itself to be. If he has

been so favoured by God, what can he point to as the fruits of so much

loving-kindness shown him? What is his nation now, however numerous it

may be, but a ruin, and its members, but spectres that haunt it? And

what has brought it to its present condition? "Its sins." Doubtless, its

sins; but what particular sins? And how are these sins to be put away,

seeing that the temple, the high-priesthood, and the sacrifices no

longer exist? Or what effort, by such means as offer, has ever been made

to mitigate the wrath of God, and prevail upon Him to restore the people

to their exalted privileges? Or what could they even propose doing, to

bring about that event? Questions like these involve the Jewish mind in

a labyrinth of difficulties, from which it cannot extricate itself. The

dispersion was not only foretold, but the cause of it given. The

Scriptures declare that the Messiah was to have appeared before the

destruction of the temple; and the time of his expected advent,

according to Jewish traditions, coincided with that event. It is

eighteen centuries since the destruction of the temple, before which the

Messiah was to have come; and the Jew still "hopes against hope," and,

if it is left to himself, will do so till the day of judgment, for such

a Messiah as his earthly mind seems to be only capable of contemplating.

Has he never read the New Testament, and reflected on the sufferings of

him who was meek and lowly, or on those of his disciples, inflicted by

his ancestors, for generations, when he has come complaining of the

sufferings to which his race has been exposed? He is entitled to

sympathy, for all the cruelties with which his race has been visited;

but he could ask it with infinitely greater grace, were he to offer any

for the sufferings of the early Christians and their divine master, or

were he, even, to tolerate any of his race following him to-day.

What has the Jew got to say to all this? He cannot now say that his main

comfort and support, in his unbelief, consists in his contemplating what

he vainly calls a miracle, wrapt up in the history of his people, since

the dispersion. That prop and comfort are gone. No, O Jew! the true

miracle, if miracle there is, is your impenitent unbelief. No one asks

you to disbelieve in Moses, but, in addition to believing in Moses, to

believe in him of whom Moses wrote. Do you really believe in Moses? You,

doubtless, believe after a sort; you believe in Moses, as any other

person believes in the history of his own country and people; but your

belief in Moses goes little further. You glory in the antiquity of your

race, and imagine that every other has perished. No, O Jew! the "mixed

multitude" which left Egypt, under Moses, separated from him, and passed

into India, has come up, in these latter times, again to vex you. Even

it is entering, it may be, pressing, into the Kingdom of God, and

leaving you out of it. Yes! the people from the "hedges and by-ways" are

submitting to the authority of the true Messiah; while you, in your

infatuated blindness, are denying him.

What may be termed the philosophy of the Gipsies, is very simple in

itself, when we have before us its main points, its principles, its

bearings, its genius; and fully appreciated the circumstances with which

the people are surrounded. The most remarkable thing about the subject

is, that people never should have dreamt of its nature, but, on the

contrary, believed that "the Gipsies are gradually disappearing, and

will soon become extinct." The Gipsies have always been disappearing,

but where do they go to? Look at any tent of Gipsies, when the family

are all together, and see how prolific they are. What, then, becomes of

this encrease? The present work answers the question. It is a subject,

however, which I have found some difficulty in getting people to

understand. One cannot see how a person can be a Gipsy, "because his

father was a respectable man;" another, "because his father was an old

soldier;" and another cannot see "how it necessarily follows that a

person is a Gipsy, for the reason that his parents were Gipsies." The

idea, as disconnected from the use of a tent, or following a certain

kind of life, may be said to be strange to the world; and, on that

account, is not very easily impressed on the human mind. It would be

singular, however, if a Scotchman, after all that has been said, should

not be able to understand what is meant by the Scottish Gipsy tribe, or

that it should ever cease to be that tribe as it progresses in life. In

considering the subject, he need not cast about for much to look at, for

he should exercise his mind, rather than his eyes, when he approaches

it. It is, principally, a mental phenomenon, and should, therefore, be

judged of by the faculties of the mind: for a Gipsy may not differ a

whit from an ordinary native, in external appearance or character,

while, in his mind, he may be as thorough a Gipsy as one could well

imagine.

In contemplating the subject of the Gipsies, we should have a regard for

the facts of the question, and not be led by what we might, or might

not, imagine of it; for the latter course would be characteristic of

people having the moral and intellectual traits of children. The race

might, to a certain extent, be judged analogously, by what we know of

other races; but that which is pre-eminently necessary, is to judge of

it by facts: for facts, in a matter like this, take precedence of

everything. Even in regard to the Gipsy language, broken as it is,

people are very apt to say that it _cannot_ exist at the present day;

yet the least reflection will convince us, that the language which the

Gipsies use is the remains of that which they brought with them into

Europe, and not a make-up, to serve their purposes. The very genius

peculiar to them, as an Oriental people, is a sufficient guarantee of

this fact; and the more so from their having been so thoroughly

separated, by the prejudice of caste, from others around them; which

would so naturally lead them to use, and retain, their peculiar speech.

But the use of the Gipsy language is not the only, not even the

principal, means of maintaining a knowledge of being Gipsies; perhaps it

is altogether unnecessary; for the mere consciousness of the fact of

being Gipsies, transmitted from generation to generation, and made the

basis of marriages, and the intimate associations of life, is, in

itself, perfectly sufficient. The subject of two distinct races,

existing upon the same soil, is not very familiar to the mind of a

British subject. To acquire a knowledge of such a phenomenon, he should

visit certain parts of Europe, or Asia, or Africa, or the New World.

Since all (I may say all) Gipsies hide the knowledge of their being

Gipsies from the other inhabitants, as they leave the tent, it cannot be

said that any of them really deny themselves, even should they hide

themselves from those of their own race. The ultimate test of a person

being a Gipsy would be for another to catch the internal response of his

mind to the question put to him as to the fact; or observe the workings

of his heart in his contemplations of himself. It can hardly be said

that any Gipsy denies, at heart, the fact of his being a Gipsy, (which,

indeed, is a contradiction in terms,) let him disguise it from others as

much as he may. If I could find such a man, he would be the only one of

his race whom I would feel inclined to despise as such.

From all that has been said, the reader can have no difficulty in

believing, with me, as a question beyond doubt, that the immortal John

Bunyan was a Gipsy of mixed blood. He was a tinker. And who were the

tinkers? Were there any itinerant tinkers in England, before the Gipsies

settled there? It is doubtful. In all likelihood, articles requiring to

be tinkered were carried to the nearest smithy. The Gipsies are all

tinkers, either literally, figuratively, or representatively. Ask any

English Gipsy, of a certain class, what he can do, and, after

enumerating several occupations, he will add: "I can tinker, of course,"

although he may know little or nothing about it. Tinkering, or

travelling-smith work, is the Gipsy's representative business, which he

brought with him into Europe. Even the intelligent and respectable

Scottish Gipsies speak of themselves as belonging to the "tinker tribe."

The Gipsies in England, as in Scotland, divided the country among

themselves, under representative chiefs, and did not allow any other

Gipsies to enter upon their walks or beats. Considering that the Gipsies

in England were estimated at above ten thousand during the early part of

the reign of Queen Elizabeth, we can readily believe that they were much

more numerous during the time of Bunyan. Was there, therefore, a pot or

a kettle, in the rural parts of England, to be mended, for which there

was not a Gipsy ready to attend to it? If a Gipsy would not tolerate any

of his own race entering upon his district, was he likely to allow any

native? If there were native tinkers in England before the Gipsies

settled there, how soon would the latter, with their organization, drive

every one from the trade by sheer force! What thing more like a Gipsy?

Among the Scotch, we find, at a comparatively recent time, that the

Gipsies actually murdered a native, for infringing upon what they

considered one of their prerogatives--that of gathering rags through the

country.

Lord Macaulay says, with reference to Bunyan: "The tinkers then formed a

hereditary caste, which was held in no high estimation. They were

generally vagrants and pilferers, and were often confounded with the

Gipsies, whom, in truth, they nearly resembled." I would like to know on

what authority his lordship makes such an assertion; what he knows about

the origin of this "_hereditary_ tinker caste," and if it still exists;

and whether he holds to the purity-of-Gipsy-blood idea, advanced by the

Edinburgh Review and Blackwood's Magazine, but especially the former.

How would he account for the existence of a hereditary caste of any

kind, in England, and that just one--the "tinker caste"? There was no

calling at that time hereditary in England, that I know of; and yet

Bunyan was born a tinker. In Scotland, the collier and salter castes

were hereditary, for they were in a state of slavery to the owners of

these works.[314] But who ever heard of any native occupation, so free

as tinkering, being hereditary in England, in the seventeenth century?

Was not this "tinker caste," at that time, exactly the same that it is

now? If it was then hereditary, is it not so still? If not, by what

means has it ceased to be hereditary? The tinkers existed in England, at

that time, exactly as they do now. And who are they now but mixed

Gipsies? It is questionable, very questionable indeed, if we will find,

in all England, a tinker who is not a Gipsy. The class will deny it; the

purer and more original kind of Gipsies will also deny it; still, they

are Gipsies. They are all _chabos_, _calos_, or _chals_; but they will

play upon the word Gipsy in its ideal, purity-of-blood sense, and deny

that they are Gipsies. We will find in Lavengro two such Gipsies--the

Flaming Tinman, and Jack Slingsby; the first, a half-blood, (which did

not necessarily imply that either parent was white;) and the other,

apparently, a very much mixed Gipsy. The tinman termed Slingsby a

"mumping villain." Now, "mumper," among the English Gipsies, is an

expression for a Gipsy whose blood is very much mixed. When Mr. Borrow

used the word _Petulengro_,[315] Slingsby started, and exclaimed: "Young

man, you know a thing or two." I have used the same word with English

Gipsies, causing the same surprise; on one occasion, I was told: "You

must be a Scotch Gipsy yourself." "Well," I replied, "I may be as good a

Gipsy as any of you, for anything you may know." "That may be so," was

the answer I got. Then Slingsby was very careful to mention to Lavengro

that his _wife_ was a white, or Christian, woman; a thing not

necessarily true because he asserted it, but it implied that _he_ was

different. These are but instances of, I might say, all the English

tinkers. Almost every old countrywoman about the Scottish Border knows

that the Scottish tinkers are Gipsies.[316]

[314] See pages 111 and 121.

[315] _Petul_, according to Mr. Borrow, means a horse-shoe; and

_Petulengro_, a lord of the horse-shoe. It is evidently a very high

catch-word among the English Gipsies.

[316] Various of the characters mentioned in Mr. Borrow's "Lavengro,"

and "Romany Rye," are, beyond doubt, Gipsies. Old Fulcher is termed,

in a derisive manner, by Ursula, "a _gorgio_ and basket-maker." She is

one of the Hernes; a family which _gorgio_ and basket-maker Gipsies

describe as "an ignorant, conceited set, who think nothing of other

Gipsies, owing to the quality and quantity of their own blood." This

is the manner in which the more original and pure and the other kind

of English Gipsies frequently talk of each other. The latter will deny

that they are Gipsies, at least hide it from the world; and, like the

same kind of Scottish Gipsies, speak of the others, exclusively, as

Gipsies. I am acquainted with a fair-haired English Gipsy, whose wife,

now dead, was a half-breed. "But I am not a Gipsy," said he to me,

very abruptly, before I had said anything that could have induced him

to think that I took him for one. He spoke Gipsy, like the others. I

soon caught him tripping; for, in speaking of the size of Gipsy

families, he slipped his foot, and said: "For example, there is our

family; there were (so many) of us." There is another Gipsy, a

neighbour, who passes his wife off to the public as an Irish woman,

while she is a fair-haired Irish Gipsy. Both, in short, played upon

the word Gipsy; for, as regards fullness of blood, they really were

not Gipsies.

The dialogue between the Romany Rye and the Horncastle jockey clearly

shows the Gipsy in the latter, when his attention is directed to the

figure of the Hungarian. The Romany Rye makes indirect reference to

the Gipsies, and the jockey abruptly asks: "Who be they? Come, don't

be ashamed. I have occasionally kept queerish company myself." "Romany

_chals_! Whew! I begin to smell a rat." The remainder of the dialogue,

and the _spree_ which follows, are perfectly Gipsy throughout, on the

part of the jockey; but, like so many of his race, he is evidently

ashamed to own himself up to be "one of them." He says, in a way as if

he were a stranger to the language: "And what a singular language they

have got!" "Do you know anything of it?" said the Romany Rye. "Only a

very few words; they were always chary in teaching me any." He said he

was brought up with the _gorgio_ and basket-maker Fulcher, who

followed the caravan. He is described as dressed in a coat of green,

(a favourite Gipsy colour,) and as having curly brown or black hair;

and he says of Mary Fulcher, whom he married: "She had a fair

complexion, and nice red hair, both of which I liked, being a bit of a

black myself." How much this is in keeping with the Gipsies, who so

frequently speak of each other, in a jocular way, as "brown and black

rascals!"

I likewise claim Isopel Berners, in Lavengro, to be a _thumping_ Gipsy

lass, who travelled the country with her donkey-cart, taking her own

part, and _wapping_ this one, and _wapping_ that one. It signifies not

what her appearance was. I have frequently taken tea, at her house,

with a young, blue-eyed, English Gipsy widow, perfectly English in her

appearance, who spoke Gipsy freely enough. It did not signify what

Isopel said of herself, or her relations. How did she come to speak

Gipsy? Do Gipsies _teach_ their language to _strangers_, and, more

especially, to strange women? Assuredly not. Suppose that Isopel was

not a Gipsy, but had married a Gipsy, then I could understand how she

might have known Gipsy, and yet not have been a Gipsy, except by

initiation. But it is utterly improbable that she, a strange woman,

should have been taught a word of it.