‘LOS Gitános son muy malos!—the Gypsies are very bad people,’ said the
Spaniards of old times. They are cheats; they are highwaymen; they
practise sorcery; and, lest the catalogue of their offences should be
incomplete, a formal charge of cannibalism was brought against them.
Cheats they have always been, and highwaymen, and if not sorcerers, they
have always done their best to merit that appellation, by arrogating to
themselves supernatural powers; but that they were addicted to
cannibalism is a matter not so easily proved.
Their principal accuser was Don Juan de Quiñones, who, in the work from
which we have already had occasion to quote, gives several anecdotes
illustrative of their cannibal propensities. Most of these anecdotes,
however, are so highly absurd, that none but the very credulous could
ever have vouchsafed them the slightest credit. This author is
particularly fond of speaking of a certain juez, or judge, called Don
Martin Fajardo, who seems to have been an arrant Gypsy-hunter, and was
probably a member of the ancient family of the Fajardos, which still
flourishes in Estremadura, and with individuals of which we are
acquainted. So it came to pass that this personage was, in the year
1629, at Jaraicejo, in Estremadura, or, as it is written in the little
book in question, Zaraizejo, in the capacity of judge; a zealous one he
undoubtedly was.
A very strange place is this same Jaraicejo, a small ruinous town or
village, situated on a rising ground, with a very wild country all about
it. The road from Badajoz to Madrid passes through it; and about two
leagues distant, in the direction of Madrid, is the famous mountain pass
of Mirabéte, from the top of which you enjoy a most picturesque view
across the Tagus, which flows below, as far as the huge mountains of
Plasencia, the tops of which are generally covered with snow.
So this Don Martin Fajardo, judge, being at Jaraicejo, laid his claw upon
four Gitános, and having nothing, as it appears, to accuse them of,
except being Gitános, put them to the torture, and made them accuse
themselves, which they did; for, on the first appeal which was made to
the rack, they confessed that they had murdered a female Gypsy in the
forest of Las Gamas, and had there eaten her. . . .
I am myself well acquainted with this same forest of Las Gamas, which
lies between Jaraicejo and Trujillo; it abounds with chestnut and cork
trees, and is a place very well suited either for the purpose of murder
or cannibalism. It will be as well to observe that I visited it in
company with a band of Gitános, who bivouacked there, and cooked their
supper, which however did not consist of human flesh, but of a puchéra,
the ingredients of which were beef, bacon, garbanzos, and berdolaga, or
field-pease and purslain,—therefore I myself can bear testimony that
there is such a forest as Las Gamas, and that it is frequented
occasionally by Gypsies, by which two points are established by far the
most important to the history in question, or so at least it would be
thought in Spain, for being sure of the forest and the Gypsies, few would
be incredulous enough to doubt the facts of the murder and cannibalism. . . .
On being put to the rack a second time, the Gitános confessed that they
had likewise murdered and eaten a female pilgrim in the forest aforesaid;
and on being tortured yet again, that they had served in the same manner,
and in the same forest, a friar of the order of San Francisco, whereupon
they were released from the rack and executed. This is one of the
anecdotes of Quiñones.
And it came to pass, moreover, that the said Fajardo, being in the town
of Montijo, was told by the alcalde, that a certain inhabitant of that
place had some time previous lost a mare; and wandering about the plains
in quest of her, he arrived at a place called Arroyo el Puerco, where
stood a ruined house, on entering which he found various Gitános employed
in preparing their dinner, which consisted of a quarter of a human body,
which was being roasted before a huge fire: the result, however, we are
not told; whether the Gypsies were angry at being disturbed in their
cookery, or whether the man of the mare departed unobserved.
Quiñones, in continuation, states in his book that he learned (he does
not say from whom, but probably from Fajardo) that there was a shepherd
of the city of Gaudix, who once lost his way in the wild sierra of Gadol:
night came on, and the wind blew cold: he wandered about until he
descried a light in the distance, towards which he bent his way,
supposing it to be a fire kindled by shepherds: on arriving at the spot,
however, he found a whole tribe of Gypsies, who were roasting the half of
a man, the other half being hung on a cork-tree: the Gypsies welcomed him
very heartily, and requested him to be seated at the fire and to sup with
them; but he presently heard them whisper to each other, ‘this is a fine
fat fellow,’ from which he suspected that they were meditating a design
upon his body: whereupon, feeling himself sleepy, he made as if he were
seeking a spot where to lie, and suddenly darted headlong down the
mountain-side, and escaped from their hands without breaking his neck.
These anecdotes scarcely deserve comment; first we have the statement of
Fajardo, the fool or knave who tortures wretches, and then puts them to
death for the crimes with which they have taxed themselves whilst
undergoing the agony of the rack, probably with the hope of obtaining a
moment’s respite; last comes the tale of the shepherd, who is invited by
Gypsies on a mountain at night to partake of a supper of human flesh, and
who runs away from them on hearing them talk of the fatness of his own
body, as if cannibal robbers detected in their orgies by a single
interloper would have afforded him a chance of escaping. Such tales
cannot be true. {79}
Cases of cannibalism are said to have occurred in Hungary amongst the
Gypsies; indeed, the whole race, in that country, has been accused of
cannibalism, to which we have alluded whilst speaking of the Chingany: it
is very probable, however, that they were quite innocent of this odious
practice, and that the accusation had its origin in popular prejudice, or
in the fact of their foul feeding, and their seldom rejecting carrion or
offal of any description.
The Gazette of Frankfort for the year 1782, Nos. 157 and 207, states that
one hundred and fifty Gypsies were imprisoned charged with this practice;
and that the Empress Teresa sent commissioners to inquire into the facts
of the accusation, who discovered that they were true; whereupon the
empress published a law to oblige all the Gypsies in her dominions to
become stationary, which, however, had no effect.
Upon this matter we can state nothing on our own knowledge.
After the above anecdotes, it will perhaps not be amiss to devote a few
lines to the subject of Gypsy food and diet. I believe that it has been
asserted that the Romas, in all parts of the world, are perfectly
indifferent as to what they eat, provided only that they can appease
their hunger; and that they have no objection to partake of the carcasses
of animals which have died a natural death, and have been left to putrefy
by the roadside; moreover, that they use for food all kinds of reptiles
and vermin which they can lay their hands upon.
In this there is a vast deal of exaggeration, but at the same time it
must be confessed that, in some instances, the habits of the Gypsies in
regard to food would seem, at the first glance, to favour the
supposition. This observation chiefly holds good with respect to those
of the Gypsy race who still continue in a wandering state, and who,
doubtless, retain more of the ways and customs of their forefathers than
those who have adopted a stationary life. There can be no doubt that the
wanderers amongst the Gypsy race are occasionally seen to feast upon
carcasses of cattle which have been abandoned to the birds of the air,
yet it would be wrong, from this fact, to conclude that the Gypsies were
habitual devourers of carrion. Carrion it is true they may occasionally
devour, from want of better food, but many of these carcasses are not in
reality the carrion which they appear, but are the bodies of animals
which the Gypsies have themselves killed by casting drao, in hope that
the flesh may eventually be abandoned to them. It is utterly useless to
write about the habits of the Gypsies, especially of the wandering
tribes, unless you have lived long and intimately with them; and
unhappily, up to the present time, all the books which have been
published concerning them have been written by those who have introduced
themselves into their society for a few hours, and from what they have
seen or heard consider themselves competent to give the world an idea of
the manners and customs of the mysterious Rommany: thus, because they
have been known to beg the carcass of a hog which they themselves have
poisoned, it has been asserted that they prefer carrion which has
perished of sickness to the meat of the shambles; and because they have
been seen to make a ragout of boror (_snails_), and to roast a
hotchiwitchu or hedgehog, it has been supposed that reptiles of every
description form a part of their cuisine. It is high time to undeceive
the Gentiles on these points. Know, then, O Gentile, whether thou be
from the land of the Gorgios {82a} or the Busné {82b}, that the very
Gypsies who consider a ragout of snails a delicious dish will not touch
an eel, because it bears resemblance to a _snake_; and that those who
will feast on a roasted hedgehog could be induced by no money to taste a
squirrel, a delicious and wholesome species of game, living on the purest
and most nutritious food which the fields and forests can supply. I
myself, while living among the Roms of England, have been regarded almost
in the light of a cannibal for cooking the latter animal and preferring
it to hotchiwitchu barbecued, or ragout of boror. ‘You are but half
Rommany, brother,’ they would say, ‘and you feed gorgiko-nes (_like a
Gentile_), even as you talk. Tchachipen (_in truth_), if we did not know
you to be of the Mecralliskoe rat (_royal blood_) of Pharaoh, we should
be justified in driving you forth as a juggel-mush (_dog man_), one more
fitted to keep company with wild beasts and Gorgios than gentle
Rommanys.’
No person can read the present volume without perceiving, at a glance,
that the Romas are in most points an anomalous people; in their morality
there is much of anomaly, and certainly not less in their cuisine.
‘Los Gitános son muy malos; llevan niños hurtados a Berberia. The
Gypsies are very bad people; they steal children and carry them to
Barbary, where they sell them to the Moors’—so said the Spaniards in old
times. There can be little doubt that even before the fall of the
kingdom of Granada, which occurred in the year 1492, the Gitános had
intercourse with the Moors of Spain. Andalusia, which has ever been the
province where the Gitáno race has most abounded since its arrival, was,
until the edict of Philip the Third, which banished more than a million
of Moriscos from Spain, principally peopled by Moors, who differed from
the Spaniards both in language and religion. By living even as wanderers
amongst these people, the Gitános naturally became acquainted with their
tongue, and with many of their customs, which of course much facilitated
any connection which they might subsequently form with the Barbaresques.
Between the Moors of Barbary and the Spaniards a deadly and continued war
raged for centuries, both before and after the expulsion of the Moriscos
from Spain. The Gitános, who cared probably as little for one nation as
the other, and who have no sympathy and affection beyond the pale of
their own sect, doubtless sided with either as their interest dictated,
officiating as spies for both parties and betraying both.
It is likely enough that they frequently passed over to Barbary with
stolen children of both sexes, whom they sold to the Moors, who traffic
in slaves, whether white or black, even at the present day; and perhaps
this kidnapping trade gave occasion to other relations. As they were
perfectly acquainted, from their wandering life, with the shores of the
Spanish Mediterranean, they must have been of considerable assistance to
the Barbary pirates in their marauding trips to the Spanish coasts, both
as guides and advisers; and as it was a far easier matter, and afforded a
better prospect of gain, to plunder the Spaniards than the Moors, a
people almost as wild as themselves, they were, on that account, and that
only, more Moors than Christians, and ever willing to assist the former
in their forays on the latter.
Quiñones observes: ‘The Moors, with whom they hold correspondence, let
them go and come without any let or obstacle: an instance of this was
seen in the year 1627, when two galleys from Spain were carrying
assistance to Marmora, which was then besieged by the Moors. These
galleys struck on a shoal, when the Moors seized all the people on board,
making captives of the Christians and setting at liberty all the Moors,
who were chained to the oar; as for the Gypsy galley-slaves whom they
found amongst these last, they did not make them slaves, but received
them as people friendly to them, and at their devotion; which matter was
public and notorious.’
Of the Moors and the Gitános we shall have occasion to say something in
the following chapter.