The main thing to be considered in regard to Mr. Brown is to ascertain
his motive for investigating the question whether or not John Bunyan was
of the Gipsy race, and the steps he took to that end. I am satisfied
that his _only_ motive, from first to last, has been to get rid, under
any circumstances, of what _he_ considers a stigma cast on Bunyan’s
memory. He is apparently entirely ignorant of the subject of the
Gipsies, and will listen to nothing that bears on Bunyan’s nationality.
How then does it happen that _he_ should step out into the world and say
so positively that Bunyan was _not_ of the Gipsy race? His _first_
“proof” was the discovery that the _name_ of Bunyan existed in England
before the Gipsies arrived in it, so that on that account John Bunyan’s
family could not have been Gipsies, but a broken-down branch of an
aristocratic family! That “proof” proving worthless, he has recourse to
what he finds to have been Bunyan’s ancestor, apparently on the “native
side of the house,” viz.: Thomas Bonyon, who succeeded his father,
William Bonyon, in 1542, to the property of “Bunyan’s End,” that is, a
cottage and nine acres of land, about a mile from Elstow Church. This
Thomas is described as “a labourer, and his wife as a brewer of beer and
‘a baker of human bread.’” In my Disquisition on the Gipsies I said in
regard to John Bunyan:—
“Beyond being a Gipsy it is impossible to say what his pedigree
really was. His grandfather might have been an ordinary native, even
of fair birth, who, in a thoughtless moment, might have ‘gone off
with the Gipsies;’ or his ancestor on the native side of the house
might have been one of the ‘many English loiterers’ who joined the
Gipsies on their arrival in England, when they were ‘esteemed and
held in great admiration’” (p. 518). And, “Let a Gipsy once be
grafted upon a native family and she rises with it; leavens the
little circle of which she is the centre, and leaves it and its
descendants for all time coming Gipsies” (p. 412). {14a}
Thomas Bonyon seems to have been born about 1502, {14b} and was
apparently of the native race, as was probably his wife; but between him
and Thomas (John’s grandfather), whose will was dated in 1641, there were
doubtless several generations. Without asking with whom each generation
of this family married, Mr. Brown says:—“Here, then, we have a family
living certainly in the same cottage and cultivating the same land from
1542 to 1641, and probably much earlier, a fact which seems to me utterly
fatal to the theory of Gipsy blood”—assuming that the blood of the family
through marriage was native English all the way down; and that they
cultivated the nine acres of land, and did not rent or sell it, for
Thomas Bunyan by his will, dated in 1641, leaves “the cottage or tenement
wherein I doe now dwell.” This Thomas could not have been less than the
grandson of the first-mentioned Thomas, and described himself in his
will, dated November 20th, 1641, as a “pettie chapman”—a calling that is
very common with Gipsies of mixed blood. The will of his son Thomas
(John’s father) is dated May 28th, 1675, in which he describes himself as
a “braseyer”—which is a favourite word with the Gipsies, and sounds
better than tinker, and is frequently put on their tombstones. Mr. Brown
says:—“From this it appears that Bunyan’s father was the first tinker in
the family.” Instead of that, he should have said that it was the first
one _found in a will_. Again he says that he has discovered from the
annual returns of the parishes in Bedfordshire between 1603 and 1650,
that “the families both of Bunyan’s father and of his mother, Margaret
Bentley, were living there all this time as steadily as any of the other
village families, and as unlike a Gipsy encampment as can well be
conceived.” He found no such information in “annual parish returns,” but
perhaps merely the fact of Bunyan’s father having had his legal and
general residence at the cottage, while he followed his calling of
tinkering all over the neighbourhood, as regulated by the chief of the
tinkers or Gipsies for the district. Beyond the cottage being the
residence of Thomas, we know nothing of his movements, nor of the company
coming to his house; and if Mr. Brown had known anything of the subject
of the Gipsies, or been willing to learn it from others, he would not
have concluded that the Bunyans were not of that race, merely because
they might not (as they probably did not) use a tent. It would appear
that Mr. Brown has not mastered even the first principle of this subject,
so as to be able to define what is meant by it being said that Bunyan was
or was not of the Gipsy race.
Thomas Bonyon, in 1542, called a “labourer” in a legal document or
record, and his wife a “brewer and baker,” appear to have kept a little
wayside public-house, which would be frequented by the Gipsies,
especially when they were “esteemed and held in great admiration.” And
here it is likely that the _native English_ Bunyans were changed into
_English Gipsy_ Bunyans by the male heir of Thomas marrying a Gipsy,
whose son or grandson was Thomas, the “pettie chapman”; and whose son
Thomas, the “braseyer,” was the father of John. All these would
doubtless marry early, but perhaps not so early as John, who married
before he was nineteen, so far as is known.
In my communication of the 6th September, I think I said enough on the
question of proof as to Bunyan having been of the Gipsy race. Even with
the limited knowledge about the race generally, and especially about the
mixture of its blood, before I published a history of the Gipsies, Sir
Walter Scott (an excellent judge), with reference to the rank of his
father’s house, and not being Jews, but tinkers, said that Bunyan was
“most probably a Gipsy reclaimed.” Mr. Offor, an editor of Bunyan’s
works, said that “his father must have been a Gipsy.” Mr. Leland’s
investigation and decision is that he “was a Gipsy,” even apparently on
the sole ground of his having been a tinker. In regard to myself, Mr.
Brown says that I have “really nothing to go upon but Bunyan’s own words,
in which he says that his father’s house was ‘of that rank that is
meanest and most despised of all the families of [in] the land,’ which
might simply mean that his father was a poor man in a village”(!)
According to Mr. Brown, Bunyan’s admission, or rather _reminder_, had no
bearing on his nationality, while others think it conclusive, apart from
his having been a tinker. But Mr. Brown did not give _all_ of Bunyan’s
language, for he left out the most important part of it, which was that
of his _descent_, which was _well known to many_ to have been of a _low
and inconsiderable generation_, which had no reference to his “father
being a poor man in a village.” He also omitted Bunyan’s question as to
his “father’s house” being or not being Jews, using the word _we_ in both
instances; a discussion that could not have taken place between a father
and a son of any of the _ordinary race_ of Englishmen. In this way Mr.
Brown gets rid of the proof that proceeded from Bunyan himself, by simply
brushing it aside. When I saw him in New York, I alluded to _all_ of
Bunyan’s admissions, when he replied, “Oh, that can be easily explained.”
{15a} And when I said that “one cannot say in England that Bunyan was a
Gipsy, for society would not allow it,” he made no reply, so far as I
noticed, but appeared to wince at the remark. I had some hesitation in
giving Mr. Brown an interview, for I was satisfied that he did not wish
to have the truth about Bunyan admitted; but I concluded that, having
sent him some pamphlets, it would have been rude to refuse him one. {15b}
It lasted only about five minutes, at the entrance of a banking-house in
Broadway, and ended with some remarks about his having found the wills of
the Bunyans; not one word of which was to the point in question. His
only motive for an interview seemed to be to gratify his curiosity and
behold the person who would dare to “cast a stigma on Bunyan’s memory.”
Now he says that there is _no_ “ferocious prejudice of caste against the
name of Gipsy,” and that “none of Bunyan’s admirers would object to his
being shown to be a Gipsy, if only sufficient proof were adduced”; while
he has ignored everything that bears upon the subject, even what came out
of Bunyan’s mouth. {16a} In place of being influenced by evidence, he
put forth the fanciful idea that he could not have been a Gipsy because
the name of Bunyan existed in England before the Gipsies arrived there.
And now he maintains that Bunyan could not have been a Gipsy, because he
owed his descent “on the native side of the house” to Thomas Bonyon, a
labourer or publican or both, born about 1502, without regard to the
“marriages and movements” of perhaps five or six generations till the
birth of the immortal dreamer, who was baptized on the 30th November,
1628.
But for the limited space at my disposal I would put a long string of
questions to Mr. Brown, and suggest a course of action for him to undo
the injury he has done to Bunyan and the Gipsy race generally,
particularly owing to his remarks about the illustrious pilgrim having
been credited and circulated by the press in Great Britain, which
complicates the question in all its bearings. {16b} We have heard much
of the _American_ John Brown in connexion with the emancipation of the
Negroes in the United States, while the _English_ John Brown seems to be
doing his best, directly or indirectly, to rivet the fetters of a social
despotism on a large body of his fellow-creatures in the British Islands.
I have said above that Thomas Bonyon and his wife, living in 1542, were
_apparently_ of the native English race, and made my remarks to
correspond with that idea. But there was more than a _possibility_ of
them having been part of the original Gipsy stock, of mixed blood, that
arrived in Great Britain before 1506, and, like their race generally,
assumed the surname of a “good family in the land,” as I will illustrate
at some length in my next communication, which will make its appearance
in due time.