I said in my communication of the 8th that there was more than a
possibility of Thomas Bonyon and his wife, in 1542, having been of the
original stock of Gipsies, of mixed blood, that assumed the surname of a
“good family in the land.” As illustrative of this question, we have a
writ of the Scots’ parliament, of the 8th April, 1554, pardoning thirteen
Gipsies for the slaughter of Ninian Small, their names being the
following:—“Andro Faw, captain of the Egyptians, George Faw, Robert Faw,
and Anthony Faw, his sons, Johnne Faw, Andrew George Nichoah, George
Sebastiane Colyne, George Colyne, Julie Colyne, Johnne Colyne, James Haw,
_Johnne Browne_, and _George Browne_, Egyptians.” There being thus
Gipsies of the name of _Brown_ (and, oddly enough, one called _John
Brown_), in Scotland before 1554, we should have no difficulty in
believing that there were, or might have been, some in England of the
name of _Bonyon_ in 1542. The only native name assumed by the tribe in
Scotland before 1540, when they were noticed officially, was Bailyow, or
Baillie. And how did we have Gipsies in Scotland of the name of _Brown_
(apparently the only native name, except Baillie), in a public document
before 1554? Between 1506 and 1579 was the “golden age” of the Gipsies
in Scotland, excepting (nominally, at least) the year 1541–2, for, on the
6th June, 1541, they were ordered to leave the realm within thirty days,
on pain of death, owing to an attack made by them on James V. while
roaming over the country in disguise. “But the king, whom, according to
tradition, they had personally so deeply offended, dying in the following
year (1542), a new reign brought new prospects to the denounced
wanderers” (His., p. 107). There is a tradition that the Gipsies were in
Scotland before 1460, for McLellan of Bombie happening to kill a chief of
some “Saracens or Gipsies from Ireland,” was reinstated in the Barony of
Bombie, and took for his crest a Moor’s head, and “Think on” for his
motto. And it is a tradition amongst all the Scottish Gipsies that their
ancestors came by way of Ireland into Scotland. How, then, were there
Gipsies described, in a writ of the Scots’ parliament, by the names of
John and George Brown in 1554? In no other apparent way, during their
“golden age,” than that a native or natives of that name had married into
the tribe, and that the two Browns, perhaps brothers, mentioned were the
issue, and grown-up men at that; so that the marriage could not have
taken place later than 1533, and probably considerably earlier. There
was little chance of a Scotch lawyer describing these two Browns as
“Egyptians” unless they had been the children of a native father, or had
previously assumed the surname of Brown; the first being the most
probable. {18}
If we can imagine that William Bonyon, the first of the name mentioned by
Mr. Brown, had been a native of England, and, like the Scotch Brown, had
married a Gipsy, we would have found Thomas, in 1542, a member of the
tribe. It was not necessary that he should have been 40 years old in
1542, or that the property of “Bunyan’s End” “had probably been in the
possession of the family long before 1542”; or that William had not died
in middle life, leaving Thomas a young man, born of a Gipsy mother. Even
William might have been one of the original Gipsies, of mixed blood, that
is, “such a ‘foreign tinker’ as is alluded to in the Spanish Gipsy
edicts, and in the Act of Queen Elizabeth, in which mention is made of
‘strangers,’ as distinguished from natural-born subjects, being with the
Gipsies . . . It is therefore very likely that there was not a drop of
common English blood in Bunyan’s veins. John Bunyan belongs to the world
at large, and England is only entitled to the credit of the formation of
his character” (p. 518). He might have assumed the name of Bonyon and
bought “Bunyan’s End,” when the severe law was passed by Henry VIII.
against the race about 1530. Thomas might have been an ordinary native
of England and married a Gipsy who was a “brewer and baker,” possibly of
the second generation of the race born in England. She seems to have
been a “lawless lass” of some kind, for Mr. Brown says that it is on
record that “between 1542 and 1550 she was fined six or eight times for
breaking the assize of beer and bread.” On this head I said in the
Disquisition on the Gipsies:—“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” (p. 467), all over Europe from
almost the day of their arrival in it. It is no uncommon thing for
English Gipsies who have the means to buy a small house with a little
ground attached on landing in America, even should they not always occupy
it personally. I have been informed of several such purchases, and knew
the owner of one “homestead” intimately, and was often in his house. And
this seems to have been a trait in the character of the superior Gipsies
of mixed blood in Great Britain, perhaps from the time of their arrival.
With regard to the pedigree of John Bunyan, the most probable one seems
to be the following:—William Bonyon and his wife were apparently ordinary
English people, which would make Thomas of the same race. {19} His
wife—the “lawless brewer and baker”—was either of the native race or of a
superior class of mixed Gipsies, perhaps of the second generation born in
England. If she was the former, the male heir of Thomas married a Gipsy
while he kept his little wayside public-house, leading to their issue
being turned into the Gipsy current in society. Thus the little property
of “Bunyan’s End” (at least the cottage) would remain in the family,
leading to a will being made to bequeath it from generation to
generation. “Petty chapmen and tinkers” (using brazier instead of
tinker) are the happiest words that could be used to describe many
Gipsies of mixed blood in England to-day.
A remark in the _Graphic_ for the 26th August, in adopting Mr. Brown’s
_theory_ that _all_ that sprung from Thomas Bonyon, in 1542, were
_ordinary natives_ of England, makes it very plain what is the motive for
not having it said that Bunyan was of the Gipsy race, viz.: to show that
his were “positively respectable” people, and not “tinkering Gipsies.”
Petty chapmen and tinkers, if of the native race, would be “positively
respectable,” but not if they had had a “dash” of Gipsy blood in their
veins (which _might_ have improved them,) and held by the Gipsy
connexion, if for no other reason than that the white blood would have
disowned them if they had known of its existence. In this way they would
be cut off from the native race, or would mix with it no further than was
unavoidable; living thus as Gipsies _incog._, or as outcasts, for that is
the right word to use till the Gipsy blood becomes acknowledged by the
rest of the world. The _Graphic_ “let the cat out of the bag,” and
somewhat illustrated what I meant when I spoke of the “ferocious
prejudice of caste against the name of Gipsy.”
I refer to the Disquisition on the Gipsies and my subsequent writings on
John Bunyan and the Gipsies, and add a few extracts from the
Disquisition; all of which should have been studied by Mr. Brown before
“putting his foot into” the subject in the way he has done, for that is
of too sacred a nature to be treated factiously or capriciously.
“The world generally has never even thought about this subject. When
I have spoken to people promiscuously in regard to it, they have
replied, ‘We suppose that the Gipsies as they have settled in life
have got lost among the general population’; than which nothing can
be more unfounded as a matter of fact, or ridiculous as a matter of
theory” (p. 454).—“What difficulty can there therefore be in
understanding how a man can be a Gipsy whose blood is mixed, even
‘dreadfully mixed,’ as the English Gipsies express it? Gipsies are
Gipsies, let their blood be mixed as much as it may, whether the
introduction of the native blood may have come into the family
through the male or the female line. In the descent of . . . the
Gipsy race, the thing to be transmitted is not merely a question of
family, but a race distinct from any particular family” (p.
451).—“The principle of progression, the passing through one phase of
history into another, while the race maintains its identity, holds
good with the Gipsies as well as with any other people” (p.
414).—“Take a Gipsy from any country in the world you may, and the
feeling of his being a Gipsy comes as naturally to him as does the
nationality of a Jew to a Jew; although we will naturally give him a
more definite name to distinguish him, such as an English, Welsh,
Scotch, or Irish Gipsy, or by whatever country of which the Gipsy
happens to be a native” (p. 447).—“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” (p. 466).—“The admission
of the good man alluded to casts a flood of light upon the history of
the Scottish Gipsy race, shrouded as it is from the eye of the
general population; but the information given by him was apt to fall
flat upon the ear of the ordinary native unless it was accompanied by
some such exposition of the subject as is given in this work. Still,
we can gather from it where Gipsies are to be found, what _a_
Scottish Gipsy is, and what the race is capable of, and what might be
expected of it, if the prejudice of their fellow-creatures was
withdrawn from the race, as distinguished from the various classes
into which it may be divided, or, I should rather say, the personal
conduct of each Gipsy individually” (p. 415).—“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’”
(p. 505).
Apart from the prejudice of caste now existing against the Gipsies, and
the novelty of the light in which the race is now presented, there should
be no difficulty in understanding the subject in all its bearings. Every
other race entering England has had justice done to it; and the same
should not be withheld from people who claim to be “members of the Gipsy
tribe,” although their blood, perhaps in the most of instances, is more
of the ordinary than of the Gipsy race.
* * * * *
EVER since entering Great Britain, about the year 1506, the Gipsies have
been drawing into their body the blood of the ordinary inhabitants and
conforming to their ways; and so prolific has the race been, that there
cannot be less than 250,000 Gipsies of all castes, colours, characters,
occupations, degrees of education, culture, and position in life, in the
British Isles alone, and possibly double that number. There are many of
the same race in the United States of America. Indeed, there have been
Gipsies in America from nearly the first day of its settlement; for many
of the race were banished to the plantations, often for very trifling
offences, and sometimes merely for being by “habit and repute Egyptians.”
But as the Gipsy race leaves the tent, and rises to civilization, it
hides its nationality from the rest of the world, so great is the
prejudice against the name of Gipsy. In Europe and America together,
there cannot be less than 4,000,000 Gipsies in existence. John Bunyan,
the author of the celebrated _Pilgrim’s Progress_, was one of this
singular people, as will be conclusively shown in the present work. The
philosophy of the existence of the Jews, since the dispersion, will also
be discussed and established in it.
When the “wonderful story” of the Gipsies is told, as it ought to be
told, it constitutes a work of interest to many classes of readers, being
a subject unique, distinct from, and unknown to, the rest of the human
family. In the present work, the race has been treated of so fully and
elaborately, in all its aspects, as in a great measure to fill and
satisfy the mind, instead of being, as heretofore, little better than a
myth to the understanding of the most intelligent person.
The history of the Gipsies, when thus comprehensively treated, forms a
study for the most advanced and cultivated mind, as well as for the youth
whose intellectual and literary character is still to be formed; and
furnishes, among other things, a system of science not too abstract in
its nature, and having for its subject-matter the strongest of human
feelings and sympathies. The work also seeks to raise the name of Gipsy
out of the dust, where it now lies; while it has a very important bearing
on the conversion of the Jews, the advancement of Christianity generally,
and the development of historical and moral science.
LONDON, _October_ 10_th_, 1865.