_Essay on the Improvement of the Gipseys_.
IT would be a lamentable case, if the before-mentioned regulations were
merely pious wishes. Let us hope something better! The work has been
commenced;—a great empress, Theresa, laid down a plan to win over these
poor unfortunate people to virtue and the state. But it is to be
regretted, that the execution of her wise dispositions, respecting the
Gipseys in Hungary, seems to have been entrusted to people inadequate to
the task.
What was done, in her time, towards the accomplishment of this work, may
be seen by the following article, extracted from the Newspaper already
often quoted, called _Anzeigen aus den Kayserl_. _Königl_. _Erbländern_
(Intelligence from the Hereditary Imperial Royal Dominions): “Since the
year 1768, several decrees regarding these people have been published in
the country (Hungary), and the strictest orders dispatched to the several
districts in consequence. They were prohibited from dwelling in huts or
tents; from wandering up and down the country; from dealing in horses;
from eating animals which died naturally, and carrion; and from electing
their own wayda or judge. It was intended to extirpate the very name and
language of these folks, out of the country. They were no longer to be
called Gipseys, but New Boors (Uj Magyar); not to converse any longer
with each other in their own language, but in that of any of the
countries in which they had chosen to reside. Some months were to be
allowed, after which time they were to quit their Gipsey manner of life,
and settle, like the other inhabitants, in cities or villages; to build
decent houses, and follow some reputable business. They were to procure
boors’ clothing, to commit themselves to the protection of some
territorial superior, and live regularly. Such as were fit for soldiers,
to be enlisted into regiments.” Nevertheless, although these regulations
were calculated entirely for the good of these people and the state, the
greatest part were not in the smallest degree benefited by them. The
effect which was produced gave occasion, in the year 1773, for these
orders not only to be repeated, but made more rigid; and as even this
measure would not answer the end, it was then thought necessary to
proceed to extremity with them. Wherefore it was ordered, That no Gipsey
should have permission to marry, who could not prove himself in condition
to support a wife and children: that from such Gipseys who had families,
the children should be taken away by force, removed from their parents,
relations, and intercourse with the Gipsey race, to have a better
education given them. A beginning was made in some places; and where
they would not comply voluntarily, they were compelled to submit to the
decree. At Fahlendorf in Schütt, and in the district of Pressburg, all
the children of the New Boors (Gipseys) above five years old, were
carried away in waggons during the night of the 21st of December, 1773,
by overseers appointed for that purpose; in order that, at a distance
from their parents or relations, they might be more usefully educated,
and become accustomed to work. Those boors who were willing to receive
and bring up these children, were paid eighteen guilders yearly from
government. On the 24th of April, 1774, between five and six o’clock in
the morning, the children of the Gipseys, which had been growing up from
December of the foregoing year, were again removed from Fahlendorf in
Schütt and Hideghid, for the purpose of being put under the same course
of discipline as the others. Among the children taken away on this
occasion, was a girl fourteen years old, who was forced to submit to be
carried off in her bridal state. She tore her hair for grief and rage,
and was quite beside herself with agitation: but she recovered a composed
state of mind; and, in 1776, in Fasching, obtained permission to
accomplish her marriage.
So far our intelligence quoted from the Gazettes; by which we may see how
prudently every thing was concerted. It is true, the means here used are
compulsory; but such measures were necessary, and the only ones capable
of insuring success. Moreover, it may at the same time be observed,
although the publisher of this information endeavours to conceal it, how
little these salutary regulations were put in force: there were scarcely
two places in the kingdom, where even an endeavour was made to give them
proper effect. This supineness must have been unknown to the emperor
Joseph, or he would certainly have again enforced them, to all chiefs and
governors, at the same time that he gave orders for their being observed
in Transylvania.
The tenor of the decree just mentioned, which was published in the year
1782, was consonant with the intention of Theresa with regard to the
Hungarian Gipseys, namely, that those also in Transylvania should become
better men, and more useful inhabitants. For the accomplishment of
which, it prohibits their wandering about and living under tents;
requires that they become settled, and put themselves under some
territorial chief. In order to strike immediately at the root of the
evil, necessary and minute directions are given for the improvement of
their religious ideas and opinions, and, by correcting their vicious
habits, for rendering them good citizens. First, with respect to
religion, they must
1. Not only be taught the principles of religion themselves, but send
their children early to school:
2. Prevent, as much as possible, their children from running about
naked, in the house, the roads, and streets, thereby giving offense and
disgust to other people:
3. In their dwellings, not permit their children to sleep
promiscuously by each other, without distinction of sex:
4. Diligently attend at church, particularly on Sundays and holidays,
to give proof of their Christian disposition:
5. Put themselves under the guidance of spiritual teachers, and
conduct themselves conformably to the rules laid down by them.
Secondly, with regard to their temporal conduct and better mode of
living, they are bound
1. To conform to the custom of the country, in diet, dress, and
language: consequently to abstain from feeding on cattle which have
died of distempers; not to go about in such unseemly dresses; and to
discontinue the use of their own particular language:
2. Not to appear any more in large cloaks, which are chiefly useful to
hide things that have been stolen.
3. No Gipsey, except he be a goldwasher, shall keep a horse: also the
goldwashers
4. Must refrain from all kinds of bartering at the annual fairs.
5. The magistrates of every place must be very attentive, that no
Gipsey waste his time in idleness: but at those seasons when they have
no employment, either for themselves or any landholder, recommend them
to some other person, with whom they shall be compelled to work for
hire.
6. They are to be kept, particularly, to agriculture; therefore
7. It is to be observed, where possible, that every territorial lord
who takes any Gipseys under his jurisdiction, do allot them a certain
piece of ground to cultivate:
8. Whoever is remiss in his husbandry, shall be liable to corporal
punishment:
9. They shall only be permitted to amuse themselves with music, or
other things, when there is no field work to be done.
Such were the regulations wisely adopted by the emperor Joseph, for the
purpose of civilising, and rendering good and profitable citizens,
upwards of eighty thousand miserable wretches, ignorant of God and
virtue. It must be regretted that similar measures have not been used in
the other countries of Europe, where these people still remain wandering
in error, and scarcely deserving to be considered as human beings.
SECTION II.
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE GIPSEYS.
CHAPTER I.
_The first Appearance of Gipseys in Europe_.
NO record is to be found, stating in what year, or in what part of
Europe, Gipseys made their first appearance. But it is to be premised,
what will afterwards be investigated, that they did not originate in our
quarter of the globe; on the contrary, that they strayed hither, as
oriental strangers, either from Egypt, Asia Minor, or some other part: we
shall then examine, whether it be not possible, by means of what is
related in old writings concerning the first observance of them in
different countries, to follow the track so as to ascertain where and
when they first set foot on European ground.
Mention is made of them in Germany so early as the year 1417, when they
appeared in the vicinity of the North Sea. A year afterwards we find
them also in Switzerland and the country of the Grisons. In 1422 they
likewise appeared in Italy. It is unknown what was the earliest period
at which they were observed in France and Spain: but their appearance in
these countries must have been of later date than in Germany, as is
proved in respect to France, by the name Bohemians, which they bear
there. In regard to Spain, Cordova, in order to contradict some surmises
about the Gipseys’ mother country, uses the argument, that they were
known in Germany prior to either Spain or Italy. The French make the
first mention of them in 1427, when they straggled about Paris, having
arrived there on the 17th day of August in that year.
From what country did they come into Germany?—Muratori thinks, from
Italy: but how unfounded this opinion is, appears clearly from their
coming to that country after they had been in Germany. The Bologna
Chronicle ascertains the time when Italy became acquainted with these
people. The horde therein mentioned, which arrived in that city on the
18th of July, 1422, consisted of about a hundred men; whose leader’s, or
(as they called him) duke’s, name, was Andreas. They travelled from
Bologna to Forli, intending to proceed to pay the Pope a visit at Rome.
Muratori founds his judgment on this chronicle, not knowing that Gipseys
are spoken of in the German prints five years earlier.
Still less true is what Majolus asserts, that they came from Spain, and
first entered the German territories in the year 1492, when they were
driven out of Spain by Ferdinand the Catholic. Hungary is certainly the
country whence they came into Germany. Not only the time confirms this
conjecture, as we find them in Hungary in 1417, the very same year in
which they were first observed in Germany, but Aventin expressly mentions
Hungary among the countries from which he supposes them to come.
In this state our examination rests, in regard to whether they came
immediately into Germany, or first appeared stationary in some other
place.
That Poland should be the country which harboured the first Gipseys, and
that they spread thence into Wallachia, Transylvania, and other
countries, is a mere arbitrary surmise. The writer (J. G. Eccard) who
advances this opinion, appeals to Münster’s intelligence, but that does
not contain a syllable in confirmation of it. Others, with the greatest
confidence, maintain that Wallachia and Moldavia, where they also
wandered about in 1417, are the places in which they made their first
appearance in Europe. Cantemir, on the contrary, is very undecided,
saying, “Whence, or at what time, this nation arrived in Moldavia,
neither do they know themselves nor is there any mention made in our
annual publications.” However, the second opinion seems to approach very
near the truth, but does not point out the particular province in which
the Gipseys were first observed;—Of what use would that be? But one
information, compared with other circumstances, is of so much assistance
here, that we may, without hesitation, pronounce Turkey to be the country
whence these eastern guests found their way to us. This is
probable—First, because Aventin expressly makes Turkey their original
place of rendezvous: secondly, as this explains why the south-east parts
of Europe are most crowded with Gipseys, as before stated (vide p. 7).
It happened in Turkey, as in every other place through which they passed,
that many of these wanderers remained behind; now, as all that came to
Europe passed by this route, whether at once or in different divisions,
it was possible, indeed a necessary consequence, that a greater number
should continue here, than in the different countries where their hordes
were much divided and diminished.
The time when they arrived, has been as little certified, as the
particular place where they landed. Perhaps, the before-quoted chronicle
of Bologna may afford some insight into this matter. It relates, as
appears by the context, from the mouth of the leader of the horde which
it describes, that these people had been five years wandering about in
the world, previously to their arrival at Bologna. Now, if this account
is to be depended on, they cannot have arrived in Europe earlier than the
year 1417. But before attaching credit to this relation, we are to
consider, whether the author of it be deserving of credit. To place any
confidence in Gipsey narrations, in general, would be very imprudent; as
there are too many proofs that their sayings are mere nonsense, and
contradictory prattle: but the case in question seems to be an exception.
All the inconsistency and falshoods which the Gipseys reported,
concerning whence they came, with the reasons for their wandering, have
an end in view. But with regard to time, if they knew, they are more to
be trusted, as no injury could be expected to result from the knowledge
of a mere date. Now, the inference to be drawn is, that the leader of a
horde might not only know how long he had retired from Egypt, or Asia
Minor, and travelled about in Europe, as the time had been short; but it
may also be supposed, that he said what he knew. In the mean time, we
will compare this cited term, of five years, with other circumstances,
and see whether they make for or against our argument. The first enquiry
would be, Whether there are any earlier authentic accounts of their
appearance in Europe, than 1417? But we do not find such any-where.
{113} The second question to be decided is, Whether, if they were not
seen towards the Black Sea before 1417, they could in one year’s time
have reached the North Sea? This doubt requires little consideration. A
year was quite sufficient for people like the Gipseys, who never tarried
long in a place, to have migrated even far beyond where they were found.
Again, if they were not in Moldavia and Wallachia earlier than the year
1417, and yet appeared during the same year in the neighbourhood of the
North Sea, what great difference would it make if they came from a
province next beyond Moldavia or Wallachia, travelling a few miles
further to arrive at the same place? It is therefore very credible that
1417 was the period of their arrival.
Although, immediately after their coming into Germany, they spread so
rapidly, that in 1418 their names were recorded in the annual
publications of almost every part of the country, yet particular places
seem to have been favoured by them. Thus, in Bavaria they were not
noticed till 1433; and they must have very quickly withdrawn themselves
from these parts, as six years afterwards it was remarked, as somewhat
new and extraordinary, that in this year (1439) the Gipseys, a pack of
scoundrels, a vagrant gang, were come into that country, with their king,
whose name was Zundl.
They did not travel together, but in different hordes, each having its
leader, sometimes called count: at other times their leaders were
dignified with the titles of dukes or kings of Lesser Egypt. One horde
which arrived at Augsburgh in 1419, although it consisted of only seventy
men, had even two of these dukes, beside some counts, with them. But
what sort of creatures these great men among the Gipseys were, has been
explained in another place. (Vide p. 72, _& seq._)
If Stumpf be right, the number of these people must have been very
considerable. Those alone who came into Switzerland in 1718, women and
children included, were estimated at 14000. But here he, or his
authority, seems to have greatly miscounted. It is true, that he
likewise remarks, they did not keep all together, but went about in
separate parties; notwithstanding this, his account is much to be
doubted. By what is to be found concerning particular hordes, there were
none which exceeded one or at most two hundred. That which went to
Augsburgh in 1419 consisted of but seventy men: therefore if they had
been so numerous as Stumpf asserts, there must have been at least a
hundred such hordes dispersed through Switzerland. It was at this time
(1418) that Gipseys were first seen at Zurich; they were a swarm, whose
leader’s name was Michael. Four years had elapsed before they were known
at Basil—part of the very horde of this Michael. Would not some other
tribe have got to Basil before these, if they had been so numerous?
Thomasius adopts this number of 14000 without suspicion, and understands
it to comprehend the whole multitude all over Germany; but then he does
not appear to have quoted Stumpf’s testimony in the sense it was meant.
Many hordes of them must certainly have arrived, as they spread
every-where so prodigiously; but to persist in any nearer investigation
of their numbers, would be only useless trouble.
Their possessions were, as at present, small, and their whole arrangement
singular; besides which, according to the Eastern custom, they hung
ragged clothes about them, instead of other garments. Their leaders only
were exceptions. Several had horses, asses, or mules, with them, on
which they loaded their tents, and effects, with the whole family into
the bargain. They had also dogs in their train, with which Kranz asserts
they used illegally to destroy game: but probably the dogs were kept not
so much for that purpose, as to take fowls and geese.
CHAPTER II.
_On the Sanctity_, _Passports_, _and Difference_, _of the former from the
latter Gipseys_.
AT the first arrival of the Gipseys in Europe, it was generally believed
that they were Egyptians and pilgrims, constrained to wander on account
of religion. This mistake originated from their own relation; but when
required to give a more circumstantial detail of the reasons for their
pilgrimage, they varied very much from each other. Some of them declared
that they were compelled to make this emigration as an atonement for
their forefathers having, for some time, apostatised from the Christian
faith: others asserted that the king of Hungary had seized their country,
and imposed on them this penance of wandering. A third party represented
that God had signified to them the necessity of this pilgrimage, by an
universal sterility in their country. They supposed this punishment to
have been inflicted on account of sin committed by their ancestors, in
refusing to receive the infant Jesus, when carried by his Mother and
Joseph to Egypt, as an asylum from the persecution of Herod. The term of
their pilgrimage was to be seven years.
No evidence is necessary to determine that these were mere fables; and it
is astonishing that men should be found to adduce long-winded proofs of
the origin of these people, grounded on no better authority than such
idle tales. We have not now any positive grounds remaining, to shew how
these legends were invented, or what gave rise to them; but the real
truth seems to be merely, that upon being asked whence they came, they
answered from Egypt; and there is no reason existing to deny their having
come from that country. Now priests, monks, or perhaps other people,
might wonder why they should quit a place to which the holy family had
fled for refuge, unless their forefathers had been guilty of some
transgression on that occasion; but, be this as it may, all that could be
said, with regard to the origin of their legends, would be only mere
conjecture. Let it therefore suffice to say, they chose to be considered
everywhere as pilgrims; and this profession met with the more ready
belief, as it coincided with the infatuation of the times.
The credulity with which people cherished the idea that the Gipseys were
real pilgrims and holy persons was attended with the consequence, that
they were not only tolerated, but, if the information on this head may be
relied on, they everywhere received assistance, with express
safe-conducts. These safe-conducts are mentioned in several old
writings. Münster declares, not merely, in general terms, that they
carried about with them passports and seals from the Emperor Sigismund
and other princes, by means of which they had free passage through
different countries and cities, but that he had himself seen an attested
copy of such a letter, in the possession of some Gipseys at Eberbach.
Besides Kranz, Stumpf, and Guler, Laurentius Palmirenus also agrees in
this statement; but the latter writer is guilty of a mistake, in
confounding the Emperor Sigismund with Sigismund king of Poland. The
Gipseys at Bologna, likewise, shewed an instrument from Sigismund; but he
appears to have granted this to them, not as emperor, and in Germany, but
in Hungary, and as king of Hungary. A pass of another king of Hungary,
Uladislaus II. which the Gipseys obtained chiefly on account of their
supposed sanctity and pilgrimage, might be quoted. They were not
destitute in Transylvania, if it be true, as asserted, that they received
this sort of letters of protection from the princes of the house of
Bathory. Wehner says, that the Gipseys in France likewise quoted ancient
privileges, granted to them by the former kings of that country.
Crusius, Wurstisen, and Guler, mention papal permissions, which these
people acquired, for wandering, unmolested, through all Christian
countries, so long as the time of their pilgrimage lasted.
This is the information we find, dispersed here and there, concerning the
privileges and passes of the Gipseys. To how much, or how little, are we
to give credit? Thomasius believes every thing as it stands. Ahasuerus
Fritsch, on the contrary, declares all to be lies, and the Gipseys’ own
invention. Appearances are certainly equivocal, as none of these
instruments are even verbally handed down to us, so that they can be
properly proved; except that of Uladislaus II. which does not belong to
this question. Moreover, it has been frequently experienced, that the
Gipseys, using the pretence of such safe-conducts, have committed all
manner of excesses, and when desired to produce them, had either nothing
to shew, or such kind of papers as did not at all resemble what are
usually given from a public office. It cannot be denied that they have
practised deceit, but it is impossible to assert, with certainty, that
the whole was fallacy. If the contents of that passport to be found in
Muratori is conceived in such terms as to allow the horde which possessed
it to wander about seven years, to rob and steal every-where, without any
person being permitted to bring them to justice, such a letter seems to
carry falshood on the very face of it, as no sensible prince could ever
grant such a one. But what shall we say, if it be found that these words
do not so much convey the sense of the instrument, as a crafty
explanation of the author, on recollecting the many irregularities
practised by the Gipseys, who availed themselves of this freedom to
travel about every-where unmolested. Further, with respect to the
passport which Münster perused at Eberbach, although every person must
look upon the reasons given by the Gipseys for their emigration as
fictions, yet we cannot entirely reject it. How could it benefit them,
being old and having lost its validity many years ago? Why did not the
horde to which it belonged carry with them some writing that might afford
them present protection? If they had been guilty of any knavery about
this letter, why was it just of that kind as could only serve,
incontrovertibly, to prove they were cheats? These documents would
certainly not have been found among them, had they not been transmitted,
from their parents and ancestors, as things of value. Supposing this
matter to have been invented by themselves, it is difficult to conceive
why they should confine their privileges to seven years, and not rather
leave them unlimited. But there are other proofs of the authenticity of
such letters. First, they were looked upon as pilgrims; and it was quite
conformable to the custom of those superstitious times to grant to
pilgrims, as holy people, all sorts of passes, and safe-conducts.
Secondly, we must believe that this did happen with the Gipseys, when we
read with what chagrin Aventin mentions their thefts and excesses,
concluding thus: “Robbing and stealing are prohibited to others, under
pain of hanging or beheading, but these people have licence for them.”
When, thirdly, in the decree of the diet at Augsburgh anno 1500, all
ranks of people in the empire are strictly enjoined, in future, not to
permit the people called Gipseys to travel through their countries and
districts, nor to grant them any further ‘protection and convoy,’ it
certainly implies that people had formerly granted them such protection
and convoy. Whoever has still any doubts remaining, may read, fourthly,
in a decree of the empire of fifty years later date, a regular complaint
preferred on account of the passports granted by various princes to the
Gipseys, and which are, by that diet, declared to be null and void. All
these circumstances together will not, it may be presumed, allow the
shadow of a doubt to remain, that such letters of convoy have been really
granted to the Gipseys. {132}
The Gipseys’ golden age lasted a considerable time; but when about half a
century had elapsed, and people began to look at them with a watchful
eye, the old prejudices gave way. They endeavoured to prolong the term,
by asserting, that their return home was prevented by soldiers stationed
to intercept them, and by wishing to have it believed that new parties of
pilgrims were to leave their country every year, otherwise their land
would be rendered totally barren. All this was of no avail; people saw
too clearly, that, instead of holy pilgrims, they were the mere refuse of
humanity: upon which followed the sentences of banishment, we have before
mentioned.
Before we proceed to other matters, it will be proper to say a few words
respecting an assertion in some writings, that the latter Gipseys differ
very widely from those who went about during the first seven years, both
with respect to their conduct and descent. Stumpf, for instance, and
others after him, relate, that these first Gipseys were very orderly and
decent, did no harm to any one, but paid ready money for what they
consumed; for which purpose they received fresh remittances constantly:
and at the expiration of seven years they returned home. Afterwards an
idle desperate crew united, who, when the Gipseys were withdrawn, took
their place; and, by blackening their faces, at the same time using the
like outlandish garments, endeavoured to persuade the world that they
were the identical Egyptians.
This is all related with so much appearance of veracity, that, at the
first view, no doubt would seem to remain of its truth; wherefore
Thomasius readily adopted the whole, and founded his system about the
Gipseys upon it: but upon closer examination, we shall find that the
statement is totally void of foundation.
This proceeding, we acknowledge, is recorded in four different annual
publications; but all the four amount to only a single testimony, which
rests entirely upon Stumpf, from whom the other three have drawn their
assertions. Let it remain, as Thomasius will have it, an old manuscript
account or chronicle; it is still evident that the favourable description
of the ancient Gipseys originates from the same prejudice as first
produced their passports. And even these passports may have contributed
to recommend the first Gipseys. They have had so much effect on
Thomasius, that all the good he has given the above-mentioned primitive
Gipseys credit for, has been principally owing to them.
When Stumpf, or rather his authority, mentions, with other circumstances,
that the earlier Gipseys received remittances from time to time out of
their own country, it was a necessary addition, to support the editor’s
opinion: as the reader, who was to believe that these people did not
steal, but paid money for every thing they wanted, would have been
sceptical had he not been informed beforehand where the money came from,
in order to provide for their necessities, in an honest way, during the
term of seven years.
With regard to the latter Gipseys, they were certainly lineal descendants
from the former: who were undoubtedly, equally with these, thieves,
cheats, and vagrants. The uprightness and honesty falsely allowed to the
Gipseys, in the manuscript chronicle which Stumpf copied, might, even
before Stumpf’s time, have induced the continuator of this chronicle to
believe, on finding his cotemporary Gipseys lived very differently from
what had been represented of their predecessors, that the former were not
the true Egyptians: he accordingly wrote down his surmise, not by way of
conjecture, but as positive truth, and Stumpf, in his Annual Register,
afterwards quoted it as such. Whoever does not allow this, but considers
the latter Gipseys in the light that Stumpf represents them, must be
ready to answer, when called upon to solve, the following doubt:—How was
it possible that a collection of rascals assembled in Europe, supposing
that with respect to complexion and clothing they should be able to
transform themselves into real Gipseys, could at once acquire foreign
countenances, speak a foreign language, and, both in constitution and
turn of mind, become perfectly oriental; and at the same time contract a
taste and desire for carrion, which remain with them to this day? It
cannot be denied but that some depraved people have associated themselves
with the Gipseys: but particular instances are not proofs of general
maxims.
CHAPTER III.
_Presumed Origin of the Gipseys_.
IT would be equally useless, prolix, and revolting, to reconsider the
multitude of conjectures which the questions—“What race of people are the
Gipseys?” and—“Where are we to look for their true mother country?” have
occasioned. The greatest part of them are of such a nature, that they
need only be heard to be totally rejected. We shall nevertheless produce
some examples, as an excuse for passing over the rest in silence.
Various conjectures have been formed, and coincidences have been searched
for, to obtain a solution of these queries. Some persons adverted to
this or that name only of the Gipseys, without attending to other
circumstances. Because they were likewise called Gipseys (_Cingani_),
they must immediately derive their origin from the Grecian heretics,
called Athingans: then again they must have wandered from the African
province formerly called Zeugitana. {137} Another time they are supposed
to be the fugitives driven from the city Singara, in Mesopotamia, by
Julian the Apostate: others again transplanted them to Mount Caucasus,
and made them Zochori; or to the Palus Mæotis, making them descendants
from the Ziches. {138} Some people imagined that instead of Zigeuner,
they should be called Zigarener, which they thought a corruption of
Saracener, and they must certainly be Saracens. Another writer (to
return to Africa) conducts them from the Mauritanian province Tingitane,
and supposes them to be the Canaanites, who, being driven out by Joshua,
settled here. Still another brings them from Mauritania, and, to
corroborate his opinion by the name, calls them descendants of Chus; as
he thinks nothing can have a greater affinity in sound, than Zigeuner and
Chusener. Herbelot judges the coast of Zengebar to be their mother
country. Bellonius, on the contrary, looks for them in Bulgaria and
Wallachia, where their ancestors are said to have lived, under the name
Sigynner. Cordova stumbled on Zigere, formerly a city of Thrace, which
he assigns as their native soil. Some people fancied they had heard that
the Gipseys called themselves More, and often used the name _amori_ among
one another (not _amori_, but _Discha more_—Get out, fellow!) and now
they are Amorites!
Another party, besides this or that appellation for the Gipseys,
considered their unsettled way of life, or selected some particular
circumstance from their manners, by which they decided concerning their
origin. Wherefore they were sometimes torlaques, faquirs, or kalendars;
{139} sometimes the remains of Attila’s Huns, at other times the Avari,
who were vanquished by Charles the Great: then again Petschenegers, who
played their last stake in the twelfth century; or perhaps a mixture of
all kinds of rascally people gathered together, having collectively no
certain country, as their name _Zigeuner_ indicates, signifying, ‘to
wander up and down;’—for which reason, it is said, our German ancestors
denominated every strolling vagrant Zichegan. By several writers they
have been thought inhabitants of the Alps and Pyrenées; others suppose
them to be Cain’s descendants, who, on account of the curse denounced
against their stock, have been compelled to lead a wandering vagrant
life. Because they pretend to tell fortunes, some have supposed them to
be Chaldeans, or some Syrian religious sect. Brodæus formed his judgment
from their clothes, in which he thought he discovered a resemblance to
the Roman toga; and thence he imagined they were natives of Wallachia,
descendants from the colony sent by Trajan into Dacia to keep this
newly-conquered country steady in its allegiance. And, according to his
assertion, people in Germany do really call them _Wahlen_ (he writes
_Walachen_), that is to say, _Italians_.
All these opinions are merely conjecture; it would therefore be useless
to proceed with the list of them: but it may be proper to cite a few
which seem to have a greater appearance of probability. Let us begin
with Wagenseil. He considers the Gipseys to be German Jews; who about
the middle of the fourteenth century, to escape the dreadful persecution
which raged against them all over Europe, especially in Germany, secreted
themselves in forests, {141} deserts, and subterraneous caverns. In
these hiding-places they remained above half a century, not making their
appearance again till the period of the Hussites: as the Hussish heresy
then engrossed the public attention, with regard to the Jews all was
safe. But not daring to declare themselves, they fell on the device of
saying, that their respect for the Mosaic law would not permit them to
become Christians, at the same time styling themselves, in general terms,
Egyptian pilgrims. Those who did not yet know what they were, nor whence
they came, from their wandering about (_einherzichen_) called them
Gipseys (_Zigeuner_). To establish this supposition respecting the
origin of the Gipseys, he refers to their language, which he says is a
mixture of German and Hebrew, quoting, in proof of his assertion, near
fifty words, which are evidently Hebrew. He then asks, Whence should the
Gipseys have gotten so many Hebrew words into their language, if they
were not Jews; at a time too when Hebrew was unknown to all other
nations?—This opinion bears infinitely more the appearance of truth, than
any one of those before cited. It must also have been deemed
incontrovertible by the learned author, as he mentions it, in the
introduction to his treatise, with great confidence, and as much
self-congratulation as if he had discovered the philosopher’s-stone.
Notwithstanding all this, the confutation is so short and easy, that very
few words are sufficient to overturn the whole system; which rests
entirely on the language:—the words quoted are taken from a gibberish
vocabulary; but gibberish is not the Gipsey language. . . . What relates
to the Jewish persecution is very just; but all the rest are mere, and
frequently inconsistent, conjectures, founded on it by the learned
writer.
A later opinion is, that the Gipseys are a horde of Tartars, which
separated from the multitude under Timur, when he invaded western Asia,
about the year 1401. The supposed proofs are:—First, because the Mongols
(Mongols and Tartars are here reckoned one and the same people) are just
as nomadic as the Gipseys. Secondly, because these have sometimes
declared themselves to be Tartars. Thirdly, because the Gipsey king
mentioned by Aventin, whose name was Zundel or Zindelo, a Mongol chan,
was a descendant from the great Zingis: as Zindelo is a very easy change
from Zingis. Fourthly, because among the several states into which the
Mongol empire was divided after the death of Zingis, one was called
Dsongar, and the members of it Dsongari, which agrees perfectly with
Zingari. Fifthly, because the Tartar and Gipsey languages have a great
affinity to each other; for during a late war between Russia and the
Porte, a commander of Crim Tartars, by name Devlet Gueray, signalised
himself very much; and this Devlet is perhaps derived from Devla, the
Gipsey appellation for the Deity, and may be a name under which the
Tartars reverence any thing respectable. Sixthly, and lastly, because
the time of Timur’s expedition agrees very well with the first appearance
of the Gipseys.—This is an opinion founded on six points; and one might
add, in further conformation of it, that this hypothesis will reasonably
determine how the Gipseys, such poor wretches in general, came to be so
well stored with gold and silver at their first arrival in Europe, as
Stumpf and others assert. If they were part of Timur’s followers, it was
very likely to be plunder taken from the people they had conquered.
Of all these grounds, that adduced from the favourable concurrence of
chronological events has the most weight, but proves neither more nor
less than the bare possibility of the thing. With respect to the first
point, it is not so clearly established. The Tartars are herdsmen, and
the quality of the pasture for their cattle implies a fixed residence.
Gipseys, on the contrary, are ignorant as to tending cattle, nor have
they the smallest idea about breeding them. Further, whether they are
Tartars, because they represent themselves as such, or have been declared
such by other people; whether Zindelo is a Mongol chan, because his name
is easily derived from Zingis; whether the language of the Tartars bears
a near affinity to that of the Gipseys, because a native of Tartary was
found whose name, Devlet, is perhaps derived from the Gipsey word Devla,
and as that word among the Gipseys signifies God, it may possibly among
the Tartars signify something like it;—all this must be left to the
reader’s discretion. If such assertions are admitted for proofs, then
the Gipseys must be Bohemians, because they are called so in France.
Thus Chiflet must have been of Gipsey or Tartar descent, because his name
may possibly be derived from Devla or Devlet. The Franks, too, are
probably derived from the Trojans, because Pharamond, their king’s name,
may be formed from Priamus. Dsongari and Zingari compared with each
other do coincide, except that the latter is only the Latin termination
given by the learned. But, besides all this, if the Gipseys must be
Tartars at all events, where are the Tartars’ broad faces?—Where is their
courage?—Where are the zealous religious principles with which the
Tartars honour the Deity, and, upon occasion, fight for him? Finally,
with regard to language, this contradicts rather than supports the
opinion we are discussing. The language of the Tartars is Turkish; that
of the Gipseys is quite different, as will be hereafter proved.
As these and the like arguments rather controvert the Tartar origin of
the Gipseys, so can we as little agree with Mr. Pray, in supposing them
to be [Tartars] of Asia Minor, from the Countries of the ancient Zichen,
whose name the Gipseys are said to bear; nor with an older writer,
Ekhard, who contends that they are Circassians, terrified from their
habitations by Timur’s Mongols. Mr. Pray brings nothing further in
support of his surmise, than the similarity of sound in the names
Zigianer (Zichen or properly Zygier) and Zigeuner; together with the
circumstance, that the latter appeared among us soon after Timur’s
expedition into Asia Minor. Ekhard, on the contrary, who in like manner
unites the names Zigeuner and Circassier—by endeavouring to prove that
these, as possessors of the countries belonging to the Zichen, were by
authors indifferently styled Circassier, Zygier, and Zichen—adds
moreover, that the Circassian complexion was a brown yellow, exactly like
that of the Gipseys; that they both suffer their hair to hang loose over
the shoulders; that in their diet and clothes they are both equally
dirty; and lastly, that among the Circassians, you meet with astrology,
and all kinds of witchcraft, precisely the same as among the Gipseys.
But this comparison, were it even better founded than it is, would only
prove that you may make what you please of the Gipseys. Upon the same
ground, they might just as well be supposed to be allied to the people of
Otaheite, or any other uncivilised nation in any quarter of the globe.
And yet the author draws this conclusion from it, that one egg is not
more like another than the Circassian and the Gipsey; and he may
confidently assert, that all who before his time have been of a different
opinion, were mistaken.
We ought long ago to have spoken of the reputed Egyptian descent of the
Gipseys; but as that has been a very current, and almost universally
received, opinion, it merits a chapter by itself.
CHAPTER IV.
_On the Egyptian Descent of the Gipseys_.
THE belief that Gipseys are of Egyptian origin, is parallel with the
existence of these people in Europe. It arose from the report circulated
by the first of them who arrived here that they were pilgrims from Egypt;
and this statement has not only been universally adopted by the common
people, but has also, here and there, obtained credit among men of
learning. Had this opinion not been received at a time when every thing
was taken upon trust without examination; had it not been propagated
every-where by the first Gipseys, and obtained the sanction of time in
following ages; it would have been impossible for it to have gained such
general acceptation, or to have maintained itself even to the latest
times.
Till the seventeenth century, the Egyptian descent of the Gipseys rested
entirely on tradition. Thomasius was the first who endeavoured to
establish this matter on satisfactory evidence. Those who, since him,
have supported the same opinion, are principally the Englishman Salmon;
and, lately, Signor Griselini. Before their vouchers are produced, it
will be proper to mention that Thomasius speaks only of the Gipseys who
travelled about Europe during the first seven years after their arrival;
for he thinks that, after seven years were elapsed, these, excepting a
very few, returned home again, and after their retreat the present set
was produced, as has been already described. In this particular, he
differs entirely from the other two writers, making the latter Gipseys a
distinct race of people from those who first arrived. On the contrary,
Salmon, as well as Griselini, consider the Gipseys that are now wandering
in Europe, and with truth, as lineal descendants of the former,
consequently bring them all from Egypt.
Thomasius says: “The first Gipseys never would allow themselves to be any
people but Egyptians; asserting always, that the Lesser Egypt was their
mother country: and they deserve credit, as they were an honourable
worthy set of people.” One observation will be sufficient in
reply:—Among the oldest writers who, prior to Stumpf, mention the
Gipseys, not one seems to be acquainted with their worth. But Thomasius
himself discovered the weakness of his first argument, and therefore
hastens to another. “Be this as it may,” he proceeds, “they were in the
earliest times, when doubtless something more certain was extant, always
looked upon as Egyptians: so that it does not become us, who live two
hundred years later, positively to reject what was at that time generally
assented to.” Our author was not aware that this kind of reasoning
proves too much; for by the same mode of arguing, every antiquated error,
every ridiculous superstition, may be defended. If this be admitted,
Satan gets his cloven foot again, of which modern unbelief had bereft
him. Thus, Christian Thomasius acted unjustifiably when he laid violent
hands on witches and sorcerers, and put an end to their existence, though
credited from the highest antiquity. Thomasius imagines there were other
proofs, beside the Gipseys’ own assertions, that they were Egyptians;
this supposition, however, not only has nothing to support it, but is
openly contradicted by Aventin, Kranz, and Münster. It is not
authenticated because the chronicles universally mention it as a saying
of the Gipseys, whenever they speak of their coming from Egypt. It is
confuted by Aventin, who rejects their Egyptian descent; at the same time
he alledges, that they wished to be thought from that country. In his
time, nothing was known concerning them, but what came from their own
mouths: and those who thought them Egyptians, rested their belief
entirely on the veracity of their informants. This is collected with
greater certainty from Kranz and Münster; for these declare expressly,
that every thing which could be discovered, by any other means than their
own assertions, contradicted rather than confirmed their Egyptian
descent. Yet Thomasius has more proofs; he cites the resemblance between
the Gipseys and the inhabitants of the Lesser Egypt, whence they say they
came. But many people lay this difficulty in his way, that the name of
Lesser Egypt is not to be found in any system of geography, but is a mere
invention of the Gipseys. He rests his opinion on that of Vulcanius, who
looks upon Nubia to be the Lesser Egypt, and thinks, for what reason does
not appear, that the Nubians themselves called their country by that
name. These are the similarities:—Nubians, as well as Gipseys, confess
themselves Christians; both lead a wandering life, and both are of a dark
brown complexion: to which some resemblances in shape between the Gipseys
and Egyptians are introduced in general terms. Whether there be any
affinity in their languages he leaves undetermined, because, he says, he
knows nothing about it. That the name of Zigeuner is the same as
Egyptian, and the former is derived from the latter, he proves in the
following ingenious manner: “The Spaniards—who, instead of Egyptaner,
call them Gitanos—have cut off the first syllable. Our forefathers, who
exceeded the Spaniards in the art of mangling names, have rejected two
syllables, and, instead of Egyptianer, first called them Cianer,
afterwards, in order to fill up the chasm between _i_ and _a_, Ciganer.
Further, as we, instead of Italianer, say Italiener, we have also changed
Ciganer into Cigener; and at last, as people in Upper Germany are very
fond of diphthongs, Cigeuner, or Zigeuner, has been produced.” Now, if
any thing can be proved by all this, in the same manner the several
opinions quoted in the former chapter are likewise established. And yet,
after all, who will say, that, instead of Egyptier, Egyptianer, whence
Cianer, Ciganer, and thus progressively through all the changes, Zigeuner
may be produced? With regard to the denomination of Lesser Egypt, ranked
under the list of Gipsey fables, and brought as evidence to overset
Thomasius’s system, because Egypt never was divided into Greater and
Smaller, it is nevertheless a true geographical name, though certainly
not to be found in the treatises on geography: it however appears in the
title of a Turkish emperor. A declaration of war, made by Achmet IV.
against John Casimir, king of Poland, in 1652, begins with the following
words: “I sultan, a king and son of the Turkish emperor, a soldier of the
God of the Greeks and Babylonians—_king of the Greater and Lesser
Egypt_.” The Gipseys have therefore, in this instance, been falsely
accused of a fiction: but whether by this Lesser Egypt, Lower Egypt be
understood, cannot be determined.
Salmon believes the Gipseys to be Mamelukes, who were obliged to quit
Egypt in 1517, when the Turkish emperor conquered this country, and
thereby put an end to the Circassian government. They are reputed to
have acquired the name of Zigeuner, or in the Turkish language Zinganies,
from a Captain Zinganeus, who was very active in opposing the Turks. How
all this is proved, will best appear from his own words: “They had no
occasion for any testimony to shew they were of Egyptian descent. The
blackness of their skin clearly indicated from what part they came. What
confirms me, in my belief of this intelligence, concerning the origin of
the Gipseys, is an act of Parliament, passed in the twenty-seventh year
of the reign of Henry VIII.—that is, fourteen years after the victory
obtained by Selim emperor of the Turks over Egypt—in which are the
following words: _Whereas certain outlandish people_, _who do not profess
any craft or trade_, _whereby to maintain themselves_; _but go about_,
_in great numbers_, _from place to place_, _using insidious underhand
means to impose on his Majesty’s subjects_, _making them believe that
they understand the art of foretelling to men and women their good or ill
fortune_, _by looking in their hands_, _whereby they frequently defraud
people of their money_; _likewise are guilty of thefts and highway
robberies_: _it is hereby ordered_, _that __the said vagrants_, _commonly
called Egyptians_, _in case they remain one month in the kingdom_, _shall
be proceeded against as thieves and rascals_, _and on the importation of
any such Egyptian_, _he_ (_the importer_) _shall forfeit_ 40_l._ . . .
_for every trespass_.” He then quotes another act, passed during the
reign of Queen Elizabeth, wherein the Gipseys are also called Egyptians.
From the blackness of their skins, therefore, with the official use of
the name Egyptian, Salmon first draws the inference that they were really
Egyptians: then, because the first decree published against the Gipseys
in England was fourteen years after Selim’s conquest of Egypt, that they
were Mamelukes. There is not any connection to be discovered in either
conclusion. The Parliament used in the act the word Egyptian, because it
was universally current in England. Whether the Gipseys were Egyptians
or not, was a question of learning, totally irrelevant with the intention
of the order; nor could it be determined by any juridical decree.
There is still less reason for supposing them Mamelukes who had travelled
from Egypt on its being taken by Selim in 1517, and tracing their name
from one of their leaders: as both they and their name were known in
Europe at least a hundred years preceding the fall of Gäwry; or before
Tumanbai, the latest hope of the Mamelukes, was hanged. {154}
Griselini advances numerous reasons in support of his opinion, and would
certainly go a great way towards determining the Egyptian origin of the
Gipseys, if, as in most investigations, more did not depend upon the
quality than the number of the proofs. Yet he does not suppose them to
be genuine Egyptians; and for this reason, because the greatest number of
those resemblances which he has sought between Egyptians and Gipseys,
intended to prove the latter descended from the former, are not
applicable to the question. Besides, he finds himself under the
necessity of looking for foreign helps; and what he cannot make coincide
with the Egyptians, he meets with among the Ethiopians and Troglodytes:
these he introduces promiscuously, kneads the whole together, and
determines the Gipseys to be a mixture of Ethiopians, Egyptians, and
Troglodytes. This very circumstance, even before his reasons are
considered, renders the matter very suspicious. By the same means, it
would not be very difficult to shew that the Italians are, in part, on
account of their nastiness, Ostiacks; in part, because of their
superstition, and admiration of magnificent edifices, Egyptians; and
lastly, in part, for their dastardly treacherous revenge, Chinese.
Griselini begins his comparisons with the disposition of the Gipseys. He
says,—
“They are inclined to melancholy, and are desperate in the first
emotions of their anger:—Ammianus Marcellinus describes the
Egyptians, of his time, in nearly the same terms.
“With regard to religion,” he proceeds, “the Gipseys of the Banat
always conform to that which prevails in the village, be it the
Roman-catholic or the Illyrian Greek. They have not the least
comprehension of either; in which ignorance they perfectly resemble
the Wallachians—except that they observe the strict fasts of the
Greek church with more exactness. The Wallachians separate from
their wives only during the last days of the great fasts: the
Gipseys, on the contrary, avoid their society from the beginning to
the end; also on the Ascension of the Blessed Virgin, in Advent, and
especially all vigils.—Apuleius, and other writers of antiquity, take
particular notice of the Egyptian fasts, whose strictness consisted
chiefly in this, that the man held himself obliged to refrain from
his consort’s bed.
“But, beside these solemn fasts, the Gipseys of the Banat observe a
degree of temperance, and a choice in their diet, even on those days
when all kinds of food are permitted. They abstain from frogs and
tortoises; wherein they accord with the Wallachians, Räizes, and
other Christians of the Greek church. Moreover, they refrain from
some kinds of river fish, viz. the red-scaled bream, perch, and
lampreys; of which it is known that, among the Egyptians, the race of
Likopolis and Tagaroriopolis refused to taste. The Gipseys are
adverse to all feathered game, and particularly to birds of prey.
The stork, when he deigns to build on their wretched huts, is highly
esteemed by them:—one of these birds, like its relation ibis, was an
object of worship, with other symbolical Egyptian deities.
“Of four-footed animals, the Gipseys are most fond of swine’s flesh,
particularly salted.—The Egyptians likewise consumed a great number
of these creatures, though they looked upon their herds and keepers
to be unclean.
“The Gipseys hang up large onions in their dwellings, but do not eat
them.—Besides that the Egyptians honoured them, as well as many other
vegetables, we are informed by Diodorus Siculus, that by the
regulations relating to diet, observed in the different Egyptian
provinces, onions were prohibited in some, but allowed in others.
“Like the old Egyptians, the Gipseys cannot bear the smell of beans;
although their neighbours, the Wallachians, eat them with pleasure.
“When I was at Denta, in the district of Csakowa, curiosity led me
into a Gipsey hut. The first object which arrested my attention was
a young man covered with the itch, whose mother was feeding him with
the boiled flesh of a small snake, on a dirty earthen plate.—In the
same manner the Egyptians used the flesh of snakes, as the mildest
and most effectual remedy for the elephantiasis.
“It is well known that, even to this day, fowls and others of the
feathered tribe are hatched by art in Egypt.—I must confess I was not
a little surprised when, in July, 1775, I went into a Gipsey hut
before Karansebes, to find an old woman engaged in hatching geese and
ducks eggs, in horse-dung. This was exactly the method of the old
Egyptians.
“From all which has hitherto been produced, as well as that the
Gipseys of the Banat, and others dispersed over the rest of Europe,
declare themselves to be from Egypt, it is highly probable that they
are of Egyptian origin. But see a nearer resemblance. So long ago
as in Ælian’s time, the Egyptians were famous for their patience in
enduring all kinds of torture; and would rather expire on the rack,
than be brought to confession; which is a striking trait in the
character of the Gipseys. When this equivocal means of learning the
truth, the torture, was practised in the imperial royal hereditary
dominions, several instances may be remembered of the Gipseys
suffering themselves to be torn to pieces sooner than acknowledge
crimes, even when the magistrates had the most indisputable proofs of
them.”
Thus far has been to prove the Egyptian descent of the Gipseys. What
follows is against it; and, from the similarity of their condition, is to
convince us that they are of Æthiopian and Troglodytish origin.
“According to the most authentic writers, the Egyptians were
solicitous to build themselves convenient habitations. They lived
decently; and their attention to cleanliness, in the observance of
certain rules of health, was so general, that even the peasants, and
the lowest classes of people in the nation, were no exception to
it.—The residences of the Gipseys in the Banat present a very
different picture. . . . Miserable dwellings, consisting, partly of
thorns and straw packed together, and partly of holes, ten or twelve
feet deep, dug in the earth. Taken in this point of view, the
Gipseys have more the appearance of being related to the hordes of
Æthiopians and Troglodytes.
“Among the ancient Egyptians, agriculture was in high esteem; as it
still is among the present Copts, their true descendants.—The
Gipseys, on the contrary, are the worst, and most careless farmers:
another argument for their being Ethiopians and Troglodytes.
“These and other African hordes, employ themselves in collecting gold
out of the river sand;—in like manner, the Marosch, Nera, and other
streams, have induced the Gipseys to become goldwashers.
“An inclination for strolling, to which the Egyptians were so very
adverse, is the particular propensity of the Gipseys in general; nor
are those of the Banat exempt from it.
“The more artful, particularly of the other sex, go about from house
to house, where they tell fortunes, cast nativities, discover thefts,
and pretend they possess remedies, to which they ascribe wonders and
infallible cures. These nostrums consist, chiefly, of roots,
amulets, certain small stones . . . mostly a kind of scoriæ.—Among
the Egyptians, likewise, such impostors rambled up and down. These
were Ethiopians by descent, who carried on a similar trade.
“From the last considerations, compared with the former, one would be
inclined rather to deduce the origin of the Gipseys from the
Ethiopians and Troglodytes, than from the Egyptians. But what I am
going to add, will make it more probable that they are a mixture of
all the three nations. {161}
“It is well known that people of both sexes, calling themselves
Egyptian priests and priestesses, were, in ancient times, scattered
through Italy, Greece, and all the provinces of the Roman empire:
where they not only introduced the worship of the goddess Isis, but
wandered from place to place, begged, and professed the same kinds of
ingenuity in which the Gipseys of the Banat, and the rest of their
brethren dispersed over Europe, are so thoroughly versed. These said
priests and priestesses, which Apuleius ironically calls _magnæ
religionis sidera_, not only knocked at people’s doors, in Rome, with
their sistris, but even had the skill to persuade the common people,
that to refuse them alms and to commit sacrilege were equally
heinous. They even went so far as to threaten those who slighted
them, in the name of their goddess Isis, to strike them with
blindness, or the tympany (_hydrops tympanites_).—Aventin says, the
Gipseys could so terrify the people in Bavaria, with the like
threats, that they suffered themselves to be robbed by them with
impunity. Likewise in the Banat, the women, particularly, are heard
to vent the most horrid curses and imprecations if they are
reprimanded, or not paid for their calculations of nativities,
singing, or fortune-telling.
“The licentiousness and immorality of the Gipseys are extreme. In
early youth, when yet young girls, they exhibit themselves, with
their dances, before every person from whom they expect any present;
and these dances always end in lascivious attitudes and shameful
gestures. In like manner, the ordinary women in Egypt used to dance
at their orgies, especially at the feast of Bubostes, and the
procession of Canopus. The like scenes appeared at Rome, among the
wives, daughters, and sponsors of the priests of Isis, agreeably to
the mysteries of that goddess.”
Griselini now comes to the point:—To what nation did these priests and
priestesses belong? And when did their emigration happen?
“It was after the time of Augustus,” he says, “that they began to
wander through the different parts of Europe; in every district of
which, they endeavoured to disseminate the worship of Isis.
“They practised astrology, and other kinds of superstitious
impositions, with all sorts of vagrants’ tricks, in nearly the same
manner as the Gipseys of our age deceive people.
“Now it is known that the Egyptian priests had stated incomes, from
appropriated lands; which circumstance attached them to their native
country: and hence they hated an unsettled life. Neither did they
desire to make proselytes; and strangers, who wished to be initiated
into the rites and mysteries of Isis, were obliged to submit to be
circumcised;—this ceremony was indispensable: on the contrary, the
before-mentioned priests of Isis wandering about the Roman provinces,
never mentioned a word of circumcision to their new converts. Very
sensible critics have produced palpable evidence that they were
Ethiopians and Troglodytes, who could the more easily pass for
Egyptians, as their features, persons, customs, and religion, were
the same.
“Of all the writers who mention these emigrations, from Egypt, into
Italy, Greece, and every part of the globe which was known in the
time of the Romans, I shall refer only to Heliodorus. It was very
possible that, sometimes, real Egyptians who had been driven by
misfortunes from their native country, or perhaps some of the very
lowest rank of people who had nothing to lose, might be mixed with
these wanderers. From this mixture of Ethiopians, Troglodytes, and
Egyptians, then, sprang a distinct wandering race, which partakes, in
some measure, of all the three nations; and from which, according to
the foregoing observations, we may reasonably conclude the Gipseys of
our time to be descended; as in all of them we discover, sometimes
the Troglodyte, sometimes the Ethiopian, and sometimes the Egyptian.
“That no mention is made of them in the Hungarian yearly publications
before the year 1417, is by no means a proof that they were not known
long before, both in that kingdom and the Banat. If we admit the
Roman coins which are dug out of the earth as proof that the Romans
have been inhabitants of any place, without the concurrent testimony
of any historian; we are equally authorised to admit the little
Egyptian idols, of bronze, which are dug up near them in the Banat,
as proof for the Gipseys. Being dispersed all over the Roman
conquest, why might they not as well, when Dacia became a province,
have gone there likewise, and propagated the worship of Isis, Anubis,
and other Egyptian deities, the same as in Italy?”
Such are Mr. Griselini’s arguments, stated very diffusely, as they may be
found in his works: but it will be evident, that what he adduces in
support of his opinion, is a direct proof that it cannot be established.
Supposing any person charitable enough to allow there is good argument in
his far-fetched similarities; yet the circumstance, that neither in the
Hungarian nor in any other Journals, is the least notice taken of Gipseys
before the year 1417, would overset the whole again. Griselini felt this
himself; but what he urges in reply, is no answer to the objection. Nor
is it just, that the Roman coins found in the Banat should be esteemed,
without concurrent testimony, a proof of the Romans having formerly dwelt
there. German crowns are, as Mr. Niebuhr informs us, the chief current
coin in Yemen (Arabia Felix), and great numbers are yearly sent thither
for coffee. If some centuries hence, when revolutions may have
occasioned great changes, the said German money should be dug up, would
any historical writer venture to assert as a truth, that Arabia Felix had
formerly been inhabited by Germans! But it is unnecessary to enter into
a laboured confutation of Mr. Griselini’s arguments; yet a few hints,
with respect to his mode of proceeding, strike so forcibly, that we
cannot forbear to notice them.
He relies chiefly upon certain similarities between the Gipseys,
Egyptians, and Ethiopians, without reflecting whether they are
distinctions peculiar to these people. Of this description the following
are examples:—he thinks the Gipseys must be Troglodytes and Ethiopians,
because they follow the employment of goldwashing; these latter, as well
as some of the African hordes, do the same in their rivers which produce
gold: he makes them Egyptians, because they eat swine’s flesh: again, he
concludes they must be priests of Isis, because they exclaim against the
hard-hearted, who refuse the boon they ask. Are these, then,
distinctions which none but Egyptians and Ethiopians have in common with
the Gipseys? Is it necessary to recur to the Egyptians, to find people,
beside Gipseys, who eat pork?—Or to the priests of Isis, for sturdy
beggars? And, with regard to goldwashers, how came he not to recollect
that the Wallachians also follow this employment?—And that near
Strasburgh, beside other places, hundreds of people who have not a drop
of Gipsey blood in their veins get their living by it?
Further, the said Mr. Griselini, in order to render his system the more
plausible, has made use of certain expedients at the expense of truth;
and, in spite of all experience to the contrary, so modelled the
properties of the Gipseys, as to give them the appearance of complete
Egyptians. He makes them by nature inclined to melancholy; whereas their
dispositions have not the least tincture of it: they are described as
most conscientiously, nay rather superstitiously, attached to religious
customs; and yet, according to the universal testimony of other observers
of these people, they are totally indifferent as to every thing connected
with religion. He says, they are adverse to eating onions; and as for
beans, they abhor them: whereas Sulzer was a witness how much they liked
the flavour of both. By proceeding in this manner, every thing may be
made to answer all purposes. But woe to the records and histories which
are used in this manner!
It will be seen, from what has been said on the subject, that the
supposed Egyptian descent of the Gipseys is very far from being proved;
notwithstanding it was formerly so generally credited, and even is to
this day. Arguing on the supposition that they originated from Egypt,
care was taken to inform us what kind of people they had been in that
country. It is very confidently related, and to our great edification,
that their forefathers were the same sorcerers who, in the presence of
Pharaoh, imitated Moses’s miracles: moreover, that the Egyptian king set
these people as taskmasters over the children of Israel, in order to
render their labour the more grievous: and finally, that these were the
very murderers employed by the inhuman Herod, to carry into effect his
cruel decree respecting the children of Bethlehem. This kind of dreaming
has been carried still further; it having been calculated to what degree
of indolence these people had accustomed themselves in Egypt, living by
the labour and sweat of others. Afterwards, when, contrary to
expectation, the Children of Israel escaped from their servitude, the
lucrative employment of these overseers, of course, had an end: instead
of reconciling themselves to any kind of labour, they rather chose to
decamp, with goods, wives, and children, from Egypt, in hopes, by cunning
and fraud, to procure an easier subsistence in foreign countries. They
pursued this shameful course of life through the following centuries; and
have, at last, pushed their excursions into our territories.
But it is not sufficient that the Egyptian descent of these people is
entirely destitute of proof; on the other side, the most positive proof
is to be found to contradict it. Their language differs entirely from
the Coptic; and their customs, as Ahasuerus Fritsch has remarked, are
diametrically opposite to the Egyptian. To these facts must be added
that weighty circumstance, of their wandering about like strangers in
Egypt, where they form a distinct people; as not only Bellonius, but many
later writers assure us. Muratori, therefore, is not in the wrong, when
he thinks it ridiculous to account them Egyptians—people having no better
authority for this belief, than their own unsupported opinion.
Thus, then, stands the argument, as well with respect to the derivation
of the Gipseys in general, as in regard to the Egyptian descent of them
in particular. While many men, and among these some very respectable for
their learning, declare the origin of these people to remain an unsolved
riddle, the opinion that they were not originally from Egypt, will, it is
thought, by the contents of this and the foregoing chapter, be thoroughly
confirmed. Notwithstanding the innumerable researches, the Gipseys still
remain unacknowledged inmates in Europe.
It may nevertheless be doubted whether Swinburne is quite right, in
asserting it to be impossible ever to find out the real home of these
strangers. After so many unsuccessful endeavours, it is not without
apprehension, though with the best-founded hope, we venture on another
trial.
CHAPTER V.
_The Gipseys come from Hindostan_.
IT is justly asserted, that one of the most infallible methods of
determining the origin of these people with certainty, would be the
discovery of a country where their language was in common use. The first
and most necessary examination here, therefore, will be, to find out the
part of the globe in which the Gipseys’ language is that of the natives:
and this country is no other than Hindostan. But before we endeavour to
prove this assertion, by a comparison of the Hindostan and Gipsey
languages, it will be proper to premise something, which will serve as an
introduction of considerable weight. It is an article of intelligence,
to be found in the Vienna Gazette, and comes from a Captain Szekely von
Doba, a man who was thinking of nothing less than of searching for the
Gipseys and their language in the East Indies.
“In the year 1763, on the 6th of November,” says Captain Szekely, “a
printer, whose name was Stephen Pap Szathmar Nemethi, came to see me.
Talking upon various subjects, we at last fell upon that of the
Gipseys; and my guest related to me the following anecdote, from the
mouth of a preacher of the reformed church, Stephen Vali, at Almasch
in the county of Komora.—When the said Vali studied at the university
of Leyden, he was intimately acquainted with some young Malabars, of
whom three are obliged constantly to study there, nor can they return
home till relieved by three others. Having observed that their
native language bore a great affinity to that spoken by the Gipseys,
he availed himself of the opportunity to note down, from themselves,
upwards of one thousand words, together with their significations.
They assured him, at the same time, that upon their island was a
tract of land, or province, called Czigania (but it is not laid down
on the map). After Vali was returned from the university, he
informed himself, among the Raber Gipseys, concerning the meaning of
his Malabar words, which they explained without trouble or
hesitation.”
In this anecdote, every thing seems to happen by chance; even to the
learned man who published it in the Gazette, it appeared as if fallen
from the clouds, and entirely oversets his system; for he was the person,
mentioned above, who broached the opinion of the Gipseys being Mongol
Tartars. So much more weighty, therefore, and unexceptionable, are the
hints it throws out, for the discovery of the Gipseys’ mother country, by
means of their language.
The consideration that, according to this anecdote, the Gipsey language
is declared to be Malabar, and we have pronounced it Hindostan, does not
create any difficulty, although they are very different from each other.
Probably the three young men, from whom Vali took down his words, were
Bramins’ sons, whose language was that proper to the learned Bramins, or
the Shanscritt. But the affinity between this and the common language
spoken by the people of Hindostan, is the same as between pure Latin and
modern Italian. It was therefore very natural that the Raber Gipseys
should understand, if not all, at least the greatest part of the words
which Vali repeated to them.
However, we do not want this come-off. The difficulty will subside
without it, when we examine the connection between the Gipsey and
Hindostan languages. The next thing, therefore, is to give a list of
words from both.
NUMERALS.
Gipsey. Hindostan. English.
_Ick_; _Ek_ _Ek_ One
_Duj_; _Doj_ _Du_ Two
_Trin_; _Tri_ _Tin_ Three
_Schtar_; _Star_ _Tschar_ Four
_Pantsch_; _Pansch_ _Pansch_ Five
_Tschowe_; _Schow_; _Sof_ _Tscho_ Six
_Efta_ _Hefta_; Sat Seven
Ochto Aute Eight
Enja; Eija Now Nine
_Desch_; _Des_ _Dos_; _Des_ Ten
_Besch_; _Bisch_; _Bis_ _Bjs_ Twenty
Trianda; Tranda Tjs Thirty
Starweldesch; Saranda Tschaljs Forty
Pantschwerdesch; Panda Petschass Fifty
Pontsandis
Tschowerdesch; Schoandis Sytt Sixty
Estawerdesch Syttr Seventy
Ochtowerdesch Asseh Eighty
Eijawerdesch; Enjandis Nubbeh Ninety
Tschèl; Schèl; Sel Souw Hundred
Deschwerschel; _Ekezeros_ _Ekhazar_; _Hazar_ Thousand
O Gluno; a Jékto Pajla The First
O _Duito_; a _Duito_ _Dusera_ The Second
O _Trito_ _Tjssera_ The Third
_O Schtarto_ _Tscharta_ The Fourth
NOUNS SUBSTANTIVE.