Although what is contained in the following pages should explain itself,
a few prefatory remarks may not be out of place. In the _Scottish
Churches and the Gipsies_ I said that, “in regard to the belief about the
destiny of the Gipsies,” “almost all have joined in it, as something
established”—that “the Gipsies ‘cease to be Gipsies’ by conforming, in a
great measure, with the dress and habits of others, and keeping silence
as to their being members of the race;” and that “in bringing forward
this subject for discussion and action I thus find the way barred in
every direction.” Although I have said that the belief about the
disappearance, or rather the _extinction_, of the race has been tacitly
if not formally maintained by almost everyone, “no one seems inclined to
give a reason for this belief in regard to the destiny of the Gipsies,
nor an intelligible definition of the word Gipsy.”
This is the position in which the Gipsy problem stands to-day. The
latest work on the subject which I have seen is that of _The Gipsies_
(New York, 1882), by Mr. Leland, so fully reviewed in the following
pages. He leaves the question, in its most important meaning, just where
he found it; and confesses that it has “puzzled and muddled” him. In
1874 I wrote in _Contributions to Natural History_, _etc._, as follows:—
“What becomes of the Gipsies is a question that cannot be settled by
reference to any of Mr. Borrow’s writings, although these contain a
few incidental remarks that throw some light on it when information
of a positive and circumstantial nature is added” (p. 120).
In offering to a London journal the double-article on _Mr. Leland on the
Gipsies_ I said, on the 30th May, 1882:—
“I admit that it is a very difficult and delicate matter for a
journal to ‘go back on’ a position once taken up on any question; but
I think that if you admit the intended article the point will be
gained, without any responsibility on the part of the journal or
editor;” and that the insertion of it would put the journal “in its
proper position before the world, without recanting anything.” I
further wrote that “Purely literary journals must necessarily labour
under great disadvantages when called on to notice a book on a very
special subject, unless they can find a writer who can do it for
them.”
If all that has been written on the Gipsies “ceasing to be Gipsies,”
under any circumstances, “be allowed to go uncontradicted, it will become
rooted in the public mind, and gather credit as time goes by, making it
daily more difficult to set it aside, and allow truth to take its
place”—as I wrote in reply to two fulsome eulogies on Charles Waterton.
There are various phenomena connected with the subject of the Gipsies;
not the least striking one being the popular impression about the
_extinction_ of the _race_ by its _changing its habits_, which has been
arrived at without investigation and evidence, and against all analogy
and the “nature of things.” So fully has this idea taken possession of
the public mind that a hearing on the true position of the question can
scarcely be had. One purpose this has served, that it has saved the
public almost every serious thought or care in regard to its duty towards
the race, and relieved it of every _ultimate_ responsibility connected
with it. But that is not a becoming position for any people to
occupy—that of getting rid of its obligations by ignoring them. In 1871
I wrote thus:—
“The subject of the Gipsies, so far as it is understood . . .
presents little interest to the world if it means only _a certain
style of life_ that may _cease at any moment_; in which case it would
be deserving of little notice.”
But all of the aspects connected with the popular idea of a Gipsy are of
interest and importance when they represent the primitive condition of a
people who sooner or later pass into a more or less settled condition,
and look back to the style of life of their ancestors. In this respect
the Gipsies differ from most of the wild races, inasmuch as they become
perpetuated, especially in English-speaking countries, by those of more
or less mixed blood. In regard to that I wrote thus in the Disquisition
on the Gipsies:—
“The fact of these Indians, and the aboriginal races found in the
countries colonized by Europeans, disappearing so rapidly, prevents
our regarding them with any great degree of interest. This
circumstance detracts from that idea of dignity which the perpetuity
and civilization of their race would inspire in the minds of others”
(p. 446).
If the “ordinary inhabitant” considers for a moment what his feelings are
for everything Gipsy, so far as he understands it, he will realize in
some degree the responding feelings of the Gipsies, whatever their
positions in life. These create two currents in society—the native and
the Gipsy; so that the Gipsy element by marrying with the Gipsy element,
or in the same way drawing in and assimilating the native blood with it,
keeps the Gipsy current in full flow, and distinct from the other. The
Gipsy element, mixed as it is in regard to blood, never having been
acknowledged, necessarily exists incognito, and in an outcast condition,
however painful it is to use such an expression towards people that have
lived so long in the British Isles, and are frequently of unquestionable
standing in society; with nothing, in many instances, to distinguish them
outwardly from the rest of the population, but possessing signs and
words, and a cast of mind peculiar to themselves, that is, a sense of
tribe and a soul of nationality, which remain with their descendants.
This subject is not conventional, but will doubtless sooner or later
become such, as there are things conventional to-day that were not such
lately. In that respect the discussion or even the sentiments of a
prominent person or journal can make a thing conventional; such is the
nature of a highly complex society anywhere. With reference to this
matter I wrote to the journal alluded to in the following terms:—
“Surely the strange and unfortunate Gipsy race and its various
off-shoots have not sinned beyond the forgiveness of the rest of
their fellow-creatures, so that what represents a relatively-large
body of British subjects cannot be acknowledged even by name; leaving
to others to look upon or associate with them as each member of the
native race may see fit.”
One would naturally think that the inhabitants of Great Britain would at
least take some little interest in what might be called their “coloured
population;” and hold in respect _some_ of its members who could
doubtless tell us much that is interesting on the subject of the Gipsies,
so that that should not be a reproach to them which would be a credit to
others. To do so, and have the people, in some form or other,
acknowledged, is due to the spirits of research and philanthropy that
characterize this age. I admit that there are many difficulties
attending a movement of this kind. These I have explained fully on
previous occasions, and I need not repeat them here.
In regard to John Bunyan having been of the Gipsy race, I find that I
stated the question in _Notes and Queries_ on the 12th December, 1857; so
that it has stood over, like a “case in Chancery” under the old system,
for a quarter of a century, unattended to!
This little publication is intended in the first place for the British
Press, although I cannot be expected to send every journal a copy of it.
Each publication in its sphere has an influence, which should be
exercised in the way indicated; for here there is no opening for the
display of those passions that too frequently enter into discussions
generally. For myself personally (the last to be considered), although
it is thirty-one years since I left Great Britain, I should still have
some rights there; and especially among high-toned people, who should
remember that one of the ends for which they were created was to see
justice done to an absent person.
NEW YORK, _July_ 1, 1882.
JOHN BUNYAN.
TWO LETTERS TO AN ENGLISH CLERGYMAN. {7}