This is a lamentable enumeration of evil and ruinous properties in the Gipsey’s character, which applies not only to a few individuals, but to by far the greatest number of these people. Scarcely any virtue could exist in a soul so replete with vices. What at first sight appears less censurable, or perhaps even amiable, in them is, their habitual content in their situation. They have no care about futurity; they are unacquainted either with anxiety or solicitude: and pass through every day lively and satisfied. But this, in itself commendable resignation, is as little to be accounted a virtue among the Gipseys as among the Iroquois, and proceeds from the excessive levity of their dispositions.
Let us now take a view of the natural qualities, and capacities, of the Gipseys. Here they will appear to advantage. Observe them at whatever employment you may, there always appear sparks of genius. It is well known, and no writer omits to remark, what artful curious devices they have recourse to in perpetrating any cheat or robbery: but this is not the only particular in which they shewbrains and capacity. The following extract from an Hungarian author, who was an attentive observer of these people, contains corroborating instances:
“The Gipseys,” he says, “have a fertile imagination in their way, and are quick and ready at expedients, so that in many serious doubtful cases they soon recollect how to act, in order to extricate themselves. We cannot, indeed, help wondering, when we attend to and consider the skill they display in preparing and bringing their works to perfection, which is the more necessary, from the scarcity of proper tools and apparatus. They are very acute and cunning in cheating or thieving: and when called to account, for any fraud or robbery, fruitful in invention and persuasive in their arguments to defend themselves.”
“The Gipseys,” he says, “have a fertile imagination in their way, and are quick and ready at expedients, so that in many serious doubtful cases they soon recollect how to act, in order to extricate themselves. We cannot, indeed, help wondering, when we attend to and consider the skill they display in preparing and bringing their works to perfection, which is the more necessary, from the scarcity of proper tools and apparatus. They are very acute and cunning in cheating or thieving: and when called to account, for any fraud or robbery, fruitful in invention and persuasive in their arguments to defend themselves.”
At Debrezin, as well as at other schools in Hungary and Transylvania, there have been several lads admitted for instruction. Cleverness is observable in all, with no despicable talents for study. If another proof should be wanting, let us advert to their skill in music. That no Gipsey has ever signalised himself in literature, notwithstanding, according to the foregoing accounts, many of them have partaken of the instruction to be obtained at public schools, is no contradiction to the point in question. Their volatile disposition and unsteadiness will not allow them to complete any thingwhich requires perseverance or application. Frequently the bud perishes before it blows; or if it proceed so far that fruit appears, it commonly falls off and rots ere it attains maturity. In the midst of his career of learning, the recollection of his origin seizes him; a desire arises to return to, what he thinks, a more happy manner of life; this solicitude increases; he gives up all at once, turns back again, and consigns over his knowledge to oblivion. Such is the reason why the Gipsey race has never produced a learned man, nor ever will so long as these principles are retained.
It appears certain that the Gipseys are not deficient in capacity; and it seems equally decided that they have throughout a wicked depraved turn of mind. Their skill and ingenuity might render them very profitable subjects to the state, but their disposition makes them the most useless pernicious beings. They are not fit for agriculture, nor any other art which requires industry; on the contrary, they are burthensome from their begging, they do mischief by their various impositions, besides, being thieves and robbers, they destroy the security of a state. The goldwashers, in Transylvania and the Banat, are the only considerable exceptions; these Gipseys are considered the best of the caste; they have no intercourse with those of their own nation, nor do they like to be called Gipseys, but Bräschen, and in the Hungarian languageAranyasz(gold collectors). Their employment not being profitable, they are generally poor and necessitous; yet seldom beg, and it is still more rare for them to steal. Content with their scanty subsistence, they sift gold sand in summer; in winter they make trays and troughs, which they sell in an honest way. These properties render them, not only harmless, but serviceable to government; as they annually produce large sums, which, but for them, would remain in the earth. What pity it is, that so small a part should be well inclined, in proportion to the multitude, in Transylvania and elsewhere, who live in the manner above described! There remains perhaps one more profession, in which a state might reap advantage from the Gipseys, viz. that of a military life. This seems to be doubted in Spain, as no Gipsey there, even were he so inclined, can become a soldier. In other countries, people think differently. For example, in the two Hungarian regiments, the Orosaish and the Julaish, nearly every eighth man is a Gipsey. In order to prevent either them or any other persons from remembering their descent, it is ordered by government, that as soon as a Gipsey joins the regiment, he is no longer to be called by that appellation. Here he is placed, promiscuously with other men; and by this wise regulation, may be systematically rendered useful. But whether he would be adequate to a soldier’s station, unmixedwith strangers, in the company of his equals only, is very doubtful. His healthy robust body, active on every occasion; at the same time so inured to hardship, that he can defy hunger, thirst, heat, cold, and other inconveniences; makes him extremely well qualified for a military life: on the other hand, his innate properties seem incompatible with his profession, and he has little of the essential requisite for a serviceable soldier. How could a regiment composed of people without heart or courage, who would be overcome with fear and dismay on the least appearance of danger, who would give up every thing, and only think of saving themselves by flight, ever perform any great action? Or how could we expect, from their levity, and unspeakable want of foresight, that they should avail themselves to the utmost of any advantage with proper precaution and judgment? The following incident, taken from the Hungarian annals, may serve as proof, whether this suspicion be or be not well founded.—In the year 1557, during the troubles in Zapoly, the castle of Nagy Ida, in the county of Abauywar, was in danger of being besieged and taken by the imperial troops. Francis von Perenyi, who had the command, being short of men, was obliged to have recourse to the Gipseys, of whom he collected a thousand; these he furnished with proper means of defence, and stationed them in the outworks, keeping his ownsmall compliment of men to garrison the citadel. The Gipseys imagined that they should be perfectly free from annoyance behind their entrenchments, and therefore went courageously to their posts. Every thing was in order when the enemy arrived, and the storm commenced. The Gipseys, behind their fortifications, supported the attack with so much more resolution than was expected, returning the enemy’s fire with such alacrity, that the assailants, little suspecting who were the defendants, were actually retreating. They had hardly quitted their ground, when the conquerors, elated with joy on their victory, crept out of their holes, crying after them, “Go and be hanged, you rascals! Thank God we had no more powder and shot, or we would have played the very devil with you!”—“What!” replied the retiring besiegers, as they turned about, and, to their great astonishment, instead of regular troops, discovered a motley Gipsey tribe, “are you the heroes! is it so with you!” immediately wheeling about to the left, sword in hand, they drove the black crew back to their works, forced their way after, and in a few minutes totally subdued them. Thus the affair ended. In this manner Gipseys would frequently trifle away by heedlessness, what they might have secured by good fortune and alacrity, if they were permitted to act in separate corps.
There are many instances recorded in the annalsof former centuries,[89a]of Gipseys having been employed in military expeditions: but seldom, or rather never, were they thought of as solders. At Crupa, 1565, they prepared cannon balls for the Turks: still earlier, in 1496, they served Bishop Sigismund at Fünfkirchen in the same manner. In the thirty-years war, the Swedes likewise had a body of Gipseys in their army. And when, in 1686, Hamburgh was besieged by the Danes, there were three companies of them in the Danish army. Their destination was not so much to stand to their arms, as to perform other services; they were chiefly employed in flying parties, to burn, plunder, or lay waste, the enemy’s country. As these are the operations most suitable to their genius, they are now by the Turks destined to such purposes, and incorporated with the Sains Serdenjesti, and Nephers.
Such is the assistance which has hitherto been derived from the Gipseys in war; whence we experience the possibility of their being rendered serviceable, although the strict watch necessary to be kept over them, on account of their propensity to be guilty of excesses and irregularities, would be exceedingly troublesome.
But, in order to bring the advantages and disadvantages attending them to a fair discussion, it must not be forgotten, that at the very time one part of these people might be rendered beneficial,viz. in time of war, another part would have it in their power to do more mischief; by reason of the disorder which then prevails, when the relaxed attention of the magistrates makes them more daring in their depredations. Besides, what is still worse, they are very convenient for the enemy to use as machines for treachery. What they were in former times accustomed to practise very commonly, they still continue whenever they have an opportunity. They have been generally decried, in early ages, as traitors and spies: perhaps this accusation may be too far extended, but it is not without foundation. A Gipsey possesses all the properties required to render him a fit agent to be employed in traitorous undertakings. Being necessitous, he is easily corrupted; and his misconceived ambition and pride persuade him that he thus becomes a person of consequence: he is at the same time too inconsiderate to reflect on danger; and, artful to the greatest degree, works his way under the most difficult circumstances.
This accusation may be proved by more than one instance.—Count Eberhard, of Wirtemberg, with a train of forty people, made a pilgrimage to Palestine in the year 1468: and, as Crusius says, fell into the hands of the Sultan of Egypt, through the treachery of the Gipseys. Further, during the troubles excited by John Zapolya, in Hungary, in the sixteenth century, sundry spies and delegated incendiarieswere taken, which proved to be Gipseys. In 1602 Count Basta, the imperial general, who besieged the city of Bistritz in Transylvania, when he wanted to circulate a letter among the besieged, effected it by means of a Gipsey.
They have been sometimes still more dangerous to a country, by harbouring other spies, who, under the disguise of Gipseys, made excursions, surveying cities and countries, without being noticed. An example of this kind is recited in the Adventures of a certain French engineer, Peter Durois; which is a circumstance, in the records of Louis XIV. perhaps as much unknown as it is remarkable. It relates, that at Padock (Patak), in Upper Hungary, a great fire happened, through the carelessness of the Gipseys; by which not only the little city adjoining the fort was burnt, but the beautiful Bruderhoff was also reduced to ashes: on which occasion seven supposed Gipseys were taken into custody, one of whom was the French engineer above mentioned. This person had travelled about with them during nine years: he had sketches of all the principal fortifications in the whole Roman empire, and the imperial hereditary dominions, taken in the most concise manner, with remarks where each place was least defensible.—This affair has still another voucher, who says, “in the month of June of the year 1676, the Gipseys fired this little city (Patak), together with the church.With these Gipseys was found a French engineer, named Peter Durois, who had been nine years in this disguise, and received considerable remittances from France. He was taken by the imperialists, and there were found upon him plans of almost all the cities of Upper Hungary, and the German empire.”
Thus these people, in whatever point of view they are considered, are found to cause incalculable damage and mischief, without, in general, returning the smallest profit or benefit to the state in which they reside.
Concerning the Toleration of the Gipseys by the different States of Europe.
Fromthe inherent bad and pernicious qualities of the Gipseys, the question arises, What a government can do with them? The evil they occasion has long been a subject of serious consideration, and various means of security have been devised. As banishment was a mode punishing formerly often resorted to, nothing could be more natural than that it should likewise be exercised against the Gipseys. The clergy and politicians inveighed strongly against the toleration of these people; and their exile was actually resolved upon in most countries of Europe.
About the end of the fifteenth century, their persecution commenced in Spain. King Ferdinand, who esteemed it a good work to expatriate useful and profitable subjects—Jews, and even Moorish families—could much less be guilty of an impropriety in laying hands on the mischievous progeny of the Gipseys. The edict for their extermination was published in the year 1492. But, instead of passing the boundaries, they slunk into hiding-places, and shortly after appeared every-where in as great numbers as before. The emperor Charles V.persecuted them afresh; as did Philip II. also. Since that time they have nestled in again, and were left unmolested till about twenty years ago, when they were threatened with another storm; but it blew over, without taking effect.
In France, Francis I. passed an edict for their expulsion; and at the assembly of the States of Orleans, in 1561, all governors of cities received orders to drive them away with fire and sword. Nevertheless, in process of time they had collected again, and increased to such a degree, that in 1612 a new order came out for their extermination.
In Italy, their situation has been equally precarious. In the year 1572 they were compelled to retire from the territories of Milan and Parma; and at a period somewhat earlier they were chased beyond the Venetian jurisdiction.
England first endeavoured to disburthen itself of them in the year 1531, under Henry VIII: but as the act passed for that purpose fell into disregard, a new one was published in the reign of Elizabeth.
They were not allowed the privilege of remaining unmolested in Denmark, as the code of Danish laws specifies: “The Tartars (Gipseys) who wander about every-where, doing great damage to the people, by their lies, thefts, and witchcraft,shall be taken into custody by every magistrate.”
Sweden has not been more favourable, having at three different times attacked them. A very sharp order for their explusion came out in the year 1662. The diet of 1723 published a second: and that of 1727 repeated the foregoing, with additional severity.
They were excluded from the Netherlands under pain of death, partly by Charles V. and partly afterwards by the United Provinces in 1582.
Finally, the greatest number of sentences of exile have been pronounced against them in Germany. As well imperial decrees, as those of particular princes, have been repeatedly issued, for removing these people. The beginning was made, under Maximilian I. at the Augsburgh diet in 1500; where the following article was drawn up: “Respecting those people who call themselves Gipseys, roving up and down the country—By public edict, to all ranks of the empire, according to the obligations under which they are bound to Us and the Holy Empire, it is strictly ordered, that in future they do not permit the said Gipseys (since there is authentic evidence of their being spies, scouts, and conveyers of intelligence, betraying the Christians to the Turks) to pass or remain within their territories, nor to trade ortraffic; neither to grant them protection nor convoy. And that the said Gipseys do withdraw themselves, before Easter next ensuing, from the German dominions, entirely quit them, nor suffer themselves to be found therein: as in case they should transgress after that time, and receive injury from any person, they shall have no redress, nor shall such person be thought to have committed any crime.” The same business occupied the attention of the diet in 1530, 1544–48–51; and was also again enforced in the improved police regulation of Frankfort in 1577.
Several princes were however so little attentive to these orders of the empire, that, instead of endeavouring to drive out the Gipseys, they, on the other hand, furnished them with passports and safe-conducts: others, on the contrary, and by far the greatest number, exerted themselves to the utmost to clear their states of this vermin, and some still continue the same watchfulness.
Hence it appears how universally the opinion was adopted, that banishing the Gipseys was the only method to be secure from their malignity. Perhaps there is not one civilised state, Hungary and Transylvania excepted, where this remedy has not been tried: but whether it be as expedient as it has been hitherto general, is much to be doubted.
In the first place, it had very little effect, andthat little was only temporary. Even if every civilised nation had driven out the Gipseys at the same time, Europe could not have been entirely cleared of them, so long as they preserved an asylum in Turkey. Now, as experience evinces there is no country in which a constant equal attention is paid to the execution of the laws, they would, in more or less time, have again insinuated themselves into the neighbouring countries; from these into others; and recommenced where they had left off. But a general extermination never did happen: for the law for banishing them passed in one state before it was thought of in the next, or when a like order had long become obsolete and sunk into oblivion. These desirable guests were, therefore, merely compelled to shift their quarters to an adjoining state, where they remained till the government began to clear them away; upon which the fugitives either retired back whence they came, or went on progressively to a third place, thus making a continual revolution.
Secondly, this remedy was premature: endeavouring to exterminate was the same as if a surgeon should proceed directly to the amputation of a diseased limb, because it created inconvenience to the rest of the body. Whereas the first enquiry ought to be, Whether the disorder were of such a nature, as not to be removed but by entire separation? This is a desperate course, and should onlybe adopted when no other can be efficacious. Though it be proved that the Gipseys had occasioned ever so much mischief, it was not impossible that they might cease to be such pernicious beings: at least there had never been any trial made, by which this impossibility could be ascertained. Men may be formed to any thing. Had proper means been used for their civilisation, it is highly probable the event would have proved that they were not incapable of becoming better. If several Gipseys, at different times, have voluntarily emerged from their savageness, how much more likely is it that the remainder might have been altered, had they received such aids as their necessities required?—But expelling the Gipseys entirely was not merely a premature step; it was,
Thirdly, a wasteful one. This may perhaps appear strange, but is indisputable, so long as the state maxim holds good—that a numerous population is the most advantageous. It is allowed that a state would not lose any thing by the Gipseys, as Gipseys; on the contrary, it would be a gainer, because an obstacle to the general welfare would be removed: but this is not the matter in question. If the Gipsey do not know how to make use of the faculties with which nature has endowed him; let the state teach him, and keep him in leading-strings till the end is attained. And though the root of this depravity lie so deep,that it cannot be removed in the first generation, a continuation of the same care will, in the second and third descent, be sure of meeting its reward. Now let us reflect on a Gipsey when he has discontinued his vagrant mode of living—consider him with his fecundity and numerous family, who by being reformed are made useful citizens—and we shall perceive how great a want of economy it was to throw him away as dross.
Nearly the same idea has occurred to other authors; at least they so far agree in what has been advanced, that they advise rendering the Gipseys useful: only the means they recommend are liable to powerful objections. They think the state might make public slaves, or penitentiaries, of these people, and put them to all kinds of work. But such dependants, even supposing them to be employed in the most beneficial way, are always a nuisance and burthen to a state. Besides, in the above scheme, there is no proposal made for the bettering these people: they must, therefore, remain under the restraint of convicts, from generation to generation. And, if allowed to increase, what could be done at last with this multitude and their brood? Would not whole districts be required, merely to turn the thousands of these wretches into? Moreover, what an expense and inconvenience to superintend them! Plausible, therefore, as that proposalappears at the first glance, little will it stand the test of a closer examination.
Banishment was not the proper method to be adopted; nor would it have been adviseable to make them penitentiaries or galley-slaves: but care should have been taken to enlighten their understandings, and to mend their hearts.
However, what has been hitherto omitted, there is still time enough to execute. Few, or scarcely any, of the larger states are so entirely cleared of Gipseys, that these people may not here and there be found by hundreds, in most countries by thousands. The periods when the first sentences of banishment were pronounced, were too unphilosophical for any preferable mode of punishment to be suggested: but it may be expected, from a more informed age, that better maxims will be adopted. We send apostles to the East and West, to the most distant parts of the earth, and, as will be hereafter shewn, into the very country whence the Gipseys migrated, in order to instruct the people who know not God. Is it not inconsistent for men to be solicitous for the welfare of their fellow-creatures in distant regions, and to throw off and leave to chance those who, equally wretched, have brought their errors home to us? If it be a good work, to teach religion and virtue to such as are ignorant of their Creator, why not begin with those nearest tous? especially as neglect, in this particular, is attended with detriment to society in general. The Gipseys have been long enough among civilised people, to prove that they will not be allured, by the mere example of others, to free themselves from the fetters of old customs and vices. In order to accomplish that end, foreign and more effectual help is requisite. It were vain to hope for any considerable progress with those who are grown up; it would be sufficient, by compulsion, to make them quit their unsettled manner of life, and, by instruction and teaching, to convey a glimmering of light to their understanding, and produce some amelioration of the heart. Proper care being taken of the education of the children, society would be more likely to have its endeavours crowned with success.
Essay on the Improvement of the Gipseys.
Itwould 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, calledAnzeigen 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 orjudge. 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, removedfrom 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 ideasand 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 discontinuethe 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 theemperor 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.
The first Appearance of Gipseys in Europe.
Norecord 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 theycame 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 thetruth, 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, theycannot 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 questionto 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 withdrawnthemselves 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 beenso 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.
On the Sanctity,Passports,and Difference,of the former from the latter Gipseys.
Atthe 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 thesewere 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, notmerely, 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 theinstrument, 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, whenwe 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, endeavouredto 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 wasto 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 inconstitution 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.
Presumed Origin of the Gipseys.
Itwould 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 madethem 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 nameamoriamong one another (notamori, butDischa more—Get out, fellow!) and now they are Amorites!
Another party, besides this or that appellationfor 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 nameZigeunerindicates, 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 beenthought 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 themWahlen(he writesWalachen), 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 theirlanguage, 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 thesehave 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 thefavourable 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 latteris 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, andZichen—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.