SECOND EDITION.

Eversince entering Great Britain, about the year 1506, the Gipsies have been drawing into their body the blood of the ordinary inhabitants and conforming to their ways; and so prolific has the race been, that there cannot be less than 250,000 Gipsies of all castes, colours, characters, occupations, degrees of education, culture, and position in life, in the British Isles alone, and possibly double that number. There are many of the same race in the United States of America. Indeed, there have been Gipsies in America from nearly the first day of its settlement; for many of the race were banished to the plantations, often for very trifling offences, and sometimes merely for being by “habit and repute Egyptians.” But as the Gipsy race leaves the tent, and rises to civilization, it hides its nationality from the rest of the world, so great is the prejudice against the name of Gipsy. In Europe and America together, there cannot be less than 4,000,000 Gipsies in existence. John Bunyan, the author of the celebratedPilgrim’s Progress, was one of this singular people, as will be conclusively shown in the present work. The philosophy of the existence of the Jews, since the dispersion, will also be discussed and established in it.

When the “wonderful story” of the Gipsies is told, as it ought to be told, it constitutes a work of interest to many classes of readers, being a subject unique, distinct from, and unknown to, the rest of the human family. In the present work, the race has been treated of so fully and elaborately, in all its aspects, as in a great measure to fill and satisfy the mind, instead of being, as heretofore, little better than a myth to the understanding of the most intelligent person.

The history of the Gipsies, when thus comprehensively treated, forms a study for the most advanced and cultivated mind, as well as for the youth whose intellectual and literary character is still to be formed; and furnishes, among other things, a system of science not too abstract in its nature, and having for its subject-matter the strongest of human feelings and sympathies. The work also seeks to raise the name of Gipsy out of the dust, where it now lies; while it has a very important bearing on the conversion of the Jews, the advancement of Christianity generally, and the development of historical and moral science.

London,October10th, 1865.

SIMSON’S HISTORY OF THE GIPSIES.

575Pages.Crown8vo.Price, $2.00.

NOTICES OF THE AMERICAN PRESS.

National Quarterly Review.—“The title of this work gives a correct idea of its character; the matter fully justifies it. Even in its original form it was the most interesting and reliable history of the Gipsies with which we were acquainted. But it is now much enlarged, and brought down to the present time. The disquisition on the past, present, and future of that singular race, added by the editor, greatly enhances the value of the work, for it embodies the results of extensive research and careful investigation.” “The chapter on the Gipsy language should be read by all who take any interest either in comparative philology or ethnology; for it is much more curious and instructive than most people would expect from the nature of the subject. The volume is well printed and neatly bound, and has the advantage of a copious alphabetical index.”

Congregational Review. (Beaton.)—“The senior partner in the authorship of this book was a Scotchman who made it his life-long pleasure to go a ‘Gipsy hunting,’ to use his own phrase. He was a personal friend of Sir Walter Scott. . . . His enthusiasm was genuine, his diligence great, his sagacity remarkable, and his discoveries rewarding.” “The book is undoubtedly the fullest and most reliable which our language contains on the subject.” “This volume is valuable for its instruction, and exceedingly amusing anecdotically. It overruns with the humorous.” “The subject in its present form is novel, and we freely add, very sensational.” “Indeed, the book assures us that our country is full of this people, mixed up as they have become, by marriage, with all the European stocks during the last three centuries. The amalgamation has done much to merge them in the general current of modern education and civilization; yet they retain their language with closest tenacity, as a sort of Freemason medium of intercommunion; and while they never are willing to own their origin among outsiders, they are very proud of it among themselves.” “We had regarded them as entitled to considerable antiquity, but we now find that they were none other than the ‘mixed multitude’ which accompanied the Hebrew exode (Ex. XII 38) under Moses—straggling or disaffected Egyptians, who went along to ventilate their discontent, or to improve their fortunes. . . . We are not prepared to take issue with these authors on any of the points raised by them.”

Methodist Quarterly Review.—“Have we Gipsies among us! Yea, verily, if Mr. Simson is to be believed, they swarm our country in secret legions. There is no place on the four quarters of the globe where some of them have not penetrated. Even in New England a sly Gipsy girl will enter the factory as employe, will by her allurements win a young Jonathan to marry her, and in due season, the ’cute gentleman will find himself the father of a young brood of intense Gipsies. The mother will have opened to her young progeny the mystery andthe romance of its lineage, will have disclosed its birth-right connection with a secret brotherhood, whose profounder Freemasonry is based on blood, historically extending itself into the most dim antiquity, and geographically spreading over most of the earth. The fascinations of this mystic tie are wonderful. Afraid or ashamed to reveal the secret to the outside world, the young Gipsy is inwardly intensely proud of his unique nobility, and is very likely to despise his alien father, who is of course glad to keep the late discovered secret from the world. Hence dear reader, you know not but your next neighbour is a Gipsy.” “The volume before us possesses a rare interest, both from the unique character of the subject, and from the absence of nearly any other source of full information. It is the result of observation from real life.” The language “is spoken with varying dialects in different countries, but with standard purity in Hungary. It is the precious inheritance and proud peculiarity of the Gipsy, which he will never forget and seldom reveal. The varied and skillful manœuvres of Mr. Simeon to purloin or wheedle out a small vocabulary, with the various effects of the operation on the minds and actions of the Gipsies, furnish many an amusing narrative in these pages.” “Persecutions of the most cruel character have embittered and barbarized them. . . . Even now . . . they do not realize the kindly feeling of enlightened minds toward them, and view with fierce suspicion every approach designed to draw from them the secrets of their history, habits, laws and language.” “The age of racial caste is passing away. Modern Christianity will refuse to tolerate the spirit of hostility and oppression based on feature, colour, or lineage.” The “book is an intended first step for the improvement of the race that forms its subject, and every magnanimous spirit must wish that it may prove not the last. We heartily commend the work to our readers as not only full of fascinating details, but abounding with points of interest to the benevolent Christian heart.” “The general spirit of the work is eminently enlightened, liberal, and humane.”

Evangelical Quarterly Review.—“The Gipsies, their race and language have always excited a more than ordinary interest. The work before us, apparently the result of careful research, is a comprehensive history of this singular people, abounding in marvelous incidents and curious information. It is highly instructive, and there is appended a full and most careful index—so important in every work.”

National Freemason.—“We feel confident that our readers will relish the following concerning the Gipsies, from the British Masonic Organ: That an article on Gipsyism is not out of place in this Magazine will be admitted by every one who knows anything of the history, manners, and customs of these strange wanderers among the nations of the earth. The Freemasons have a language, words, and signs peculiar to themselves; so have the Gipsies. A Freemason has in every country a friend, and in every climate a home, secured to him by the mystic influence of that worldwide association to which he belongs; similar are the privileges of the Gipsy. But here, of course, the analogy ceases. Freemasonry is an Order banded together for purposes of the highest benevolence. Gipsyism, we fear, has been a source of constant trouble and inconvenience to European nations. The interest, therefore, which as Masons we may evince in the Gipsies arises principally, we may say wholly, from the fact of their being a secret society, and also from the fact that many of them are enrolled in our lodges. . . . There arein the United Kingdom a vast multitude of mixed Gipsies, differing very little in outward appearance, manners, and customs from ordinary Britons; but in heart thorough Gipsies, as carefully and jealously guarding their language and secrets, as we do the secrets of the Masonic Order.” “Mr. Simson makes masterly establishment of the fact that John Bunyan, the world-renowned author of the ‘Pilgrim’s Progress,’ was descended from Gipsy blood.”

New York Independent.—“Such a book is the History of the Gipsies. Every one who has a fondness for the acquisition of out-of-the-way knowledge, chiefly for the pleasure afforded by its possession, will like this book. It contains a mass of facts, of stories, and of legends connected with the Gipsies; a variety of theories as to their origin . . . and various interesting incidents of adventures among these modern Ishmaelites. There is a great deal of curious information to be obtained from this history, nearly all of which will be new to Americans.” “It is singular that so little attention has been heretofore given to this particular topic; but it is probably owing to the fact that Gipsies are so careful to keep outsiders from a knowledge of their language that they even deny its existence.” “The history is just the book with which to occupy one’s idle moments; for, whatever else it lacks, it certainly is not wanting in interest.”

New York Observer.—“Among the peoples of the world, the Gipsies are the most mysterious and romantic. Their origin, modes of life, and habits have been, until quite recently, rather conjectural than known. Mr. Walter Simson, after years of investigation and study, produced a history of this remarkable people which is unrivalled for the amount of information which it conveys in a manner adapted to excite the deepest interest.” “We are glad that Mr. James Simson has not felt the same timidity, but has given the book to the public, having enriched it with many notes, an able introduction, and a disquisition upon the past, present, and future of the Gipsy race.” “Of the Gipsies in Spain we have already learned much from the work of Borrow, but this is a more thorough and elaborate treatise upon Gipsy life in general, though largely devoted to the tribe as it appeared in England and Scotland.” “Such are some views and opinions respecting a curious people, of whose history and customs Mr. Simson has given a deeply interesting delineation.”

New York Methodist.—“The Gipsies present one of the most remarkable anomalies in the history of the human race. Though they have lived among European nations for centuries, forming in some districts a prominent element in the population, they have succeeded in keeping themselves separate in social relations, customs, language, and in a measure, in government, and excluding strangers from real knowledge of the character of their communities and organizations. Scarcely more is known of them by the world in general than was know when they first made their appearance among civilized nations.” “Another curious thing advanced by Mr. Simson is that of the perpetuity of the race . . . He thinks that it never dies out, and that Gipsies, however much they may intermarry with the world’s people, and adopt the habits of civilisation, remain Gipsies, preserve the language, the Gipsy mode of thought, and loyalty to the race and its traditions to remote generations. His work turns, in fact, upon these two theories, and the incidents,facts, and citations from history with which it abounds, are all skillfully used in support of them.” “There are some facts of interest in relation to the Gipsies in Scotland and America, which are brought out quite fully in Mr. Simson’s book,” which “abounds in novel and interesting matter . . . and will well repay perusal.” “Pertinent anecdotes, illustrating the habits and craft of the Gipsies, may be picked up at random in any part of the book.”

New York Evening Post.—“The editor corrects some popular notions in regard to the habits of the Gipsies. They are not now, in the main, the wanderers they used to be. Through intermarriage with other people, and from other causes, they have adopted more stationary modes of life, and have assimilated to the manners of the countries in which they live. As the editor of this volume says: ‘They carry the language, the associations, and the sympathies of their race, and their peculiar feelings toward the community with them; and, as residents of towns, have greater facilities, from others of their race residing near them, for perpetuating their language, than when strolling over the country.’” “We have no space for such full extracts as we should like to give.”

New York Journal of Commerce.—“We have seldom found a more readable book than Simson’s History of the Gipsies. A large part of the volume is necessarily devoted to the local histories of families in England (Scotland), but these go to form part of one of the most interesting chapters of human history.” “We commend the book as very readable, and giving much instruction on a curious subject.”

New York Times.—“Mr. . . . has done good service to the American public by reproducing here this very interesting and valuable volume.” “The work is more interesting than a romance, and that it is full of facts is very easily seen by a glance at the index, which is very minute, and adds greatly to the value of the book.”

New York Albion.—“An extremely curious work is a History of the Gipsies.” “The wildest scenes in ‘Lavengro,’ as for instance the fight with the Flaming Tinman, are comparatively tame beside some of the incidents narrated here.”

Hours at Home(now Scribner’s Monthly).—“Years ago we read, with an interest we shall never forget, Borrow’s book on the Gipsies of Spain. We have now a history of this mysterious race as it exists in the British Islands, which, though written before Borrow’s, has just been published. It is the result of much time and patient labor, and is a valuable contribution toward a complete history of this extraordinary people. The Gipsy race and the Gipsy language are subjects of much interest, socially and ethnologically.” “He estimates the number of Gipsies in Great Britain at 250,000, and the whole number in Europe and America at 4,000,000.” “The work is what it professes to be, a veritable history—a history in which Gipsy life has been stripped of everything pertaining to fiction, so that the reader will see depicted in their true character this strange people . . . And yet, these pages of sober history are crowded with facts and incidents stranger and more thrilling than the wildest imaginings of the romantic school.”

NEW YORK: JAMES MILLER.

“In this pamphlet Mr. James Simson again does battle in support of his contention that Bunyan was a Gipsy—a thesis first promulgated by him in an elaborate work on the Gipsies, published in 1865. He is indignant at Mr. Froude for ignoring the discussion of the question in his recent biography of Bunyan, and he comments in strong terms on the dicta of Mr. Francis H. Groome, in the article ‘Gipsies,’ in the new edition of theEncyclopædia Britannica, that John Bunyan does not appear to have had one drop of Gipsy blood.’” “Mr. Simson’s tractate will be perused with deep interest by all students of the customs and history of the Gipsies.”—Edinburgh Courant,November3, 1880.

“In this pamphlet Mr. James Simson, editor ofSimson’s History of the Gipsies, states his grounds for believing that John Bunyan was a Gipsy, and invokes the assistance of the Universities to investigate the matter and put it beyond the possibility of doubt. It may not matter much whether or not the ‘immortal dreamer’ was a Gipsy and we do not think Mr. Simson attaches any great importance to the circumstanceper se. What he aims at, we believe, is to stir up some interest in the Gipsy race, and this he thinks may be done were the public to have their sympathies awakened by the fact that John Bunyan was a descendant of it. By way of supplement, Mr. Simson criticises some statements made in an article in theEncyclopædia Britannica, on the Gipsies. The curious in the subject of Gipsy lore will doubtless find in the pamphlet matter that will interest them.”—Perthshire Advertiser,October28, 1880.

“Mr. Simson suggests, and supports, on arguments that have the highest bearing on anthropological questions, the theory that John Bunyan was a Gipsy. The great secret that civilised Europe has even now amongst it a few individuals who are descended from a Hindoo race, and are capable, by reason of the fact that they have a particularly original soul of their own, to reconcile some of the difficulties between the eastern and the western schools of thought, may be the real future fact of modern anthropology. The difficulty is, of course, where and how to find the Gipsies. We have been much pleased with Mr. Simson’s pamphlet. It is not every writer who has treated the subject in his philosophical manner; and we are glad to perceive that he strongly accents the fact that a person may be a Gipsy and yet be entirely ignorant [not absolutely so] of the Gipsy language. Evidently Mr. Simson has studied anthropological problems at first hand, and apart from the speculators who have regarded language as the first key to the science of man.”—Public Opinion,October15, 1880.

“That Mr. Simson had a duty—to himself as well as to the public—to perform in justifying his previous remarks about Charles Waterton, by writing this monograph, is unquestionable. Although it is a somewhat difficult task unsparingly to point out the mistakes and shortcomings of a man, when he can no longer defend himself, without seeming to be guilty of an offence against the old rule—Nil nisi bonum de mortuis—Mr. Simson may fairly claim credit for having adhered to the Shakespearian advice in regard to fault-finding; for, if he has extenuated nothing, he has set down naught in malice. The example of Charles Waterton, country gentleman and naturalist, may serve as a useful warning to students of natural history, by teaching them that only the most patient investigation and careful reflection can produce results that will be of real and permanent value to science. They have here the example of a man who had most excellent opportunities for such investigations, as well as the strongest taste for their pursuit, and who, by an exact and systematic method of study, might have made most important additions to our knowledge of natural history. But by inaccurate observation, by a certain looseness of statement, and by taking things for granted instead of personally verifying them, he has greatly diminished the value of his labours. Mr. Simson, though his task is to set right the unduly high estimate in which the squire of Walton Hall has been held as a man of science, shows an appreciation of the strong points of his character that completely takes away any appearance of censoriousness; and his work incidentally affords an interesting study of the man himself, who, in his personal life and his enthusiastic devotion to natural history, showed a strong individuality that is quite refreshing in this age of conventionalities.”—Aberdeen Journal,August30, 1880.

210Pages,Octavo,Cloth.Price, $1.25.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATURAL HISTORY,AND PAPERS ON OTHER SUBJECTS.

BY JAMES SIMSON,EDITOR OF SIMSON’S “HISTORY OF THE GIPSIES.”

NOTICES OF THE BRITISH PRESS.

Dublin University Magazine, July, 1875.

“The principal articles in this volume that have reference to natural history originally appeared inLand and Water, and are, in many respects, highly interesting. Concerning vipers and snakes, we are presented with a good deal of information that is instructive, not only as regards their habits generally, but also with respect to points that are in dispute among naturalists.” “For instance, it is a vexed question whether, under any circumstances, the young retreat into the stomach [inside] of the mother snake. A great authority, [?] Mr. Frank Buckland, affirms that they do not; while our author is as positive that they do. And he certainly, with reason, contends that the question is entirely one of evidence, and, therefore, should be settled ‘as a fact is proved in a court of justice; difficulties, suppositions, or theories not being allowed to form part of the testimony.’” “In support of his own views, Mr. Simson has collected a large body of evidence that undoubtedly appears authentic and conclusive.” “Of the miscellaneous papers in this volume, the best is a critical study of the late John Stuart Mill. Taken altogether, the volume is very entertaining, and affords pleasing and instructive reading.”

Evening Standard, June 8, 1875.

“It is with real pleasure we see these Contributions toLand and Waterno longer limited to the columns of a newspaper, whatever may be its circulation. For the excellence and charm of these papers we must refer the reader to the volume before us, which cannot fail to interest and instruct its readers. Their variety and range may be gathered from the subjects treated:—Snakes, Vipers, English Snakes, Waterton as a Naturalist, John Stuart Mill, History of the Gipsies, and the Duke of Argyll on the Preservation of the Jews.”

London Courier, June, 1875.

“The Natural History Contributions, which are very interesting, though partaking largely of a controversial nature, deal chiefly with questions affecting snakes and vipers. Of the other Contributions, the most attractive and readable is the one which contests some of Mr. Borrow’s conclusions in his well-known account of the Gipsies. Mr. John Stuart Mill forms the subject of a slashing dissertation, which is not likely to find much favour with the friends of the departed philosopher.”

Rochdale Observer, June 19, 1875.

“The study of natural history has a peculiar charm for most people, but for Lancashire folk it seems to have a special interest. Perhaps the most striking feature of the book at the head of this notice is the variety of topics touched upon,topics which, although apparently incompatible and incongruous, are, nevertheless, both curious and interesting. The author certainly brings a large amount of special knowledge to the discussion of the questions he introduces, and the essays are undoubtedly well written. Our readers will see that the work is full of controversial matter, embracing natural history, theology, and biography, and consequently will suit the taste of those who like to enter into discussions which excite the feelings, and in which abundance of energy and ability is displayed. The book is certainly ably written, and the author shows himself to be a man of large accomplishments.”

Liverpool Albion, June 18, 1875.

“The articles are written in a very readable manner, and will be found interesting even by those who have no special knowledge of natural history or interest in it. The Gipsies are competitors with the snakes for Mr. Simson’s regards, and several papers are devoted to these mysterious nomadic tribes. Perhaps the most curious paper in the volume is written to prove that John Bunyan was a Gipsy, and a very fair case is certainly made out, principally from Bunyan’s own autobiographical statements. With the exception of the papers on John Stuart Mill, to which we have already alluded, and which are far worse than worthless, the book is one which we can recommend.”

Newcastle Courant, June 11, 1875.

“The bulk of these Contributions appeared inLand and Water. We think the author has done well to give them to the public in the more enduring form of a well got up volume. The book contains, also, a critical sketch of the career of John Stuart Mill; some gossip about Gipsies; and the Duke of Argyll’s notions about the preservation of the Jews. Altogether, the book is very readable.”

Northern Whig, June 17, 1875.

“This volume consists of Contributions toLand and Waterby a writer well-known as the author [editor] of a standard book on the Gipsies, and is evidently the production of a clear, intelligent, and most observant mind. Mr. Simson adds a number of miscellaneous papers, including a masterly, though severe, criticism of John Stuart Mill—‘his religion, his education, a crisis in his history, his wife, Mill and son,’—as well as several desultory papers on the Gipsies, elicited, for the most part, by criticisms on his work on that singular race.”

Western Times, June 29, 1875.

“The preface to this volume is dated from New York, and the contents bear marks of the free, racy style of transatlantic writers. The volume closes with a paper on the ‘Preservation of the Jews.’ The writer deals with his several subjects with marked ability, and his essays form a volume which will pay for reading, and therefore pay for purchasing.”

Daily Review, June 11, 1875.

“We need only mention the other subjects—Waterton as a Naturalist, Romanism, John Stuart Mill, Simson’s History of the Gipsies, Borrow on the Gipsies, the Scottish Churches and the Gipsies, Was John Bunyan a Gipsy? and, of course, the literary ubiquitous Duke of Argyll on the Preservation of the Jews. The only paper we have not ventured to look at is the last, in the dread that on this question the versatile Duke might be found, as in the matter of the Scottish Church, verifying the French proverb—Il va chercher midi à quatorze heures—a work in which the author of this volume is an adept in quiet, quaint, and clever ways, however, which make it interesting.”

NEW YORK: JAMES MILLER.

PAGE

Vipers and Snakes generally

White of Selborne on the Viper

White of Selborne on Snakes

Snakes swallowing their young

Snakes charming birds

Mr. Frank Buckland on English Snakes

Mr. Gosse on the Jamaica Boa swallowing her young

American Snakes

American Science Convention on Snakes

Charles Waterton as a Naturalist

Romanism

John Stuart Mill:a Study.

His Religion

His Education

A Crisis in his History

His Wife

Mill and Son

105

Simson’s History of the Gipsies

111

Mr. Borrow on the Gipsies

112

The Scottish Churches and the Social Emancipation of the Gipsies

150

Was John Bunyan a Gipsy?

157

The Duke of Argyll on the Preservation of the Jews

161

Index

171

Appendix.

John Bunyan and the Gipsies

183

II.

Mr. Frank Buckland and White of Selborne

187

III.

Mr. Frank Buckland on the Viper

192

IV.

The Endowment of Research

199

[9]Dated 30th August, 1882.

[10a]Contributions to Natural History, etc., p. 158.

[10b]I have commented on the assertion of Mr. Groome, that “John Bunyan, from parish registers, does not appear to have had one drop of Gipsy blood,” as if that could have been ascertained from parish registers! I did not expect to find such a loose idea as that in theEncyclopædia Britannica, taken from a casual or stray contributor toNotes and Queries. But I find an English journal quoting it as aproofthat Bunyan was not of the Gipsy race; and supporting it by Mr. Froude’s ignoring the question in his highly conventional work on Bunyan.—The Scottish Churches and the Gipsies, pp. 11, 52 and 59.

[11a]Mr. Brown objects to its being said that the English Bunyans could have sprung from Bunyans that left Scotland fifty years before 1548, for the reason that he finds men of that name in England, in 1219, 1257 and 1310. Thomas Bunyan, if he is correct in his information, says that the Italian mason of the name of Bunyan was at Melrose in 1136. The name might have had its origin in foreign masons called Bunyan, as there would be families of that craft, continued from generation to generation, during the middle ages, employed in church architecture all over Europe, including England as well as Scotland. I have not seen Mr. Thomas Bunyan’s information, as quoted above, called in question by any one.

[11b]Dated 6th September, 1882.

[11c]In an article inNotes and Queries, for the 27th March, 1875, I said:—“In addition to the investigations made in church registers, I would suggest that the records of the different criminal courts in Bedfordshire (if they still exist) should be examined, to find if people of the name of Bunyan (and how designated) are found to have been on trial, and for what offences.”—Contributions,etc., p. 186.

[12]The language used by Bunyan in describing who and what he was, was so comprehensive and graphic that by using the word “Gipsy” he would have confused his reader, for in that case he would have had to explain its meaning as applicable to himself. This would have been foreign to his subject, and, in the face of the legal responsibility, would have compromised his personal safety, and proved a bar to his usefulness, or standing in society, as illustrated by the aversion on the part of so many to investigate the idea to-day. He said that his “descent was well known to many.” Did not that imply that he had been more precise tomany in private, but would not use a word in hisGrace Abounding? This heading was very expressive when we consider that many would almost seem to think that the “Gipsy tribe,” or those possessing Gipsy blood, are outside of “God’s covenanted mercies.” According to Mr. Brown, Bunyan’s language, as we shall see, “mightsimply mean that his father was a poor man in a village!” and that in ascertaining who he was, “I have really nothing to go upon but Bunyan’s own words” about himself (which is not a fact), as if these had no bearing on the question, and were not worth listening to, and possessed no meaning!

[13]Dated 8th September, 1882.

[14a]Mr. Borrow, in hisGipsies in Spain, gives a very graphic account of the result of a marriage between a Spaniard and a Gipsy woman. I have alluded to it, in the Disquisition on the Gipsies, as “a very fine illustration of this principle of half-breed ultra Gipsyism,” that of “an officer in the Spanish army adopting a young female Gipsy child, whose parents had been executed, and educating and marrying her. A son of this marriage, who rose to be a captain in the service of Donna Isabel, hated the white race so intensely as, when a child, to tell his father that he wished he (his father) was dead. At whose door must the cause of such a feeling be laid? . . . This is certainly an extreme instance of the result of the prejudice against the Gipsy race; and no opinion can be formed upon it without knowing some of the circumstances connected with the feelings of the father, or his relations, toward the mother and the Gipsy race generally” (p. 372).

[14b]This Thomas Bonyon might not have been born till many years after 1502, as I have explained at page 18.

[15a]“Easily explained,” indeed, by his father having been “simply a poor man in a village.”

[15b]Mr. Brown in his letter acknowledges having received these pamphlets. I did not send them with the object of enlightening him on the subject under review. I have not been able to see his book on the Bunyan Festival. It is very likely that I would find matter in it for comment.

[16a]It reads very candidly when it is said that “none of Bunyan’s admirers would object to his being shown to be a Gipsy, if only sufficient proof were adduced.” The real position is, that Bunyan’s admissions as to what he was and was not, and his calling and surroundings, show that he was of the Gipsy race; and “proof” should be “adduced” to show that he wasnotthat, but of theordinary raceof Englishmen.

[16b]It would be interesting to learn from Mr. Brown, 1st. When, and under what circumstances, he took up this question in regard to Bunyan;2d. What regard he paid to the subject of the Gipsies in general, as published; 3d. Whether he made any personal inquiries in regard to it; 4th. Whether he read anything, and what, in favour of Bunyan having been of the Gipsy race; 5th. How he came to maintain that because the name of Bunyan existed in England before the Gipsies arrived in it, therefore Bunyan was not one of the race; 6th. Whether he knows of Gipsies bearing native surnames, and even of one with a foreign surname; 7th. What reason he had for supposing that Thomas Bonyon, in 1542, had no Gipsy blood in his veins, or that his descendants for several generations did not pass into the Gipsy current in society, as explained; 8th. Where Mr. Brown resided before he settled at Bedford, and how long he has been there. 9th. What traditions he found in the town and neighbourhood bearing on Bunyan’s descent, and whether there are people there averse to its being asserted that Bunyan was what might be called of theordinary nativeEnglish race; 10th. Are there none there who object to its being said that Bunyan’s family was a broken-down branch of the aristocracy, titled or untitled, that most probably entered England from Normandy, under William the Conqueror? 11th. What are the reasons for saying that Bunyan wasnotof the Gipsy race? 12th. Might notanyperson be of the Gipsy race, notwithstanding it was not even surmised, much lessproved, by any one acquainted with the Gipsy subject, and much more so by one apparently totally ignorant of it? 13th. Since Bunyan was an Englishman under any circumstances, why should anyone claim him to have been entirely of the native or ordinary blood, till it is proved that part of his blood belonged to the Gipsy race, that entered Great Britain not later than 1506—no regard being shown to what he said he “was and was not, and his calling and surroundings”? 14th. Has Mr. Brown’s object, from first to last, been exclusively that of proving Bunyannotto have been of the Gipsy race? 15th. In that case, should he not, while occupying the pulpit of Bunyan, look upon his “mission” as most sacred, and “laying aside every weight and the sin which doth so easily beset him,” “give no sleep to his eyes or slumber to his eyelids” till he was satisfied who Bunyan really was, and acknowledge him accordingly?

[17]Dated 13th September, 1882.

[18]There may be some doubt that Towla Bailyow, mentioned in a writ of the Scots’ parliament in 1540, was a Baillie according to the modern spelling of the word. In that case, the first Gipsies mentioned officially in Great Britain with full native names, seem to have been John Brown and George Brown, as found in a writ of the Scots’ parliament of the 8th April, 1554. In theHistory of the GipsiesI find the following:—

“I am further inclined to think that it would be about this period, and chiefly in consequence of these bloody enactments, the Gipsies would, in general, assume the ordinary Christian and surnames common at that time in Scotland. And their usual sagacity pointed out to them the advantages arising from taking the cognomens of the most powerful families in the kingdom, whose influence would afford them ample protection as adopted members of their respective clans. In support of my opinion of the origin of the surnames of the Gipsies of the present day, we find that the most prevailing names among them are those of the most influential of our noble families of Scotland, such as Stewart, Gordon, Douglas, Graham, Ruthven, Hamilton, Drummond, Kennedy, Cunningham, Montgomery, Kerr, Campbell, Maxwell, Johnstone, Ogilvie, McDonald, Robertson, Grant, Baillie, Shaw, Burnet,Brown, Keith, etc.” To that I added that “the English Gipsies say that native names were assumed by their race in consequence of the proscription to which it was subjected.”—(p. 117.)

[19]Perhaps I admitted too much when I said that “William Bonyon and his wife were apparently ordinary English people,” for they need not necessarily have been that, as I have shown. Had they been such, the tradition of it would soon have died out in their Gipsy descendants of mixed blood but for the little property that remained in the family; for the associations of descent from the native race are not pleasant to the tribe when they consider the hard feelings which it has entertained for their Gipsy blood.

James IV. of Scotland, when introducing “Anthonius Gawino, Earl of Little Egypt, and the other afflicted and lamentable tribe of his retinue,” to his uncle, the King of Denmark, in 1506, said that they “had lately arrived on the frontiers of our kingdom”; so that it is uncertain at what time before 1506 some of the tribe had made their appearance without being recorded in a public document. The Scottish king believed that as “Denmark was nearer to Egypt than Scotland,” a greater number of the Gipsies sojourned in it; and that his uncle would know more about them than he did. If this style of reasoning was correct, England must have received Gipsies before Scotland, for it was “nearer to Egypt than Scotland.”—History of the Gipsies, p. 99.

Speaking of the “standing” of the leading Gipsies in Scotland between 1506 and 1579, the author of the History wrote as follows:—

“It is evident that the Gipsies in Scotland at that time were allowed to punish the criminal members of their own tribe according to their own peculiar laws, customs and usages, without molestation. And it cannot be supposed that the ministers of three or four succeeding monarchs would have suffered their sovereigns to be so much imposed on as to allow them to put their names to public documents, styling poor and miserable wretches, as we at the present day imagine them to have been, ‘Lords and Earls of Little Egypt.’ . . . I am disposed to believe that Anthonius Gawino in 1506, and John Faw in 1540, would personally as individuals, that is, as Gipsy ‘Rajahs,’ have a very respectable and imposing appearance in the eyes of the officers of the Crown” (p. 107).

Although he says that “the English government had not been so easily nor so long imposed on as the kings of Scotland, and the authorities of Europe generally” (p. 91), we can easily imagine that the principal Gipsies at least occupied a pretty good position among the English people generally. If Bailyow in 1540 represented the native name of Baillie (as it is believed to have done), we could have William Bonyon, who died in 1542, one of the original Gipsies, most likely of mixed blood; and we certainly had “John Brown and George Brown, Egyptians,” before 1554.

Back to Index Next