As to the Gipsy population, scattered over the world, I think that the intelligent reader will agree with me, after all that has been said, in estimating it as very large. There seems no reason for thinking that the Gipsies suffered so greatly, by the laws pa.s.sed against them, as people have imagined; for the cunning of the Gipsy, and the wild, or partly uncultivated, face of all the countries of Europe would afford him many facilities to evade the laws pa.s.sed against him. We have already seen what continental writers have said of the race, relative to the laws pa.s.sed against it: "But, instead of pa.s.sing the boundaries, they only slunk into hiding places, and, shortly after, appeared in as great numbers as before." And this seems to have been invariably the case over the whole of Europe. Mr. Borrow, as we have already seen, speaks of every Spanish monarch, on succeeding to the crown, pa.s.sing laws against the Gipsies. If former laws were put in force, there would be no occasion for making so many new ones; the very fact of so many laws having been pa.s.sed against the Gipsy race, in Spain, is sufficient proof of each individual law never having been put to much execution, but rather, as has already been said, (page 394,) of its having been customary for every king of Spain to issue such against them. It does not appear that any force was employed to hunt the Gipsies out of the country, but that matters were left to the ordinary local authorities, whom the tribe would, in many instances, manage to render pa.s.sive, or beyond whose jurisdiction they would remove for the time being. The laws pa.s.sed against the n.o.bility and commonalty of Spain, for protecting the Gipsies, (page 114,) is a very instructive commentary on those for the extermination of the body itself. But the case most in point is in the Scottish laws pa.s.sed against the Gipsies. Upon the pa.s.sing of the Act of James VI., in 1609, we find that the Gipsies "dispersed themselves in certain secret and obscure places of the country"; and that, when the storm was blown over, they "began to take new breath and courage, and unite themselves in infamous companies and societies, under commanders"

(page 114). The extreme bitterness displayed in Scots acts of parliament against the best cla.s.ses of the population, for protecting and entertaining the tribe, and, consequently, rendering the other acts nugatory, has a very important bearing upon the subject. We find that the Gipsies wandered up and down France for a hundred years, unmolested; and that, so numerous had they become, that, in 1545, the King of France entertained the idea of embodying four thousand of them, to act as pioneers in taking Boulogne, then in possession of England. The last notice which we have of the French Gipsies was that made by Grellmann, when he says: "In France, before the Revolution, there were but few, for the obvious reason, that every Gipsy who could be apprehended, fell a sacrifice to the police." Grellmann, however, had not studied the subject sufficiently deep to account for the destiny of the race. If they were so very numerous in France, in 1545, the natural encrease, in whatever position in life it might be, must have been very great during the following 235 years. I have learned, from the best of authority, that there are many Gipsies in Flanders.[309] If the Gipsies in England were estimated at above ten thousand, during the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, how many may they not be now, including those of every kind of mixture of blood, character, and position in life? If there is one Gipsy in the British Isles, there cannot be less than a quarter of a million, and, possibly, as many as six hundred thousand; and, instead of there being sixty thousand in Spain, and constantly _decreasing_, (_disappearing_ is the right word,) we may safely estimate them at three hundred thousand. The reader has already been informed of what becomes of all the Gipsies. As a case in point, I may ask, who would have imagined that there was such a thing in Edinburgh as a factory, filled, not merely with Gipsies, but with _Irish_ Gipsies? The owner of the establishment was doubtless a Gipsy; for how did so many Gipsies come to work in it, or how did he happen to know that his workmen were _all_ Gipsies, or that even _one_ of them was a Gipsy?

[309] This information I obtained from some English Gipsies.

Thereafter, the t.i.tle of the following work came under my notice: "Historical Researches Respecting the Sojourn of the Heathens, or Egyptians, in the Northern Netherlands. By J. Dirks. Edited by the Provincial Utrecht Society of Arts and Sciences. Utrecht: 1850. pp.

viii. and 160."

Indeed, the Gipsies are scattered all over Europe, and are to be found in the condition described in the present work.

Even to take Grellmann's estimate of the Gipsies in Europe, at from 700,000 to 800,000, and the race must be very numerous to-day. Since his time, the Negroes in the United States have encreased from 500,000 to 4,000,000, and this much is certain, that Gipsies are, to say the least of it, as prolific as Negroes. The encrease in both includes much white blood added to the respective bodies. Some of the Gipsies have, doubtless, been hanged; but, on the other hand, many of the Negroes have been worked to death. There is a great difference, however, between the wild, independent Gipsy race and the Negroes in the New World. I should not suppose that the Gipsy race in Europe and America can be less than 4,000,000. It embraces, for certainty, as in Scotland, men ranging in character and position from a pillar of the Church down to a common tinker.[310]

[310] There are, probably, 12,000,000 of Jews in the world. I have seen them estimated at from ten to twelve millions. It is impossible to obtain anything like a correct number of the Jews, in almost _any_ country, leaving out of view the immense numbers scattered over the world, and living even in parts unexplored by Europeans.

Christians not only flatter but delude the Jew, when they say that his race is "purity itself;" they greatly flatter and delude him, when they say that the phenomenon of its existence, since the dispersion, is miraculous. There is nothing miraculous about it. There is nothing miraculous about the perpetuation of Quakerdom; yet Quakerdom has existed for two centuries. Although Quakerdom is but an artificial thing, that proceeded out from among common English people, it has somewhat the appearance of being a distinct race, among those surrounding it. As such, it appears, at first sight, to inexperienced youth, or people who have never seen, or perhaps heard, much of Quakers.

But how much greater is the difference between Jews and Christians, than between Quakers and ordinary Englishmen, and Americans! And how much greater the certainty that Jews will keep themselves distinct from Christians, and all others in the world! It must be self-evident to the most unreflecting person, that the natural causes which keep Jews separated from other people, during one generation, continue to keep them distinct during every other generation. A miracle, indeed! We must look into the Old and New Testaments for miracles. A Jew will naturally delude himself about the existence of his race, since the dispersion, being a miracle; yet not believe upon a person, if he were even to rise from the dead! A little consideration of the philosophy of the Jewish question will teach us that, perhaps, the best way for Providence to preserve the Jews, as they have existed since their dispersion, would have been merely to leave them alone--leave them to their impenitence and unbelief--and take that much care of them that is taken of ravens.

The subject of the Gipsies is a mine which Christians should work, so as to countermine and explode the conceit of the Jew in the history of his people; for that, as I have already said, is the greatest bar to his conversion to Christianity. Still, it is possible that some people may oppose the idea that the Gipsies are the "mixed mult.i.tude" of the Exodus, from some such motive as that which induces others not merely to disbelieve, but revile, and even rave at some of the clear points of revelation.[311] What objection could any one advance against the Gipsies being the people that left Egypt, in the train of the Jews? Not, certainly, an objection as to race; for there must have been many captive people, or tribes, introduced into Egypt, from the many countries surrounding it. Pharaoh was a czar in his day, transplanting people at his pleasure. Of one of his cities it was said,

"That spreads her conquests o'er a thousand states, And pours her heroes through a hundred gates: Two hundred hors.e.m.e.n, and two hundred cars, From each wide portal, issuing to the wars."

[311] It is astonishing how superficially some pa.s.sages of Scripture are interpreted. There is, for instance, the conduct of Gamaliel, before the Jewish council. (Acts v. 17-40.) The advice given by him, as a Pharisee, was nothing but a piece of specious party clap-trap, to discomfit a Sadducee. St. Paul, who was brought up at the feet of this Pharisee, and, doubtless, well versed in the factious tactics of his party, gives a beautiful commentary on the action of his old master, when, on being brought before the same tribunal, and perceiving that his enemies embraced both parties, he set them by the ears, by proclaiming himself a Pharisee, and raising the question, (the "hope and resurrection of the dead,") on which they so bitterly disagreed.

(Acts xxiii. 6-10.) There was much adroitness displayed by the Apostle, in so turning the wrath of his enemies against themselves, after having inadvertently reviled the high priest, in their presence, and within one of the holy places, in such language as the following: "G.o.d shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten, contrary to the law."

As it was, he was only saved from being "pulled in pieces" by his blood-thirsty persecutors--the one sect attacking, and the other defending him--by a company of Roman soldiers, dispatched to take him by force from among them. Nothing could be more specious than Gamaliel's reasoning, for it could apply to almost anything, and was well suited to the feelings of a divided and excited a.s.sembly; or have less foundation, according to his theory, for the very steps which he advised the people against adopting, for the suppression of Christians, were used to destroy the false Messiahs to whom he referred. And yet people quote this recorded clap-trap of an old Pharisee, as an inspiration, for the guidance of private Christians, and Christian magistrates!

That the "mixed mult.i.tude" travelled into India, acquired the language of that part of Asia, and, perhaps, modified its appearance there, and became the origin of the Gipsy race, we may very safely a.s.sume. This much is certain, that they are not Sudras, but a very ancient tribe, distinct from every other in the world. With the exception of the Jews, we have no certainty of the origin of any people; in every other case it is conjecture; even the Hungarians know nothing of their origin; and it is not wonderful that it should be the same with the Gipsies. Everything harmonizes so beautifully with the idea that the Gipsies are the "mixed mult.i.tude" of the Exodus, that it may be admitted by the world. Even in the matter of religion, we could imagine Egyptian captives losing a knowledge of their religion, as has happened with the Africans in the New World, and, not having had another taught them, leaving Egypt under Moses, without any religion at all.[312] After entering India, they would, in all probability, become a wandering people, and, for a certainty, live aloof from all others.

[312] Tacitus makes Caius Ca.s.sius, in the time of Nero, say: "At present, we have in our service whole nations of slaves, the sc.u.m of mankind, collected from all quarters of the globe; a race of men who bring with them foreign rites, and the religion of their country, _or, probably, no religion at all_."--_Murphy's Translation._

While the history of the Jews, since the dispersion, greatly ill.u.s.trates that of the Gipsies, so does the history of the Gipsies greatly ill.u.s.trate that of the Jews. They greatly resemble each other. Jews shuffle, when they say that the only difference between an Englishman and an English Jew, is in the matter of creed; for there is a great difference between the two, whatever they may have in common, as men born and reared on the same soil. The very appearance of the two is palpable proof that they are not of the same race. The Jew invariably, and unavoidably, holds his "nation" to mean the Jewish people, scattered over the world; and is reared in the idea that he is, not only in creed, but in blood, distinct from other men; and that, in blood and creed, he is not to amalgamate with them, let him live where he may. Indeed, what England is to an Englishman, this universally scattered people is to the Jew; what the history of England is to an Englishman, the Bible is to the Jew; his nation being nowhere in particular, but everywhere, while its ultimate destiny he, more or less, believes to be Palestine. Now, an Englishman has not only been born an Englishman, but his mind has been cast in a mould that makes him an Englishman; so that, to persecute him, on the ground of his being an Englishman, is to persecute him for that which can never be changed. It is precisely so with the Jew. His creed does not amount to much, for it is only part of the history of his race, or the law of his nation, traced to, and emanating from, one G.o.d, and Him the true G.o.d, as distinguished from the G.o.ds and lords many of other nations: such is the nature of the Jewish theocracy. To persecute a Gipsy, for being a Gipsy, would likewise be to persecute him for that which he could not help; for to prevent a person being a Gipsy, in the most important sense of the word, it would be necessary to take him, when an infant, and rear him entirely apart from his own race, so that he should never hear the "wonderful story," nor have his mind filled with the Gipsy electric fluid. An English Gipsy went abroad, very young, as a soldier, and was many years from home, without having had a Gipsy companion, so that he had almost forgotten that he was a Gipsy; but, on his returning home, other Gipsies applied their magnetic battery to him, and gipsyfied him over again. A town Gipsy will occasionally send a child to a Gipsy hedge-schoolmaster, for the purpose of being extra gipsyfied.

The being a Gipsy, or a Jew, or a Gentile, consists in birth and rearing. The three may be born and brought up under one general roof, members of their respective nationalities, yet all good Christians. But the Jew, by becoming a Christian, necessarily cuts himself off from a.s.sociations with the representative part of his nation; for Jews do not tolerate those who forsake the synagogue, and believe in Christ, as the Messiah having come; however much they may respect their children, who, though born into the Christian Church, and believing in its doctrines, yet maintain the inherent affection for the a.s.sociations connected with the race, and more especially if they also occupy distinguished positions in life. So intolerant, indeed, are Jews of each other, in the matter of each choosing his own religion, extending sometimes to a.s.sa.s.sination in some countries, and invariably to the crudest persecutions in families, that they are hardly justified in asking, and scarcely merit, toleration for themselves, as a people, from the nations among whom they live. The present Disraeli doubtless holds himself to be a Jew, let his creed or Christianity be what it may; if he looks at himself in his mirror, he cannot deny it. We have an instance in the Cappadoce family becoming, and remaining for several generations, Christians, then returning to the synagogue, and, in another generation, joining the Christian church. The same vicissitude may attend future generations of this family. There should be no great obstacle in the way of it being allowed to pa.s.s current in the world, like any other fact, that a person can be a Jew and, at the same time, a Christian; as we say that a man can be an Englishman and a Christian, a McGregor and a Christian, a Gipsy and a Christian, or a Jew and a Christian, even should he not know when his ancestors attended the synagogue.

Christianity was not intended, nor is it capable, to destroy the nationality of Jews, as individuals, or as a nation, any more than that of other people. We may even a.s.sume that a person, having a Jew for one parent, and a Christian for another, and professing the Christian faith, and having the influences of the Jew exercised over him from his infancy, cannot fail, with his blood and, it may be, physiognomy, to have feelings peculiar to the Jews; although he may believe them as blind, in the matter of religion, as do other Christians. But separate him, after the death of the Jewish parent, from all a.s.sociations with Jews, and he may gradually lose those peculiarly Jewish feelings that are inseparable from a Jewish community, however small it may be. There are, then, no circ.u.mstances, out of and independent of himself and the other members of his family, to const.i.tute him a Jew; and still less can it be so with his children, when they marry with ordinary Christians, and never come in intimate contact with Jews. The Jewish feeling may be ultimately crossed out in this way; I say ultimately, for it does not take place in the first descent, (and that is as far as my personal knowledge goes,) even although the mother is an ordinary Christian, and the children have been brought up exclusively to follow her religion.

Gipsydom, however, goes with the individual, and keeps itself alive in the family, and the private a.s.sociations of life, let its creed be what it may; the original cast of mind, words, and signs, always remaining with itself. In this respect, the Gipsy differs from every other man. He cannot but know who he is to start life with, nor can he forget it; he has those words and signs within himself which, as he moves about in the world, he finds occasion to use. A Jew may boast of the peculiar cast of countenance by which his race is generally characterized, and how his nation is kept together by a common blood, history, and creed. But the phenomenon connected with the history of the Gipsy race is more wonderful than that which is connected with the Jewish; inasmuch as, let the blood of the Gipsy become as much mixed as it may, it always preserves its Gipsy ident.i.ty; although it may not have the least outward resemblance to an original Gipsy. You cannot crush or cross out the Gipsy race; so thoroughly subtle, so thoroughly adaptable, so thoroughly capable, is it to evade every weapon that can be forged against it. The Gipsy soul, in whatever condition it may be found, or whatever may be the tabernacle which it may inhabit, is as independent, now, of those laws which regulate the disappearance of certain races among others, as when it existed in its wild state, roaming over the heath. The Gipsy race, in short, absorbs, but cannot be absorbed by, other races.

In my a.s.sociations with Gipsies and Jews, I find that both races rest upon the same basis, viz.: a question of people. The response of the one, as to who he is, is that he is a Gipsy; and of the other, that he is a Jew. Each of them has a peculiarly original soul, that is perfectly different from each other, and others around them; a soul that pa.s.ses as naturally and unavoidably into each succeeding generation of the respective races, as does the soul of the English or any other race into each succeeding generation. For each considers his nation as abroad upon the face of the earth; which circ.u.mstance will preserve its existence amid all the revolutions to which ordinary nations are subject. As they now exist within, and independent of, the nations among whom they live, so will they endure, if these nations were to disappear under the subjection of other nations, or become incorporated with them under new names. Many of the Gipsies and Jews might perish amid such convulsions, but those that survived would const.i.tute the stock of their respective nations; while others might migrate from other countries, and contribute to their numbers. In the case of the Gipsy nation, as it gets crossed with common blood, the issue shows the same result as does the shaking of the needle on the card--it always turns to the pole: that pole, among the Gipsies, being a sense of its blood, and a sympathy with the same people in every part of the world. For this reason, the Gipsy race, like the Jewish, may, with regard to its future, be said to be even eternal.

The Gipsy soul is fresh and original, not only from its recent appearance in Europe, without any traditional knowledge of its existence anywhere else, but from having sprung from so singular an origin as a tent; so that the mystery that attaches to it, from those causes, and the contemplation of the Gipsy, in his original state, to-day, present to the Gipsy that fascination for his own history which the Jew finds in the antiquity of his race, and the exalted privileges with which it was at one time visited. The civilized Gipsy looks upon his ancestors, as they appeared in Europe generally, and Scotland especially, as great men, as heroes who scorned the company of anything below a gentleman.

And he is not much out of the way; for John Faw, and Towla Bailyow, and the others mentioned in the act of 1540, were unquestionably heroes of the first water. He pictures to himself these men as so many swarthy, slashing heroes, dressed in scarlet and green, armed with pistols and broad-swords, mounted on blood-horses, with hawks and hounds in their train. True to nature, every Gipsy is delighted with his descent, no matter what other people, in their ignorance of the subject, may think of it, or what their prejudices may be in regard to it. One of the princ.i.p.al differences to be drawn between the history of the Gipsies and that of the Jews, is, as I have already stated, that the Jews left Palestine a civilized people, while the Gipsies entered Europe, in the beginning of the fifteenth century, in a barbarous state. But the difference is only of a relative nature; for when the Gipsies emerge from their original condition, they occupy as good positions in the world as the Jews; while they have about them none of those outward peculiarities of the Jews, that make them, in a manner, offensive to other people. In every sense but that of belonging to the Gipsy tribe, they are ordinary natives; for the circ.u.mstances that have formed the characters of the ordinary natives have formed theirs. Besides this, there is a degree of dignity about the general bearing of such people, rough as it sometimes is, that plainly shows that they are no common fellows, at least that they do not hold themselves to be such. For it is to be remarked, that such people do not directly apply to themselves the prejudice which exists towards what the world understands to be Gipsies; however much they may infer that such would be directed against them, should the world discover that they belonged to the tribe. In this respect, they differ from Jews, all of whom apply to themselves the prejudice of the rest of their species; which exercises so depressing an influence upon the character of a people. Indeed, one will naturally look for certain general superior points of character in a man who has fairly emerged from a wild and barbarous state, which he will not be so apt to find in another who has fallen from a higher position in the scale of nations, which the Jew has unquestionably done. A Jew, no matter what he thinks of the long-gone-by history of his race, looks upon it, now, as a fallen people; while the Gipsy has that subdued but, at heart, consequential, extravagance of ideas, springing from the wild independence and vanity of his ancestors, which frequently finds a vent in a lavish and foolish expenditure, so as not to be behind others in his liberality. A very good idea of such a cast of character may be formed from that of the superior cla.s.s of Gipsies mentioned by our author, when the descendants of such have been brought up under more favourable circ.u.mstances, and enjoyed all the advantages of the ordinary natives of the country.

In considering the phenomenon of the existence of the Jews since the dispersion, I am not inclined to place it on any other basis than I would that of the Gipsies; for, with both, it is substantially a question of people. They are a people, scattered over the world, like the Gipsies, and have a history--the Bible, which contains both their history and their laws; and these two contain their religion. It would, perhaps, be more correct to say, that the religion of the Jews is to be found in the Talmud, and the other human compositions, for which the race have such a superst.i.tious reverence; and even these are taken as interpreted by the Rabbis. A Jew has, properly speaking, little of a creed. He believes in the existence of G.o.d, and in Moses, his prophet, and observes certain parts of the ceremonial law, and some holidays, commemorative of events in the history of his people. He is a Jew, in the first place, as a simple matter of fact, and, as he grows up, he is made acquainted with the history of his race, to which he becomes strongly attached. He then holds himself to be one of the "first-born of the Lord," one of the "chosen of the Eternal," one of the "Lord's aristocracy;" expressions of amazing import, in his worldly mind, that will lead him to almost die for his _faith_; while his _religion_ is of a very low natural order, "standing only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances," suitable for a people in a state of pupilage. The Jewish mind, in the matter of religion, is, in some respects, preeminently gross and material in its nature; its idea of a Messiah rising no higher than a conqueror of its own race, who will bring the whole world under his sway, and parcel out, among his fellow-Jews, a lion's share of the spoils, consisting of such things as the inferior part of human nature so much craves for. And his ideas of how this Messiah is to be connected with the original tribes, as mentioned in the prophecies, are childish and superst.i.tious in the extreme. Writers do, therefore, greatly err, when they say, that it is only a thin part.i.tion that separates Judaism from Christianity. There is almost as great a difference between the two, as there is between that which is material, and that which is spiritual. A Jew is so thoroughly bound, heart and soul, by the spell which the phenomena of his race exert upon him, that, humanly speaking, it is impossible to make anything of him in the matter of Christianity. And herein, in his own way of thinking, consists his peculiar glory. Such being the case with Christianity, it is not to be supposed that the Jew would forsake his own religion, and, of course, his own people, and believe in any religion having an origin in the spontaneous and gradual growth of superst.i.tion and imposture, modified, systematized, adorned, or expanded, by ambitious and superior minds, or almost wholly in the conceptions of these minds; having, for a foundation, an instinct--an intellectual and emotional want--as common to man, as instinct is to the brute creation, for the ends which it has to serve. We cannot separate the questions of race and belief, when we consider the Jews as a people, however it might be with individuals among them. It was as unreasonable to persecute a Jew, for not giving up his feelings as a Jew, and his religion, for the superst.i.tions and impostures of Rome, as it was to persecute a Gipsy, for not giving up his feelings of nationality, and his language, as was specially attempted by Charles III., of Spain: for such are inherent in the respective races. The worst that can be said of any Gipsy, in the matter of religion, is, when we meet with one who admits that all that he really cares for is, "to get a good belly-full, and to feel comfortable o' nights." Here, we have an original soil to be cultivated; a soil that can be cultivated, if we only go the right way about doing it. Out of such a man, there is no other spirit to be cast, but that of "the world, the flesh, and the devil," before another can take up its habitation in his mind. Bigoted as is the Jew against even entertaining the claims of Christ, as the Messiah, he is very indifferent to the practice, or even the knowledge, of his own religion, where he is tolerated and well-treated, as in the United States of America. Of the growing-up, or even the grown-up, Jews in that country, the ultra-Jewish organ, the "Jewish Messenger," of New York, under date the 19th October, 1860, says that, "with the exception of a very few, who are really taught their religion, the great majority, we regret to state, know no more of their faith than the veriest heathen:" and, I might add, practise less of it; for, as a people, they pay very little regard to it, in general, or to the Sabbath, in particular, but are characterized as worldly beyond measure; having more to answer for than the Gipsy, whose sole care is "a good meal, and a comfortable crib at night."[313]

[313] The following extract from "Leaves from the Diary of a Jewish Minister," published in the above-mentioned journal, on the 4th April, 1862, may not be uninteresting to the Christian reader:

"In our day, the conscience of Israel is seldom troubled; it is of so elastic a character, that, like gutta percha, it stretches and is compressed, according to the desire of its owner. We seldom hear of a troubled conscience... . . Not that we would a.s.sert that our people are without a conscience; we merely state that we seldom hear of its troubles. It is more than probable, that when the latent feeling is aroused on matters of religion, and for a moment they have an idea that 'their soul is not well,' they take a hom[oe]opathic dose of spiritual medicine, and then feel quite convalescent."

Amid all the obloquy and contempt cast upon his race, amid all the persecutions to which it has been exposed, the Jew, with his inherent conceit in having Abraham for his father, falls back upon the history of his nation, with the utmost contempt for everything else that is human; forgetting that there is such a thing as the "first being last." He boasts that his race, and his only, is eternal, and that all other men get everything from _him_! He vainly imagines that the Majesty of Heaven should have made his dispensations to mankind conditional upon anything so unworthy as his race has so frequently shown itself to be. If he has been so favoured by G.o.d, what can he point to as the fruits of so much loving-kindness shown him? What is his nation now, however numerous it may be, but a ruin, and its members, but spectres that haunt it? And what has brought it to its present condition? "Its sins." Doubtless, its sins; but what particular sins? And how are these sins to be put away, seeing that the temple, the high-priesthood, and the sacrifices no longer exist? Or what effort, by such means as offer, has ever been made to mitigate the wrath of G.o.d, and prevail upon Him to restore the people to their exalted privileges? Or what could they even propose doing, to bring about that event? Questions like these involve the Jewish mind in a labyrinth of difficulties, from which it cannot extricate itself. The dispersion was not only foretold, but the cause of it given. The Scriptures declare that the Messiah was to have appeared before the destruction of the temple; and the time of his expected advent, according to Jewish traditions, coincided with that event. It is eighteen centuries since the destruction of the temple, before which the Messiah was to have come; and the Jew still "hopes against hope," and, if it is left to himself, will do so till the day of judgment, for such a Messiah as his earthly mind seems to be only capable of contemplating.

Has he never read the New Testament, and reflected on the sufferings of him who was meek and lowly, or on those of his disciples, inflicted by his ancestors, for generations, when he has come complaining of the sufferings to which his race has been exposed? He is ent.i.tled to sympathy, for all the cruelties with which his race has been visited; but he could ask it with infinitely greater grace, were he to offer any for the sufferings of the early Christians and their divine master, or were he, even, to tolerate any of his race following him to-day.

What has the Jew got to say to all this? He cannot now say that his main comfort and support, in his unbelief, consists in his contemplating what he vainly calls a miracle, wrapt up in the history of his people, since the dispersion. That prop and comfort are gone. No, O Jew! the true miracle, if miracle there is, is your impenitent unbelief. No one asks you to disbelieve in Moses, but, in addition to believing in Moses, to believe in him of whom Moses wrote. Do you really believe in Moses? You, doubtless, believe after a sort; you believe in Moses, as any other person believes in the history of his own country and people; but your belief in Moses goes little further. You glory in the antiquity of your race, and imagine that every other has perished. No, O Jew! the "mixed mult.i.tude" which left Egypt, under Moses, separated from him, and pa.s.sed into India, has come up, in these latter times, again to vex you. Even it is entering, it may be, pressing, into the Kingdom of G.o.d, and leaving you out of it. Yes! the people from the "hedges and by-ways" are submitting to the authority of the true Messiah; while you, in your infatuated blindness, are denying him.

What may be termed the philosophy of the Gipsies, is very simple in itself, when we have before us its main points, its principles, its bearings, its genius; and fully appreciated the circ.u.mstances with which the people are surrounded. The most remarkable thing about the subject is, that people never should have dreamt of its nature, but, on the contrary, believed that "the Gipsies are gradually disappearing, and will soon become extinct." The Gipsies have always been disappearing, but where do they go to? Look at any tent of Gipsies, when the family are all together, and see how prolific they are. What, then, becomes of this encrease? The present work answers the question. It is a subject, however, which I have found some difficulty in getting people to understand. One cannot see how a person can be a Gipsy, "because his father was a respectable man;" another, "because his father was an old soldier;" and another cannot see "how it necessarily follows that a person is a Gipsy, for the reason that his parents were Gipsies." The idea, as disconnected from the use of a tent, or following a certain kind of life, may be said to be strange to the world; and, on that account, is not very easily impressed on the human mind. It would be singular, however, if a Scotchman, after all that has been said, should not be able to understand what is meant by the Scottish Gipsy tribe, or that it should ever cease to be that tribe as it progresses in life. In considering the subject, he need not cast about for much to look at, for he should exercise his mind, rather than his eyes, when he approaches it. It is, princ.i.p.ally, a mental phenomenon, and should, therefore, be judged of by the faculties of the mind: for a Gipsy may not differ a whit from an ordinary native, in external appearance or character, while, in his mind, he may be as thorough a Gipsy as one could well imagine.

In contemplating the subject of the Gipsies, we should have a regard for the facts of the question, and not be led by what we might, or might not, imagine of it; for the latter course would be characteristic of people having the moral and intellectual traits of children. The race might, to a certain extent, be judged a.n.a.logously, by what we know of other races; but that which is pre-eminently necessary, is to judge of it by facts: for facts, in a matter like this, take precedence of everything. Even in regard to the Gipsy language, broken as it is, people are very apt to say that it _cannot_ exist at the present day; yet the least reflection will convince us, that the language which the Gipsies use is the remains of that which they brought with them into Europe, and not a make-up, to serve their purposes. The very genius peculiar to them, as an Oriental people, is a sufficient guarantee of this fact; and the more so from their having been so thoroughly separated, by the prejudice of caste, from others around them; which would so naturally lead them to use, and retain, their peculiar speech.

But the use of the Gipsy language is not the only, not even the princ.i.p.al, means of maintaining a knowledge of being Gipsies; perhaps it is altogether unnecessary; for the mere consciousness of the fact of being Gipsies, transmitted from generation to generation, and made the basis of marriages, and the intimate a.s.sociations of life, is, in itself, perfectly sufficient. The subject of two distinct races, existing upon the same soil, is not very familiar to the mind of a British subject. To acquire a knowledge of such a phenomenon, he should visit certain parts of Europe, or Asia, or Africa, or the New World.

Since all (I may say all) Gipsies hide the knowledge of their being Gipsies from the other inhabitants, as they leave the tent, it cannot be said that any of them really deny themselves, even should they hide themselves from those of their own race. The ultimate test of a person being a Gipsy would be for another to catch the internal response of his mind to the question put to him as to the fact; or observe the workings of his heart in his contemplations of himself. It can hardly be said that any Gipsy denies, at heart, the fact of his being a Gipsy, (which, indeed, is a contradiction in terms,) let him disguise it from others as much as he may. If I could find such a man, he would be the only one of his race whom I would feel inclined to despise as such.

From all that has been said, the reader can have no difficulty in believing, with me, as a question beyond doubt, that the immortal John Bunyan was a Gipsy of mixed blood. He was a tinker. And who were the tinkers? Were there any itinerant tinkers in England, before the Gipsies settled there? It is doubtful. In all likelihood, articles requiring to be tinkered were carried to the nearest smithy. The Gipsies are all tinkers, either literally, figuratively, or representatively. Ask any English Gipsy, of a certain cla.s.s, what he can do, and, after enumerating several occupations, he will add: "I can tinker, of course,"

although he may know little or nothing about it. Tinkering, or travelling-smith work, is the Gipsy's representative business, which he brought with him into Europe. Even the intelligent and respectable Scottish Gipsies speak of themselves as belonging to the "tinker tribe."

The Gipsies in England, as in Scotland, divided the country among themselves, under representative chiefs, and did not allow any other Gipsies to enter upon their walks or beats. Considering that the Gipsies in England were estimated at above ten thousand during the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, we can readily believe that they were much more numerous during the time of Bunyan. Was there, therefore, a pot or a kettle, in the rural parts of England, to be mended, for which there was not a Gipsy ready to attend to it? If a Gipsy would not tolerate any of his own race entering upon his district, was he likely to allow any native? If there were native tinkers in England before the Gipsies settled there, how soon would the latter, with their organization, drive every one from the trade by sheer force! What thing more like a Gipsy?

Among the Scotch, we find, at a comparatively recent time, that the Gipsies actually murdered a native, for infringing upon what they considered one of their prerogatives--that of gathering rags through the country.

Lord Macaulay says, with reference to Bunyan: "The tinkers then formed a hereditary caste, which was held in no high estimation. They were generally vagrants and pilferers, and were often confounded with the Gipsies, whom, in truth, they nearly resembled." I would like to know on what authority his lordship makes such an a.s.sertion; what he knows about the origin of this "_hereditary_ tinker caste," and if it still exists; and whether he holds to the purity-of-Gipsy-blood idea, advanced by the Edinburgh Review and Blackwood's Magazine, but especially the former.

How would he account for the existence of a hereditary caste of any kind, in England, and that just one--the "tinker caste"? There was no calling at that time hereditary in England, that I know of; and yet Bunyan was born a tinker. In Scotland, the collier and salter castes were hereditary, for they were in a state of slavery to the owners of these works.[314] But who ever heard of any native occupation, so free as tinkering, being hereditary in England, in the seventeenth century?

Was not this "tinker caste," at that time, exactly the same that it is now? If it was then hereditary, is it not so still? If not, by what means has it ceased to be hereditary? The tinkers existed in England, at that time, exactly as they do now. And who are they now but mixed Gipsies? It is questionable, very questionable indeed, if we will find, in all England, a tinker who is not a Gipsy. The cla.s.s will deny it; the purer and more original kind of Gipsies will also deny it; still, they are Gipsies. They are all _chabos_, _calos_, or _chals_; but they will play upon the word Gipsy in its ideal, purity-of-blood sense, and deny that they are Gipsies. We will find in Lavengro two such Gipsies--the Flaming Tinman, and Jack Slingsby; the first, a half-blood, (which did not necessarily imply that either parent was white;) and the other, apparently, a very much mixed Gipsy. The tinman termed Slingsby a "mumping villain." Now, "mumper," among the English Gipsies, is an expression for a Gipsy whose blood is very much mixed. When Mr. Borrow used the word _Petulengro_,[315] Slingsby started, and exclaimed: "Young man, you know a thing or two." I have used the same word with English Gipsies, causing the same surprise; on one occasion, I was told: "You must be a Scotch Gipsy yourself." "Well," I replied, "I may be as good a Gipsy as any of you, for anything you may know." "That may be so," was the answer I got. Then Slingsby was very careful to mention to Lavengro that his _wife_ was a white, or Christian, woman; a thing not necessarily true because he a.s.serted it, but it implied that _he_ was different. These are but instances of, I might say, all the English tinkers. Almost every old countrywoman about the Scottish Border knows that the Scottish tinkers are Gipsies.[316]

[314] See pages 111 and 121.

[315] _Petul_, according to Mr. Borrow, means a horse-shoe; and _Petulengro_, a lord of the horse-shoe. It is evidently a very high catch-word among the English Gipsies.

[316] Various of the characters mentioned in Mr. Borrow's "Lavengro,"

and "Romany Rye," are, beyond doubt, Gipsies. Old Fulcher is termed, in a derisive manner, by Ursula, "a _gorgio_ and basket-maker." She is one of the Hernes; a family which _gorgio_ and basket-maker Gipsies describe as "an ignorant, conceited set, who think nothing of other Gipsies, owing to the quality and quant.i.ty of their own blood." This is the manner in which the more original and pure and the other kind of English Gipsies frequently talk of each other. The latter will deny that they are Gipsies, at least hide it from the world; and, like the same kind of Scottish Gipsies, speak of the others, exclusively, as Gipsies. I am acquainted with a fair-haired English Gipsy, whose wife, now dead, was a half-breed. "But I am not a Gipsy," said he to me, very abruptly, before I had said anything that could have induced him to think that I took him for one. He spoke Gipsy, like the others. I soon caught him tripping; for, in speaking of the size of Gipsy families, he slipped his foot, and said: "For example, there is our family; there were (so many) of us." There is another Gipsy, a neighbour, who pa.s.ses his wife off to the public as an Irish woman, while she is a fair-haired Irish Gipsy. Both, in short, played upon the word Gipsy; for, as regards fullness of blood, they really were not Gipsies.

The dialogue between the Romany Rye and the Horncastle jockey clearly shows the Gipsy in the latter, when his attention is directed to the figure of the Hungarian. The Romany Rye makes indirect reference to the Gipsies, and the jockey abruptly asks: "Who be they? Come, don't be ashamed. I have occasionally kept queerish company myself." "Romany _chals_! Whew! I begin to smell a rat." The remainder of the dialogue, and the _spree_ which follows, are perfectly Gipsy throughout, on the part of the jockey; but, like so many of his race, he is evidently ashamed to own himself up to be "one of them." He says, in a way as if he were a stranger to the language: "And what a singular language they have got!" "Do you know anything of it?" said the Romany Rye. "Only a very few words; they were always chary in teaching me any." He said he was brought up with the _gorgio_ and basket-maker Fulcher, who followed the caravan. He is described as dressed in a coat of green, (a favourite Gipsy colour,) and as having curly brown or black hair; and he says of Mary Fulcher, whom he married: "She had a fair complexion, and nice red hair, both of which I liked, being a bit of a black myself." How much this is in keeping with the Gipsies, who so frequently speak of each other, in a jocular way, as "brown and black rascals!"

I likewise claim Isopel Berners, in Lavengro, to be a _thumping_ Gipsy la.s.s, who travelled the country with her donkey-cart, taking her own part, and _wapping_ this one, and _wapping_ that one. It signifies not what her appearance was. I have frequently taken tea, at her house, with a young, blue-eyed, English Gipsy widow, perfectly English in her appearance, who spoke Gipsy freely enough. It did not signify what Isopel said of herself, or her relations. How did she come to speak Gipsy? Do Gipsies _teach_ their language to _strangers_, and, more especially, to strange women? a.s.suredly not. Suppose that Isopel was not a Gipsy, but had married a Gipsy, then I could understand how she might have known Gipsy, and yet not have been a Gipsy, except by initiation. But it is utterly improbable that she, a strange woman, should have been taught a word of it.

In England are to be found Gipsies of many occupations; horse-dealers, livery stable-keepers, public-house keepers, sometimes grocers and linen-drapers; indeed, almost every occupation from these downwards. I can readily enough believe an English Gipsy, when he tells me, that he knows of an English squire a Gipsy. To have an English squire a Gipsy, might have come about even in this way: Imagine a rollicking or eccentric English squire taking up with, and marrying, say, a pretty mixed Gipsy bar or lady's maid, and the children would be brought up Gipsies, for certainty.

There are two Gipsies, of the name of B----, farmers upon the estate of Lord Lister, near Ma.s.singham, in the county of Norfolk. They are described as good-sized, handsome men, and swarthy, with long black hair, combed over their shoulders. They dress in the old Gipsy stylish fashion, with a green cut-away, or Newmarket, coat, yellow leather breeches, b.u.t.toned to the knee, and top boots, with a Gipsy hat, ruffled breast, and turned-down collar. They occupy the position of any natives in society; attend church, take an interest in parish matters, dine with his lordship's other tenants, and compete for prizes at the agricultural shows. They are proud of being Gipsies. I have also been told that there are Gipsies in the county of Kent, who have hop farms and dairies.

The prejudice against the name of Gipsy was apparently as great in Bunyan's time as in our own; and there was, evidently, as great a timidity, on the part of mixed, fair-haired Gipsies, to own the blood then, as now; and great danger, for then it was hangable to be a Gipsy, by the law of Queen Elizabeth, and "felony without benefit of clergy,"

for "any person, being fourteen years, whether natural born subject or stranger, who had been seen in the fellowship of such persons, or disguised like them, and remained with them one month, at once, or at several times." When the name of Gipsy, and every a.s.sociation connected with it, were so severely proscribed by law, what other name would the tribe go under but that of tinkers--their own proper occupation? Those only would be called Gipsies whose appearance indicated the pure, or nearly pure, Gipsy. Although there was no necessity, under any circ.u.mstances, for Bunyan to say that he was a Gipsy, and still less in the face of the law proscribing, so absolutely, the race, and every one countenancing it, he evidently wished the fact to be understood, or, I should rather say, took it for granted, that part of the public knew of it, when he said: "For my descent, it was, as is well known to many, of a low and inconsiderable generation; my father's house being of that rank that is meanest and most despised of all the families of the land."

Of whom does Bunyan speak here, if not of the Gipsies? He says, of _all_ the families of the land. And he adds: "After I had been thus for some considerable time, another thought came into my mind, and that was, whether we, (his family and relatives,) were of the Israelites or no?

For, finding in the Scriptures, that they were once the peculiar people of G.o.d, thought I, if I were one of this race, (how significant is the expression!) my soul must needs be happy. Now, again, I found within me a great longing to be resolved about this question, but could not tell how I should; at last, I asked my father of it, who told me, No, we, (his father included,) were not."[317] I have heard the same question put by Gipsy lads to their parent, (a very much mixed Gipsy,) and it was answered thus: "We must have been among the Jews, for some of our ceremonies are like theirs." The best commentary that can be pa.s.sed on the above extracts from Bunyan's autobiography, will be found in our author's account of his visit to the old Gipsy chief, whose acquaintance he made at St. Boswell's fair, and to which the reader is referred, (pages 309-318.) When did we ever hear of an _ordinary Englishman_ taking so much trouble to ascertain whether he was a _Jew_, or not? No Englishman, it may be safely a.s.serted, ever does that, or has ever done it; and no one in England could have done it, during Bunyan's time, but a Gipsy. Bunyan seems to have been more or less acquainted with the history of the Jews, and how they were scattered over the world, though not publicly known to be in England, from which country they had been for centuries banished. About the time in question, the re-admission of the Jews was much canva.s.sed in ecclesiastical as well as political circles, and ultimately carried, by the exertions of Mana.s.seh Ben Israel, of Amsterdam. Under these circ.u.mstances, it was very natural for Bunyan to ask himself whether he belonged to the Jewish race, since he had evidently never seen a Jew; and that the more especially, as the Scottish Gipsies have even believed themselves to be Ethiopians. Such a question is entertained, by the Gipsies, even at the present day; for they naturally think of the Jews, and wonder whether, after all, their race may not, at some time, have been connected with them. How trifling it is for any one to a.s.sert, that Bunyan--a common native of England--while in a state of spiritual excitement, imagined that he was a Jew, and that he should, at a mature age, have put anything so absurd in his autobiography, and in so grave a manner as he did!

[317] Bunyan adds: "But, notwithstanding the meanness and inconsiderableness of my parents, it pleased G.o.d to put it into their hearts to put me to school, to learn me both to read and write; the which I also attained, according to the rate of other poor men's children."

He does not say, "According to the rate of poor men's children," but of "_other_ poor men's children:" a form of expression always used by the Gipsies when speaking of themselves, as distinguished from others.

The language used by Bunyan, in speaking of his family, was in harmony with that of the population at large; but he, doubtless, had the feelings peculiar to all the tribe, with reference to their origin and race.

Southey, in his life of Bunyan, writes: "Wherefore this (tinkering) should have been so mean and despised a calling, is not, however, apparent, when it was not followed as a vagabond employment, but, as in this case, exercised by one who had a settled habitation, and who, mean as his condition was, was nevertheless able to put his son to school, in an age when very few of the poor were taught to read and write." The fact is, that Bunyan's father had, apparently, a town beat, which would give him a settled residence, prevent him using a tent, and lead him to conform with the ways of the ordinary inhabitants; but, doubtless, he had his pa.s.s from the chief of the Gipsies for the district. The same may be said of John Bunyan himself.

How little does a late writer in the Dublin University Magazine know of the feelings of a mixed Gipsy, like Bunyan, when he says: "Did he belong to the Gipsies, we have little doubt that he would have dwelt on it, with a sort of spiritual exultation; and that of his having been called out of Egypt would have been to him one of the proofs of Divine favour.

We cannot imagine him suppressing the fact, or disguising it." Where is the point in the reviewer's remarks? His remarks have no point. How could the fact of a man being a Gipsy be made the grounds of any kind of spiritual exultation? And how could the fact of the tribe originating in Egypt be a proof of Divine favour towards the individual? What occasion had Bunyan to mention he was a Gipsy? What purpose would it have served?

How would it have advanced his mission as a minister? Considering the prejudice that has always existed against that unfortunate word Gipsy, it would have created a sensation among all parties, if Bunyan had said that he was a Gipsy. "What!" the people would have asked, "a _Gipsy_ turned priest? We'll have the devil turning priest next!" Considering the many enemies which the tinker-bishop had to contend with, some of whom even sought his life, he would have given them a pretty occasion of revenging themselves upon him, had he said he was a Gipsy. They would have put the law in force, and stretched his neck for him.[318] The same writer goes on to say: "In one pa.s.sage at least--and we think there are more in Bunyan's works--the Gipsies are spoken of in such a way as would be most unlikely if Bunyan thought he belonged to that cla.s.s of vagabonds." I am not aware as to what the reviewer alludes; but, should Bunyan even have denounced the conduct of the Gipsies, in the strongest terms imaginable, would that have been otherwise than what he did with sinners generally? Should a clergyman denounce the ways and morals of every man of his parish, does that make him think less of being a native of the parish himself? Should a man even denounce his children as vagabonds, does that prevent him being their father? This writer ill.u.s.trates what I have said of people generally--that they are almost incapable of forming an opinion on the Gipsy question, unaided by facts, and the bearings of facts, laid before them; so thoroughly is the philosophy of race, as it progresses and develops, unknown to the public mind, and so absolute is the prejudice of caste against the Gipsy race.[319]

[318] Justice Keeling threatened Bunyan with this fate, even for preaching; for said he: "If you do not submit to go to hear divine service, and leave your preaching, you must be banished the realm: And if, after such a day as shall be appointed you to be gone, you shall be found in this realm, or be found to come over again, without special license from the king, you must stretch by the neck for it. I tell you plainly."

Sir Matthew Hale tells us that, on one occasion, at the Suffolk a.s.sizes, no less than thirteen Gipsies were executed, under the old Gipsy statutes, a few years before the Restoration.