Chapter X (3)

And how does the Gipsy woman bring up her children in regard to her own race? She tells them her "wonderful story"--informs them who they are, and of the dreadful prejudice that exists against them, simply for being Gipsies. She then tells them about Pharaoh and Joseph in Egypt, terming her people, "Pharaoh's folk." In short, she dazzles the imagination of the children, from the moment they can comprehend the simplest idea. Then she teaches them her words, or language, as the "real Egyptian," and frightens and bewilders the youthful mind by telling them that they are subject to be hanged if they are known to be Gipsies, or to speak these words, or will be looked upon as wild beasts by those around them. She then informs the children how long the Gipsies have been in the country; how they lived in tents; how they were persecuted, banished, and hanged, merely for being Gipsies. She then tells them of her people being in every part of the world, whom they can recognize by the language and signs which she is teaching them; and that her race will everywhere be ready to shed their blood for them. She then dilates upon the benefits that arise from being a Gipsy--benefits negative as well as positive; for should they ever be set upon--garroted, for example--all that they will have to do will be to cry out some such expression as "_Biené raté, calo chabo_," (good-night, Gipsy, or black fellow,) when, if there is a Gipsy near them, he will protect them. The children will be fondled by her relatives, handed about and hugged as "little ducks of Gipsies." The granny, while sitting at the fireside, like a witch, performs no small part in the education of the children, making them fairly dance with excitement. In this manner do the children of Gipsies have the Gipsy soul literally breathed into them.[263]

[263] Mr. Offor, editor of a late edition of Bunyan's works, writes,
in "Notes and Queries," thus: "I have avoided much intercourse with
this class, fearing the fate of Mr. Hoyland, who, being a Quaker, was
shot by one of Cupid's darts from a black-eyed Gipsy girl; and _J. S.
may do well to be cautious_." Mr. Offor is not far wrong. A Gipsy girl
can sometimes fascinate a "white fellow," as a snake can a bird--make
him flutter, and particularly so, should the "little Gipsy" be met
with in some such dress as black silks and a white polka. This much
can be said of Gipsy women, which cannot be said of all women, that
they know their places, and are not apt to _usurp_ the rights of the
_rajahs_; they will even "work the nails off their fingers" to make
them feel comfortable.

I should conclude, from what Mr. Offor says, that the Quaker married
the Gipsy girl. If children were born of the union, they will be
Gipsy-Quakers, or Quaker-Gipsies, whichever expression we choose to
adopt.

In such a way--what with the supreme influence which the mother has exercised over the mind of the child from its very infancy; the manner in which its imagination has been dazzled; and the dreadful prejudice towards the Gipsies, which they all apply, directly or indirectly, to themselves--does the Gipsy adhere to his race. When he comes to be a youth, he naturally enough endeavours to find his way to a tent, to have a look at the "old thing." He does not, however, think much of it as a reality; but it presents something very poetical and imaginative to his mind, when he contemplates it as the state from which his mysterious forefathers have sprung.[264] It makes very little difference, in the case to which I have alluded, whether the father be a Gipsy or not; the children all go with the mother, for they inherit the blood through her. What with the blood, the education, the words, and the signs, they are simply Gipsies, and will be such, as long as they retain a consciousness of who they are, and any peculiarities exclusively Gipsy. As it sometimes happens that the father, only, is a Gipsy, the attachment may not be so strong, on the part of the children, as if the blood had come through the mother; still, it likewise attaches them to the body. A great deal of jealousy is shown by the Gipsies, when a son marries a strange woman. A greater ado is not made by some Catholics, to bring up their children Catholics, under such circumstances, than is exhibited by Gipsies for their children knowing their secret--that is, the "wonderful story;" which has the effect of leading them, in their turn, to marry with Gipsies. The race is very jealous of "the blood" being lost; or that their "wonderful story" should become known to those who are not Gipsies.

[264] I have picked up quite a number of Scottish Gipsies of
respectable character, from their having gone in their youth, to look
at the "old thing." It is the most natural thing in the world for them
to do. What is it to look back to the time of James V., in 1540, when
John Faw was lord-paramount over the Gipsies in Scotland? Imagine,
then, the natural curiosity of a young Gipsy, brought up in a town, to
look at something like the original condition of his ancestors. Such a
Gipsy will leave Edinburgh, for example, and travel over the south of
Scotland, "casting his sign," as he passes through the villages, in
every one of which he will find Gipsies. Some of these villages are
almost entirely occupied by Gipsies. James Hogg is reported, in
Blackwood's Magazine, to say, that Lochmaben is "stocked" with them.

There are people who cannot imagine how a man can be a Gipsy and have fair hair. They think that, from his having fair hair, he cannot have the same feelings of what they imagine to be a true Gipsy, that is, a black-haired one. One naturally asks, what effect can the matter of colour of _hair_ have upon the _mind_ of a member of any community or clan, whether the hair be black, brown, red, fair, or white, or the person have no hair at all? Let us imagine a Gipsy with fair hair. How long is it since the white blood was introduced among his ancestors? Perhaps three hundred and fifty years. The race of which he comes has been, more or less, mixing and crossing ever since, but always retaining the issue within its own community. Is he fair-haired? Then he may be half a Gipsy; he may be three-fourths Gipsy, and perhaps even more. At the present day, the "points" of such a Gipsy are altogether arbitrary; some profess to know their points, but it is a thing altogether uncertain. All that they know and adhere to is, that they are Gipsies, and nothing else. In this manner are the British Gipsies, (with the exception of some English families, about whom there is no certainty,) members of the Gipsy community, or nation, as such--each having some of the blood; and not Gipsies of an ideal purity of race. What they know is, that their parents and relatives are Gipsies; that Gipsies separate them from the eternity that is past; and, consequently, that they are Gipsies. They, indeed, accept their descent, blood, and nationality as instinctively as they accept the very sex which God has given them. Which of the two knows most of Gipsydom--the fair-haired or black? Almost invariably the fair.[265]

[265] Among the English Gipsies, fair-haired ones are looked upon by
the purer sort, or even by those taking after the Gipsy, as "small
potatoes." The consequence is they have to make up for their want of
blood, by smartness, knowledge of the language, or something that will
go to balance the deficiency of blood. They generally lay claim to the
_intellect_, while they yield the _blood_ to the others. A full or
nearly full-blood young English Gipsy looks upon herself with all the
pride of a little duchess, while in the company of young male mixed
Gipsies. A mixed Gipsy may reasonably be assumed to be more
intelligent than one of the old stock, were it only for this reason,
that the mixture softens down the natural conceit and bigotry of the
Gipsy; while, as regards his personal appearance, it puts him in a
more improvable position. Still, a full-blood Gipsy looks up to a
mixed Gipsy, if he is anything of a superior man, and freely
acknowledges the blood. Indeed, the two kinds will readily marry, if
circumstances bring them together. To a couple of such Gipsies I said:
"What difference does it make, if the person _has the blood, and has
his heart in the right place_?" "That's the idea; that's exactly the
idea," they both replied.

We naturally ask, what effect has this difference in appearance upon two such members of one family--the one with European, the other with Gipsy, features and colour? and the answer is this: The first will hide the fact of his being a Gipsy from strangers; indeed, he is ashamed to let it be known that he is a Gipsy; and he is afraid that people, not knowing how it came about, would laugh at him. "What!" they would ask, "_you_ a Gipsy? The idea is absurd." Besides, it facilitates his getting on in the world, to prevent it being known that he is a Gipsy. The other member cannot deny that he is a Gipsy, because any one can see it. Such are the Gipsies who are more apt to cling to the tent, or the more original ways of the old stock. They are very proud of their appearance; but it is a pride accompanied with disadvantages, and even pain. For, after all, the beauty and pleasure in being a Gipsy is to have the other cast of features and colour; he has as much of the blood and language as the other, while he can go into any kind of company--a sort of Jack-the-Giant-Killer in his invisible coat. The nearer the Gipsy comes to the original colour of his race, the less chance is there of improving him. He knows what he is like; and well does he know the feeling that people entertain for him. In fact, he feels that there is no use in being anything but what people call a Gipsy. But it is different with those of European countenance and colour, or when these have been modified or diluted by a mixture of white blood. They can, then, enter upon any sphere of employment to which they have a mind, and their personal advantages and outward circumstances will admit of.[266]

[266] To thoroughly understand how a Gipsy, with fair hair and blue
eyes, can be as much a Gipsy as one with black, may be termed "passing
the _pons assinorum_ of the Gipsy question." Once over the bridge, and
there are no difficulties to be encountered on the journey, unless it
be to understand that a Gipsy can be a Gipsy without living in a tent
or being a rogue.

Let us now consider the destiny of such European-like Gipsies. Suppose a female of this description marries a native in settled life, which both of them follow. She brings the children up as Gipsies, in the way described. The children are apt to become ultra Gipsies. If they, in their turn, marry natives, they do the same with their children; so that, if the same system were always followed, they would continue Gipsies forever. For all that is necessary to perpetuate the tribe, is simply for the Gipsies to know who they are, and the prejudice that exists toward the race of which they are a part; to say nothing of the innate associations connected with their origin and descent. Such a phenomenon may be fitly compared to the action of an auger; with this difference, that the auger may lose its edge, but the Gipsy will drill his way through generations of the ordinary natives, and, at the end, come out as sharp as ever; all the circumstances attending the two races being exactly the same at the end as at the beginning. In this way, let their blood be mixed as it may, let even their blood-relationship outside of their body be what it may, the Gipsies still remain, in their private associations, a distinct people, into whatever sphere of human action they may enter; although, in point of blood, appearance, occupation, character, and religion, they may have drifted the breadth of a hemisphere from the stakes and tent of the original Gipsy.

There can surely be no great difficulty in comprehending so simple an idea as this. Here we have a foreign race introduced amongst us, which has been proscribed, legally as well as socially. To escape the effects of this double proscription, the people have hidden the fact of their belonging to the race, although they have clung to it with an ardour worthy of universal admiration. The proscription is toward the name and race as such, that is, the blood; and is not general, but absolute; none having ever been received into society as Gipsies. For this reason, every Gipsy, every one who has Gipsy blood in his veins, applies the proscription to himself. On the other hand, he has his own descent--the Gipsy descent; and, as I have already said, he has naturally as little desire to wish a different descent, as he has to have a different sex. As Finns do not wish to have been born Englishmen, or Englishmen Finns, so Gipsies are perfectly satisfied with their descent, nay, extremely proud of it. They would not change it, if they could, for any consideration. When Gipsies, therefore, marry natives, they do not only willingly bring up their children as Gipsies, but by every moral influence they are forced to do it, and cling to each other. In this way has the race been absolutely cut off from that of the ordinary natives; all intercourse between the two, unless on the part of the _bush_ Gipsy, in the way of dealings, having been of a clandestine nature, on the side of the Gipsy, or, in other words, _incog._ How melancholy it is to think that such a state of things exists in the British Islands!

The Gipsy, born of a Gipsy mother and a native father, does, therefore, most naturally, and, I may say, invariably, follow the Gipsy connexion; the simplest impulse of manhood compels him to do it. Being born, or becoming a member of settled society, he joins in the ordinary amusements or occupations of his fellow-creatures of both races; which he does the more readily when he feels conscious of the incognito which he bears. But he has been brought up from his mother's knee a Gipsy; he knows nothing else; his associations with his relatives have been Gipsy; and he has in his veins that which the white damns, and, he doubts not, would damn in him, were he to know of it. He has, moreover, the words and signs of the Gipsy race; he is brought in contact with the Gipsy race; he perceives that his feelings are reciprocated by them, and that both have the same reserve and timidity for "outsiders." He does not reason abstractly what he is _not_, but instinctively holds that he is "one of them;" that he has in his mind, his heart, and his blood, that which the common native has not, and which makes him a _chabo_, that is, a Gipsy.

The mother, in the case mentioned, is certainly not a full-blood Gipsy, nor anything like it; she does not know her real "points;" all that she knows is, that she is a "Gipsy:" so that, if the youth's father is an ordinary native, the youth holds himself to be a half-and-half, nominally, though he does not know what he really is, as regards blood. Imagine, then, that he takes such a half-and-half Gipsy for a wife, and that both tell their children that they are "Gipsies:" the children, perhaps, knowing nothing of the real origin of their parents, take up the "wonderful story," and hand it down to their children, initiating them, in their turn, in the "mysteries." These children never doubt that _they_ are "Gipsies," although _their_ Gipsyism may, as I have already said, have "drifted the breadth of a hemisphere from the stakes and tent of the original Gipsy." In this manner is Gipsydom kept alive, by its turning round and round in a perpetual circle. And in this manner does it happen, that a native finds his own children Gipsies, from having, in seeking for a wife, stumbled upon an Egyptian woman. Gipsydom is, therefore, the aggregate of Gipsies, wherever, or under whatever circumstances, they are to be found. It is, in two respects, an absolute question; absolute as to blood, and absolute as to those teachings, feelings, and associations, that, by a moral necessity, accompany the possession of the blood.

This brings me to an issue with Mr. Borrow. Speaking of the destination of the Spanish Gipsies, he says: "If the Gitanos are abandoned to themselves, by which we mean, no arbitrary laws are again enacted for their extinction, the sect will eventually cease to be, and its members become confounded with the residue of the population." I can well understand that such procedure, on the part of the Spanish Government, was calculated to soften the ferocious disposition of the Gipsies; but did it bring them a point nearer to an amalgamation with the people than before? Mr. Borrow continues: "The position which they occupy is the lowest. . . . . The outcast of the prison and the _presidio_, who calls himself Spaniard, would feel insulted by being termed Gitano, and would thank God that he is not." He continues: "It is, of course, by intermarriage, alone, that the two races will ever commingle; and before that event is brought about, much modification must take place amongst the Gitanos, in their manners, in their habits, in their affections and their dislikes, and perhaps _even in their physical peculiarities_, (yet 'no washing,' as Mr. Borrow approvingly quotes, 'will turn the Gipsy white;') much must be forgotten on both sides, and everything is forgotten in course of time." So great, indeed, was the prejudice against the Gipsies, that the law of Charles III, in 1783, forbade the people calling them Gitanos, under the penalty of being punished for _slander!_ because, his majesty said: "I declare that those who go by the name of Gitanos are not so by origin or nature; nor do they proceed from any infected root(!)" What regard would the native Spaniards pay to the injunction, that they would be punished for "slander," for calling the Gipsies _Gitanos_, in place of _Spaniards_? We may well believe that such a law would be a dead letter in Spain; where, according to Mr. Borrow, "justice has invariably been a mockery; a thing to be bought and sold, terrible only to the feeble and innocent, and an instrument of cruelty and avarice."

Mr. Borrow leaves the question where he found it. Even remove the prejudice that exists against the Gipsies, as regards their colour, habits, and history; what then? Would they, as a people cease to be? Would they amalgamate with the natives, _so as to be lost_? Assuredly not. They may mix their blood, but they preserve their mental identity in the world; even although, in point of physical appearance, habits, manners, occupation, character, and creed, they might "become confounded with the residue of the population." In that respect, they are the most exclusive people of almost any to be found in the world. We have only to consider what Freemasonry is, and we can form an idea of what Gipsyism is, in one of its aspects. It rests upon the broadest of all bases--flesh and blood, a common and mysterious origin, a common language, a common history, a common persecution, and a common odium, in every part of the world. Remove the prejudice against the Gipsies, make it as respectable to be Gipsies, as the world, with its ignorance of many of the race, deem it desreputable; what then? Some of them might come out with their "tents and encampments," and banners and mottoes: the "cuddy and the creel, the hammer and tongs, the tent and the tin kettle" forever. People need not sneer at the "cuddy and the creel." The idea conveys a world of poetry to the mind of a Gipsy. Mrs. Fall, of Dunbar, thought it so poetical, that she had it, as we have seen, worked in tapestry; and it is doubtless carefully preserved, as an heir-loom, among her collateral descendants.[267]

[267] There is a considerable resemblance between Gipsyism, in its
harmless aspect, and Freemasonry; with this difference, that the
former is a general, while the latter is a special, society; that is
to say, the Gipsies have the language, or some of the words, and the
signs, peculiar to the whole race, which each individual or class will
use for different purposes. The race does not necessarily, and does
not in fact, have intercourse with every other member of it; in that
respect, they resemble any ordinary community of men. Masonry, as my
reader may be aware, is a society of what may be termed "a mixed
multitude of good fellows, who are all pledged to befriend and help
each other." The radical elements of Masonry may be termed a "rope of
sand," which the vows of the Order work into the most closely and
strongly formed coil of any to be found in the world. But it is
altogether of an artificial nature; while Gipsyism is
natural--something that, when separated from objectionable habits, one
might almost call divine; for it is founded upon a question of race--a
question of blood. The cement of a creed is weak, in comparison with
that which binds the Gipsies together; for a people, like an
individual, may have one creed to-day, and another to-morrow; it may
be continually travelling round the circle of every form of faith; but
blood, under certain circumstances, is absolute and immutable.

There are many Gipsies Freemasons; indeed, they are the very people to
push their way into a Mason's lodge; for they have secrets of their
own, and are naturally anxious to pry into those of others, by which
they may be benefited. I was told of a Gipsy who died lately, the
Master of a Masons' Lodge. A friend, a Mason, told me, the other day,
of his having entered a house in Yetholm, where were five Gipsies, all
of whom responded to his Masonic signs. Masons should therefore
interest themselves in, and befriend, the Gipsies.

Mr. Borrow speaks of the Gipsies "declining" in Spain. Ask a Scotchman about the Scottish Gipsies, and he will answer: "The Scotch Gipsies have pretty much died out." "Died out?" I ask; "that is impossible; for who are more prolific than Gipsies?" "Oh, then, they have become settled, and civilized." "And _ceased to be Gipsies_?" I continue. "Exactly so," he replies. What idea can be more ridiculous than that of saying, that if a Gipsy leaves the tent, settles in a town, and attends church, he ceases to be a Gipsy; and that, if he takes to the tent again, he becomes a Gipsy again? What has a man's occupation, habits, or character, to do with his clan, tribe, or nationality? Does education, does religion, remove from his mind a knowledge of who he is, or change his blood? Are not our own Borderers and Highlanders as much Borderers and Highlanders as ever they were? Are not Spanish Gipsies still Spanish Gipsies, although a change may have come over the characters and circumstances of some of them? It would be absurd to deny it.[268]

[268] The principle, or rather fact, here involved, simple as it is in
itself, is evidently very difficult of comprehension by the native
Scottish mind. Any person understands perfectly well how a Highlander,
at the present day, is still a Highlander, notwithstanding the great
change that has come over the character of his race. But our Scottish
_literati_ seem to have been altogether at sea, in comprehending the
same principle as applicable to the Gipsies. They might naturally have
asked themselves, whether _Gipsies_ could have procreated _Jews_; and,
if not Jews, how they could have procreated _gorgios_, (as English
Gipsies term natives.) A writer in Blackwood's Magazine says, in
reference to Billy Marshall, a Gipsy chief, to whom allusion has
already been made: "Who were his descendants I cannot tell; I am sure
he could not do it himself, if he were living. It is known that they
were prodigiously numerous; I dare say numberless." And yet this
writer gravely says that "the _race_ is in some risk of becoming
extinct(!)" Another writer in Blackwood says: "Their numbers may
perhaps have since been diminished, in particular States, by _the
progress of civilization_(_!_)" We would naturally pronounce any
person crazy who would maintain that there were no Highlanders in
Scotland, owing to their having "changed their habits." We could, with
as much reason, say the same of those who will maintain this opinion
in regard to the Gipsies. There has been a great deal of what is
called genius expended upon the Gipsies, but wonderfully little common
sense.

As the Jews, during their pilgrimage in the Wilderness, were protected
from their enemies by a cloud, so have the Gipsies, in their encrease
and development, been shielded from theirs, by a mist of ignorance,
which, it would seem, requires no little trouble to dispel.

Mr. Borrow has not sufficiently examined into Spanish Gipsyism to pass a reliable opinion upon it. He says: "One thing is certain, in the history of the Gitanos; that the sect flourished and encreased, so long as the law recommended and enjoined measures the most harsh and severe for its suppression. . . . The caste of the Gitanos still exists, but is neither so extensive, nor so formidable, as a century ago, when the law, in denouncing Gitanismo, proposed to the Gitanos the alternatives of death for persisting in their profession, or slavery for abandoning it." These are very singular alternatives. The latter is certainly not to be found in any of the Spanish laws quoted by Mr. Borrow. I am at a loss to perceive the point of his reasoning. There can be no difficulty in believing that Gipsies would rather _encrease_ in a state of peace, than if they were hunted from place to place, like wild beasts; and consequently, having renounced their former mode or life, they would, in Mr. Borrow's own words, "cease to play a distinct part in the history of Spain, and the _law_ would no longer speak of them as a distinct people." And the same might, to a certain extent, be said of the Spanish _people_. Mr. Borrow again says: "That the Gitanos are not so numerous as in former times, witness those _barrios_, in various towns, still denominated _Gitanerias_, but from whence the Gitanos have disappeared, even like the Moors from the _Morerias_." But Mr. Borrow himself, in the same work, gives a good reason for the disappearance of the Gipsies from these _Gitanerias_; for he says: "The _Gitanerias_ were soon considered as public nuisances, on which account the Gitanos were forbidden to live together in particular parts of the town, to hold meetings, and even to intermarry with each other." If the disappearance of the Gipsies from Spain was like that of the Moors, it would appear that they had left, or been expelled from, the country; a theory which Mr. Borrow does not advance. The Gipsies, to a certain extent, may have left these barriers, or been expelled from them, and settled, as tradesmen, mechanics, and what not, in other parts of the same or other towns; so as to be in a position the more able to get on in the world. Still, many of them are in the colonies. In Cuba there are many, as soldiers and musicians, dealers in mules and red pepper, which businesses they almost monopolize, and jobbers and dealers in various wares; and doubtless there are some of them innkeepers, and others following other occupations. In Mexico there are not a few. I know of a Gitano who has a fine wholesale and retail cigar store in Virginia.[269]

[269] In Olmstead's "Journey in the Seaboard Slave States" it is
stated, that in Alexandria, Louisiana, when under the Spanish rule,
there were "French and Spanish, _Egyptians_ and Indians, Mulattoes and
Negroes." This author reports a conversation which he had with a
planter, by which it appears that these Egyptians came from "some of
the Northern Islands;" that they spoke a language among themselves,
but could talk French and Spanish too; that they were black, but not
very black, and as good citizens as any, and passed for white folk.
The planter believed they married mostly with mulattoes, and that a
good many of the mulattoes had Egyptian blood in them too. He believed
these Egyptians had disappeared since the State became part of the
Union. Mr. Olmstead remarks: "The Egyptians were probably Spanish
Gipsies, though I have never heard of any of them being in America in
any other way."

Mr. Borrow concludes, in regard to the Spanish Gipsies, thus: "We have already expressed our belief that the caste has diminished of latter years; whether this diminution was the result of one or many causes combined; of a _partial change of habits_, of pestilence or sickness, of war or famine, or of a _freer intercourse with the Spanish population_, we have no means of determining, and shall abstain from offering conjectures on the subject." In this way does he leave the question just where he found it. Is there any reason to doubt that Gipsydom is essentially the same in Spain as in Great Britain; or that its future will be guided by any other principles than those which regulate that of the British Gipsies? Indeed, I am astonished that Mr. Borrow should advance the idea that Gipsies should _decrease_ by "changing their habits;" they might not _encrease so fast_, in a settled life, as when more exposed to the air, and not molested by the Spanish Government. I am no less astonished that he should think they would decrease by "a freer intercourse with the Spanish population;" when, in fact, such mixtures are well known to go with the Gipsies; the mixture being, in the estimation of the British Gipsies, calculated to strengthen and invigorate the race itself. Had Mr. Borrow kept in mind the case of the half-blood Gipsy captain, he could have had no difficulty in learning what became of mixed Gipsies.[270]

[270] Mr. Borrow surely cannot mean that a Gipsy ceases to be a Gipsy,
when he settles down, and "turns over a new leaf;" and that this
"change of habits" changes his descent, blood, appearance, language
and nationality! What, then, does he mean, when he says that the
Spanish Gipsies have decreased by "a partial change of habits?"

And does an infusion of Spanish blood, implied in a "freer intercourse
with the Spanish population," lead to the Gipsy element being wiped
out; or does it lead to the Spanish feeling being lost in Gipsydom?
Which is the element to be operated upon--the Spanish or the Gipsy?
Which is the _leaven_? The Spanish element is the _passive_, the Gipsy
the _active_. As a question of philosophy, the most simple of
comprehension, and, above all, as a matter of fact, the foreign
element introduced, _in detail_, into the _body_ of Gipsydom, goes
with that body, and, in feeling, becomes incorporated with it,
although, in physical appearance, it changes the Gipsy race, so that
it becomes "confounded with the residue of the population," but
remains Gipsy, as before. A Spanish Gipsy is a Spaniard as he stands,
and it would be hard to say what we should ask him to do, to become
more a Spaniard than he is already.

It doubtless holds in Spain, as in Great Britain, that as the Gipsy enters into settled life, and engages in a respectable calling, he hides his descent, and even mixes his blood with that of the country, and becomes ashamed of the name before the public; but is as much, at heart, a Gipsy, as any others of his race. And this theory is borne out by Mr. Borrow himself, when he speaks of "the unwillingness of the Spanish Gipsies to utter, when speaking of themselves, the detested expression Gitano; a word which seldom escapes their mouths." We might therefore conclude, that the Spanish Gipsies, with the exception of the more original and bigoted stock, would _hide their nationality_ from the common Spaniards, and so escape their notice. It is not at all likely that the half-pay Gipsy captain would mention to the public that he was a Gipsy, although he admitted it to Mr. Borrow, under the peculiar circumstances in which he met him. My Spanish acquaintance informs me that the Gitanos, generally, hide their nationality from the rest of the world.

Such a case is evidently told by Mr. Borrow, in the vagabond Gipsy, Antonio, at Badajoz, who termed a rich Gipsy, living in the same town, a hog, because he evidently would not countenance him. Antonio may possibly have been kicked out of his house, in attempting to enter it. He accused him of having married a Spaniard, and of fain attempting to pass himself for a Spaniard. As regards the wife, she might have been a Gipsy with very little of "the blood" in her veins; or a Spaniard, reared by Gipsies; or an ordinary Spanish maiden, to whom the Gipsy would teach his language, as sometimes happens among the English Gipsies. His wishing to pass for a Spaniard had nothing to do with his being, but not wishing to be known as, a Gipsy. The same is done by almost all our Scottish Gipsies. In England, those who do not follow the tent--I mean the more mixed and better-class--are even afraid of each other. "Afraid of what?" said I, to such an English Gipsy; "ashamed of being Gipsies?" "No, sir," (with great emphasis;) "not ashamed of being Gipsies, but of being _known to other people as Gipsies_." "A world of difference," I replied. What does the world hold to be a _Gipsy_, and what does it hold to be the _feelings of a man_? If we consider these two questions, we can have little difficulty in understanding the wish of such Gipsies to disguise themselves. It is in this way, and in the mixing of the blood, that this so-called "dying out of the Gipsies" is to be accounted for.[271]

[271] Mr. Borrow mentions, in the twenty-second chapter of the "Bible
in Spain," having met several cavalry soldiers from Granada, Gipsies
_incog._ who were surprised at being discovered to be Gipsies. They
had been impressed, but carried on a trade in horses, in league with
the captain of their company. They said: "We have been to the wars,
but not to fight; we left that to the Busné. We have kept together,
and like true Caloré, have stood back to back. We have made money in
the wars."

It is singular that Mr. Borrow should attribute the change which has come over the Spanish Gipsies, so much to the law passed by Charles III. in 1783; and that he should characterize it as an enlightened, wise, and liberal law; distinguished by justice and clemency; and as being calculated to exert considerable influence over the destiny of the race; nay, as being the principal, if not the only, cause for the "decline" of it in Spain. It was headed: "Rules for _repressing_ and _chastising_ the vagrant mode of life, and other excesses, of those who are called Gitanos." Article II. forbids, under penalties, the Gipsies "using their _language_, dress, or vagrant kind of life, which they had hitherto followed." Article XI. prohibits them from "wandering about the roads and uninhabited places, even with the pretext of _visiting markets and fairs_." Article IX. reads thus: "Those _who have abandoned the dress, name, language or jargon, associations and manners of Gitanos_, and shall have, moreover, chosen and established a domicile, but shall not have devoted themselves to any office or employment, though it be only that of day-labourer, shall be _proceeded against as common vagrants_." Articles XVI. and XVII. enact, that "the children, and young people of both sexes, who are not above sixteen years of age, shall be separated from their parents, _who wander about and have no employment_, [which was forbidden by the law itself,] and shall be destined to learn something, or shall be placed out in hospices or houses of instruction." Article XX. _dooms to death, without remission, Gipsies who, for the second time, relapse into their old habits_.

I cannot agree with Mr. Borrow, when he says, that this law "differs in _character_" from any which had hitherto been enacted, in connection with the body in Spain, if I take those preceding it, as given by himself. The only difference between it and some of the previous laws is, that it allowed the Gipsy to be admitted to whatever office or employment _to which he might apply himself_, and likewise to any guilds or communities; but it prohibited him from settling in the capital, or any of the royal residences; and forbade him, _on pain of death_, to publicly profess what he was--that is, a Gipsy. With the trifling exceptions mentioned, the law of Charles III. was as foolish a one as ever was passed against the Gipsies. These very exceptions show what the letter, whatever the execution, of previous laws must have been. Nor can we form any opinion as to the effects the law in question had upon the Gipsies, unless we know how it was carried out. The law of the Empress Maria Theresa produced no effect upon the Gipsies in Hungary. "In Hungary," says Mr. Borrow, "two classes are free to do what they please--the nobility and the Gipsies--the one above the law, the other below it." And what did Mr. Borrow find the Gipsies in Hungary? In England, the last instances of condemnation, under the old sanguinary laws, happened a few years before the Restoration, although these were not repealed till 23d Geo. III., c. 54. The Gipsies in England can follow any employment, common to the ordinary natives, they please: and how has Mr. Borrow described them there? In Scotland, the tribe have been allowed to do nothing, not even acknowledge their existence, as Gipsies: and this work describes what they are in that country.

Instead of the law of Charles III. exercising any great beneficial influence over the character of the Spanish Gipsies, I would attribute the change in question to what Mr. Borrow himself says: "It must be remembered that during the last seventy years, a revolution has been progressing in Spain, slowly it is true; and such a revolution may have affected the Gitanos." The Spanish Gipsy proverb, "Money is to be found in the town, not in the country," has had its influence on bringing the race to settle in towns. And by residing in towns, and not being persecuted, they have, in Mr. Borrow's own words, "insensibly become more civilized than their ancestors, and their habits and manners less ferocious." The only good which the law of Charles III. seems to have done to the Spanish Gipsies was, as already said, to permit them to follow any occupation, and be admitted to any guilds, or communities, (barring the capital, and royal residences,) they pleased; but only on the condition, and that _on the pain of death_, that they _renounced every imaginable thing connected with their tribe_; which, we may reasonably assume, no Gipsy submitted to, however much in appearance he might have done so.

But it is doubtful if the law of Charles III. was anything but the one which it was customary for every Spanish monarch to issue against the tribe. Mr. Borrow says: "Perhaps there is no country in which more laws have been framed, having in view the suppression and extinction of the Gipsy name, race, and manner of life, than Spain. Every monarch, during a period of three hundred years, appears, at his accession to the throne, to have considered that one of his first and most imperative duties consisted in suppressing and checking the robberies, frauds, and other enormities of the Gitanos, with which the whole country seems to have resounded since the time of their first appearance." The fact of so many laws being passed against the Gipsies, is, to my mind, ample proof, as I shall afterwards explain, that few, if any, of them were put, to any extent, in force; and that the act in question, viewed in itself, as distinct from the laws previously in existence, was little more than a form. It contains a flourish of liberality, implied in the Gitanos being allowed to enter, if they pleased, any guilds, (which they were not likely to do,) or communities, (where they were doubtless already;) but it debars, (that is, expels,) them from the king's presence, at the capital or any of the royal residences. Moreover, it allowed the Gitano to be "admitted to whatever office or employment to which he might apply himself," (against which, there probably was, or should have been, no law in existence.) His majesty must also impose his pragmatical conceit upon his loyal subjects, by telling them, that "Gitanos are _not_ Gitanos"--that they "do _not_ proceed from any infected root;" and threaten them, that if they maintain the contrary, and call them Gitanos, he will have them punished for slander!

The Gipsies, after a residence of 350 years in the country, would have comparatively little notice taken of them, under this law, except when they made themselves really obnoxious, or gave an official an occasion to display his authority, or his zeal for the public service.[272] Whatever may have been the treatment which the Gipsies experienced at the hands of the _civil_ authorities, the _church_ does not seem to have disturbed, and far less distressed, them. Mr. Borrow represents a priest of Cordova, formerly an Inquisitor, saying to him: "I am not aware of one case of a Gitano having been tried or punished by the Inquisition. The Inquisition always looked upon them with too much contempt, to give itself the slightest trouble concerning them; for, as no danger, either to the State or to the Church of Rome, could proceed from the Gitanos, it was a matter of perfect indifference to the holy office whether they lived without religion or not. The holy office has always reserved its anger for people very different; the Gitano having, at all times, been _Gente barrata y despreciable_."

[272] It would seem that the law in Spain, in regard to the Gipsies,
stands pretty much where it did--that is, the people are, in a sense,
tolerated, but that the use of their language is prohibited, as may be
gathered from an incident mentioned in the ninth chapter of the "Bible
in Spain," by Mr. Borrow.

Should the Spanish Gipsies not now assist each other, to the extent they did when banditti, under the special proscription of the Government, it would be absurd to say that they were therefore not as much Gipsies as ever they were. The change in this respect arose, to some extent, from the toleration extended to them, as a people and as individuals, whether by the law, or society in general. Such Gipsies as Mr. Borrow seems to have associated with, in Spain, were not likely to be very reliable authority on the questions at issue; for he has described them as "being endowed with a kind of instinct, (in lieu of reason,) which assists them to a very limited extent, and no further."

Might it not be in Spain as in Great Britain? Even in England, those that pass for Gipsies are few in number, compared to the mixed Gipsies, following various occupations; for a large part of the Gipsy blood in England has, as it were, been spread over a large surface of the white. In Scotland it is almost altogether so. There seems considerable reason for believing that Gipsydom is, perhaps, as much mixed in Spain as in Great Britain, although Mr. Borrow has taken no notice of it. We have seen, (page 92.) how severe an enactment was passed by Queen Elizabeth, against "any person, whether natural born or _stranger_, to be seen in the fellowship of the Gipsies, or disguised like them." In the law of Ferdinand and Isabella, the first passed against the Gipsies, in Spain, a class of people is mentioned, in conjunction with them, but distinguished from them, by the name of "foreign tinkers." Philip III., at Belan, in Portugal, in 1619, commands all Gipsies to quit the kingdom within six months. "Those who should wish to remain are to establish themselves in cities, and are not to be allowed to use the dress, name, and language, in order, that forasmuch as they are not such by nation,(!) this name, and manner of life, may be for evermore confounded and forgotten(!)" Philip IV., on the 8th May, 1633, declares "that they are not Gipsies by origin or nature, but have adopted this form of life(!)" This idea of "Gitanos _not_ being Gitanos, and _not_ proceeding from any infected root," was not original with Charles III., in 1783; his proclamation having been in formal keeping with previous ones, whether of his own country, or, as in Scotland, in 1603, "recommended by the example of some other realm," (page 111.) There had evidently been a great curiosity to know who some of the "not Gipsies by origin and nature," (evidently judging from their appearance,) could be; for Philip IV. enacts, "that they shall, within two months, leave the quarters where now they _live with the denomination of Gitanos_, and that they shall _separate from each other_, and _mingle with the other inhabitants_: that the ministers of justice are to observe, _with particular diligence_, whether they _hold communication with each other_, or _marry among themselves_."

The "foreign tinkers" mentioned in the Act of Ferdinand and Isabella, and the individuals distinguished from the Gipsies in that of Queen Elizabeth, were doubtless _mixed_ Gipsies; whose relationship with the Gipsies proper, and isolation from the common natives, are very distinctly pointed out in the above extract from the law of Philip IV. Mr. Borrow expresses a great difficulty to understand who these people could be, _if not Gipsies_. How easy it is to get quit of the difficulty, by concluding that they were Gipsies whose blood, perhaps for the most part, was native; and who had been brought into the body in the manner explained in the Preface to this work, and more fully illustrated in this Disquisition. If Mr. Borrow found in Spain a half-pay captain, in the service of Donna Isabel, with _flaxen_ hair, a _thorough Gipsy_, who spoke Gipsy and Latin, with great fluency, and his cousin, Jara, in all probability another Gipsy, what difficulty can there be in believing, that the "foreign tinkers," or tinkers of any kind, now to be met with in Spain, are, like the same class in Great Britain and Ireland, Gipsies of mixed blood? Indeed, the young Spaniard, to whom I have alluded, informs me that the Gipsies in Spain are very much mixed. Mr. Borrow himself admits that the Gipsy blood in Spain has been mixed; for, in speaking of the old Gipsy counts, he says: "It was the counts who determined what individuals were to be admitted into the fellowship and privileges of the Gitanos. . . . . They (the Gipsies) were not to teach the language to any but those who, by birth or _inauguration_, belonged to that sect." And he gives a case in point, in the bookseller of Logrono, who was married to the only daughter of a Gitano count; upon whose death, the daughter and son-in-law succeeded to the authority which he had exercised in the tribe. If the Gipsies in Spain were not mixed in point of blood, why should they have taken Mr. Borrow for a Gipsy, as he said they did? The persecutions to which the race in Spain were subjected were calculated to lead to a mixture of the blood, as in Scotland, for the reasons given in the Preface; but, perhaps, not to the same extent; as the Spanish Acts seem to have given the tribe an opportunity of escape, under the condition of settling, &c., &c., which would probably be complied with, nominally, for the time being; while the face of part of the country would afford a refuge till the storm had blown over. (See pages 71 and 114.)

It is very likely that the following people, described by Paget, in his travels in Central Europe, are mixed Gipsies. He says: "In almost every part of the Austrian dominions are to be found a kind of wandering tinkers, wire-workers, and menders of crockery, whose language appears to be that of the Sclaves, who travel about, and, at certain seasons, return to their own settlements, where the women and children remain during their absence." The wandering Rothwelsh, perhaps the same mentioned by Paget, may be mixed Gipsies. In the Encyclopædia Britannica they are spoken of as "a vagabond people, in the south of Germany, who have sometimes been confounded with the Gipsies." The _appearance_ of such persons has nothing to do with their being, or not being, members of Gipsydom.[273]

[273] Paget says these tinkers leave their women and children at home
when on their travels. That is not customary with the tribe, although
it may be their habit in the Austrian dominions.

I will now consider the present condition of the Scottish Gipsies. But, to commence with, what is the native capacity of a Gipsy? It is good. Take a common tinkering Gipsy, without a particle of education, and compare him with a common native, without a particle of education, and the tinker, in point of smartness, is worth, perhaps, a dozen of the other. If not a learned, he is at least a travelled, Athenian, considerably rubbed up by his intercourse with the world. This is the proper way by which to judge of the capacity of a Gipsy. It will differ somewhat according to the countries and circumstances in which he is found. Grellmann, about the year 1780, says, of evidently the more original kind of Hungarian Gipsies: "Imagine a people of childish thoughts, whose minds are filled with raw, undigested conceptions, guided more by sense than reason, and using understanding and reflection only so far as they promote the gratification of any particular appetite; and you have a perfect sketch of the general character of the Gipsies." "They are lively, uncommonly loquacious, fickle to an extreme; consequently, inconstant in their pursuits." Bischoff, in speaking of the German Gipsies, in 1827, says: "They have a good understanding, an excellent memory, are quick of comprehension, lively and talkative." Mr. Borrow, in evident allusion to the very lowest, and most ignorant, class of the Spanish Gipsies, says: "They seem to hunt for their bread, as if they were not of the human, but rather of the animal, species, and, in lieu of reason, were endowed with a kind of instinct, which assists them to a very limited extent, and no further." I admit that this class of Gipsies may have as little intellect as there is in an ant-catcher's nose, but the remark can apply to them exclusively.

Without taking into account any opinion expressed by other writers on the Gipsies, Mr. Borrow says: "Should it be urged that certain individuals have found them very different from what they are represented in these volumes, ('The Gipsies in Spain,') he would frankly say that he yields no credit to the presumed fact." And he refers his readers to his Spanish-Gipsy vocabulary for the words _hoax_ and _hocus_, as a reason for such an opinion! He himself gives descriptions of quite a different caste. For example, he speaks of a rich Gipsy appearing in a fair, at Leon, in Spain, with a twenty thousand dollar credit in his pocket. And of another Gipsy, a native of Constantinople, who had visited the most remote and remarkable portions of the world, "passing over it like a cloud;" and who spoke several dialects of the Malay, and understood the original language of Java. This Gipsy, he says, dealt in precious stones and poisons; and that there is scarcely a bey or satrap in Persia, or Turkey, whom he has not supplied with both. In Moscow, he says, "There are not a few who inhabit stately houses, go abroad in elegant equipages, and are behind the higher orders of the Russians, neither in appearance nor mental acquirements." From these specimens, one might naturally conclude that there was some room for discrimination among different classes of Gipsies, instead of rating them as having the intellect of ant-catchers.