CHAPTER II.

_On the Sanctity_, _Passports_, _and Difference_, _of the former from the latter Gipseys_.

AT the first arrival of the Gipseys in Europe, it was generally believed that they were Egyptians and pilgrims, constrained to wander on account of religion. This mistake originated from their own relation; but when required to give a more circumstantial detail of the reasons for their pilgrimage, they varied very much from each other. Some of them declared that they were compelled to make this emigration as an atonement for their forefathers having, for some time, apostatised from the Christian faith: others asserted that the king of Hungary had seized their country, and imposed on them this penance of wandering. A third party represented that God had signified to them the necessity of this pilgrimage, by an universal sterility in their country. They supposed this punishment to have been inflicted on account of sin committed by their ancestors, in refusing to receive the infant Jesus, when carried by his Mother and Joseph to Egypt, as an asylum from the persecution of Herod. The term of their pilgrimage was to be seven years.

No evidence is necessary to determine that these were mere fables; and it is astonishing that men should be found to adduce long-winded proofs of the origin of these people, grounded on no better authority than such idle tales. We have not now any positive grounds remaining, to shew how these legends were invented, or what gave rise to them; but the real truth seems to be merely, that upon being asked whence they came, they answered from Egypt; and there is no reason existing to deny their having come from that country. Now priests, monks, or perhaps other people, might wonder why they should quit a place to which the holy family had fled for refuge, unless their forefathers had been guilty of some transgression on that occasion; but, be this as it may, all that could be said, with regard to the origin of their legends, would be only mere conjecture. Let it therefore suffice to say, they chose to be considered everywhere as pilgrims; and this profession met with the more ready belief, as it coincided with the infatuation of the times.

The credulity with which people cherished the idea that the Gipseys were real pilgrims and holy persons was attended with the consequence, that they were not only tolerated, but, if the information on this head may be relied on, they everywhere received assistance, with express safe-conducts. These safe-conducts are mentioned in several old writings. Münster declares, not merely, in general terms, that they carried about with them passports and seals from the Emperor Sigismund and other princes, by means of which they had free passage through different countries and cities, but that he had himself seen an attested copy of such a letter, in the possession of some Gipseys at Eberbach. Besides Kranz, Stumpf, and Guler, Laurentius Palmirenus also agrees in this statement; but the latter writer is guilty of a mistake, in confounding the Emperor Sigismund with Sigismund king of Poland. The Gipseys at Bologna, likewise, shewed an instrument from Sigismund; but he appears to have granted this to them, not as emperor, and in Germany, but in Hungary, and as king of Hungary. A pass of another king of Hungary, Uladislaus II. which the Gipseys obtained chiefly on account of their supposed sanctity and pilgrimage, might be quoted. They were not destitute in Transylvania, if it be true, as asserted, that they received this sort of letters of protection from the princes of the house of Bathory. Wehner says, that the Gipseys in France likewise quoted ancient privileges, granted to them by the former kings of that country. Crusius, Wurstisen, and Guler, mention papal permissions, which these people acquired, for wandering, unmolested, through all Christian countries, so long as the time of their pilgrimage lasted.

This is the information we find, dispersed here and there, concerning the privileges and passes of the Gipseys. To how much, or how little, are we to give credit? Thomasius believes every thing as it stands. Ahasuerus Fritsch, on the contrary, declares all to be lies, and the Gipseys’ own invention. Appearances are certainly equivocal, as none of these instruments are even verbally handed down to us, so that they can be properly proved; except that of Uladislaus II. which does not belong to this question. Moreover, it has been frequently experienced, that the Gipseys, using the pretence of such safe-conducts, have committed all manner of excesses, and when desired to produce them, had either nothing to shew, or such kind of papers as did not at all resemble what are usually given from a public office. It cannot be denied that they have practised deceit, but it is impossible to assert, with certainty, that the whole was fallacy. If the contents of that passport to be found in Muratori is conceived in such terms as to allow the horde which possessed it to wander about seven years, to rob and steal every-where, without any person being permitted to bring them to justice, such a letter seems to carry falshood on the very face of it, as no sensible prince could ever grant such a one. But what shall we say, if it be found that these words do not so much convey the sense of the instrument, as a crafty explanation of the author, on recollecting the many irregularities practised by the Gipseys, who availed themselves of this freedom to travel about every-where unmolested. Further, with respect to the passport which Münster perused at Eberbach, although every person must look upon the reasons given by the Gipseys for their emigration as fictions, yet we cannot entirely reject it. How could it benefit them, being old and having lost its validity many years ago? Why did not the horde to which it belonged carry with them some writing that might afford them present protection? If they had been guilty of any knavery about this letter, why was it just of that kind as could only serve, incontrovertibly, to prove they were cheats? These documents would certainly not have been found among them, had they not been transmitted, from their parents and ancestors, as things of value. Supposing this matter to have been invented by themselves, it is difficult to conceive why they should confine their privileges to seven years, and not rather leave them unlimited. But there are other proofs of the authenticity of such letters. First, they were looked upon as pilgrims; and it was quite conformable to the custom of those superstitious times to grant to pilgrims, as holy people, all sorts of passes, and safe-conducts. Secondly, we must believe that this did happen with the Gipseys, when we read with what chagrin Aventin mentions their thefts and excesses, concluding thus: “Robbing and stealing are prohibited to others, under pain of hanging or beheading, but these people have licence for them.” When, thirdly, in the decree of the diet at Augsburgh anno 1500, all ranks of people in the empire are strictly enjoined, in future, not to permit the people called Gipseys to travel through their countries and districts, nor to grant them any further ‘protection and convoy,’ it certainly implies that people had formerly granted them such protection and convoy. Whoever has still any doubts remaining, may read, fourthly, in a decree of the empire of fifty years later date, a regular complaint preferred on account of the passports granted by various princes to the Gipseys, and which are, by that diet, declared to be null and void. All these circumstances together will not, it may be presumed, allow the shadow of a doubt to remain, that such letters of convoy have been really granted to the Gipseys. {132}

The Gipseys’ golden age lasted a considerable time; but when about half a century had elapsed, and people began to look at them with a watchful eye, the old prejudices gave way. They endeavoured to prolong the term, by asserting, that their return home was prevented by soldiers stationed to intercept them, and by wishing to have it believed that new parties of pilgrims were to leave their country every year, otherwise their land would be rendered totally barren. All this was of no avail; people saw too clearly, that, instead of holy pilgrims, they were the mere refuse of humanity: upon which followed the sentences of banishment, we have before mentioned.

Before we proceed to other matters, it will be proper to say a few words respecting an assertion in some writings, that the latter Gipseys differ very widely from those who went about during the first seven years, both with respect to their conduct and descent. Stumpf, for instance, and others after him, relate, that these first Gipseys were very orderly and decent, did no harm to any one, but paid ready money for what they consumed; for which purpose they received fresh remittances constantly: and at the expiration of seven years they returned home. Afterwards an idle desperate crew united, who, when the Gipseys were withdrawn, took their place; and, by blackening their faces, at the same time using the like outlandish garments, endeavoured to persuade the world that they were the identical Egyptians.

This is all related with so much appearance of veracity, that, at the first view, no doubt would seem to remain of its truth; wherefore Thomasius readily adopted the whole, and founded his system about the Gipseys upon it: but upon closer examination, we shall find that the statement is totally void of foundation.

This proceeding, we acknowledge, is recorded in four different annual publications; but all the four amount to only a single testimony, which rests entirely upon Stumpf, from whom the other three have drawn their assertions. Let it remain, as Thomasius will have it, an old manuscript account or chronicle; it is still evident that the favourable description of the ancient Gipseys originates from the same prejudice as first produced their passports. And even these passports may have contributed to recommend the first Gipseys. They have had so much effect on Thomasius, that all the good he has given the above-mentioned primitive Gipseys credit for, has been principally owing to them.

When Stumpf, or rather his authority, mentions, with other circumstances, that the earlier Gipseys received remittances from time to time out of their own country, it was a necessary addition, to support the editor’s opinion: as the reader, who was to believe that these people did not steal, but paid money for every thing they wanted, would have been sceptical had he not been informed beforehand where the money came from, in order to provide for their necessities, in an honest way, during the term of seven years.

With regard to the latter Gipseys, they were certainly lineal descendants from the former: who were undoubtedly, equally with these, thieves, cheats, and vagrants. The uprightness and honesty falsely allowed to the Gipseys, in the manuscript chronicle which Stumpf copied, might, even before Stumpf’s time, have induced the continuator of this chronicle to believe, on finding his cotemporary Gipseys lived very differently from what had been represented of their predecessors, that the former were not the true Egyptians: he accordingly wrote down his surmise, not by way of conjecture, but as positive truth, and Stumpf, in his Annual Register, afterwards quoted it as such. Whoever does not allow this, but considers the latter Gipseys in the light that Stumpf represents them, must be ready to answer, when called upon to solve, the following doubt:—How was it possible that a collection of rascals assembled in Europe, supposing that with respect to complexion and clothing they should be able to transform themselves into real Gipseys, could at once acquire foreign countenances, speak a foreign language, and, both in constitution and turn of mind, become perfectly oriental; and at the same time contract a taste and desire for carrion, which remain with them to this day? It cannot be denied but that some depraved people have associated themselves with the Gipseys: but particular instances are not proofs of general maxims.