CHAPTER IV.

_On the Egyptian Descent of the Gipseys_.

THE belief that Gipseys are of Egyptian origin, is parallel with the existence of these people in Europe. It arose from the report circulated by the first of them who arrived here that they were pilgrims from Egypt; and this statement has not only been universally adopted by the common people, but has also, here and there, obtained credit among men of learning. Had this opinion not been received at a time when every thing was taken upon trust without examination; had it not been propagated every-where by the first Gipseys, and obtained the sanction of time in following ages; it would have been impossible for it to have gained such general acceptation, or to have maintained itself even to the latest times.

Till the seventeenth century, the Egyptian descent of the Gipseys rested entirely on tradition. Thomasius was the first who endeavoured to establish this matter on satisfactory evidence. Those who, since him, have supported the same opinion, are principally the Englishman Salmon; and, lately, Signor Griselini. Before their vouchers are produced, it will be proper to mention that Thomasius speaks only of the Gipseys who travelled about Europe during the first seven years after their arrival; for he thinks that, after seven years were elapsed, these, excepting a very few, returned home again, and after their retreat the present set was produced, as has been already described. In this particular, he differs entirely from the other two writers, making the latter Gipseys a distinct race of people from those who first arrived. On the contrary, Salmon, as well as Griselini, consider the Gipseys that are now wandering in Europe, and with truth, as lineal descendants of the former, consequently bring them all from Egypt.

Thomasius says: “The first Gipseys never would allow themselves to be any people but Egyptians; asserting always, that the Lesser Egypt was their mother country: and they deserve credit, as they were an honourable worthy set of people.” One observation will be sufficient in reply:—Among the oldest writers who, prior to Stumpf, mention the Gipseys, not one seems to be acquainted with their worth. But Thomasius himself discovered the weakness of his first argument, and therefore hastens to another. “Be this as it may,” he proceeds, “they were in the earliest times, when doubtless something more certain was extant, always looked upon as Egyptians: so that it does not become us, who live two hundred years later, positively to reject what was at that time generally assented to.” Our author was not aware that this kind of reasoning proves too much; for by the same mode of arguing, every antiquated error, every ridiculous superstition, may be defended. If this be admitted, Satan gets his cloven foot again, of which modern unbelief had bereft him. Thus, Christian Thomasius acted unjustifiably when he laid violent hands on witches and sorcerers, and put an end to their existence, though credited from the highest antiquity. Thomasius imagines there were other proofs, beside the Gipseys’ own assertions, that they were Egyptians; this supposition, however, not only has nothing to support it, but is openly contradicted by Aventin, Kranz, and Münster. It is not authenticated because the chronicles universally mention it as a saying of the Gipseys, whenever they speak of their coming from Egypt. It is confuted by Aventin, who rejects their Egyptian descent; at the same time he alledges, that they wished to be thought from that country. In his time, nothing was known concerning them, but what came from their own mouths: and those who thought them Egyptians, rested their belief entirely on the veracity of their informants. This is collected with greater certainty from Kranz and Münster; for these declare expressly, that every thing which could be discovered, by any other means than their own assertions, contradicted rather than confirmed their Egyptian descent. Yet Thomasius has more proofs; he cites the resemblance between the Gipseys and the inhabitants of the Lesser Egypt, whence they say they came. But many people lay this difficulty in his way, that the name of Lesser Egypt is not to be found in any system of geography, but is a mere invention of the Gipseys. He rests his opinion on that of Vulcanius, who looks upon Nubia to be the Lesser Egypt, and thinks, for what reason does not appear, that the Nubians themselves called their country by that name. These are the similarities:—Nubians, as well as Gipseys, confess themselves Christians; both lead a wandering life, and both are of a dark brown complexion: to which some resemblances in shape between the Gipseys and Egyptians are introduced in general terms. Whether there be any affinity in their languages he leaves undetermined, because, he says, he knows nothing about it. That the name of Zigeuner is the same as Egyptian, and the former is derived from the latter, he proves in the following ingenious manner: “The Spaniards—who, instead of Egyptaner, call them Gitanos—have cut off the first syllable. Our forefathers, who exceeded the Spaniards in the art of mangling names, have rejected two syllables, and, instead of Egyptianer, first called them Cianer, afterwards, in order to fill up the chasm between _i_ and _a_, Ciganer. Further, as we, instead of Italianer, say Italiener, we have also changed Ciganer into Cigener; and at last, as people in Upper Germany are very fond of diphthongs, Cigeuner, or Zigeuner, has been produced.” Now, if any thing can be proved by all this, in the same manner the several opinions quoted in the former chapter are likewise established. And yet, after all, who will say, that, instead of Egyptier, Egyptianer, whence Cianer, Ciganer, and thus progressively through all the changes, Zigeuner may be produced? With regard to the denomination of Lesser Egypt, ranked under the list of Gipsey fables, and brought as evidence to overset Thomasius’s system, because Egypt never was divided into Greater and Smaller, it is nevertheless a true geographical name, though certainly not to be found in the treatises on geography: it however appears in the title of a Turkish emperor. A declaration of war, made by Achmet IV. against John Casimir, king of Poland, in 1652, begins with the following words: “I sultan, a king and son of the Turkish emperor, a soldier of the God of the Greeks and Babylonians—_king of the Greater and Lesser Egypt_.” The Gipseys have therefore, in this instance, been falsely accused of a fiction: but whether by this Lesser Egypt, Lower Egypt be understood, cannot be determined.

Salmon believes the Gipseys to be Mamelukes, who were obliged to quit Egypt in 1517, when the Turkish emperor conquered this country, and thereby put an end to the Circassian government. They are reputed to have acquired the name of Zigeuner, or in the Turkish language Zinganies, from a Captain Zinganeus, who was very active in opposing the Turks. How all this is proved, will best appear from his own words: “They had no occasion for any testimony to shew they were of Egyptian descent. The blackness of their skin clearly indicated from what part they came. What confirms me, in my belief of this intelligence, concerning the origin of the Gipseys, is an act of Parliament, passed in the twenty-seventh year of the reign of Henry VIII.—that is, fourteen years after the victory obtained by Selim emperor of the Turks over Egypt—in which are the following words: _Whereas certain outlandish people_, _who do not profess any craft or trade_, _whereby to maintain themselves_; _but go about_, _in great numbers_, _from place to place_, _using insidious underhand means to impose on his Majesty’s subjects_, _making them believe that they understand the art of foretelling to men and women their good or ill fortune_, _by looking in their hands_, _whereby they frequently defraud people of their money_; _likewise are guilty of thefts and highway robberies_: _it is hereby ordered_, _that __the said vagrants_, _commonly called Egyptians_, _in case they remain one month in the kingdom_, _shall be proceeded against as thieves and rascals_, _and on the importation of any such Egyptian_, _he_ (_the importer_) _shall forfeit_ 40_l._ . . . _for every trespass_.” He then quotes another act, passed during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, wherein the Gipseys are also called Egyptians.

From the blackness of their skins, therefore, with the official use of the name Egyptian, Salmon first draws the inference that they were really Egyptians: then, because the first decree published against the Gipseys in England was fourteen years after Selim’s conquest of Egypt, that they were Mamelukes. There is not any connection to be discovered in either conclusion. The Parliament used in the act the word Egyptian, because it was universally current in England. Whether the Gipseys were Egyptians or not, was a question of learning, totally irrelevant with the intention of the order; nor could it be determined by any juridical decree.

There is still less reason for supposing them Mamelukes who had travelled from Egypt on its being taken by Selim in 1517, and tracing their name from one of their leaders: as both they and their name were known in Europe at least a hundred years preceding the fall of Gäwry; or before Tumanbai, the latest hope of the Mamelukes, was hanged. {154}

Griselini advances numerous reasons in support of his opinion, and would certainly go a great way towards determining the Egyptian origin of the Gipseys, if, as in most investigations, more did not depend upon the quality than the number of the proofs. Yet he does not suppose them to be genuine Egyptians; and for this reason, because the greatest number of those resemblances which he has sought between Egyptians and Gipseys, intended to prove the latter descended from the former, are not applicable to the question. Besides, he finds himself under the necessity of looking for foreign helps; and what he cannot make coincide with the Egyptians, he meets with among the Ethiopians and Troglodytes: these he introduces promiscuously, kneads the whole together, and determines the Gipseys to be a mixture of Ethiopians, Egyptians, and Troglodytes. This very circumstance, even before his reasons are considered, renders the matter very suspicious. By the same means, it would not be very difficult to shew that the Italians are, in part, on account of their nastiness, Ostiacks; in part, because of their superstition, and admiration of magnificent edifices, Egyptians; and lastly, in part, for their dastardly treacherous revenge, Chinese.

Griselini begins his comparisons with the disposition of the Gipseys. He says,—

“They are inclined to melancholy, and are desperate in the first emotions of their anger:—Ammianus Marcellinus describes the Egyptians, of his time, in nearly the same terms.

“With regard to religion,” he proceeds, “the Gipseys of the Banat always conform to that which prevails in the village, be it the Roman-catholic or the Illyrian Greek. They have not the least comprehension of either; in which ignorance they perfectly resemble the Wallachians—except that they observe the strict fasts of the Greek church with more exactness. The Wallachians separate from their wives only during the last days of the great fasts: the Gipseys, on the contrary, avoid their society from the beginning to the end; also on the Ascension of the Blessed Virgin, in Advent, and especially all vigils.—Apuleius, and other writers of antiquity, take particular notice of the Egyptian fasts, whose strictness consisted chiefly in this, that the man held himself obliged to refrain from his consort’s bed.

“But, beside these solemn fasts, the Gipseys of the Banat observe a degree of temperance, and a choice in their diet, even on those days when all kinds of food are permitted. They abstain from frogs and tortoises; wherein they accord with the Wallachians, Räizes, and other Christians of the Greek church. Moreover, they refrain from some kinds of river fish, viz. the red-scaled bream, perch, and lampreys; of which it is known that, among the Egyptians, the race of Likopolis and Tagaroriopolis refused to taste. The Gipseys are adverse to all feathered game, and particularly to birds of prey. The stork, when he deigns to build on their wretched huts, is highly esteemed by them:—one of these birds, like its relation ibis, was an object of worship, with other symbolical Egyptian deities.

“Of four-footed animals, the Gipseys are most fond of swine’s flesh, particularly salted.—The Egyptians likewise consumed a great number of these creatures, though they looked upon their herds and keepers to be unclean.

“The Gipseys hang up large onions in their dwellings, but do not eat them.—Besides that the Egyptians honoured them, as well as many other vegetables, we are informed by Diodorus Siculus, that by the regulations relating to diet, observed in the different Egyptian provinces, onions were prohibited in some, but allowed in others.

“Like the old Egyptians, the Gipseys cannot bear the smell of beans; although their neighbours, the Wallachians, eat them with pleasure.

“When I was at Denta, in the district of Csakowa, curiosity led me into a Gipsey hut. The first object which arrested my attention was a young man covered with the itch, whose mother was feeding him with the boiled flesh of a small snake, on a dirty earthen plate.—In the same manner the Egyptians used the flesh of snakes, as the mildest and most effectual remedy for the elephantiasis.

“It is well known that, even to this day, fowls and others of the feathered tribe are hatched by art in Egypt.—I must confess I was not a little surprised when, in July, 1775, I went into a Gipsey hut before Karansebes, to find an old woman engaged in hatching geese and ducks eggs, in horse-dung. This was exactly the method of the old Egyptians.

“From all which has hitherto been produced, as well as that the Gipseys of the Banat, and others dispersed over the rest of Europe, declare themselves to be from Egypt, it is highly probable that they are of Egyptian origin. But see a nearer resemblance. So long ago as in Ælian’s time, the Egyptians were famous for their patience in enduring all kinds of torture; and would rather expire on the rack, than be brought to confession; which is a striking trait in the character of the Gipseys. When this equivocal means of learning the truth, the torture, was practised in the imperial royal hereditary dominions, several instances may be remembered of the Gipseys suffering themselves to be torn to pieces sooner than acknowledge crimes, even when the magistrates had the most indisputable proofs of them.”

Thus far has been to prove the Egyptian descent of the Gipseys. What follows is against it; and, from the similarity of their condition, is to convince us that they are of Æthiopian and Troglodytish origin.

“According to the most authentic writers, the Egyptians were solicitous to build themselves convenient habitations. They lived decently; and their attention to cleanliness, in the observance of certain rules of health, was so general, that even the peasants, and the lowest classes of people in the nation, were no exception to it.—The residences of the Gipseys in the Banat present a very different picture. . . . Miserable dwellings, consisting, partly of thorns and straw packed together, and partly of holes, ten or twelve feet deep, dug in the earth. Taken in this point of view, the Gipseys have more the appearance of being related to the hordes of Æthiopians and Troglodytes.

“Among the ancient Egyptians, agriculture was in high esteem; as it still is among the present Copts, their true descendants.—The Gipseys, on the contrary, are the worst, and most careless farmers: another argument for their being Ethiopians and Troglodytes.

“These and other African hordes, employ themselves in collecting gold out of the river sand;—in like manner, the Marosch, Nera, and other streams, have induced the Gipseys to become goldwashers.

“An inclination for strolling, to which the Egyptians were so very adverse, is the particular propensity of the Gipseys in general; nor are those of the Banat exempt from it.

“The more artful, particularly of the other sex, go about from house to house, where they tell fortunes, cast nativities, discover thefts, and pretend they possess remedies, to which they ascribe wonders and infallible cures. These nostrums consist, chiefly, of roots, amulets, certain small stones . . . mostly a kind of scoriæ.—Among the Egyptians, likewise, such impostors rambled up and down. These were Ethiopians by descent, who carried on a similar trade.

“From the last considerations, compared with the former, one would be inclined rather to deduce the origin of the Gipseys from the Ethiopians and Troglodytes, than from the Egyptians. But what I am going to add, will make it more probable that they are a mixture of all the three nations. {161}

“It is well known that people of both sexes, calling themselves Egyptian priests and priestesses, were, in ancient times, scattered through Italy, Greece, and all the provinces of the Roman empire: where they not only introduced the worship of the goddess Isis, but wandered from place to place, begged, and professed the same kinds of ingenuity in which the Gipseys of the Banat, and the rest of their brethren dispersed over Europe, are so thoroughly versed. These said priests and priestesses, which Apuleius ironically calls _magnæ religionis sidera_, not only knocked at people’s doors, in Rome, with their sistris, but even had the skill to persuade the common people, that to refuse them alms and to commit sacrilege were equally heinous. They even went so far as to threaten those who slighted them, in the name of their goddess Isis, to strike them with blindness, or the tympany (_hydrops tympanites_).—Aventin says, the Gipseys could so terrify the people in Bavaria, with the like threats, that they suffered themselves to be robbed by them with impunity. Likewise in the Banat, the women, particularly, are heard to vent the most horrid curses and imprecations if they are reprimanded, or not paid for their calculations of nativities, singing, or fortune-telling.

“The licentiousness and immorality of the Gipseys are extreme. In early youth, when yet young girls, they exhibit themselves, with their dances, before every person from whom they expect any present; and these dances always end in lascivious attitudes and shameful gestures. In like manner, the ordinary women in Egypt used to dance at their orgies, especially at the feast of Bubostes, and the procession of Canopus. The like scenes appeared at Rome, among the wives, daughters, and sponsors of the priests of Isis, agreeably to the mysteries of that goddess.”

Griselini now comes to the point:—To what nation did these priests and priestesses belong? And when did their emigration happen?

“It was after the time of Augustus,” he says, “that they began to wander through the different parts of Europe; in every district of which, they endeavoured to disseminate the worship of Isis.

“They practised astrology, and other kinds of superstitious impositions, with all sorts of vagrants’ tricks, in nearly the same manner as the Gipseys of our age deceive people.

“Now it is known that the Egyptian priests had stated incomes, from appropriated lands; which circumstance attached them to their native country: and hence they hated an unsettled life. Neither did they desire to make proselytes; and strangers, who wished to be initiated into the rites and mysteries of Isis, were obliged to submit to be circumcised;—this ceremony was indispensable: on the contrary, the before-mentioned priests of Isis wandering about the Roman provinces, never mentioned a word of circumcision to their new converts. Very sensible critics have produced palpable evidence that they were Ethiopians and Troglodytes, who could the more easily pass for Egyptians, as their features, persons, customs, and religion, were the same.

“Of all the writers who mention these emigrations, from Egypt, into Italy, Greece, and every part of the globe which was known in the time of the Romans, I shall refer only to Heliodorus. It was very possible that, sometimes, real Egyptians who had been driven by misfortunes from their native country, or perhaps some of the very lowest rank of people who had nothing to lose, might be mixed with these wanderers. From this mixture of Ethiopians, Troglodytes, and Egyptians, then, sprang a distinct wandering race, which partakes, in some measure, of all the three nations; and from which, according to the foregoing observations, we may reasonably conclude the Gipseys of our time to be descended; as in all of them we discover, sometimes the Troglodyte, sometimes the Ethiopian, and sometimes the Egyptian.

“That no mention is made of them in the Hungarian yearly publications before the year 1417, is by no means a proof that they were not known long before, both in that kingdom and the Banat. If we admit the Roman coins which are dug out of the earth as proof that the Romans have been inhabitants of any place, without the concurrent testimony of any historian; we are equally authorised to admit the little Egyptian idols, of bronze, which are dug up near them in the Banat, as proof for the Gipseys. Being dispersed all over the Roman conquest, why might they not as well, when Dacia became a province, have gone there likewise, and propagated the worship of Isis, Anubis, and other Egyptian deities, the same as in Italy?”

Such are Mr. Griselini’s arguments, stated very diffusely, as they may be found in his works: but it will be evident, that what he adduces in support of his opinion, is a direct proof that it cannot be established. Supposing any person charitable enough to allow there is good argument in his far-fetched similarities; yet the circumstance, that neither in the Hungarian nor in any other Journals, is the least notice taken of Gipseys before the year 1417, would overset the whole again. Griselini felt this himself; but what he urges in reply, is no answer to the objection. Nor is it just, that the Roman coins found in the Banat should be esteemed, without concurrent testimony, a proof of the Romans having formerly dwelt there. German crowns are, as Mr. Niebuhr informs us, the chief current coin in Yemen (Arabia Felix), and great numbers are yearly sent thither for coffee. If some centuries hence, when revolutions may have occasioned great changes, the said German money should be dug up, would any historical writer venture to assert as a truth, that Arabia Felix had formerly been inhabited by Germans! But it is unnecessary to enter into a laboured confutation of Mr. Griselini’s arguments; yet a few hints, with respect to his mode of proceeding, strike so forcibly, that we cannot forbear to notice them.

He relies chiefly upon certain similarities between the Gipseys, Egyptians, and Ethiopians, without reflecting whether they are distinctions peculiar to these people. Of this description the following are examples:—he thinks the Gipseys must be Troglodytes and Ethiopians, because they follow the employment of goldwashing; these latter, as well as some of the African hordes, do the same in their rivers which produce gold: he makes them Egyptians, because they eat swine’s flesh: again, he concludes they must be priests of Isis, because they exclaim against the hard-hearted, who refuse the boon they ask. Are these, then, distinctions which none but Egyptians and Ethiopians have in common with the Gipseys? Is it necessary to recur to the Egyptians, to find people, beside Gipseys, who eat pork?—Or to the priests of Isis, for sturdy beggars? And, with regard to goldwashers, how came he not to recollect that the Wallachians also follow this employment?—And that near Strasburgh, beside other places, hundreds of people who have not a drop of Gipsey blood in their veins get their living by it?

Further, the said Mr. Griselini, in order to render his system the more plausible, has made use of certain expedients at the expense of truth; and, in spite of all experience to the contrary, so modelled the properties of the Gipseys, as to give them the appearance of complete Egyptians. He makes them by nature inclined to melancholy; whereas their dispositions have not the least tincture of it: they are described as most conscientiously, nay rather superstitiously, attached to religious customs; and yet, according to the universal testimony of other observers of these people, they are totally indifferent as to every thing connected with religion. He says, they are adverse to eating onions; and as for beans, they abhor them: whereas Sulzer was a witness how much they liked the flavour of both. By proceeding in this manner, every thing may be made to answer all purposes. But woe to the records and histories which are used in this manner!

It will be seen, from what has been said on the subject, that the supposed Egyptian descent of the Gipseys is very far from being proved; notwithstanding it was formerly so generally credited, and even is to this day. Arguing on the supposition that they originated from Egypt, care was taken to inform us what kind of people they had been in that country. It is very confidently related, and to our great edification, that their forefathers were the same sorcerers who, in the presence of Pharaoh, imitated Moses’s miracles: moreover, that the Egyptian king set these people as taskmasters over the children of Israel, in order to render their labour the more grievous: and finally, that these were the very murderers employed by the inhuman Herod, to carry into effect his cruel decree respecting the children of Bethlehem. This kind of dreaming has been carried still further; it having been calculated to what degree of indolence these people had accustomed themselves in Egypt, living by the labour and sweat of others. Afterwards, when, contrary to expectation, the Children of Israel escaped from their servitude, the lucrative employment of these overseers, of course, had an end: instead of reconciling themselves to any kind of labour, they rather chose to decamp, with goods, wives, and children, from Egypt, in hopes, by cunning and fraud, to procure an easier subsistence in foreign countries. They pursued this shameful course of life through the following centuries; and have, at last, pushed their excursions into our territories.

But it is not sufficient that the Egyptian descent of these people is entirely destitute of proof; on the other side, the most positive proof is to be found to contradict it. Their language differs entirely from the Coptic; and their customs, as Ahasuerus Fritsch has remarked, are diametrically opposite to the Egyptian. To these facts must be added that weighty circumstance, of their wandering about like strangers in Egypt, where they form a distinct people; as not only Bellonius, but many later writers assure us. Muratori, therefore, is not in the wrong, when he thinks it ridiculous to account them Egyptians—people having no better authority for this belief, than their own unsupported opinion.

Thus, then, stands the argument, as well with respect to the derivation of the Gipseys in general, as in regard to the Egyptian descent of them in particular. While many men, and among these some very respectable for their learning, declare the origin of these people to remain an unsolved riddle, the opinion that they were not originally from Egypt, will, it is thought, by the contents of this and the foregoing chapter, be thoroughly confirmed. Notwithstanding the innumerable researches, the Gipseys still remain unacknowledged inmates in Europe.

It may nevertheless be doubted whether Swinburne is quite right, in asserting it to be impossible ever to find out the real home of these strangers. After so many unsuccessful endeavours, it is not without apprehension, though with the best-founded hope, we venture on another trial.