Part 2

This _descent_, he said, was “well known to _many_.” Was not that a fact? If it was _then_ “well known to many,” how has the knowledge of it died out in his _Church_ and neighbourhood? A fact like that could not have been _forgotten_ within two centuries, during which time Banyan’s memory, with all relating to it, has been cherished more and more, unless it had been, at some time, wilfully or tacitly _suppressed_; and an attempt made to connect him even with the aristocracy of the country! I have never seen or heard of an allusion to any of his relations, although the great probability is that there was an “extensive ramification” of them. The reason I have assigned for that is that “very probably his being a tinker was, with friends and enemies, a circumstance so altogether discreditable as to render any investigation of the kind perfectly superfluous” (Dis. p. 517). {11c} “A low and inconsiderable generation.” What did that phrase mean? And as if that were not sufficient, he added that “his father’s house” was “of that _rank_ that is _meanest_ and _most despised_ of _all_ the families in land”; and still not satisfied with that, he continued:—

“Another thought came into my mind, and that was, whether we [his family and relations] were of the Israelites or no? For finding in the Scriptures that they were once the peculiar people of God, 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.”

In my Disquisition on the Gipsies I said:—

“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. 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.’” (p. 511).

I presume that no one will question the assertions that Bunyan was a tinker, and that English “tinkers” are simply Gipsies of more or less mixed blood. Put together these three ideas—his description of his “father’s house,” and their not being Jews, but tinkers, that is, Gipsies of mixed blood—and you have the evidence or proof that John Bunyan was of the Gipsy race. If people are _hanged_ on circumstantial evidence, cannot the same kind of proof be used to explain the language which Bunyan used to _remind_ the world who and what he was, at a time when it was death by law for being a Gipsy, and “felony without benefit of clergy” for associating with them, and odious to the rest of the population? From all that we know of Bunyan, we could safely conclude that he was not the man to leave the world in doubt as to who and what he was. He even _reminded_ it of what it _knew well_; but with his usual discretion he abstained from using a word that was banned by the law of the land and the more despotic decree of society, and concluded that it perfectly understood what he meant, although there was no necessity, or even occasion, for him to do what he did. {12}

Why then say that there is an “absolute want of evidence” in regard to Bunyan having been of the Gipsy race, and that it is “totally incapable of proof”; and assert that it is a _fact_ that his ancestors were “landed proprietors,” and that there might be better grounds for holding that Bunyan was of _Norman_ origin than of _Gipsy_ descent?

Bunyan was either of the Gipsy race (of mixed blood) or of the native one. I have given the proof of the former—proof which, I think, is sufficient to hang a man. Where is the proof of his having been something else than of the Gipsy race? And if there is no proof of that, why assert it? What Bunyan said of his family was _proof_ that he was _not_ of the _native_ race. Asserting as a _fact_ that, from the surname, his ancestors were ordinary natives of England, and landed proprietors at that, is nearly as unreasonable as to maintain that every English Gipsy of the name of Stanley is nearly related to the Earl of Derby because _his_ name is Stanley.

Like any one charged with an offense unbecoming Englishmen, almost any of them will protest that _he_ has no prejudice against the name of Gipsy, and that “he would not have the smallest objection to believe that Bunyan was one of the race if the fact was only proved by sufficient evidence”; while at the same time he will retain and manifest his prejudices, and entirely ignore the evidence, or refuse to say in what respect it is deficient, and believe the opposite, or something entirely different from it, without a particle of proof in its favour, or entirely _disproved_ by Bunyan’s admission in regard to his “father’s house.”

The Gipsy subject will not always remain in its present position. It will sooner or later have a resurrection, when some one will see who were the “goats” on the occasion. Bunyan will occupy a very important position in what is now represented by the following extract from my Disquisition on the Gipsies, published in London in 1865:—

“It is beyond doubt that there cannot be less than a quarter of a million of Gipsies in the British Isles, who are living under a grinding despotism of caste; a despotism so absolute and odious that the people upon whom it bears, cannot, as in Scotland, were it almost to save their lives, even say who they are!” (p. 440).

III. {13}

The main thing to be considered in regard to Mr. Brown is to ascertain his motive for investigating the question whether or not John Bunyan was of the Gipsy race, and the steps he took to that end. I am satisfied that his _only_ motive, from first to last, has been to get rid, under any circumstances, of what _he_ considers a stigma cast on Bunyan’s memory. He is apparently entirely ignorant of the subject of the Gipsies, and will listen to nothing that bears on Bunyan’s nationality. How then does it happen that _he_ should step out into the world and say so positively that Bunyan was _not_ of the Gipsy race? His _first_ “proof” was the discovery that the _name_ of Bunyan existed in England before the Gipsies arrived in it, so that on that account John Bunyan’s family could not have been Gipsies, but a broken-down branch of an aristocratic family! That “proof” proving worthless, he has recourse to what he finds to have been Bunyan’s ancestor, apparently on the “native side of the house,” viz.: Thomas Bonyon, who succeeded his father, William Bonyon, in 1542, to the property of “Bunyan’s End,” that is, a cottage and nine acres of land, about a mile from Elstow Church. This Thomas is described as “a labourer, and his wife as a brewer of beer and ‘a baker of human bread.’” In my Disquisition on the Gipsies I said in regard to John Bunyan:—

“Beyond being a Gipsy it is impossible to say what his pedigree really was. His grandfather might have been an ordinary native, even of fair birth, who, in a thoughtless moment, might have ‘gone off with the Gipsies;’ or his ancestor on the native side of the house might have been one of the ‘many English loiterers’ who joined the Gipsies on their arrival in England, when they were ‘esteemed and held in great admiration’” (p. 518). And, “Let a Gipsy once be grafted upon a native family and she rises with it; leavens the little circle of which she is the centre, and leaves it and its descendants for all time coming Gipsies” (p. 412). {14a}

Thomas Bonyon seems to have been born about 1502, {14b} and was apparently of the native race, as was probably his wife; but between him and Thomas (John’s grandfather), whose will was dated in 1641, there were doubtless several generations. Without asking with whom each generation of this family married, Mr. Brown says:—“Here, then, we have a family living certainly in the same cottage and cultivating the same land from 1542 to 1641, and probably much earlier, a fact which seems to me utterly fatal to the theory of Gipsy blood”—assuming that the blood of the family through marriage was native English all the way down; and that they cultivated the nine acres of land, and did not rent or sell it, for Thomas Bunyan by his will, dated in 1641, leaves “the cottage or tenement wherein I doe now dwell.” This Thomas could not have been less than the grandson of the first-mentioned Thomas, and described himself in his will, dated November 20th, 1641, as a “pettie chapman”—a calling that is very common with Gipsies of mixed blood. The will of his son Thomas (John’s father) is dated May 28th, 1675, in which he describes himself as a “braseyer”—which is a favourite word with the Gipsies, and sounds better than tinker, and is frequently put on their tombstones. Mr. Brown says:—“From this it appears that Bunyan’s father was the first tinker in the family.” Instead of that, he should have said that it was the first one _found in a will_. Again he says that he has discovered from the annual returns of the parishes in Bedfordshire between 1603 and 1650, that “the families both of Bunyan’s father and of his mother, Margaret Bentley, were living there all this time as steadily as any of the other village families, and as unlike a Gipsy encampment as can well be conceived.” He found no such information in “annual parish returns,” but perhaps merely the fact of Bunyan’s father having had his legal and general residence at the cottage, while he followed his calling of tinkering all over the neighbourhood, as regulated by the chief of the tinkers or Gipsies for the district. Beyond the cottage being the residence of Thomas, we know nothing of his movements, nor of the company coming to his house; and if Mr. Brown had known anything of the subject of the Gipsies, or been willing to learn it from others, he would not have concluded that the Bunyans were not of that race, merely because they might not (as they probably did not) use a tent. It would appear that Mr. Brown has not mastered even the first principle of this subject, so as to be able to define what is meant by it being said that Bunyan was or was not of the Gipsy race.

Thomas Bonyon, in 1542, called a “labourer” in a legal document or record, and his wife a “brewer and baker,” appear to have kept a little wayside public-house, which would be frequented by the Gipsies, especially when they were “esteemed and held in great admiration.” And here it is likely that the _native English_ Bunyans were changed into _English Gipsy_ Bunyans by the male heir of Thomas marrying a Gipsy, whose son or grandson was Thomas, the “pettie chapman”; and whose son Thomas, the “braseyer,” was the father of John. All these would doubtless marry early, but perhaps not so early as John, who married before he was nineteen, so far as is known.

In my communication of the 6th September, I think I said enough on the question of proof as to Bunyan having been of the Gipsy race. Even with the limited knowledge about the race generally, and especially about the mixture of its blood, before I published a history of the Gipsies, Sir Walter Scott (an excellent judge), with reference to the rank of his father’s house, and not being Jews, but tinkers, said that Bunyan was “most probably a Gipsy reclaimed.” Mr. Offor, an editor of Bunyan’s works, said that “his father must have been a Gipsy.” Mr. Leland’s investigation and decision is that he “was a Gipsy,” even apparently on the sole ground of his having been a tinker. In regard to myself, Mr. Brown says that I have “really nothing to go upon but Bunyan’s own words, in which he says that his father’s house was ‘of that rank that is meanest and most despised of all the families of [in] the land,’ which might simply mean that his father was a poor man in a village”(!) According to Mr. Brown, Bunyan’s admission, or rather _reminder_, had no bearing on his nationality, while others think it conclusive, apart from his having been a tinker. But Mr. Brown did not give _all_ of Bunyan’s language, for he left out the most important part of it, which was that of his _descent_, which was _well known to many_ to have been of a _low and inconsiderable generation_, which had no reference to his “father being a poor man in a village.” He also omitted Bunyan’s question as to his “father’s house” being or not being Jews, using the word _we_ in both instances; a discussion that could not have taken place between a father and a son of any of the _ordinary race_ of Englishmen. In this way Mr. Brown gets rid of the proof that proceeded from Bunyan himself, by simply brushing it aside. When I saw him in New York, I alluded to _all_ of Bunyan’s admissions, when he replied, “Oh, that can be easily explained.” {15a} And when I said that “one cannot say in England that Bunyan was a Gipsy, for society would not allow it,” he made no reply, so far as I noticed, but appeared to wince at the remark. I had some hesitation in giving Mr. Brown an interview, for I was satisfied that he did not wish to have the truth about Bunyan admitted; but I concluded that, having sent him some pamphlets, it would have been rude to refuse him one. {15b} It lasted only about five minutes, at the entrance of a banking-house in Broadway, and ended with some remarks about his having found the wills of the Bunyans; not one word of which was to the point in question. His only motive for an interview seemed to be to gratify his curiosity and behold the person who would dare to “cast a stigma on Bunyan’s memory.” Now he says that there is _no_ “ferocious prejudice of caste against the name of Gipsy,” and that “none of Bunyan’s admirers would object to his being shown to be a Gipsy, if only sufficient proof were adduced”; while he has ignored everything that bears upon the subject, even what came out of Bunyan’s mouth. {16a} In place of being influenced by evidence, he put forth the fanciful idea that he could not have been a Gipsy because the name of Bunyan existed in England before the Gipsies arrived there. And now he maintains that Bunyan could not have been a Gipsy, because he owed his descent “on the native side of the house” to Thomas Bonyon, a labourer or publican or both, born about 1502, without regard to the “marriages and movements” of perhaps five or six generations till the birth of the immortal dreamer, who was baptized on the 30th November, 1628.

But for the limited space at my disposal I would put a long string of questions to Mr. Brown, and suggest a course of action for him to undo the injury he has done to Bunyan and the Gipsy race generally, particularly owing to his remarks about the illustrious pilgrim having been credited and circulated by the press in Great Britain, which complicates the question in all its bearings. {16b} We have heard much of the _American_ John Brown in connexion with the emancipation of the Negroes in the United States, while the _English_ John Brown seems to be doing his best, directly or indirectly, to rivet the fetters of a social despotism on a large body of his fellow-creatures in the British Islands.

I have said above that Thomas Bonyon and his wife, living in 1542, were _apparently_ of the native English race, and made my remarks to correspond with that idea. But there was more than a _possibility_ of them having been part of the original Gipsy stock, of mixed blood, that arrived in Great Britain before 1506, and, like their race generally, assumed the surname of a “good family in the land,” as I will illustrate at some length in my next communication, which will make its appearance in due time.

IV. {17}

I said in my communication of the 8th that there was more than a possibility of Thomas Bonyon and his wife, in 1542, having been of the original stock of Gipsies, of mixed blood, that assumed the surname of a “good family in the land.” As illustrative of this question, we have a writ of the Scots’ parliament, of the 8th April, 1554, pardoning thirteen Gipsies for the slaughter of Ninian Small, their names being the following:—“Andro Faw, captain of the Egyptians, George Faw, Robert Faw, and Anthony Faw, his sons, Johnne Faw, Andrew George Nichoah, George Sebastiane Colyne, George Colyne, Julie Colyne, Johnne Colyne, James Haw, _Johnne Browne_, and _George Browne_, Egyptians.” There being thus Gipsies of the name of _Brown_ (and, oddly enough, one called _John Brown_), in Scotland before 1554, we should have no difficulty in believing that there were, or might have been, some in England of the name of _Bonyon_ in 1542. The only native name assumed by the tribe in Scotland before 1540, when they were noticed officially, was Bailyow, or Baillie. And how did we have Gipsies in Scotland of the name of _Brown_ (apparently the only native name, except Baillie), in a public document before 1554? Between 1506 and 1579 was the “golden age” of the Gipsies in Scotland, excepting (nominally, at least) the year 1541–2, for, on the 6th June, 1541, they were ordered to leave the realm within thirty days, on pain of death, owing to an attack made by them on James V. while roaming over the country in disguise. “But the king, whom, according to tradition, they had personally so deeply offended, dying in the following year (1542), a new reign brought new prospects to the denounced wanderers” (His., p. 107). There is a tradition that the Gipsies were in Scotland before 1460, for McLellan of Bombie happening to kill a chief of some “Saracens or Gipsies from Ireland,” was reinstated in the Barony of Bombie, and took for his crest a Moor’s head, and “Think on” for his motto. And it is a tradition amongst all the Scottish Gipsies that their ancestors came by way of Ireland into Scotland. How, then, were there Gipsies described, in a writ of the Scots’ parliament, by the names of John and George Brown in 1554? In no other apparent way, during their “golden age,” than that a native or natives of that name had married into the tribe, and that the two Browns, perhaps brothers, mentioned were the issue, and grown-up men at that; so that the marriage could not have taken place later than 1533, and probably considerably earlier. There was little chance of a Scotch lawyer describing these two Browns as “Egyptians” unless they had been the children of a native father, or had previously assumed the surname of Brown; the first being the most probable. {18}

If we can imagine that William Bonyon, the first of the name mentioned by Mr. Brown, had been a native of England, and, like the Scotch Brown, had married a Gipsy, we would have found Thomas, in 1542, a member of the tribe. It was not necessary that he should have been 40 years old in 1542, or that the property of “Bunyan’s End” “had probably been in the possession of the family long before 1542”; or that William had not died in middle life, leaving Thomas a young man, born of a Gipsy mother. Even William might have been one of the original Gipsies, of mixed blood, that is, “such a ‘foreign tinker’ as is alluded to in the Spanish Gipsy edicts, and in the Act of Queen Elizabeth, in which mention is made of ‘strangers,’ as distinguished from natural-born subjects, being with the Gipsies . . . It is therefore very likely that there was not a drop of common English blood in Bunyan’s veins. John Bunyan belongs to the world at large, and England is only entitled to the credit of the formation of his character” (p. 518). He might have assumed the name of Bonyon and bought “Bunyan’s End,” when the severe law was passed by Henry VIII. against the race about 1530. Thomas might have been an ordinary native of England and married a Gipsy who was a “brewer and baker,” possibly of the second generation of the race born in England. She seems to have been a “lawless lass” of some kind, for Mr. Brown says that it is on record that “between 1542 and 1550 she was fined six or eight times for breaking the assize of beer and bread.” On this head I said in the Disquisition on the Gipsies:—“Considering what is popularly understood to be the natural disposition and capacity of the Gipsies, we would readily conclude that to turn innkeepers would be the most unlikely of all their employments; yet that is very common” (p. 467), all over Europe from almost the day of their arrival in it. It is no uncommon thing for English Gipsies who have the means to buy a small house with a little ground attached on landing in America, even should they not always occupy it personally. I have been informed of several such purchases, and knew the owner of one “homestead” intimately, and was often in his house. And this seems to have been a trait in the character of the superior Gipsies of mixed blood in Great Britain, perhaps from the time of their arrival.

With regard to the pedigree of John Bunyan, the most probable one seems to be the following:—William Bonyon and his wife were apparently ordinary English people, which would make Thomas of the same race. {19} His wife—the “lawless brewer and baker”—was either of the native race or of a superior class of mixed Gipsies, perhaps of the second generation born in England. If she was the former, the male heir of Thomas married a Gipsy while he kept his little wayside public-house, leading to their issue being turned into the Gipsy current in society. Thus the little property of “Bunyan’s End” (at least the cottage) would remain in the family, leading to a will being made to bequeath it from generation to generation. “Petty chapmen and tinkers” (using brazier instead of tinker) are the happiest words that could be used to describe many Gipsies of mixed blood in England to-day.

A remark in the _Graphic_ for the 26th August, in adopting Mr. Brown’s _theory_ that _all_ that sprung from Thomas Bonyon, in 1542, were _ordinary natives_ of England, makes it very plain what is the motive for not having it said that Bunyan was of the Gipsy race, viz.: to show that his were “positively respectable” people, and not “tinkering Gipsies.” Petty chapmen and tinkers, if of the native race, would be “positively respectable,” but not if they had had a “dash” of Gipsy blood in their veins (which _might_ have improved them,) and held by the Gipsy connexion, if for no other reason than that the white blood would have disowned them if they had known of its existence. In this way they would be cut off from the native race, or would mix with it no further than was unavoidable; living thus as Gipsies _incog._, or as outcasts, for that is the right word to use till the Gipsy blood becomes acknowledged by the rest of the world. The _Graphic_ “let the cat out of the bag,” and somewhat illustrated what I meant when I spoke of the “ferocious prejudice of caste against the name of Gipsy.”

I refer to the Disquisition on the Gipsies and my subsequent writings on John Bunyan and the Gipsies, and add a few extracts from the Disquisition; all of which should have been studied by Mr. Brown before “putting his foot into” the subject in the way he has done, for that is of too sacred a nature to be treated factiously or capriciously.