Part 4

“That Mr. Simson had a duty—to himself as well as to the public—to perform in justifying his previous remarks about Charles Waterton, by writing this monograph, is unquestionable. Although it is a somewhat difficult task unsparingly to point out the mistakes and shortcomings of a man, when he can no longer defend himself, without seeming to be guilty of an offence against the old rule—_Nil nisi bonum de mortuis_—Mr. Simson may fairly claim credit for having adhered to the Shakespearian advice in regard to fault-finding; for, if he has extenuated nothing, he has set down naught in malice. The example of Charles Waterton, country gentleman and naturalist, may serve as a useful warning to students of natural history, by teaching them that only the most patient investigation and careful reflection can produce results that will be of real and permanent value to science. They have here the example of a man who had most excellent opportunities for such investigations, as well as the strongest taste for their pursuit, and who, by an exact and systematic method of study, might have made most important additions to our knowledge of natural history. But by inaccurate observation, by a certain looseness of statement, and by taking things for granted instead of personally verifying them, he has greatly diminished the value of his labours. Mr. Simson, though his task is to set right the unduly high estimate in which the squire of Walton Hall has been held as a man of science, shows an appreciation of the strong points of his character that completely takes away any appearance of censoriousness; and his work incidentally affords an interesting study of the man himself, who, in his personal life and his enthusiastic devotion to natural history, showed a strong individuality that is quite refreshing in this age of conventionalities.”—_Aberdeen Journal_, _August_ 30, 1880.

* * * * *

AMERICAN EDITION OF 1878, WITH APPENDIX.

210 _Pages_, _Octavo_, _Cloth_. _Price_, $1.25.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATURAL HISTORY, AND PAPERS ON OTHER SUBJECTS.

BY JAMES SIMSON, EDITOR OF SIMSON’S “HISTORY OF THE GIPSIES.”

* * * * *

_NOTICES OF THE BRITISH PRESS_.

Dublin University Magazine, July, 1875.

“The principal articles in this volume that have reference to natural history originally appeared in _Land and Water_, and are, in many respects, highly interesting. Concerning vipers and snakes, we are presented with a good deal of information that is instructive, not only as regards their habits generally, but also with respect to points that are in dispute among naturalists.” “For instance, it is a vexed question whether, under any circumstances, the young retreat into the stomach [inside] of the mother snake. A great authority, [?] Mr. Frank Buckland, affirms that they do not; while our author is as positive that they do. And he certainly, with reason, contends that the question is entirely one of evidence, and, therefore, should be settled ‘as a fact is proved in a court of justice; difficulties, suppositions, or theories not being allowed to form part of the testimony.’” “In support of his own views, Mr. Simson has collected a large body of evidence that undoubtedly appears authentic and conclusive.” “Of the miscellaneous papers in this volume, the best is a critical study of the late John Stuart Mill. Taken altogether, the volume is very entertaining, and affords pleasing and instructive reading.”

Evening Standard, June 8, 1875.

“It is with real pleasure we see these Contributions to _Land and Water_ no longer limited to the columns of a newspaper, whatever may be its circulation. For the excellence and charm of these papers we must refer the reader to the volume before us, which cannot fail to interest and instruct its readers. Their variety and range may be gathered from the subjects treated:—Snakes, Vipers, English Snakes, Waterton as a Naturalist, John Stuart Mill, History of the Gipsies, and the Duke of Argyll on the Preservation of the Jews.”

London Courier, June, 1875.

“The Natural History Contributions, which are very interesting, though partaking largely of a controversial nature, deal chiefly with questions affecting snakes and vipers. Of the other Contributions, the most attractive and readable is the one which contests some of Mr. Borrow’s conclusions in his well-known account of the Gipsies. Mr. John Stuart Mill forms the subject of a slashing dissertation, which is not likely to find much favour with the friends of the departed philosopher.”

Rochdale Observer, June 19, 1875.

“The study of natural history has a peculiar charm for most people, but for Lancashire folk it seems to have a special interest. Perhaps the most striking feature of the book at the head of this notice is the variety of topics touched upon, topics which, although apparently incompatible and incongruous, are, nevertheless, both curious and interesting. The author certainly brings a large amount of special knowledge to the discussion of the questions he introduces, and the essays are undoubtedly well written. Our readers will see that the work is full of controversial matter, embracing natural history, theology, and biography, and consequently will suit the taste of those who like to enter into discussions which excite the feelings, and in which abundance of energy and ability is displayed. The book is certainly ably written, and the author shows himself to be a man of large accomplishments.”

Liverpool Albion, June 18, 1875.

“The articles are written in a very readable manner, and will be found interesting even by those who have no special knowledge of natural history or interest in it. The Gipsies are competitors with the snakes for Mr. Simson’s regards, and several papers are devoted to these mysterious nomadic tribes. Perhaps the most curious paper in the volume is written to prove that John Bunyan was a Gipsy, and a very fair case is certainly made out, principally from Bunyan’s own autobiographical statements. With the exception of the papers on John Stuart Mill, to which we have already alluded, and which are far worse than worthless, the book is one which we can recommend.”

Newcastle Courant, June 11, 1875.

“The bulk of these Contributions appeared in _Land and Water_. We think the author has done well to give them to the public in the more enduring form of a well got up volume. The book contains, also, a critical sketch of the career of John Stuart Mill; some gossip about Gipsies; and the Duke of Argyll’s notions about the preservation of the Jews. Altogether, the book is very readable.”

Northern Whig, June 17, 1875.

“This volume consists of Contributions to _Land and Water_ by a writer well-known as the author [editor] of a standard book on the Gipsies, and is evidently the production of a clear, intelligent, and most observant mind. Mr. Simson adds a number of miscellaneous papers, including a masterly, though severe, criticism of John Stuart Mill—‘his religion, his education, a crisis in his history, his wife, Mill and son,’—as well as several desultory papers on the Gipsies, elicited, for the most part, by criticisms on his work on that singular race.”

Western Times, June 29, 1875.

“The preface to this volume is dated from New York, and the contents bear marks of the free, racy style of transatlantic writers. The volume closes with a paper on the ‘Preservation of the Jews.’ The writer deals with his several subjects with marked ability, and his essays form a volume which will pay for reading, and therefore pay for purchasing.”

Daily Review, June 11, 1875.

“We need only mention the other subjects—Waterton as a Naturalist, Romanism, John Stuart Mill, Simson’s History of the Gipsies, Borrow on the Gipsies, the Scottish Churches and the Gipsies, Was John Bunyan a Gipsy? and, of course, the literary ubiquitous Duke of Argyll on the Preservation of the Jews. The only paper we have not ventured to look at is the last, in the dread that on this question the versatile Duke might be found, as in the matter of the Scottish Church, verifying the French proverb—_Il va chercher midi à quatorze heures_—a work in which the author of this volume is an adept in quiet, quaint, and clever ways, however, which make it interesting.”

NEW YORK: JAMES MILLER.

CONTENTS.

PAGE VIPERS AND SNAKES GENERALLY 7 WHITE OF SELBORNE ON THE VIPER 10 WHITE OF SELBORNE ON SNAKES 17 SNAKES SWALLOWING THEIR YOUNG 23 SNAKES SWALLOWING THEIR YOUNG 25 SNAKES CHARMING BIRDS 30 MR. FRANK BUCKLAND ON ENGLISH SNAKES 31 MR. GOSSE ON THE JAMAICA BOA SWALLOWING HER YOUNG 33 AMERICAN SNAKES 36 AMERICAN SCIENCE CONVENTION ON SNAKES 36 CHARLES WATERTON AS A NATURALIST 39 ROMANISM 49 JOHN STUART MILL: A STUDY. HIS RELIGION 69 HIS EDUCATION 82 A CRISIS IN HIS HISTORY 90 HIS WIFE 97 MILL AND SON 105 SIMSON’S HISTORY OF THE GIPSIES 111 MR. BORROW ON THE GIPSIES 112 THE SCOTTISH CHURCHES AND THE SOCIAL EMANCIPATION 150 OF THE GIPSIES WAS JOHN BUNYAN A GIPSY? 157 THE DUKE OF ARGYLL ON THE PRESERVATION OF THE JEWS 161 INDEX 171 APPENDIX. I. JOHN BUNYAN AND THE GIPSIES 183 II. MR. FRANK BUCKLAND AND WHITE OF SELBORNE 187 III. MR. FRANK BUCKLAND ON THE VIPER 192 IV. THE ENDOWMENT OF RESEARCH 199

FOOTNOTES.

{9} Dated 30th August, 1882.

{10a} _Contributions to Natural History_, etc., p. 158.

{10b} I have commented on the assertion of Mr. Groome, that “John Bunyan, from parish registers, does not appear to have had one drop of Gipsy blood,” as if that could have been ascertained from parish registers! I did not expect to find such a loose idea as that in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, taken from a casual or stray contributor to _Notes and Queries_. But I find an English journal quoting it as a _proof_ that Bunyan was not of the Gipsy race; and supporting it by Mr. Froude’s ignoring the question in his highly conventional work on Bunyan.—_The Scottish Churches and the Gipsies_, pp. 11, 52 and 59.

{11a} Mr. Brown objects to its being said that the English Bunyans could have sprung from Bunyans that left Scotland fifty years before 1548, for the reason that he finds men of that name in England, in 1219, 1257 and 1310. Thomas Bunyan, if he is correct in his information, says that the Italian mason of the name of Bunyan was at Melrose in 1136. The name might have had its origin in foreign masons called Bunyan, as there would be families of that craft, continued from generation to generation, during the middle ages, employed in church architecture all over Europe, including England as well as Scotland. I have not seen Mr. Thomas Bunyan’s information, as quoted above, called in question by any one.

{11b} Dated 6th September, 1882.

{11c} In an article in _Notes and Queries_, for the 27th March, 1875, I said:—“In addition to the investigations made in church registers, I would suggest that the records of the different criminal courts in Bedfordshire (if they still exist) should be examined, to find if people of the name of Bunyan (and how designated) are found to have been on trial, and for what offences.”—_Contributions_, _etc._, p. 186.

{12} The language used by Bunyan in describing who and what he was, was so comprehensive and graphic that by using the word “Gipsy” he would have confused his reader, for in that case he would have had to explain its meaning as applicable to himself. This would have been foreign to his subject, and, in the face of the legal responsibility, would have compromised his personal safety, and proved a bar to his usefulness, or standing in society, as illustrated by the aversion on the part of so many to investigate the idea to-day. He said that his “descent was well known to many.” Did not that imply that he had been more precise to _many in private_, but would not use a word in his _Grace Abounding_? This heading was very expressive when we consider that many would almost seem to think that the “Gipsy tribe,” or those possessing Gipsy blood, are outside of “God’s covenanted mercies.” According to Mr. Brown, Bunyan’s language, as we shall see, “_might_ simply mean that his father was a poor man in a village!” and that in ascertaining who he was, “I have really nothing to go upon but Bunyan’s own words” about himself (which is not a fact), as if these had no bearing on the question, and were not worth listening to, and possessed no meaning!

{13} Dated 8th September, 1882.

{14a} Mr. Borrow, in his _Gipsies in Spain_, gives a very graphic account of the result of a marriage between a Spaniard and a Gipsy woman. I have alluded to it, in the Disquisition on the Gipsies, as “a very fine illustration of this principle of half-breed ultra Gipsyism,” that of “an officer in the Spanish army adopting a young female Gipsy child, whose parents had been executed, and educating and marrying her. A son of this marriage, who rose to be a captain in the service of Donna Isabel, hated the white race so intensely as, when a child, to tell his father that he wished he (his father) was dead. At whose door must the cause of such a feeling be laid? . . . This is certainly an extreme instance of the result of the prejudice against the Gipsy race; and no opinion can be formed upon it without knowing some of the circumstances connected with the feelings of the father, or his relations, toward the mother and the Gipsy race generally” (p. 372).

{14b} This Thomas Bonyon might not have been born till many years after 1502, as I have explained at page 18.

{15a} “Easily explained,” indeed, by his father having been “simply a poor man in a village.”

{15b} Mr. Brown in his letter acknowledges having received these pamphlets. I did not send them with the object of enlightening him on the subject under review. I have not been able to see his book on the Bunyan Festival. It is very likely that I would find matter in it for comment.

{16a} It reads very candidly when it is said that “none of Bunyan’s admirers would object to his being shown to be a Gipsy, if only sufficient proof were adduced.” The real position is, that Bunyan’s admissions as to what he was and was not, and his calling and surroundings, show that he was of the Gipsy race; and “proof” should be “adduced” to show that he was _not_ that, but of the _ordinary race_ of Englishmen.

{16b} It would be interesting to learn from Mr. Brown, 1_st_. When, and under what circumstances, he took up this question in regard to Bunyan; _2d_. What regard he paid to the subject of the Gipsies in general, as published; 3_d_. Whether he made any personal inquiries in regard to it; 4_th_. Whether he read anything, and what, in favour of Bunyan having been of the Gipsy race; 5_th_. How he came to maintain that because the name of Bunyan existed in England before the Gipsies arrived in it, therefore Bunyan was not one of the race; 6_th_. Whether he knows of Gipsies bearing native surnames, and even of one with a foreign surname; 7_th_. What reason he had for supposing that Thomas Bonyon, in 1542, had no Gipsy blood in his veins, or that his descendants for several generations did not pass into the Gipsy current in society, as explained; 8_th_. Where Mr. Brown resided before he settled at Bedford, and how long he has been there. 9_th_. What traditions he found in the town and neighbourhood bearing on Bunyan’s descent, and whether there are people there averse to its being asserted that Bunyan was what might be called of the _ordinary native_ English race; 10_th_. Are there none there who object to its being said that Bunyan’s family was a broken-down branch of the aristocracy, titled or untitled, that most probably entered England from Normandy, under William the Conqueror? 11_th_. What are the reasons for saying that Bunyan was _not_ of the Gipsy race? 12_th_. Might not _any_ person be of the Gipsy race, notwithstanding it was not even surmised, much less _proved_, by any one acquainted with the Gipsy subject, and much more so by one apparently totally ignorant of it? 13_th_. Since Bunyan was an Englishman under any circumstances, why should anyone claim him to have been entirely of the native or ordinary blood, till it is proved that part of his blood belonged to the Gipsy race, that entered Great Britain not later than 1506—no regard being shown to what he said he “was and was not, and his calling and surroundings”? 14_th_. Has Mr. Brown’s object, from first to last, been exclusively that of proving Bunyan _not_ to have been of the Gipsy race? 15_th_. In that case, should he not, while occupying the pulpit of Bunyan, look upon his “mission” as most sacred, and “laying aside every weight and the sin which doth so easily beset him,” “give no sleep to his eyes or slumber to his eyelids” till he was satisfied who Bunyan really was, and acknowledge him accordingly?

{17} Dated 13th September, 1882.

{18} There may be some doubt that Towla Bailyow, mentioned in a writ of the Scots’ parliament in 1540, was a Baillie according to the modern spelling of the word. In that case, the first Gipsies mentioned officially in Great Britain with full native names, seem to have been John Brown and George Brown, as found in a writ of the Scots’ parliament of the 8th April, 1554. In the _History of the Gipsies_ I find the following:—

“I am further inclined to think that it would be about this period, and chiefly in consequence of these bloody enactments, the Gipsies would, in general, assume the ordinary Christian and surnames common at that time in Scotland. And their usual sagacity pointed out to them the advantages arising from taking the cognomens of the most powerful families in the kingdom, whose influence would afford them ample protection as adopted members of their respective clans. In support of my opinion of the origin of the surnames of the Gipsies of the present day, we find that the most prevailing names among them are those of the most influential of our noble families of Scotland, such as Stewart, Gordon, Douglas, Graham, Ruthven, Hamilton, Drummond, Kennedy, Cunningham, Montgomery, Kerr, Campbell, Maxwell, Johnstone, Ogilvie, McDonald, Robertson, Grant, Baillie, Shaw, Burnet, _Brown_, Keith, etc.” To that I added that “the English Gipsies say that native names were assumed by their race in consequence of the proscription to which it was subjected.”—(p. 117.)

{19} Perhaps I admitted too much when I said that “William Bonyon and his wife were apparently ordinary English people,” for they need not necessarily have been that, as I have shown. Had they been such, the tradition of it would soon have died out in their Gipsy descendants of mixed blood but for the little property that remained in the family; for the associations of descent from the native race are not pleasant to the tribe when they consider the hard feelings which it has entertained for their Gipsy blood.

James IV. of Scotland, when introducing “Anthonius Gawino, Earl of Little Egypt, and the other afflicted and lamentable tribe of his retinue,” to his uncle, the King of Denmark, in 1506, said that they “had lately arrived on the frontiers of our kingdom”; so that it is uncertain at what time before 1506 some of the tribe had made their appearance without being recorded in a public document. The Scottish king believed that as “Denmark was nearer to Egypt than Scotland,” a greater number of the Gipsies sojourned in it; and that his uncle would know more about them than he did. If this style of reasoning was correct, England must have received Gipsies before Scotland, for it was “nearer to Egypt than Scotland.”—_History of the Gipsies_, p. 99.

Speaking of the “standing” of the leading Gipsies in Scotland between 1506 and 1579, the author of the History wrote as follows:—

“It is evident that the Gipsies in Scotland at that time were allowed to punish the criminal members of their own tribe according to their own peculiar laws, customs and usages, without molestation. And it cannot be supposed that the ministers of three or four succeeding monarchs would have suffered their sovereigns to be so much imposed on as to allow them to put their names to public documents, styling poor and miserable wretches, as we at the present day imagine them to have been, ‘Lords and Earls of Little Egypt.’ . . . I am disposed to believe that Anthonius Gawino in 1506, and John Faw in 1540, would personally as individuals, that is, as Gipsy ‘Rajahs,’ have a very respectable and imposing appearance in the eyes of the officers of the Crown” (p. 107).

Although he says that “the English government had not been so easily nor so long imposed on as the kings of Scotland, and the authorities of Europe generally” (p. 91), we can easily imagine that the principal Gipsies at least occupied a pretty good position among the English people generally. If Bailyow in 1540 represented the native name of Baillie (as it is believed to have done), we could have William Bonyon, who died in 1542, one of the original Gipsies, most likely of mixed blood; and we certainly had “John Brown and George Brown, Egyptians,” before 1554.