On the origin of the Gypsies

Various are the conjectures which have been indulged, and the coincidences which have been sought for, in order to obtain a solution of the query, What race of people are the Gypsies?

Whoever is disposed to refer to Continental writers, may see more than thirty different opinions started on this subject, founded on no better authority than some similarity of appellation, garb, complexion, or unsettled way of life.

They were sometimes Torlaques, Kalendars, or Faquirs. The Torlaques are Mahometan Monks, who under the pretence of holiness, are guilty of the most flagrant excesses. Bajazet the 2d, banished them from the Turkish empire in 1494. The Kalendars wander about in heathen countries, as the Gypsies do among Christians. The Faquirs are religious fanatics; and rove about in heathen and mahometan countries, like the most atrocious robbers. Anquetil says, the Faquirs in India go a pilgrimage to Jagrenat; they plunder such villages and cities as lie in their way; they form considerable bodies about a mile from Jagrenat, where they choose themselves a leader, to whom they pay all the attention due to a general.

With regard to strolling and thieving, the Faquirs and Gypsies agree exactly. Thomasius, Griselini, and the English geographer Salmon, imagined that when Sultan Selim conquered Egypt in 1517, several of the natives refusing to submit to the Turkish yoke, revolted under one Zinganeus.

But we have already adverted to authentic documents for the proof, that they were in Germany, Italy, and France, near a century before the conquest of Egypt by Selim.

Yet the belief that Gypsies were of Egyptian origin is parallel with their existence in Europe. It arose from the report circulated by the first of them, that they were pilgrims from Egypt; and this statement was not only adopted by the common people, but here, and there, obtained credit among men of learning. Grellmann observes, that had this opinion not been received at a time when almost every thing was taken upon trust, with little examination; had it not been propagated by the first Gypsies, and then obtained a sanction, it would have been impossible for it to have gained such general acceptation, or to have maintained itself to the present times. Till the 17th century, the Egyptian descent of the Gypsies rested entirely on tradition. Afterwards, Aventin, Krantz, and Miinster openly contradict it.

Aventin relates that they wished it to be thought they came from that country, but that, in his time, nothing was known concerning them, but what came from their own mouths; those who accounted them Egyptians, rested their belief entirely on the veracity of their informants.

This is collected with greater certainty from Krantz and Miinster, for they declare expressly, that every thing which could be discovered by any other means than their own assertions, contradicted, rather than confirmed their Egyptian descent. But it is not merely that their Egyptian descent is entirely destitute of proof, the most circumstantial evidence can be adduced against it.

Their language differs entirely from the Coptic, and their customs, as Ahasuerus Fritsch has remarked, are diametrically opposite to the Egyptian; but what is, if possible, of greater weight, they wander about in Egypt, like strangers, and there, as in other countries, form a distinct people.

The testimony of Bellonius is full and decisive on the point. He states; “No part of the world, I believe, is free from those banditti, wandering about in troops; whom we, by mistake, call Gypsies, and Bohemians. When we were at Cairo, and the villages bordering on the Nile, we found troops of these strolling thieves sitting under palm-trees; and they are esteemed foreigners in Egypt.”

Aventin expressly makes Turkey their original place of rendezvous; and this furnishes a reason for the south east parts of Europe being the most crowded with them. If all that came to Europe passed by this route, it accounts for a greater number remaining in those countries, than in others to which they would have a much longer travel; and before their arrival at which, their hordes might be much divided.

It is a just assertion, that one of the most infallible methods of determining the origin of a people, would be the discovery of a country in which their language is that of the natives. It is a fact incontrovertibly established, that besides the Gypsies speaking the language of the country in which they live, they have a general one of their own, in which they converse with each other.

Not knowing any speech correspondent with the Gypsies, some have been ready to pronounce it a mere jargon; not considering how extravagant a surmise it would be, that a people rude, uncivilized, and separated hundreds of miles from each other, have invented a language. Others who are better informed on the subject, allow that the language brought into Europe with the Gypsies, was really vernacular, of some country; but suppose it is so disguised and corrupted, partly by design, and partly by adventitious events, through length of time, and the continued wandering of these people, that it must be considered a new language, and now used by the Gypsies only.

That it is the dialect of some particular part of the globe, though no longer pure, as in the country whence it originated, is an opinion which has obtained the greatest concurrence among the learned. Grellmann says, had a German listened a whole day to a Gypsey conversation, he would not have comprehended a single expression. It must doubtless appear extraordinary, that the language of a people who had lived for centuries in Europe, should have remained so much a secret: but it was not easy to gain information from the Gypsies concerning it. Acquainted, by tradition, with the deception their predecessors practised on coming into Europe, they are suspicious; and fearing an explanation might be dangerous to themselves, they are not disposed to be communicative.—But how was it possible for the learned of former centuries, to be competent to the investigation, who had not the aids which now so copiously occur to the historical etymologist?

Many dialects have been discovered, and our knowledge of others greatly increased, within the last fifty or sixty years. During that time, not only the literary treasures of the furthest north have been opened to us, but we have become acquainted with many of the oriental languages; and even eastern idioms are becoming familiar to us. We need not therefore be surprised, that before this period, the most learned were unable to point out the country in which the Gypsey language was spoken. The Gypsies have no writing peculiar to themselves, in which to give a specimen of the construction of their dialect.

Writing and reading are attainments not to be expected from nomadic tribes. Sciences, and the refined arts, are never to be looked for among a people whose manner of living, and education, are so irregular. Music is the only science in which Gypsies participate in any considerable degree; they likewise compose, but it is after the manner of the eastern people, extempore.

Grellmann asserts, that the Hindostanie language has the greatest affinity with that of the Gypsies; but he does not rest this solely on the specimen he has introduced, a sketch of which will be presented in the next section; he adduces many facts in confirmation of his opinion, which it would be an injustice to him not to exhibit.

He infers from the following considerations, that Gypsies are of the lowest class of Indians, namely Pariars, or as they are called in Hindostan, Suders.

The whole great nation of Indians is known to be divided into four ranks, or stocks, which are called by a portuguese name, castes; each of which has its own particular subdivisions. Of these castes, the Bramin is the first; the second contains the Tschechteries or Setreas; the third, consists of the Beis, or Wazziers; the fourth is the caste of the above mentioned Suders; who upon the peninsula of Malabar, where their condition is the same as in Hindostan, are called Parias, and Pariers.

The first were appointed by Brama to seek after knowledge, to give instructions, and to take care of religion. The second were to serve in war; the third were as the Bramins, to cultivate science; but particularly to attend to the breeding of cattle. The caste of Suders was to be subservient to the Bramins, the Tschecteries, and the Beis. These Suders are held in disdain, they are considered infamous, and unclean, from their occupation, and they are abhorred because they eat flesh; the three other castes living entirely on vegetables.

Of this very caste it will appear, by the following comparison, our Gypsies are composed. We have seen that the Gypsies are in the highest degree filthy and disgusting; and with regard to character, depraved and fraudulent to excess, and these are the qualities of the Suders.

Baldeus says, the Parias are a filthy people, and wicked crew, who in winter steal much cattle, &c.

It is related in the Danish Mission Intelligence:—Nobody can deny that the Pariers are the dregs and refuse of all the Indians; they are thievish, and have wicked dispositions, &c.

Moreover Neuhof assures us: “The Parruas are full of every kind of dishonesty; they do not consider lying and cheating to be sinful, as they have no other custom or maxims among them. The Gypsey’s solicitude to conceal his language is, also, a striking Indian trait.”

“Professor Pallas says of the Indians round Astracan: custom has rendered them to the greatest degree suspicious about their language, insomuch that I was never able to obtain a small vocabulary from them.”

With regard to Gypsey marriages, Salmon relates that the nearest relations cohabit with each other; and as to education, their children grow up in the most shameful neglect, without either discipline or instruction.

All this is precisely the case with the Pariars. In the journal of the Missionaries already quoted, it is said; “With respect to matrimony, they act like the beasts, and their children are brought up without restraint or information.” Gypsies are fond of being about horses, so are the Suders in India, for which reason, they are commonly employed as horse-keepers, by the Europeans resident in that country.”

We have seen that the Gypsies hunt after cattle which have died of distempers, in order to feed on them; and when they can procure more of the flesh than is sufficient for one day’s consumption, they dry it in the sun. Such is likewise a constant custom with the Pariars in India.

That the Gypsies, and natives of Hindostan, resemble each other in complexion, and shape is undeniable. And what is asserted of the young Gypsey girls rambling about with their fathers who are musicians, dancing with lascivious and indecent gestures, to divert any person who is willing to give them a small gratuity for so acting, is likewise perfectly Indian. Sonnerat confirms this in the account he gives of the dancing girls of Surat.

Fortune-telling is practised all over the East; but the peculiar kind professed by the Gypsies, viz: chiromancy, constantly referring to whether the parties shall be rich or poor, happy or unhappy in marriage, &c. is no where met with but in India.

The account we have given of Gypsey smiths may be compared with the Indian, as related by Sonnerat in the following words: “The smith carries his tools, his shop, and his forge about with him, and works in any place where he can find employment; he erects his shop before the house of his employer, raising a low wall with beaten earth; before which, he places his hearth; behind this wall, he fixes two leathern bellows. He has a stone instead of an anvil, and his whole apparatus is a pair of tongs, a hammer, a beetle, and a file. How exactly does this accord with the description of the Gypsey smith!

We have seen that Gypsies always choose their place of residence near some village, or city, very seldom within them; even though there may not be any order to prevent it, as is the case in Moldavia, Wallachia, and all parts of Turkey. Even the more improved Gypsies in Transylvania, who have long since discontinued the wandering mode of life, and might, with permission from government, reside within the cities, rather choose to build their huts in some bye place, without their limits. This custom appears to be derived from their original Suder education; it being usual all over India, for the Sunders to have their huts without the villages of the other castes, and in retired places near their cities.

With respect to religion, it has appeared that the greater part of the Gypsies live without any profession of it; Tollius says, worse than heathens. The more wonderful it is, that a whole people should be so indifferent and void of religion, the more weight it carries with it, to confirm their Indian origin, when all this is found to be literally true of the Suders.

In relation to the emigration of the Gypsies, no cause can be assigned for their leaving their native country, so probable, as the war of Timur Beg, in India. The date of their arrival marks it very plainly. It was in the years 1408, and 1409, that this Conqueror ravaged India for the purpose of disseminating the Mahometan religion. Not only every one who made any resistance was destroyed, and such as fell into the enemies’ hands, though quite defenceless, were made slaves; but in a short time those very slaves, to the number of one hundred thousand, were put to death. In consequence of the universal panic which took place, those, who could quit the country, might well be supposed to consult their safety by flight.

If any of the higher castes did withdraw themselves on account of the troubles it is probable, they retired southward to people of their own sort, the Mahrattas. To mix at all with the Suders, would have been degrading their high characters, which they consider worse than death; it was therefore morally impossible for them to have united with the Suders in a retreat. Moreover, by putting themselves into the power of the Suders, with whom they live in a state of discord and inveteracy, they might have incurred as much danger as from the common enemy.

Before presenting a vocabulary of Gypsey words, it may be observed, that though the Hindostanie language is fundamentally the same, all over Hindostan; yet, like other languages, it has different dialects in the various provinces. The eastern dialect, spokes about the Ganges, has different names for some things; and inflections of some words different to the western ones spoken about the Indus: There is, besides, a third, varying from both these, viz: the Surat dialect, which has a number of Malabar, and other words mixed with it. To this must be added, that in the Hindostan, as well as in every other language, there are often several names for the same thing.

The particular dialect bearing the closest affinity to the Gypsey language, as will appear hereafter, is the western; and perhaps more especially that of Surat. With respect to the construction and inflections of the two languages, they are evidently the same. In that of Hindostan, every word ending in j is feminine, all the rest masculine; the Gypsey is the same. That makes the inflections entirely by the article, adding it at the end of the word. The Gypsey language proceeds exactly in the same manner

Grellmann.