Project Gutenberg's The Jew, The Gypsy and El Islam, by Richard F. Burton
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have
to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.
Title: The Jew, The Gypsy and El Islam
Author: Richard F. Burton
Editor: W. H. Wilkins
Release Date: May 24, 2018 [EBook #57208]
Language: English
Character set encoding: UTF-8
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE JEW, THE GYPSY AND EL ISLAM ***
Produced by Fritz Ohrenschall, Emmanuel Ackerman and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
(This book was produced from scanned images of public
domain material from the Google Books project.)
THE JEW, THE GYPSY
and
EL ISLAM
From the portrait by Lord Leighton F. Jenkins Imp. Paris
Richard F. Burton
[Arabic: الحج عبدالله: Al-Hajj 'abd Allah]
The Jew, The Gypsy
and
El Islam
By the late Captain
SIR RICHARD F. BURTON
K.C.M.G. F.R.G.S. ETC
Translator of
“The Thousand and One Nights,” and Author of “The
Book of the Sword,” “My Pilgrimage to Mecca,” etc.
Edited with a Preface and Brief Notes
by
W. H. WILKINS
London
Hutchinson & Co
Paternoster Row
1898
Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury.
[Pg v]
PREFACE
“Good wine needs no bush,” and a good book
needs no preface, least of all from any
but the author’s pen. This is a rule more
honoured in the breach than the observance nowadays,
when many a classic appears weighed down
and obscured by the unnecessary remarks and bulky
commentaries of some unimportant editor. For
my part it will suffice to give as briefly as possible
the history of the MSS. now published for the
first time in this volume.
Sir Richard Burton was a voluminous writer. In
addition to the forty-eight works published during
his life, there remained at his death twenty MSS.,
some long and some short, in different stages of
completion. A few were ready for press; others were
finished to all intents and purposes, and only required
final revision or a few additions; some were in a
state of preparation merely, and for that reason
may never see the light. Those in this volume[Pg vi]
belong to the second category. That so many of
Burton’s MSS. were unpublished at the time of his
death arose from his habit of working at several
books at a time. In his bedroom, which also served
as his study, at Trieste were some ten or twelve rough
deal tables, and on each table were piled the materials
and notes of a different book in a more or less advanced
stage of completion. When he was tired of one,
or when he came to a standstill for lack of material,
he would leave it for a time and work at another.
During the last few years of his life the great success
which attended his Arabian Nights led him to turn
his attention more to that phase of his work, to
the exclusion of books which had been in preparation
for years. Thus it came about that so many
were unpublished when he died.
As it is well known, he left his writings, published
and unpublished, to his widow, Lady Burton,
absolutely, to do with as she thought best. Lady
Burton suppressed what she deemed advisable; the
rest she brought with her to England. She
published her Life of Sir Richard Burton, a new
edition of his Arabian Nights, also Catullus and
Il Pentamerone; and was arranging for the publication
of others when she died (March, 1896).
Her sister and executrix, Mrs. Fitzgerald (to[Pg vii]
whom I should like to express my gratitude for the
many facilities she has given me), thought fit to
entrust me with the work of editing and preparing
for publication the remaining MSS. In the
exercise of the discretion she was good enough to
vest in me, I determined to bring out first the three
MSS. which make up this book.
The first part—The Jew—has a somewhat
curious history. Burton collected most of the
materials for writing it from 1869 to 1871, when
he was Consul at Damascus. His intimate knowledge
of Eastern races and languages, and his
sympathy with Oriental habits and lines of thought,
gave him exceptional facilities for ethnological
studies of this kind. Disguised as a native, and
unknown to any living soul except his wife, the
British Consul mingled freely with the motley populations
of Damascus, and inspected every quarter
of the city—Muslim, Christian, and Jewish. His
inquiries bore fruit in material, not only for this
general essay on the Jew, but for an Appendix dealing
with the alleged rite of Human Sacrifice among the
Sephardím or Eastern Jews, and more especially the
mysterious murder of Padre Tomaso at Damascus
in 1840. There is little doubt that his inquiry
into these subjects was one of the reasons which[Pg viii]
aroused the hostility of the Damascus Jews against
him; and that hostility was a powerful factor, though
by no means the only one, in his recall by Lord
Granville in 1871.
Burton, however, had collected a mass of material
before he left Damascus, and in 1873, the year after
he had been appointed Consul at Trieste, he began to
put it into shape for publication. It was his habit
to collect for many years the material of a work,
to mark, learn, and inwardly digest it, and then
write it in a few months. This plan he pursued
with The Jew, which, with the Appendix before
mentioned, was finished and ready for publication
towards the end of 1874.
In 1875 he came home from Trieste on leave, and
brought the book with him, intending to publish it
forthwith. But first he asked an influential friend,
who was highly placed in the official world, to read
the MS., and give him his opinion as to the expediency
of publishing it. That opinion was adverse,
owing to the anti-Semitic tendency of the book.
Other friends also pointed out to Burton that, so long
as he remained in the service of the Government
of a country where the Jews enjoy unprecedented
power and position, it would be unwise, to say the
least of it, for him to make enemies of them. These[Pg ix]
arguments had weight with Burton, who was not
as a rule influenced by anything but his own will,
and for once he deemed discretion the better quality,
and returned with his MS. to Trieste. There were
other considerations too. His wife had just brought
out her Inner Life of Syria, which was partly
devoted to a defence of his action at Damascus in
the matter of the Jews. It had met with a very
favourable reception. His friends were also endeavouring
to obtain for him a K.C.B. and the post
of Tangier, Morocco—the one thing he stayed in
the Consular Service in the hope of obtaining. So
the time (1875) was not deemed a propitious one
for making enemies.
Burton put his MS. on the shelf, and waited for
the promotion which never came. It remained there
until 1886, when Tangier, which was as good as
promised to Burton, was given by Lord Rosebery
to Sir William Kirby-Green. Then Burton took
down the MS. on The Jew again, and had it recopied.
But his wife, who was endeavouring to
obtain permission for him to retire on full pension,
pointed out to him that since it had waited so long
it might as well wait until March, 1891, when, his
term of service being finished, they would retire
from official life and be free to publish what they[Pg x]
liked. Moreover, they numbered many friends
among the wealthy Jews of Trieste, and had no wish
to wound their susceptibilities. Burton reluctantly
agreed to this, but declared his determination of
publishing the book as soon as he had retired from
the Consular Service. Five months before the date
of his retirement he died.
Lady Burton had The Jew next on her list for
publication at the time of her death. In publishing
it now, therefore, one is only carrying out her wishes
and those of her husband. But in the exercise
of the discretion given to me, I have thought it
better to hold over for the present the Appendix
on the alleged rite of Human Sacrifice among the
Sephardím and the murder of Padre Tomaso. The
only alternative was to publish it in a mutilated
form; and as I hold strongly that no one has a
right to mutilate the work of another writer, least of
all of one who is dead, I prefer to withhold it until
a more convenient season. I can do this with a
clearer conscience, because the Appendix has no direct
bearing on the other part of the book, and because
the chapters on The Jew which are retained are
by far the more important. The tone of even this
portion is anti-Semitic; but I do not feel justified
in going contrary to the wishes of the author[Pg xi]
and suppressing an interesting ethnological study
merely to avoid the possibility of hurting the susceptibilities
of the Hebrew community. It has
been truly said, “Every nation gets the Jew it deserves,”
and it may well be that the superstitions
and cruelties of the Eastern Jews have been
generated in them by long centuries of oppression
and wrong. From these superstitions and cruelties
the enlightened and highly favoured Jews in England
naturally shrink with abhorrence and repudiation;
but it does not therefore follow they have no existence
among their less fortunate Eastern brethren.
The Gypsy has a far less eventful history, though
the materials for its making were collected during
a period of over thirty years, and were gathered
for the most part by personal research, in Asia
mainly, and also in Africa, South America, and
Europe. Burton’s interest in the Gypsies was lifelong;
and when he was a lieutenant in the Bombay
Army and quartered in Sindh, he began his investigations
concerning the affinity between the Jats and
the Gypsies. During his many travels in different
parts of the world, whenever he had the opportunity
he collected fresh materials with a view to putting
them together some day. In 1875 his controversy
with Bataillard provoked him into compiling his[Pg xii]
long-contemplated work on the Gypsies. Unfortunately
other interests intervened, and the work was
never completed. It was one of the many unfinished
things Burton intended to complete when he should
have quitted the Consular Service. He hoped, for
instance, to make fuller inquiries concerning the
Gypsies in France, Germany, and other countries
of Europe, and especially he intended to write a
chapter on the Gypsies in England on his return
home. Even as it stands, however, The Gypsy
is a valuable addition to ethnology; for apart
from Burton’s rare knowledge of strange peoples
and tongues, his connexion with the Gypsies lends
to the subject a unique interest. There is no doubt
that he was affiliated to this strange people by
nature, if not by descent. To quote from the Gypsy
Lore Journal[1]:
“Whether there may not be also a tinge of Arab,
or perhaps of Gypsy blood in Burton’s race, is a
point which is perhaps open to question. For the
latter suspicion an excuse may be found in the
incurable restlessness which has beset him since his
infancy, a restlessness which has effectually prevented
him from ever settling long in any one place, and
in the singular idiosyncrasy which his friends have[Pg xiii]
often remarked—the peculiarity of his eyes. ‘When
it (the eye) looks at you,’ said one who knows him
well, ‘it looks through you, and then, glazing over,
seems to see something behind you. Richard Burton
is the only man (not a Gypsy) with that peculiarity,
and he shares with them the same horror of a corpse,
death-bed scenes, and graveyards, though caring
little for his own life.’ When to this remarkable
fact be added the scarcely less interesting detail
that ‘Burton’ is one of the half-dozen distinctively
Romany names, it is evident that the suspicion of
Sir Richard Burton having a drop of Gypsy blood in
his descent—crossed and commingled though it be
with an English, Scottish, French, and Irish strain—is
not altogether unreasonable.”
On this subject Lady Burton also wrote:
“In the January number of the Gypsy Lore
Journal a passage is quoted from ‘a short sketch
of the career’ of my husband (a little black pamphlet)
which half suspects a remote drop of Gypsy blood
in him. There is no proof that this was ever the
case; but there is no question that he showed many
of their peculiarities in appearance, disposition, and
speech—speaking Romany like themselves. Nor did
we ever enter a Gypsy camp without their claiming
him: ‘What are you doing with a black coat on?[Pg xiv]’
they would say; ‘why don’t you join us and be
our King?’”[2]
Whether the affinity was one of blood or of nature
does not greatly matter; in either case it lends a
special interest to Burton’s study of the gypsy.
Of El Islam; or, The Rank of Muhammadanism
among the Religions of the World there is little
to be said. It is one of the oldest of the Burton
MSS.; and though it bears no date, from internal
evidence I judge it to have been written soon after
his famous pilgrimage to Mecca in 1853. It is, in
fact, contemporary with his poem The Kasîdah,
though I know not why the poem was published
and the essay withheld. Probably Burton contemplated
writing more fully on the subject.
Muhammadanism in its highest aspect always
attracted him. So long ago as 1848 we find him
preparing for his Mecca pilgrimage, not only by
learning the Koran and practising rites and ceremonies,
but by “a sympathetic study of Sufi-ism, the
Gnosticism of El Islam, which would raise me high
above the rank of a mere Muslim.”[3] Lady Burton
writes: “This stuck to him off and on all his life”;
and, it may be added, gave a colour to his writings.[Pg xv]
Since Burton wrote this essay (now published for
the first time) a change has taken place among
thinking men in the estimate of El Islam among
the religions of the world. Writers like Lane Poole,
Isaac Taylor, and Bosworth Smith, to name no
others, have cleared away many misconceptions
concerning the “Saving Faith,” and have discussed
its merits as a humanizing creed. But the testimony
of a man like Burton, who by personal observation
studied thoroughly the “inner life of the Muslim,”
who absolutely lived the life of an Arab pilgrim,
and penetrated to the Holy of Holies, of necessity
carries peculiar weight.
I should like to say a few words concerning the
author’s MSS. So many conflicting rumours have
appeared with reference to the late Sir Richard
Burton’s MSS., that it is well to state that these are
here reproduced practically as they left the author’s
hands.[4] It has been my endeavour to avoid over-editing,
and to interfere as little as possible with the
original text. Hence editorial notes, always in
square brackets, are sparingly introduced. It has not
been found necessary to make any verbal changes[Pg xvi]
of importance. But the case is different with the
spelling of proper names, which were left in such a
chaotic condition that a revision was found indispensable,
so as to reduce them to some measure
of uniformity. The variants were so many and
the MS. so difficult to decipher, that I am fain
to crave indulgence for my performance of this
somewhat troublesome task.
In conclusion, I will only add that it has been my
endeavour to give a full and accurate presentment of
these hitherto unpublished MSS. There are more to
follow; but these form a good sample of the work
of the famous Oriental traveller in fields which
he made peculiarly his own. They are eminently
characteristic of the man. They give glimpses of
him once more as a bold and original thinker, a
profound student of men and things, as a rare
genius, if a wayward one, and as one of the most
remarkable personalities of our day and generation.
W. H. WILKINS.
[Pg 3]
CHAPTER I
GENERAL OPINION OF THE JEW
The history of the Jew as well as his physiological
aspect are subjects which still remain to be
considered and carefully to be worked out from an
Aryan point of view. We have of late years seen
books in plenty upon points of detail: let us
particularize The Physical History of the Jewish
Race, by Dr. Josiah Clark Nott[5] (Charleston, 1850);
Le Juif, par le Chevalier Geargenot des Monceseaux
(Paris: Henri Plon, 1871); and Notices of the Jews
and their Country by the Classic Writers of
Antiquity: being a Collection of Statements and
Opinions translated from the Works of Greek and
Latin Heathen Authors previous to a.d. 500, by
John Gill (London: Longmans, 1872). But in these,
as in other works, we find wanting a practical and
personal familiarity with the subject, nor can we be
surprised at its absence. It is generally assumed[Pg 4]
that at the present moment there are six millions of
Jews scattered over the face of the earth. Some have
exaggerated the total to nine millions and a half;
but even the former figure is a greater number, says
M. Crémieux, than the nation could boast of at
any other period of its history, ancient or modern.[6]
Throughout the world also the race increases with
such marvellous rapidity as a rule, which admits
of few exceptions, that philosophical inquirers are[Pg 5]
beginning to ask whether this immense fecundity,
taken in connexion with the exceptionally healthy
and vigorous physique of the race, its ubiquity and
its cosmopolitanism, does not point to a remarkable
career in times to come.
The ethnologist and the student of general
history are urgently invited to consider the annals
and the physical and intellectual aspects of the
children of Israel, perhaps the most interesting
subject that can occupy their attention. The Jew,
like the Gypsy, stands alone, isolated by character, if
not by blessing. Traditionally, or rather according
to its own tradition, the oldest family on earth, it
is at the same time that which possesses the most
abundant vitality. Its indestructible and irrepressible
life-power enables this nation without a country to
maintain an undying nationality and to nourish a
sentiment of caste with a strength and a pertinacity
unparalleled in the annals of patriotism. The people
that drove the Jews from Judæa, the empires which
effaced the kingdoms of Israel and Judah from
the map of the world, have utterly perished. The
descendants of the conquering Romans are undistinguishable
from the rest of mankind. But,
eighteen hundred years after the Fall of Jerusalem,
the dispersed Jewish people have a distinct existence,
are a power in every European capital, conduct the
financial operations of nations and governments, and
are to be found wherever civilization has extended[Pg 6]
and commerce has penetrated; in fact, it has made
all the world its home.
One obstacle to a matured and detailed ethnological
study of the Jew is the difficulty of becoming
familiar with a people scattered over the two
hemispheres. Though the race is one, the two
great factors blood and climate have shown it to
be anything but immutable, either in physique
or in character. Compare, for instance, the two
extremes—the Tatar-faced Karaïte of the Crimea
with the Semitic features of Morocco, the blond
lovelocks of Aden and the fiery ringlets of Germany
with the greasy, black hair of Houndsditch. And
as bodily form differs greatly, there is perhaps a
still greater distinction in mental characteristics:
we can hardly believe the peaceful and industrious
Dutch Jew a brother of the fanatic and ferocious
Hebrew who haunts the rugged Highlands of Safed
in the Holy Land. Yet though these differences
constitute almost a series of sub-races, there is one
essentially great quality which cements and combines
the whole house of Israel.
The vigour, the vital force, and the mental capacity
of other peoples are found to improve by intermixture;
the more composite their character, the
greater their strength and energy. But for generation
after generation the Jews have preserved, in
marriage at least, the purity of their blood. In
countries where they form but a small percentage of[Pg 7]
the population the range of choice must necessarily
be very limited, and from the very beginning of
his history the Jew, like his half-brother the Arab,
always married, or was expected to marry, his first
cousin. A well-known traveller of the present day
has proved that this can be done with impunity
only by unmixed races of men, and that the larger
the amount of mixture in blood the greater will
be the amount of deformity in physique and morale
to be expected from the offspring. Consanguineous
marriages are dangerous in England, and far more
dangerous, as De Hone has proved, in Massachusetts.
Yet the kings of Persia intermarried with their
sisters, and the Samaritan branch of the Jews is
so closely connected that first cousins are almost
sisters.
Physically and mentally the Jewish man and
woman are equal in all respects to their Gentile
neighbours, and in some particulars are superior
to them. The women of the better class are strongly
and symmetrically shaped; and although their beauty
of feature is not that admired by the Christian eye,
debility and deformity are exceptionally rare. In
grace of form and in charm of manner they are far
superior to their husbands and brothers, and indeed
this everywhere appears to be a sub-characteristic
racial feature. They are nowhere remarkably distinguished
for chastity, and in some places, Morocco for
instance, their immorality is proverbial. Their grand[Pg 8]
physique does not age like that of the natives of the
strange countries which they colonize and where
Europeans readily degenerate, they preserve youth
for ten years longer than their rivals, they become
mothers immediately after puberty, and they bear children
to a far later age. Their customs allow them
to limit the family, not by deleterious drugs and
dangerous operations, but by the simple process of
prolonging the period of lactation, and barrenness
is rare amongst them as in the days when it was
looked upon as a curse. There is scarcely any
part of the habitable globe, from the Highlands
of Abyssinia to the Lowlands of Jamaica, in which
the Jewish people cannot be acclimatized more
readily and more rapidly than the other races of
Europe—also the result of blood comparatively free
from that intermixture which brings forward the
inherent defects of both parents.
The Jews also enjoy a comparative immunity from
various forms of disease which are the scourge of
other races. Pulmonary and scrofulous complaints
are rare amongst them; leprosy and elephantiasis
are almost extinct; and despite their impurity in
person and the exceptional filth of their dwelling-places,
they are less liable to be swept away by
cholera and plague than the natives of the countries
which are habitually ravaged by those epidemics.
They seldom suffer from the usual infectious results,
even where the women are so unchaste that honour[Pg 9]
seems as unknown to them as honesty to the
men.
Physiologists have asked, How is this phenomenon
to be accounted for? Why is the duration of life
greater among the Jews than among the other races of
Europe? Is it the result of superior organization or
of obedience to the ceremonial law? The researches
of those who have made these questions their special
study supply but one satisfactory or sufficient answer,
and it may be summed up in six words—a prodigious
superiority of vital power. And all the laws attributed
to the theistic secularism of Moses were issued
with one object—namely, that of hardening and
tempering the race to an extent which even Sparta
ignored. The ancient Jew was more than half a
Bedawin, and not being an equestrian race his annual
journeys to and from Jerusalem were mostly made
on foot. His diet was carefully regulated, and his
year was a succession of fasts and feasts, as indeed
it is now, but not to such an extent as formerly.
The results were simply the destruction of all the
weaklings and the survival of the fittest.
Thrice during the year, by order of the Torah
(Deut. xvi. 16)—namely (1) in the Passover, or feast
of unleavened bread during the first ecclesiastical
and the seventh civil month; (2) at Pentecost, or
Shebaoth (weeks), the feast of the wheat harvest
in the third or the ninth month; and (3) at the
Feast of Tabernacles, or the ingathering of the harvest[Pg 10]
in the seventh or the first month—the Jew of old was
religiously commanded to appear before the Lord.
He was bound to leave his home, which might be
distant a hundred and fifty miles, and travel up
to Jerusalem, where he led a camp life like his
half-brothers in the Desert. This semi-nomad life
was combined with a quasi-ascetic condition produced
by the frequency and the severity of his fasts and
by the austerities attending upon making ready for
the Sabbath, that is to say, the preparations of Friday
evening—some religious men even in the present age
suffer nothing to pass their lips for seven consecutive
days and nights.[7] This afflicting the soul, as it is
called, served to breed a race equally hard and hardy
in frame and mind. It embodied to perfection the
idea of the sacrifice of personal will. Add to this
the barbarous and ferocious nature of their punishments,
amongst which stoning by the congregation
is perhaps the most classical, and the perpetual
bloodshed in the Temple, which must have suggested
a butcher’s shambles.
[Pg 11]
Again, the history and traditions, the faith and
practice of the Jew ever placed before his eyes the
absolute and immeasurable superiority of his own
caste, the “Peculiar People, the Kingdom of Priests,
the Holy Nation.” This exaltation justified the
Hebrew in treating his brother-men as heathens barely
worthy of the title of human. “Lo, the people shall
dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the
nations”—an unfriendly separation and an estrangement
between man and man equally injurious to the
welfare of Jew and Gentile. It grew a rank crop of
hideous crimes committed in the fair name of religion—what
nation but the Hebrew could exult over a
Jephthah who “did with his daughter according to
his own,” that is, burnt her to death before the Lord?
At the same time it inculcated a rare humanity
amongst its own members unknown to all other
peoples of antiquity: for instance, it allowed the
coward to retire from the field before battle, and,
strange to say, it inculcated the very highest of moral
dogmas. In 250 b.c. Sochæus, and after him the
Pharisees, according to Josephus, taught that God
should be served, not for gain, but for love and
gratitude: hence his follower Sadík forbade the
looking forward to futurity, even as Moses had
neglected the doctrine with studious care. Even in
the present age of the world such denegation of
egotism would be a higher law.
All these specialities in combination urged the[Pg 12]
Jews to dare and to do everything against all who
were not of their own blood. The inevitable conclusion
of such a policy was that eventually they
came into collision with all around them; that they
failed in the unequal combat with pagan Rome and
early Christianity; that they lost the birthplace of
their nationality, and were scattered far and wide over
the surface of the earth. And what has happened
once may happen again.
The Greeks of earlier days, who like the Hebrews
had but one faith and one tongue, also met periodically
as a single family at Delphi, the centre of
their racial area. Thus that gifted people without
any inspiration effectually combined with grandeur
in the worship of the gods the law of harmony which
should preside over human society. But the Greeks
were a sensuous and a joyous race, walking under the
free heavens in the glorious lights of poetry, of art,
and of beauty, and could not fail to realize the truth
that society based upon reciprocal benevolence means
civilization and the highest stage of human society—communion
with the world.
Dr. Boudin, the eminent physiologist and medical
writer, remarks that the Jew is governed by statistical
laws of birth, sickness, and mortality completely
different from those which rule the peoples amongst
whom he lives. This assertion is confirmed by the
testimony of history. During the Middle Ages, when[Pg 13]
the unclean capitals of Europe and Asia were periodically
devastated by the plague, the angel of death
passed by the houses of the oppressed and despised
Jews, although they were condemned by local regulations
to occupy the worst quarters of the cities. In
speaking of the pestilence of a.d. 1345, Tschudi says
that it nowhere attacked the Jews. Frascator mentions
that they completely escaped the typhus
epidemic in a.d. 1505; they were untouched by the
intermittent fevers which reigned in Rome in a.d.
1691; they were not subject to the dysentery which
was so fatal at Nimeguen in a.d. 1736; and both in
1832 and 1849 it is stated upon excellent authority
that they enjoyed comparative exemption from the
cholera in London, although during the last-named year
the city numbered nearly thirteen thousand victims.[8]
Not less curious are the statistics showing the
natural aptitude of the Jewish people, at once so
national in their sentiments and so cosmopolitan in
their tendencies, for universal acclimatization. The
Jew and the Christian will emigrate to a British or a
French colony from the same birthplace; and while,[Pg 14]
owing to the uncongenial climate, the Christian
settler with his family eventually dies out, the Jewish
settler increases and multiplies. In Algeria, for
example, the French colonies would become extinct in
a very short process of time were it not for the steady
influx of immigrants, whereas the Jew takes deep root
and throws out vigorous branches.
With respect to the superior longevity of the Jews,
German sources supply some interesting particulars.
Dr. W. C. de Neufville,[9] of Frankfort, by the collection
and collation of an immense mass of statistics, has
demonstrated the following facts:
1. One-fourth of Christian populations dies at the
mean age of 6 years 11 months.
2. One-fourth of Jewish populations dies at the
mean age of 28 years 3 months.
3. One-half of Christian populations dies at the
mean age of 36 years 6 months.
4. One-half of Jewish populations dies at the
mean age of 53 years 1 month.
5. Three-fourths of Christian populations die at
the mean age of 59 years 10 months.
6. Three-fourths of Jewish populations die at the
mean age of 71 years.
It is found that in Prussia the annual mortality
among the Jews is 1·61 per cent, to 2·00 among
the rest of the population. The annual rate of
increase with the former is 1·73 per cent.; with the[Pg 15]
latter only 1·36.[10] In Frankfort the mean duration of
human life is 36 years 11 months among the Christian
population, and 46 years 9 months among the Jewish.
I will now quote at full length the favourable
verdict usually offered in the case of the Hebrews
by the writers of Europe:
“If we trace the history of the Israelitish race
from the destruction of Jerusalem to the time at
which the prevalence of a more enlightened public
opinion caused to be effaced from the Statute Books
of European nations the barbarous and cruel enactments
against the Jews, adopted in an epoch when
bigotry, brutality, and persecution were rampant,
we shall be constrained to admit that there has
been something little less than miraculous in the
preservation of this people from utter extermination.
Basnage[11] (Histoire des Juifs) calculates that
1,338,460 Jews perished by fire and sword, famine
and sickness, at and after the siege of the Holy
City. Subsequently a host of unfortunate exiles
became the objects of bitter and unrelenting persecution,
fanaticism, and tyranny in every country
throughout Christendom. During the two years
which preceded their final expulsion from Judæa,
580,000 Jews were slaughtered by the Romans; and
the gradual dispersion of the rest over the face of
Europe was the prelude for the perpetration upon[Pg 16]
them by ‘Christians’ of a series of atrocities almost
unequalled for merciless savagery. The functions
they discharged in mediæval society were, in reality,
of the most valuable kind; but so dense was the
ignorance, and so inveterate were the prejudices of
the age, that towards the close of the thirteenth
century upwards of 13,000 Israelites were banished
from England in one day; just as two hundred
years later 500,000 were expelled from Spain,
150,000 from Portugal, and an indefinite number
were cast out of France. For a period of three
centuries successive sovereigns refused to accord
permission to the Jews to worship Almighty God
within the English realm; nor was it until the
Protectorate of Cromwell that a synagogue was
allowed to be erected in London.
“In works of fiction, in the drama, and in daily
life the name of Jew has become a byword and a
reproach, and an explanation of this is to be sought
for rather in the malignity of religious prejudice
than in the actual conduct of the people who have
been visited with so much opprobrium. Their
virtues are their own, but their faults are the fruit
of eighteen centuries of outlawry and oppression.
Under such treatment archangels would have become
depraved. In the history of the whole world there
is nothing which in any degree resembles the systematic
persecutions, the barbarous cruelties, the
cowardly insults, the debasing tyranny to which[Pg 17]
the Jewish race has been exposed. That it was not
degraded to the level of the African negroes, or
absolutely obliterated from the face of the earth, is
only another proof of its wonderful vitality and of
the indestructible elasticity of the national character.[12]
In spite of all these centuries of oppression and
repression, its representatives are still found, not
merely among the monarchs of finance, but among
the royalties and aristocracies of genius. Every one
must remember the passage in Coningsby in which
Mr. Disraeli enumerates the illustrious Jews who
are occupying, or have occupied, the foremost rank in
arts, letters, statesmanship, and military science—Count
Cantemir in Russia, Senor Mendizelal in
Spain, and Count Arnim in Prussia; Marshals Soult
and Massena, Professors Neander, Regius, Bearnary,
and Wohl; the composers Rossini, Mendelssohn, and
Meyerbeer (not to mention Offenbach); Rachel the
actress; Pasta, Grisi, and Braham the vocalists,
Spinoza the philosopher, and Heine the poet; to
which list he might have added the names of some
of the most distinguished of living French and
English celebrities.[13] And though we have forgotten[Pg 18]
Xapol and Gondomar, Yahuda Halevi, and Aviabron,
alias Solomon ben Gabriel, few of us can ignore
the Rothschilds and Goldsmids, the Ricardos,
Rouhers, and Torlonias, now become household words
in Europe.
“That in all countries the Jews, on the other hand,
should evince a preference for sordid pursuits, and
follow them with an eagerness and tenacity worthy
of employment in more generous and elevated callings,
must also be admitted. William Abbott, in
his outspoken and earnest but narrow-minded way,
advanced this plea upon one occasion in the House
of Commons, in resistance to a motion to relieve all
persons professing the Jewish religion in England
from the civil disabilities under which they then
laboured. He was replied to by Macaulay in a speech
as eloquent in terms as it was irresistible in logic.
“‘Such, sir,’ said he, ‘has in every age been the reasoning
of bigots. They never fail to plead, in justification of persecution,
the vices which persecution has engendered.
England has been to the Jews less than half a country, and
we revile them because they do not feel for England more
than a half patriotism. We treat them as slaves, and
wonder that they do not regard us as brethren. We drive
them to mean occupations, and then reproach them for not
embracing honourable professions. We long forbade them
to possess land, and we complain that they chiefly occupy
themselves in trade. We shut them out from all the paths
of ambition, and then we despise them for taking refuge in
avarice. During many ages we have in all our dealings with
them abused our immense superiority of force, and then we
are disgusted because they have recourse to that cunning[Pg 19]
which is the natural and universal defence of the weak
against the violence of the strong. But were they always
a mere money-changing, money-getting, money-hoarding
race? Nobody knows better than my honourable friend,
the member for the University of Oxford, that there is
nothing in their national character which unfits them for
the highest duties of citizens. He knows that in the infancy
of civilization, when our island was as savage as New Guinea,
when letters and arts were still unknown to Athens, when
scarcely a thatched hut stood on what was afterwards the
site of Rome, this contemned people had their fenced cities
and cedar palaces, their splendid Temple, their fleets of
merchant ships, their schools of sacred learning, their great
statesmen and soldiers, their natural philosophers, their
historians and poets. What nation ever contended more
manfully against overwhelming odds for its independence
and religion? And if, in the course of many centuries, the
oppressed descendants of warriors and sages have degenerated
from the qualities of their fathers—if while excluded
from the blessings of law and bound down under the yoke of
slavery they have contracted some of the vices of outlaws and
slaves, shall we consider this a matter of reproach to them?
Shall we not rather consider it a matter of shame and
remorse to ourselves? Let us do justice to them. Let us
open to them every career in which ability and energy can
be displayed. Till we have done this, let us not presume to
say that there is no genius among the countrymen of Isaiah,
no heroism amongst the descendants of the Maccabees.’”
We have “done this,” and the results have
stultified all this nicely balanced rhetoric. And
the following pages may suggest that our European
ancestors had other reasons for expelling the Jews
than the mere “bigotry” and “brutality” so unphilosophically
ascribed to them by Lord Macaulay.
[Pg 20]
CHAPTER II
OPINION OF THE JEW IN ENGLAND
Of all Europeans, the Englishman, who boasts of
being a staunch friend to the people “scattered
and peeled,” and whose confident ignorance and
indiscriminate philanthropy are bestowed upon them
equally with the African negro, knows least of the
customs and habits of his protégés, and especially
of those of Jews in foreign countries. The neglect
of things near to us must be the reason why we
know so little of the inner life of Jewry: there
are, however, other concomitant causes.
In our native land the Hebrew lives protected,
and honoured, in fact, as one of ourselves. We
visit him, we dine with him, and we see him at
all times and places, except perhaps at the Sunday
service. We should enjoy his society but for a
certain coarseness of manner, and especially an
offensive familiarity, which seems almost peculiar to
him. We marvel at his talents, and we are struck
by the adaptability and by the universality of his
genius. We admire his patience, his steadfastness,[Pg 21]
and his courage, his military prowess, and his successful
career in every post and profession—Statesman
and Senior Wrangler, Poet and Literato, Jurist,
Surgeon, and Physician, Capitalist, Financier, and
Merchant, Philosopher and Engineer, in fact in everything
that man can be. When we compare the
Semitic Premier with his Anglo-Saxon rival, it is
much to the advantage of the former: while jesting
about the “Asian mystery,” we cannot but feel that
there is something in the Asiatic which we do not
expect, which eludes our ken, which goes beyond us.
Those familiar with the annals of old families
in England are aware of the extent to which they
have been mixed with Jewish blood, even from
the days when religious prejudice is mistakenly
represented to have been most malign. Indeed,
of late centuries our nation has never prided itself,
like the Portuguese and the Iberians generally, in
preserving its blood “pure and free from taint of
Jew and Infidel.” The cross perpetually reappears
in outward form as well as in mental quality. Here
and there an old country house produces a scion
which to all appearance is more Jewish than the
Jews themselves. A peculiar characteristic of the
blood is an extreme fondness for show, for colour,
for splendour and magnificence in general. The
rich Jew must display his wealth; like the Parsee,
he makes and spends whilst his rivals the Greek
and the Armenian make and hoard. In certain[Pg 22]
continental cities where he now reigns supreme he
renders society impossible to the Christian. The
Messrs. G. Muir Mackenzie and O. P. Irby—The
Turks, the Greeks, and the Slavons (London: Bell
& Daldy, 1867)—will show how at Salonika[14] the
French Consul Marquis de —— could not join in
any of the festivities. The dinner-table was not
respected unless it glistened with gold and silver
plate borrowed and lent for the occasion. His wife
could not appear without a new dress on every
occasion, and therefore she stayed at home. A
toilette from Paris twice a week not only ministers
to the womanly enjoyment of the wearer, and to
the sensuous pleasures of the beholders, but also
shows that the house is wealthy and that the firm
has spare money to throw away. It is, in fact, an
advertisement of the most refined description. Ladies
meeting in parties of three and four over what
our grandmothers called “a dish of tea” must
appear décolletées and in diamonds. The rivière
must disfigure the beautiful neck and bosom of the
bride. At the theatre those boxes are most valued
where the light falls strongest upon the precious
stones, and where costly textures and valuable[Pg 23]
laces stand out to the greatest advantage. And
behind this splendour of show lies cunning of a high
order. The grand liveries are used once a week
upon Madame’s “day”; at other times the lackeys
are en déshabille. The costly carriage horses work
till noon in carts and drays transporting the irritamenta
malorum which support the equipage of the
afternoon. And so in everything. The Hebrew race
is so marked in its characteristics that it has ever
been the theme of over-praise or of undue blame,
like those individuals concerning whom society
cannot be neutral; and of late years the transitions
of public opinion which usually moves slowly have
been comically abrupt.
The Jew of popular English fiction is no longer
Moshesh, a wretch who believes in one God and
in Shent-per-Shent as his profit, whose eyes, unlike
those of Banquo, are brimming full with “speculation.”
The Fagin of young Dickens only a quarter
of a century ago has now become the “gentle Jew
Riah” of old Dickens, a being remarkable for resignation
and quiet dignity, a living reproach to the
Christian heathenry that dwells about him. The
great feminine actresses of the world, we are told
by a charming authoress, are all Jewesses. Tancred;
or, the New Crusade, to mention nothing of meaner
note, teaches us to admire and love the modern
“Roses of Sharon,” those exquisite visions that are
read to rest by attendants with silver lamps, and[Pg 24]
who talk history, philosophy, and theology with the
warmth of womanly enthusiasm, tempered by the
pure belief of a bishop of the Church of England,
the learning of a German professor, and the grace
of Madame Recamier. Miriam has become, in fact,
a pet heroine with novel writers and novel readers,
and thrice happy is the fascinating young Christian
who, like “that boy of Norcott’s,” despite his manifold
Christian disabilities, can win her hand and heart.
Of the middle and lower classes of Jews the
Englishman only hears that they are industrious,
abstinent, and comparatively cleanly in person;
decent, hospitable, and as strict in keeping the
Sabbath as the strictest Sabbatarians could desire—perhaps,
if he knew all, he would not desire so much.
He is told that they are wondrous charitable in
their dealings with those of the same faith, always
provided that some mite of a religious difference
does not grow to mountain size. The papers inform
him how munificent and judicious is their distribution
of alms, how excellent are their arrangements for
the support of their paupers, who are never exposed
to the horrors of the parish and the poor-house, and
who are maintained by their co-religionists, though
numbering in London at least 16·50 per cent. out of
a total exceeding thirty thousand souls.[15] And he[Pg 25]
everywhere reads of Charities, public, private, and
congregational; of Hospitals and Almshouses; of
Orphanages, Philanthropic Institutions; of Pensioners’
and Widows’ Homes; Friendly Societies; of Doles of
Bread and Coal and Raiment; of Lying-in Houses
and Infant Asylums; of Burial Societies, male and
female; of arrangements for supplying godfathers
and godmothers managed by Benevolent Societies,
Boards, Institutions, Committees, and Consistories.
Like their charities, the educational system may
be divided into three heads: Schools, public and
private; Rabbinical and Theological Institutions;
and Literary and Scientific Associations.
He—the ordinary Englishman—may be dimly
conscious that the Jew is the one great exception
to the general curse upon the sons of Adam, and
that he alone eats bread, not in the sweat of his
own face, but in the sweat of his neighbour’s face—like
the German cuckoo, who does not colonize, but
establishes himself in the colonies of other natives.
He has perhaps been told that all the world over[Pg 26]
the Jew spurns the honest toil of the peasant
and the day labourer; that in the new Jewry of
Houndsditch and Petticoat Lane, in the Marais, in
the Ghetto, in the Juden Strasse, and in the Hárat
el Yahúd (Jewish quarters) of Mussulman cities,
his sole business is quocumque modo rem—sordid
gains—especially by money-lending, and by usury,
which may not be practised upon a fellow Jew, but
which, with the cleanest of consciences, is applied
to the ruin of the Gentile. He has heard that
where Saxon and Celt ply pick and pan, the
Hebrew broker and pedlar buy up their gains and
grow rich where the working-men starve in the
midst of gold. He sees that the “Chosen People”
will swarm over the world from California to
Australia, wherever greed of gain induces them to
travel. “To my mind,” says a popular writer,
“there are few things so admirable and wonderful in
this life as the ‘getting on,’ as it is vulgarly called,
of the Hebrew race. For one of us who, by means
of infinite wriggling, panting, toiling, struggling,
and hanging on by his eyebrows, so to speak, to
opportunity, ambitious to emerge from obscurity,
and ascend to the topmost round of the ladder,
there seems to be at least five hundred Caucasian
Arabs who attain the desired altitude; ay, and
who manage to avoid turning giddy and toppling
over. Most Jews seem to rise, and the instances
of a few going ‘to the utter bad,’ as the phrase[Pg 27]
runs, seem equally as rare. How often your successful
Nazarene comes to grief! At the moment
you think him Lord of All he is Master of Nothing....
Jews appear to keep what they have gotten;
and, what is better, to get more, and keep that
too. They are not much given, I fancy, to experience
the pangs of remorse; and I cannot well
imagine a mad Jew. It must be something awful.
On the whole, looking at the vast number of
Christians I have known who from splendour have
subsided into beggary, and the vast number of
Hebrews I have watched advancing, not from mendicity—a
Jew never begs, save from one of his own
tribe, and then I suppose the transaction is more
of the nature of a friendly loan, to be repaid with
interest when brighter days arrive—but from
extreme indigence to wealth and station, I incline
to the opinion that Gentiles have a natural alacrity
in sinking—look how heavy I can be—but that
the Chosen People have as natural a tendency
towards buoyancy. That young man with the
banner in Mr. Longfellow’s ballad was, depend upon
it, an Israelite of the Israelites; only I think the
poet was wrong, as poets generally are, in his
climax. The young man was not frozen to death.
He made an immense fortune at the top of Mont
Blanc by selling ‘Excelsior’ penny ices.”
The secret of this “getting on” is known to
every expert. The Jewish boy begins from his[Pg 28]
earliest days with changing a few sovereigns, and
he pursues the path of lucre till the tomb opens to
receive him. He is utterly single-minded in this
point; he has but one idea, and therefore he must
succeed. Who does not remember the retort of
the Jewish capitalist to the Christian statesman
who, impertinently enough, advised him to teach
his children something beyond mere trade? “My
first wish,” answered the Hebrew, “is to see my
boys become good men of business; beyond that—nothing!”
The average Englishman cannot help observing
with Cobbett, and despite Lord Macaulay, that the
callings which the lower orders of Jews especially
prefer are those held mean or dishonourable by
other men, such as demoralizing usury, receiving
stolen goods, buying up old clothes, keeping gambling-houses
and betting-cribs, dealing in a literature calculated
to pervert the mind of youth; combining,
as a person—afterwards sent to Newgate—lately
did, the trade of a cosmetic artist with the calling
of a procuress, and supplying the agapemonæ of
the world,[16] while occasionally producing a sharp
jockey or a hard-hitting prize-fighter. He is not
ignorant of their prodigious trickery, of their immense
and abnormal powers of lying—the “trifle[Pg 29]
tongue,” as they picturesquely call it—and their
subtle art of winning their object by roundabout
ways. He cannot mistake their physical cowardice,
but he remembers that the Jewish officers, once so
numerous in the French army, were as brave as
their Christian brethren; and again he recognizes
the fact that lying and cowardice long continue to
be the effects of oppression. He smiles at their
intense love of public amusements, and their excessive
fondness for display, evinced by tawdry finery
and mosaic gold.
Knowing this, however, he supposes himself to
know the worst. He has heard little of the excessive
optimism of the Jew, the [Greek: παντα καλα λιαν: panta kala lian],
so strongly opposed to Christianity, the “religion of
sorrow.” He knows nothing of the immense passions
and pugnacity, the eagerness and tenacity of
Lutheran rancour displayed against all who differ
from some minutiæ of oral law. He ignores the
over-weening, narrow-minded pride of caste which
makes the Jew “destined by God to be a kingdom
of priests and a holy nation”—as one of their own
race, Rabbi Ascher (initiator of youth), even now
repeats.[17] He cannot realize the fact that the ferocity[Pg 30]
and terrible destructiveness which characterize the
Jew and his literature, from the days of the Prophets
to those of the Talmudists, are present in his
civilized neighbour, whom he considers to be one
of the best of men—a sleeping lion, it is true, but
ready to awake upon the first occasion. And he
is ignorant of the Eastern Jews’ love of mysticism
and symbolism, their various horrible and disgusting
superstitions, and their devotion to magical[Pg 31]
charms and occult arts which lead to a variety of
abominations.
This ignorance produces weak outbursts of lamentations
that the Hebrews “still cling with obstinate
persistence to a hopeless hope,” Hence we read in
the pages of a modern traveller—The Rob Roy on
the Jordan, p. 274, by J. MacGregor, M.A. (London:
Murray, 1869): “Here, as well as some twenty years
ago, I heard men in Palestine call their fellows
‘Jew’ as the lowest of all possible words of abuse.
When we recollect that the Jews, in this very land of
their own, were once the choice people of the world;
that now through the whole earth, among the
richest, the bravest, the cleverest, the fairest, the
best at music and song, at poetry and painting,
at art and science and literature, at education,
philanthropy, statesmanship, war, commerce, and
finance, in every sphere of life are Jews,—we may
well remember the word of prophecy which told
us long ago that the name of Jew would be a
‘byword and a reproach,’ even in the Jews’ own
land.” It is true that, even in the Portuguese
colonies, where the Jew is comparatively unknown,
his name is worse than at Jerusalem, Bagdad, and
Damascus; whilst “Judear”—to play the Jew—signifies
the being capable of any villainy. But
how long will prophecy prove true? In the coast
towns of Morocco, a few years have sufficed to
raise the Hebrew from the lowest of stations to[Pg 32]
equality with, and even superiority over, his Mussulman
cousin. The Jew may ere long make the
Gentile a “byword and a reproach.”
But the English world never hears the fact that the
Jew of Africa, of Arabia, of Kurdistan, of Persia, and
of Western Asia generally, is still the Jew “cunning
and fierce” of the thirteenth and the fourteenth
centuries in Europe; that he is the Jew of the
Talmud, of Shammai, and of Rabbi Shalomon
Jarchi, not of the Pentateuch, of Hillel, and of
Gamaliel; that he sympathizes, not with those
staunch old conservatives and rationalists, the
Sadducees, now gone for ever, nor with Ezra and
the Priests, the Levites and the Nethiním—men of
the Great Synagogue—nor with the ascetic Essenes,
prototypes of Christian monkery; but with the
Pharisees, the Separatists, and the Puritans of his
faith, with the Captains, the Fanatics, the Zealots,
the Sicarii, the Swordsmen and the Brigands of
John of Giscala, of Eleazar son of Ananias, and
of those who worked all the civil horrors of our
first century. Some distant or adventurous journey
of Sir Moses Montefiore[18] or other philanthropists,[Pg 33]
duly published with packed and partial comments
in the papers of Europe, reveals to the lazy comprehension
of the man of refinement that the Hebrew
in many parts of the semi-civilized world is still the
object of suspicion, fear, and abhorrence. He attributes
the persecutions, the avarice, or the massacre
to the pleasures of plunder, to the barbarous bigotry,
and to the cruel fanaticism of bloodthirsty and
cruel races, who still look upon the present with
the eyes of the past, and who have seized an
opportunity to glut their lust of spoil or to wreak
an obsolete revenge because some eighteen centuries
and three-quarters ago “an aristocratic and unpopular
high priest, whom the people afterwards
rose upon and murdered, had for political reasons
crucified our Lord,” or because in a.d. 729[19] a heroic
Jewess of Khaibar poisoned a shoulder of lamb
with the object of trying by a crucial test whether
Muhammad was the Prophet of Allah, or merely the[Pg 34]
Sheikh of Arab pillagers, the worthy confrère of
Músailamah the Liar.
We do not waste time upon thought or inquiry
whether the persecution, the avarice, or the massacre
may not be the direct result of some intolerable
wrong, of some horrible suspicion which has gradually
assumed the form of certainty, and which calls
for the supreme judgment of the sword; we do not
reason that the cause which from ancient times has
confined the Jew to Ghettos and to certain quarters
in all great continental cities resulted, not only
from his naturally preferring the society of his
co-religionists, but also from the fact that his
Christian neighbours found it advisable to consult
by such means their own safety and that of their
families. The disappearance of children was talked
of at Rome and in all the capitals of Italy even
throughout the early part of the present century,
when constitutional rule and the new police were
unknown, as freely and frequently as at Salonika,
at Smyrna, and in all the cities of the Levant
during the year of grace 1873.
Again, we hardly reflect that, as intolerance begets
intolerance and injury breeds injury, a trampled and
degraded race will ever turn when it can upon the
oppressor, and that the revenge of the weak, the
slavish, and the cowardly will be the more certain,
ruthless, and terrible because it has a long score of
insults and injuries to reckon up. In the country[Pg 35]
towns of modern Persia, as in Turkey, the Jew is
popularly believed to make away with children. The
Muhammadan boy, meeting a Hebrew in the streets,
will pluck his grey beard, taunt him with the
Bú-e-Shimít—the rank odour which is everywhere
supposed to characterize the race—tread upon his
toes, and spit upon his Jewish gabardine. In Turkey
there are still places where he would be expelled
the Bazar with sticks and stones; others where
every outrage of language would be levelled against
him, including Al Yahúd Músairáj[20]—the Jew
smells of the lamp—alluding to his free culinary
use of sesamum oil. A Jew passing through the
square of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem would
infallibly be mobbed on all occasions, and on
certain fêtes would be torn to pieces; and the
list of dangers and insults which he incurs both
from Muslims and Christians might be indefinitely
prolonged.
Can we wonder then if the persecutor, man
or boy, disappear, should opportunity offer such
tempting punishment for their barbarous fanaticism?
And will not this supposition explain the Arabic
proverb, “Sup with the Jews and sleep at the[Pg 36]
Christians’,” and the fact that every mother teaches
her boy from earliest youth to avoid the Jewish
quarter, binding him by all manner of oaths?
Finally, is it surprising that amongst an ignorant
and superstitious race of outcasts such random acts
and outbreaks of vengeance, pure and simple, should
by human perversity pass, after the course of ages,
into a semi-religious rite, and be justified by men
whose persecution has frenzied them as a protest
and a memorial before the throne of the Most High
against the insults and injuries meted out by the
Gentile to the children of Abraham?
Shakespeare may not have drawn Shylock from
a real character, but his genius has embodied in
the most lifelike form the Jew’s vengefulness and
the causes that nourished it. How many cities
of the world there are where he might hear these
words: “Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew
hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?
fed with the same food, hurt with the same
weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the
same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do
we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh?
if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong
us, shall we not revenge?”
Moreover, in the course of our reading, we Englishmen
meet with nothing which points to the
existence of cruel murders and similar horrors in[Pg 37]
any branch of the Hebrew race. Popular books
like The British Jew (Rev. John Mills. London:
Hurlston & Stoneman, 1854), for instance, are mostly
written in the apologetic tone; they are advocates
and missionaries, not describers. They enumerate
the duties and ceremonies of the “strict, enlightened
Israelite”—a powerful majority amongst the thirty-five
to forty thousand that have colonized the British
Islands—modified and transformed by the civilization
of their surroundings. They studiously avoid
that part of the subject which would be most
interesting to the ethnologist, the various irregular
practices of the people, because they would not
“crowd their pages with the superstitions of the
ignorant”; and they probably have not defined to
themselves the darker shades which the religious
teaching of later centuries has diffused over the
Jewish mind, and which linger even among the most
advanced of modern communities. The well-known
volume of Dr. Alexander McCaul, The Old Paths;
or, a Comparison of the Principles and Doctrines
of Modern Judaism with the Religion of Moses
and the Prophets (London: Hubbard & Son, 1854),
which has been translated into almost every European
language, reveals but little, while professing to reveal
much. It is written in a purely apologetic spirit;
and as it attacked the Talmud, but spared the Jew,
who, however, systematically destroys every copy, it
has lost for the general reader all its significance.[Pg 38]
The celebrated article upon the Talmud first published
in the Quarterly Review (October, 1867),
and afterwards owned to by the late M. Emanuel
Deutsch, who began by denying the authorship,
greatly surprised the poco-curanti of Great Britain.
It was a triumph of special pleading. It studiously
ignored the fact that the Talmudic writers who
flourished in the third and the sixth centuries of
our era had evidently consulted the writings of the
“School of Galilee,”[21] especially of the New Testament,
apocryphal as well as canonical. It artfully opened
to the admiring eye of ignorance a noble garden
of time-honoured experience, a goodly parterre of
racial and social piety and benevolence, a paradise
of religious wisdom, from which a few transplanted
shoots would suffice to enrich and adorn a wilderness
of rugged and neglected fields. It concealed with
equal skill the sinks and drains, the shallows and
quagmires which everywhere underlie the fair and
flowery surface; and it withdrew attention from
the dark corners rank with poisonous weeds and
overrun with trees bearing deadly fruit. Such
art of manipulation would readily pick the Sermon
on the Mount from the pages of the erotic poets
of “the East,” perhaps the most materialistic and
the most corrupt which the literature of the world
has produced.
[Pg 39]
What then can the average Englishman, thus
instructed, know about the Hebrew at home? how
much of the Hebrew abroad, especially in Asia, in
Africa, and even in Europe? How is he fully to
comprehend the reason why the name of Jew is
still a byword and a reproach? or why the scrupulous
British official—the late Consul Brant, C.B.,
the historical Consul of Erzerum, who revived the
trade of ancient Trebizond—who never allowed himself
to use profane language, applied to Christians
and Muslims the word “Jew” as the most insulting
term that can be levelled at man?
The following article appeared in the Saturday
Review[22] as a comment upon a “recent outbreak of
Rumanian fanaticism against the Jews at Ismail,”
and explains at once the isolation and the great
material success of the children of Israel all the
world over. I quote it in extenso as it shows the
general opinion of educated Englishmen and the unreality
and shallowness of the treatment which views
the world through glasses of British home-make:
“There is no real difference between the Rumanian
Jews and the Jews of Galicia or Bohemia;
nor can they in their turn be separated from the
Jews of Germany, of France, or of England. The
dirty, greasy usurers of Rumania are the humble
brethren of the financiers of London and Frankfort,
and that the Jews are a great power in Europe is[Pg 40]
incontestable. What are, it may be asked, the
secrets of their power? They are religion, the
capacity for making money, and internal union. A
ceremonial, and therefore an exclusive religion, a
religion that binds together its members by rites
that seem strange to the rest of the world, has a
strong hold upon those who are within the fold.
They are like the tenants of a beleaguered fort cut
off from the rest of mankind, and obliged to protect
themselves and help each other. But religion is
not enough to raise a race into eminence. The
Jews and the Parsees are eminent, not only because
they circumcise their sons, or light fires on the tops
of their houses, but because they make money. The
money they have gives them consequence; but it is
not only the money itself that does this; it is the
qualities that go to making money which raise
them—the patience, the good sense, the capacity
for holding on when others are frightened, the
daring to make a stroke when the risk is sufficient
to appal. And the Jews are not only religious and
rich; they are bound together by intimate ties. The
inner world of Judaism is that of a democracy.
The millionaire never dreams of despising, or failing
to aid, his poorest and most degraded brother.
The kindness of Jews for Jews is unfailing, spontaneous,
and unaffected. The shabbiest hat-buyer
or orange-seller of Houndsditch is as sure of having
the means provided for him of keeping the sacred[Pg 41]
feast of the Passover as if he lived in a Piccadilly
mansion. To the eyes of the Jews even the most
degraded of Jews do not seem so degraded as they
do in the eyes of the outer world. The poorest
have perhaps possessions which redeem them in the
eyes of their brethren; and many of the lowest,
greasiest, and most unattractive Hebrews who walk
about the streets in search of old clothes or skins
are known by their co-religionists to be able to
repeat by rote portions of the sacred volumes by
the hour at a time. To all these permanent causes
of Jewish eminence there must, however, be added
one that has had only time to develop itself since
extreme bigotry has died away, and since in Western
Europe the Jews have been treated, first with contemptuous
toleration, then with cold respect, and,
finally, when they are very, very rich, with servile
adoration.
“These people—so exclusive, so intensely national,
so intimately linked together—have shown the most
astonishing aptitude for identifying themselves with
the several countries in which they have cast their
fortunes. An English Jew is an Englishman, admires
English habits and English education, makes an
excellent magistrate, plays to perfection the part of
a squire, and even exercises discreetly the power
which, with its inexhaustible oddity, the English
law gives him, while it denies it to the members
of the largest Christian sect, and presents incumbents[Pg 42]
to livings so as to please the most fastidious bishops.
The French Jews were stout friends of France
during the war—served as volunteers in the defence
of Paris, and opened their purses to the national
wants, and their houses to the suffering French.
The German Jews were as stout Germans in their
turn; and in war, as in peace, they are always
ready to show themselves Germans as well as Jews.
It is the combination of the qualities of both nations
that is now raising the foremost of the German Jews
to their high rank in the world of wealth. In that
world, to be a German is to be a trader whom it
is very hard to rival, to be a Jew is to be an
operator whom it is impossible to beat; but to be
a German Jew is to be a prince and captain among
the people.
“In this way the Jews have managed to overcome
much of the antipathy which would naturally attach
to men of an alien race and an alien religion.
The English Jew is not seen to be standing aloof
from England and Englishmen. But it is impossible
there should not be some sort of social barrier
between the Jew and the Christian. They cannot
intermarry except for special political or other cogent
reasons, and it necessarily chills the kindness and
intimacy of family intercourse when all the young
people know that friendship can never grow into
anything else. In order to overcome this obstacle
many wealthy Jews have chosen to abjure their[Pg 43]
religion and enrol their households in the Christian
communion. But the more high-minded and high-spirited
among them shrink from doing this, and
accept, and even glory in, the position into which
they were born. Fortunately for himself and for
England, a kind friend determined the religion of
Mr. Disraeli before he was old enough to judge
for himself, and in his maturer years he has been
able conscientiously to adopt what he terms the
doctrines of the School of Galilee. If they are not
decoyed into Christianity by their social aspirations,
Jews are unassailable, for the most part, by the
force of either persecution or argument; and although
there are some conversions to be attributed
to Christian reasoning or Christian gold, they are
probably counterbalanced by the accessions to
Judaism of Christian women who marry Jewish
husbands. The Jews therefore lead, and must lead,
on the whole a family life marked by something
of reserve and isolation. But the disadvantages
they have thus to endure are not without their
compensative advantages. Their family life by being
secluded has gained in warmth and dignity.[23] In
very few families is there so much thoughtfulness,
consideration, parental and fraternal affection, reve[Pg 44]rence
for age, and care for the young as in Jewish
families. The women too have been ennobled,
not degraded, by being thrown on themselves and
on their families for their sphere of thought and
action. They are almost always thoroughly instructed
in business, and capable of taking a part
in great affairs; for it has been the custom of
their race to consider the wife the helpmate—the
sharer in every transaction that establishes the
position or enhances the comfort of the family.
Leisure, activity of mind, and the desire to hand
on the torch of instruction from the women of
one generation to those of another, inspire Jewesses
with a zeal for education, a love of refinement,
and a sympathy with art. Homes of the best type
are of course to be taken as the standard when
it is inquired what are the characteristics of a race
as seen at its best; and European family life has
few things equal to show to the family life of the
highest type of Jews. Their isolation, again, makes
most of the men liberal and free from the prejudices
of class, just as their connexion with their dispersed
brethren relieves them from the pressure of insular
narrowness. But, as Mr. Bright remarks, religious
bigotry is slow to die away altogether; and even
in educated English society there are few Christians
who do not think themselves entitled to approach
a Jew with a sense of secret superiority. If a
Jew is ostentatious or obtrudes his wealth, if his[Pg 45]
women are loaded with jewellery, if he talks the
slang of the sporting world in order to show what
a fine creature he is, society is as right to put
him down as to put down any Christian like him.
But the philanthropists who invited Mr. Bright
to attend their meeting may be profitably invited
to search their own hearts, and ask themselves
whether they are quite free from that feeling that
the best Jew is never the equal of the worst Christian,
which is at the root of the Rumanian riots,[24] and
which certainly is entirely out of keeping with the
tenets and teaching of the School of Galilee.”
[Pg 46]
CHAPTER III
THE JEW OF THE HOLY LAND AND HIS DESTINY
In dealing with the Jews of the Holy Land,
it is well to remember that the two great
branches of the Hebrew race are the Sephardím
and the Ashkenazím. They are both equally
orthodox, and may intermarry when they please.
It is advisable to offer a few words concerning
these great branches first.
“Sepharad,” pronounced throughout “the East”
Safard, a word occurring only once in the Old
Testament (“and the captivity of Jerusalem, which
is in Sepharad,” Obad. ver. 20), has been subjected
to various interpretations. Enough to say the
majority of Jews following the Targum Jonathan
and the Peshito, or Syriac version, identify it with
Iberia, modern Spain and Portugal. The Sephardím
claim descent from the royal tribe of Judah,
which, like the children of Benjamin, was the last
to disperse. It contains the usual three orders: (1)
The Cohen (in Arabic Káhin), the priest or Levite[Pg 47]
of the house of Aaron—a numerous body, as the
Cohens of England show. Though born an ecclesiastic,
he may now, since the rite of ordination
has become extinct, pursue a purely laical trade.
Whenever a Jew slaughters an animal, the Cohen
claims the tongue, one side of the face, and one
shoulder.[25] So in the days of Josephus (Antiquities
of the Jews, IV. iv. 4) the priest took the maw,
the cheek (or breast), and the right shoulder of
the sacrifice privately killed for a festival. (2)
The Levite or descendant of Levi, but not through
the house of Aaron; like the Cohen, to whom he
should pay the tithe of his tithes, he must prove
his genealogy, which is often doubtful, and he is
known by taking the name of Levi after his own
and before that of his birthplace—e.g. Simeon Levi
Salonikli. (3) “The circumcision” or Ammon
Israelite.
Since the final destruction of the Temple there
are no Gentile Proselytes of the Covenant, that is,
circumcised strangers admitted to all the privileges
of the children of Abraham; nor are there Proselytes
of the Gate, uncircumcised worshippers of Jehovah
who keep the moral law. The Ger, or stranger,
may be received into the Church under certain circumstances
by purification and circumcision, which[Pg 48]
latter, unlike the law of Muhammad, is absolutely
necessary. Judaism, however, like Hinduism and
Guebrism, is essentially one of the old congenital
creeds; it never has been, it is not, and it never
will be a system of proselytizing. As regards the
tribes, Judah and Levi are everywhere known.
Benjamin, Ephraim, and Half Manasseh are spoken
of, and tradition declares that Asher exists in
Abyssinia with Karaïte peculiarities. Finally, many
Jews do not believe that the Ten Tribes were ever
lost. They say that, during the Great Captivity,
when the faith became all but extinct, they were
mixed to such an extent that it was afterwards
impossible to separate them.
The Sephardím, or Southern Jews, are mostly the
descendants of Spanish and Portuguese ancestry,
and throughout the Levant and the North African
coast they speak Spanish and read and write it in
their own character. Those of the Moroccan interior
use Arabic. The dress is Oriental, and in the Holy
Land they still wear the black turban ordained by
the sumptuary laws of El Hakim (circa a.d. 1000).
In physical appearance they are somewhat more
prepossessing than the Ashkenazím, who are outnumbering
them in Syria and Palestine, and are
gradually ousting them. Officially they retain their
position; the Hakhám Bashí, or chief doctor, is
the only Jewish official recognized by the Turkish
Government and representing the community in[Pg 49]
the Majlis, or town council. In all matters which
come before the tribunals the Ashkenazím must
be supported by the Hakhám Bashí, while the
doctors hear and decide all cases relating to the
internal affairs of the community. Many of the
Sephardím are shopkeepers, trading chiefly in stuffs
and hardwares. There are many minor differences
between them and the Ashkenazím, such as the
contents and the arrangement of their ritual, the
constitution of their meetings, the mode of reading
the service, their music, and even their cursive form
of the square Hebrew character. The Maghrabis,
or Western Jews, chiefly living in North-western
Africa, rank elsewhere as Sephardím; at Jerusalem,
however, they are considered a separate sect, and
have their own chief doctor.
Thus the Sephardím are the Southern, opposed to
the Northern Jews, or Ashkenazím. These derive
their name from Ashkenaz, son of Gomer, and
grandson of Japhet (Gen. x. 3), who is supposed to
have peopled, in ethnologic succession, Armenia
(Jer. li. 27), Poland, Germany, and Scandinavia—the
latter according to some derives from him
its name. The Ashkenazím claim descent from
Benjamin, and are generally supposed not to have
been present at the second building of the Temple
by Zorobabel (b.c. 520), as described in the Book
of Ezra.
The Ashkenazím of the Holy Land are chiefly[Pg 50]
Germans, Poles, Muscovites, and other Northerners.
On January 26, 1849, an order from the Russian
Consulate-General of Beyrut obliged them either
to return home biennially in order to renew their
passports or to give up their nationality. They
were then taken under the protecting wing of
Great Britain by the immense exertions of their
co-religionists in the “City of Refuge” (London)
and of other Western powers. This step can hardly
be looked upon with satisfaction. Relying upon
their new nationality, they addict themselves openly
to usury and to other transactions of a doubtful and
often of a dishonourable character. A determination
to protect the whole community from religious
persecution, allowing the Sultan to treat their
commercial and civic affairs on the same footing
as all the rest of his subjects, would be much more
just, and would probably remedy not a few evils.
In the year 1840 the Northern Jews mustered few
at Damascus, and even now they are not numerous;
among them may be mentioned old Abú Brahím,
a well-known cicerone at Demitri Cara’s Hotel, who
usually passed for a Cohen.
The Ashkenazím speak a kind of Jew-German,
garbled with Hebrew and other foreign words. Their
dress is a long robe like a dressing-gown, and a low-crowned
hat of felt or beaver; the lank love-lock
hanging down either cheek, and the eccentrically
clipped fur caps, which, despite the burning sun,[Pg 51]
they everywhere don for the Sabbath and for feast-days,
make their appearance not a little comical.
In the Holy Land they are mostly petty traders and
craftsmen, supported in part by the Hallorkah, or
alms. Many Jews who have neither the time nor
the will to visit Jerusalem pay considerable sums
for vicarious prayers there offered by their co-religionists,
and the contributions are collected
throughout Europe by appointed emissaries like the
begging friars of the Catholic world. This dole,
distributed alike and indiscriminately to all who
occupy the four Holy Cities, brings many idle and
worthless persons together, and promotes early and
improvident marriages, every child being a source
of additional increase. Some steps should be taken
to obviate the scandals of the Hallorkah. Much
vice, misery, and ill-feeling are engendered by the
present system of bounty, which leaves much behind
when passing through the hands of doctors responsible
to no one for the money they receive.
These men live in comfort and even luxury; the
terrorism, physical as well as spiritual, with which
they inspire their congregations, renders them absolutely
unassailable. Knowing that his doctor can
excommunicate him, and, what is more to the purpose,
starve him and his family, not a Jew dare object
to, though he will loudly complain of, a system
of hypocrisy and peculation. And as a rule the
almsgiving of the Israelite, so exceptionally liberal[Pg 52]
throughout Western Europe, becomes mean and
niggardly throughout the Holy Land. In the
absence of coin sufficiently small, the wealthy
Hebrews of Jerusalem have invented a system of
tin bits, which the mendicant must collect till
sufficiently numerous to be changed for currency.
Whenever there is a famine in the country, pauper
Jews receive probably the least assistance from
their fellows dwelling within the same walls.
The Ashkenazím are divided into religious sects
and social communities. The former are three in
number—viz. Parushím, Khasidím, and Khabad. The
Parushím, Pharisees or Separatists, follow the law as
laid down in the commentary of the late R. Gaon[26]
of Wilna. They consider the diligent study of the
Talmud an essential for every religious Jew, and
they conduct their liturgy according to it, respecting,
however, the sense attached to various rites by
the Cabalistic teachers. They strictly observe the
appointed times for prayer, but they do not consider
it necessary to dip the body in water before
ablution. They neglect the second pair of phylacteries
prescribed by Rabbenu Tam.[27] They do not hold it
unlawful to slaughter animals for food with a knife
which is not very sharp, provided that the edge has
no notches. They regard a Passover cake as lawful,[Pg 53]
even though it be made of any kind of wheat or
flour.
The Khasidím (Cabalists), that most fanatical
of Jewish sects, are here for the most part unlearned.
Their liturgy is according to Rambáni or
Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon), a Spaniard
who flourished in the twelfth century, and of whom it
is said, “From Moses to Moses there was none like
Moses”; they interpret it, however, in the Cabalistic
sense. Their favourite book is the Holy Ri; they
pray whenever they feel bound to do so, no matter
whether the prescribed time has passed or not.
Unlike the Parushím, they believe in certain Sadikím,
or righteous men, popularly called Gute Yaden
(Juden), and regard them with a superstitious veneration
which borders upon worship, attributing to
them supernatural powers, and attaching some
spiritual and symbolic meanings to their most trivial
and insignificant actions. Whilst professing to be
guided only by the Talmud, they in reality follow
the teaching of some chosen Guter Jude. The
Khasidím are particular in the observance of Jewish
customs, especially such as relate to the Sabbath.
They shake themselves violently and cry aloud
during prayers; at other times they are much
addicted to dancing, singing, and deep drinking.
They dip themselves in water before devotions, and
use the second pair of phylacteries. They deem it
unlawful to slaughter animals with a knife which[Pg 54]
is not very sharp, or to use any but a particular
kind of wheat for the Passover cakes. Much importance
is attached by this sect to works of charity;
in this way they are guided by the Yad ha-Khazakah,
or “strong hand” of Maimonides, who assigns eight
steps or grades to the golden ladder of charity. The
Parushím and Khasidím combine in various proportions;
for instance, in Tiberias all are Khasidím
except the doctor, who is a Parushi.
The Khabad, or third sect, suggests in name the
Ebionites, or Jewish Nazarenes, who hold the “great
teacher of Nazareth” to be the Messiah, but merely
human; this sect, however, has apparently died out.
The modern Khabad have a liturgy arranged from
their old Rabbi Zelmína. They resemble the Khasidím,
having their own Gute Juden, but they are
usually more learned and pious. They are given
to hospitality and charity, and attach much importance
to visiting the sick. They dip themselves
before prayers, read and study much, and meet
together on Sabbath evenings to hear the Law expounded
by their principal teacher. They keep as a
feast the 19th day of Kislef, the third civil and ninth
ecclesiastical month (about December); on that day
R. Shalomon, the founder of the sect, was liberated
from prison.
The Ashkenazím are divided into social communities
according to the European district or city
whence they came, and each section is presided over[Pg 55]
by a scribe or a layman of respectability and good
standing. The chief communities of Parushím are
the Wilna, Grainer, Grodno, Minsk, Nassen, Warsaw,
Zuolik, and German. Those of the Khasidím are
the Volhynian, the Hungaro-Austrian, and the
Galician. The Khabad are a community by themselves.
The Ashkenazím, who are wrongly represented
to be considered pariahs by the Sephardím, have
brought from Northern climates a manliness of
bearing, a stoutness of spirit, and a physical hardness
strongly contrasting with the cowardly and
effeminate, the despised and despicable Sephardím
“Jew of Israel’s land.” If spoken to fiercely, they
will reply in kind; if struck, they will return the
blow; and they do not fear to mount a horse, unlike
their Southern brethren, who prefer an ass, or at most
an ambling pony, to the best of Arab blood. They
will travel by night over difficult and dangerous
paths, whereas their congeners tremble to quit the
city walls; and they can endure extremes of heat
and cold, of hunger and thirst, which might be fatal
to any soft Syrian who would imitate them. The
Ashkenazím of the Holy Land are in a word “men”;
the Sephardím are not. “The Spanish and Portuguese
Jews are of far higher and more intellectual
type than the English and German,” says Dr.
Linsdale. Possibly; but in the matter of manliness
there is no comparison. And, as has been remarked,[Pg 56]
the Ashkenazi is “eating up” the Sephardi wherever
they meet.
Concerning the so-called unorthodox sects in the
Holy Land a few brief details may be given.
The Karaïtes (Caraïtes), translated “Readers,”
that is “textualists,” assign a literal sense to all
Holy Writ, and reject every book posterior to the
Law and the Prophets; they are therefore considered
pestilent heretics. These Puritans, claiming descent
from the Ten Tribes who took no part in the Crucifixion,
are scattered throughout Arabia, with Bagdad
for a centre; and they are most numerous in Russia
and Poland, where they could boast that for four
centuries none of their number had ever been found
guilty of a serious crime. Henderson the traveller
numbers some four thousand of them in the Crimea
with their Cohens, or priests. At Pentecost, they read,
we are told, as Ha-phatorah, or conclusions of the day,
Joel ii. 28-32, whereas other Jews stop at ver. 27.
There is still a large colony at Aden, where the
English authorities have found nothing to complain
of them. Formerly there were many at Damascus;
now they have left it en masse: the Protestant
cemetery occupies part of their old burial-ground,
whose gravestones are distinguished from those of
the Jews. In Syria they are mostly confined to
Jerusalem, where till lately they numbered seven
families (thirty-five souls). Their single, poor synagogue,
a small cellar-like chamber, which dates back,[Pg 57]
they say, for many centuries, lies opposite the big new
building of the orthodox. Its sole object of attraction
is one old manuscript of the Pentateuch, and the
other Jews so hate them that the stranger will not
readily find his way to their place of worship. In
early 1872 they were reinforced by an emigration
from Bagdad numbering forty souls, who reported
that many more were on the way. These men all
wore Bedawin dresses, which, however, they changed
for the usual Jewish garb when once settled in
the city.
The Samaritans are now found only at Nablús,
the classical Neapolis, or new town. They claim
descent from Ephraim and Manasseh, whilst their
Cohens are of course Levites; the orthodox opprobriously
call them Kúthím, or Babylonians, and
despite physical evidence utterly deny their Jewish
consanguinity. All contact with them is defiling,
as though they were Gentiles. The total is now
forty families, or a hundred and thirty-five souls;
they will not intermarry with any but their own
people; the birth of males, contrary to what might
be expected, outnumbers that of females in the
proportion of eighty to fifty-five, and consequently
the “undying dogmatism” is threatened with
dying out. The little sect owes its fame in
Europe to the three well-known codices which
every stranger hastens to inspect. According to
their Hakháms, whilst repeating the Talmud they[Pg 58]
study the Targum of R. Levi. They keep their
Passover by solar computation, not lunar, like the
Hebrews; for instance, in 1871 the former held
the feast on May 3, and the latter on April 5.
Moreover, they still sacrifice and eat their Paschal
Lamb upon Mount Gerizim.
Jerusalem is sometimes visited by some of the
“Black Jews” of Malabar and Western India, concerning
whom so much absurdity has been written.
The “White Jews” of India have a tradition
according to which their ancestors, numbering ten
thousand souls, emigrated Eastward about a.d. 70,
and settled about Cranganore on the Malabar coast.
Here they remained till a.d. 1565, when they were
driven into the interior by the Portuguese. As no
synagogue can be founded without a minimum
congregation of ten free and adult males, the white
Jews when necessary simply bought back their nine
Hindu slaves, manumitted them, circumcised and
bathed them, and thus obtained their wishes. The
“Reformed British Jews,” mostly Ashkenazím, who
date from the 7th of Ellúl, a.m. 5601 (August
24, 1841), and whose prayer-book is edited by
their minister, the Rev. Mr. Marks, are hardly
likely to make way in “the East” with such ultra-Karaïte
doctrine as “the sufficiency of the Law
of Moses for the guidance of Israel,” and with their
opposition to the divinity of the traditions contained
in the Mishnah; and in the Jerusalem and[Pg 59]
Babylonian Talmuds they would only be included
in the host
Of petulant, capricious sects,
The maggots of corrupted texts.
There is little to say concerning the physical
peculiarities of the Eastern Jew, who in all the
salient points of form and feature remarkably resembles
his brother of Houndsditch and the Minories.
Here and there the lines are less curved, the profile
is straight and high, whilst there are a few local
varieties like the fair hair and olive-coloured eyes
of Dalmatia. The highest type contains a certain
softness of expression, with that decisive cast of
mouth and chin which may be seen in the London
policeman and in the backwoodsman of the Far
West. Although centuries of oppression have necessarily
given to the many that cringing, deprecating
glance, that shifting look which painfully suggests
a tame beast expecting a blow, yet we still find
both amongst the Ashkenazím and the Sephardím
red Jews and black Jews; fierce-eyed, dark-browed,
and hollow-cheeked, with piercing acuteness of glance,
and an almost reckless look of purpose. Greed and
craft, and even ferocity, are to be read in such
faces, but rarely weakness, and never imbecility;
roughness, unculture, and coarseness are there, not
vulgarity, nor want of energy; and the Christian
physiognomy by their side looks commonplace when[Pg 60]
contrasted with those features so full of concentration
and vigorous meaning.
These are the same men as those who under
happier auspices organize such worldwide institutions
as the Alliance Israëlite Universelle, with
its heart in Paris and its limbs extending far and
wide on the earth, whilst increasing organization
proposes to extend them farther and wider. Its
object is simply to promote concerted action amongst
the Jews scattered about both hemispheres; to
effect unity and community in all matters interesting
to the Jewish body politic; to forward the
interest of its friends, and to effect the ruin of its
enemies. Thus it will eventually absorb by taking
under its charge such detached institutions as the
Khagal, or Communal Government of the Hebrews
in Russia. It is the fashion to praise the organization
of the Jesuits, the Freemasons, the Carbonari,
the Mormons, and other bodies, who have an esoteric
system underlying the exoteric form. As far as my
knowledge goes, none can be compared with that
of the Jews, because those are local and partial,
whereas these are all but universal.
Such men easily become the warriors of commerce,
bringing to the battle of interests, the campaign of
life, all that boldness and resolution, that persistence
and heroism, that subtlety and unscrupulousness
which the Patriarchs and the Maccabees carried out
into the personal conflict of sword and spear. They[Pg 61]
become the great potentates of finance and capital,
who have agents and reporters in every chief centre
of the world; who know every project, what is to
flourish and what is to founder; what enterprise
is to be effectual, and what is to fail. If a seaport
want a dock, a city require a bulwark, or a country
demand a railway or a loan, they are ever ready
to furnish each and all. And as a rule they are
not unfair, they are not mean; indeed there is often
a certain generosity in their conditions. But they
always bargain for something besides money. They
stipulate, for instance, that this man should be
allowed to participate in these profits, that another
should be excluded from those advantages; their
interests are so various and so widespread that
they need political power everywhere, and as they
must have it so they will have it. One offence,
one deadly sin, never forgiven, never forgotten, is
insubordination in the ranks, however trifling. Let
a secondary firm attempt to throw off the yoke
by launching out, for instance, into an enterprise
unauthorized by the Great House; straightway its
credit is assailed, its acceptances are dishonoured,
its ruin is assured. Such are the arts which have
enabled the Jew to arrive at his present position.
And he may confidently look forward to the time
when the whole financial system, not only of Europe
from one end to the other, but of the whole world,
will be in the hands of a few crafty capitalists,[Pg 62]
whose immense wealth shall, with a few pulsations
of the telegraph, unthrone dynasties and determine
the destinies of nations.
It remains now only to touch upon the future
prospects of the Jewish race. This important
consideration is still subject to two widely different
opinions.
The first, which may be called the vapid utterance
of the so-called Liberal School, speaks as follows:
“In this century we are battering down the ponderous
walls of prejudice which nations and sects
have erected in past times, for the separation of
themselves from their neighbours, or as a coign of
vantage from which to hurl offensive weapons at
them. Roman Catholic and Jewish emancipation
have been conceded, though tardily, and we may
fairly hope that in the next generation our political,
social, and commercial relations with our fellow-men
will be conducted without regard to their religious
belief or their ethnological origin.” The trifling
objection to this “harmonious and tolerant state
of things” is that, though the Christian may give
up his faith and race, the Jew, however readily he
may throw overboard the former, will cling to the
latter with greater tenacity, as it will be the very
root and main foundation of his power.
The second is the Judophobic or Roman Catholic
view of the supremacy of Jewish influence in the
governments and the diplomacy of Europe. It openly[Pg 63]
confesses its dread of Judaic encroachments, and it
goes the full length of declaring that, unless the
course of events be changed by some quasi-miraculous
agency, the triumph of the Israelite over Christian
civilization is inevitable—in fact, that Judaism, the
oldest and exclusive form of the great Semitic faith,
will at least outlive, if it does not subdue and
survive, Christianity, whose triumph has been over
an alien race of Aryans. “Gold,” it argues, “is
the master of the world, and the Jewish people are
becoming masters of the gold. By means of gold
they can spread corruption far and wide, and thus
control the destinies of Europe and of the world.”
For the last quarter of a century the dominant
Church in France seems to have occupied itself in
disseminating these ideas, and the number of books
published by the alarmists and replied to by Jewish
authors is far from inconsiderable. Witness the
names of MM. Tousseuel, Bédarride, Th. Halliz,
Rev. P. Ratisbonne, and A. C. de Medelsheim,
without specifying the contributors to the Union
Israëlite and the Archives Israëlites of Paris—a
sufficient proof of the interest which this question
has excited, and of the ability with which it has
been discussed in France.
But these are generalisms which require the
specification of particulars. Where, however, the
field is so extensive, we must limit ourselves to
the most running survey of Europe and the Holy[Pg 64]
Land. Throughout this continent the career of the
Jew is at once thriving and promising. The removal
of Jewish disabilities in England and the almost
universal spread of constitutionalism throughout
Europe have told mightily in favour of the Jews.
An essential condition of all reform is that the
reformer never can say, “Thus far will I go, and
no farther.” In sporting parlance, he took off the
weight from a dark horse, and the latter is everywhere
winning in a canter. The father kept a little shop
in the Ghetto; the son has palaces and villas, buys
titles, crosses, and other graven images utterly unknown
to the Mosaic Law, and intermarries with the
historic Christian families of the land. The great,
if not the only, danger is that in the outlying parts
of Europe, where men are not thoroughly tamed,
and where the sword is still familiar to the hand,
the Jew advances far too fast; nor is it easy to see
how his career can be arrested before it hurries him
over the precipice. At this moment Hungary is a
case in point. The Magnate, profuse in hospitality,
delighting in display, careless of expenditure, and
contemptuous of economy, sees all his rich estates,
with their flocks and herds, their crops and mines,
passing out of his own hands, and contributing to
swell the bottomless pocket of the Jewish usurer.
But the Magyar is a fiery race; and if this system
of legal robbery be allowed to pass a certain point,
which, by-the-bye, is not far distant, the Jews[Pg 65]
must prepare themselves for another disaster right
worthy of the Middle Ages. And they will have
deserved it.
As regards the restoration of Israel to the Holy
Land, that favourite theme of prophecy and poetry,
that day-dream of the Jew, at least until he found
a country and a home in the far happier regions
beyond his ancient seats, no supernatural gift is
required to point out the natural course of events.
Though the recovery of Jerusalem is the subject
of eternal supplication throughout the Jewish world,
wealthy and prosperous Jews openly declare that they
take no personal interest in the matter. The prayer,
in fact, has become a mere formula.[28] Still, with six
millions of souls, which will presently become nine,
there can be no difficulty in finding volunteers like
those who now garrison the four Holy Cities—Jerusalem
and Hebron, Tiberias and Safed. A single
million of souls would give the Israelite complete
command over the Land of Promise in the widest[Pg 66]
acceptation of the term, and it will not be long before
this number can be contributed.
The Jews might readily return to Judæa; but
there is a lion in the path. Russia cares little for
Constantinople, which will fall to her in the fulness
of time when the fruit is ripe. But she will brook
no interference with the Holy Land, except for her
own benefit. This power, half European and half
Asiatic, greatly indebted withal for her success in
life to the mixture which she despises, has the
immense advantage of a peculiar and homogeneous
creed, in which she believes with childish ardour
and which she preaches with virile energy. To her,
conquest is not mere increase of area, of physical
growth. It is extending the field of proselytism,
of religion; and this view of national progress and
of racial duty is at once her strength and her
weakness, her glory and her shame. She finds the
headquarters of Christianity necessary to the full
development of her religious superiority, and in
the ever-increasing weakness of the Latin Church
she descries her best opportunity.
Thus, as modern travellers assure us, Russia is
quietly absorbing the Holy Places in Syria and
Palestine. A bran-new Jerusalem of church, convent,
and hospice, which a few days’ work would
convert into forts and barracks, has lately risen
outside the grey old walls and towers of Jebus,
concealing them from the ardent gaze of the pilgrim[Pg 67]
as he tops the last hill leading to the Jaffa Gate.
At Hebron the Muscovite was not allowed to buy
building-ground within the settlement; he bought the
oak which passes itself off for Abraham’s terebinth,
and here again will be a church, convent, and hospice.
Jacob’s Well at Shechem has shared the same fate,
and even Tiberias is threatened with a fourth church,
convent, and hospice. The so-called Greeks,[29] whose
Muscovite sympathies are well known, were granted
such boons as the monopoly of Mount Tabor, whose
classic and Saracenic ruins were ruthlessly pulled
down to build a cockney church and convent. This
usurpation became so intolerable, that in the summer
of 1872 the Latin monks attacked the intruders,
seized vi et armis a part of the mountain to which
they laid claim, and enclosed their conquest with a
wall. On the other hand, when the Latins proved an
undoubted right to their ancestral chapel at Kefr
Kenna (Cana in Galilee), the Greeks were instructed
to set up a rival claim, and both were formally
dismissed with the oyster shell, the oyster having
been pronounced Wukúf, or mosque endowment.
This Russian pre-emption of the Holy Land is
a benefit to the Jew, although the latter may not
recognize it. But for this he would hasten to fulfil
the prophecy; he would buy up the country, as[Pg 68]
indeed he is now doing at Jerusalem;[30] he would
conquer the people by capital, and he would once
more form a nation.
But here the question obtrudes itself: “If
Judaism should again prevail—indeed its advocates
say it shall prevail universally—how long could it
endure?”
Those who know the codes of the Talmud and
of the Safed School, which are still, despite certain
petty struggles, the life-light of Judaism, will have
no trouble in replying. A people whose highest
ideas of religious existence are the superstitious
sanctification of Sabbath, the washing of hands, the
blowing of ram’s horns, the saving rite of circumcision,
and the thousand external functions compensating
for moral delinquencies, with Abraham sitting
at the gate of Hell to keep it closed for Jews; a
community which would declare marriage impossible
to some twelve millions of Gentiles, forbid them
the Sabbath, and sentence to death every “stranger[Pg 69]”
reading an Old Testament; which would have all
the Ger who are not idolaters without religion,
whilst forbidding those whom it calls “idolaters”
(the Christians) to exercise the commonest feelings
of humanity; which would degrade and insult one-half
of humanity, the weaker sex, and which would
sanction slavery, and at the same time oppress
and vilify its slaves by placing them on a level
with oxen and asses; a faith which, abounding in
heathen practices, would encourage the study of
the Black Art, would loosen every moral obligation,
would grant dispensations to men’s oaths, and
would sanction the murder of the unlearned; a
system of injustice, whose Sanhedrins, at once
heathenish and unlawful, have distinguished themselves
only for force and fraud, for superabundant
self-conceit, for cold-blooded cruelty, and for unrelenting
enmity to all human nature,—such conditions,
it is evident, are not calculated to create
or to preserve national life. The civilized world
would never endure the presence of a creed which
says to man, “Hate thy neighbour unless he be one
of ye,” or of a code written in blood, not in ink,
which visits the least infractions of the Rabbinical
laws with exorcism and excommunication, with stoning
and flogging to death.[31] A year of such spectacles[Pg 70]
would more than suffice to excite the wrath and
revenge of outraged humanity; the race, cruel,
fierce, dogged, and desperate as in the days of
Titus and Hadrian, would defend itself to the last;
the result would be another siege and capture of
Jerusalem, and the “Chosen People” would once
more lie prostrate in their blood and be stamped
out of the Holy Land.
Briefly, it is evident that nothing but Russian
preponderance in Syria and Palestine prevents its
being reoccupied by its old intolerant and persecuting
owners,[32] and that to these the greatest[Pg 71]
possible misfortune would be the granting of their
daily, weekly, and yearly prayer—
Next year may we meet at Jerusalem.
[Pg 72]
CHAPTER IV
THE JEW AND THE TALMUD
The present chapter contains many an assertion
which will make the expert Talmudist smile.
It will, however, serve one most useful purpose—namely,
to show what the Christians and Muslims
of the East hold to be the belief of the Hebrew race
and the practices of men dwelling within the same
walls as themselves. That this hostility to the
Eastern Jews is no mere unreasoning prejudice, but
is founded in some sort on fact, the following brief
survey of the Rabbinical and Talmudic writings
will show. A people which has such a vindictive
Oral Law is sure to excite the spirit of retaliation,
for obviously the Law exists not merely in letter,
but in the spirit.
In a notorious trial in Damascus within living
memory, which roused the anti-Jewish feeling in
that city and indeed throughout Syria to a frenzy,
certain learned doctors brought into court as
evidence a number of manuscripts and printed books.
It was remarked that the texts were full of lacunæ.
This was explained by the fact that they are so[Pg 73]
written, since Europe began to read the Rabbinical
and Talmudic writings, for the purpose of concealing
what might excite odium. The divines supply the
omissions by inserting them in writing, or preferably
by committing them to memory. Thus they suppress
offensive sectarian words, such as Goi (plural
Goyím), the wicked, the forgetful of God—that is
to say, Gentiles in general, including Christians
and Muslims; Miním, or Karaïte Jews; Kuthim,
Samaritans; Nakhrím, strangers or infidels, corresponding
with the Arabic Káfirin, or the Turkish
Giaour; and Ndoyyím, or Mesúmedím, in Arabic
Mahrúmín or Murtaddín, the excommunicated.
And it is evident that they had good reasons for
this prudence; the Seder Adarhout, for instance,
enumerates with the object of refuting them many
foul crimes attributed to the Jews.
The most important and pregnant tenet of modern
Jewish belief is that the Ger, or stranger, in fact
all those who do not belong to their religion, are
brute beasts, having no more rights than the fauna
of the field. Thus in Lucio Ferraris (Prompta
Bibliotheca, Vol. III., sub lit. E and H, Order 4,
Tract 8) we read: “Præcipitur omnibus Judæis ut
Christianes omnes loco brutorum habeant, nec aliter
eos tractent quam bruta animalia.” The argument
from which this abominable belief is derived appears
to be as follows: “When Abraham was ordered to
offer up Isaac (Gen. xxii.), he saddled his ass, and[Pg 74]
took two of his young men with him. But when
he saw the place of sacrifice,[34] he said unto his young
men, ‘Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the
lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to
you.’” The Talmud declares that Abraham, who had
seen God, asked his servants if they had likewise
done so; and on their replying in the negative,
he said to them, “Abide ye here with the ass,”
meaning that they were animals like the ass. But
this is by no means contrary to Scripture doctrine;
for instance, Jeremiah (x. 8) calls the votaries of
false religion “altogether brutish and foolish.” Thus
the Law and the Prophets belong exclusively to the
Jews; the Gentile reading or even buying a copy
should be put to death. All the books of other
faiths must be burnt, even though they contain the
name of Jehovah; and if any but a Hebrew write
the name of God in a Bible which is not a Jewish
manuscript, the volume must also be burnt.
The Jew who does not keep the Sabbath (Saturday)[35]
according to Rabbinical Law must suffer[Pg 75]
excision, be stoned to death, or incur the flogging
of rebellion, that is, he must be “beaten until his
soul go out,” like all those who transgress affirmative
commandments. Some Rabbis hold that a Hebrew,
hearing the sound of the trumpet, should stand or
sit in the same position until the evening of the
Holy Day. All manner of work is absolutely forbidden
to the Jew: he is guilty of capital crime if
he carry a snuff-box or a pocket-handkerchief; he
may not light a fire to cook his meals, nor extinguish
it to prevent his house being burnt down. Until
the days of the Maccabees he could not defend his
life against an enemy; and when Strabo informs
us that Pompey (b.c. 63) stormed Jerusalem “by
waiting for the day of fast, on which the Jews
were in the habit of abstaining from all work,” he
evidently alludes to the Saturday. The modern Jew
in Syria and Palestine can walk only two thousand
paces upon the Sabbath, except when travelling
through the dangerous desert.[36] He will not receive[Pg 76]
money on that day, or transact any business, however
profitable; it is moreover the fashion to keep a
grave face, and to speak as little as possible. Yet
he is not the strictest of Sabbatarians, and his
women rather enjoy being called upon between
the services[37] in order to display their dresses
and jewellery. Of course there are many “guiles,”
technically so called, in order to elude restrictions
which savour of the degrading spirit peculiar to the
Oral Law, which is little more than the Rabbinical
Criminal Code intended to raise and provide for an
aristocracy of savants. For instance, most wealthy[Pg 77]
families, forgetting that he who hires a man to
murder a third person is really the murderer, habitually
keep Muslim servants, who can boil coffee and
serve pipes to Gentile friends. And the latter must
by no means join in honouring the day. According
to the Talmud (chap, iv., Sanhedrin, of the fourth
Mishnic Section, or order Seder Nezikin), the Gentile
sanctifying the Sabbath must be put to death without
asking questions, even as the Lord said to
him, “Thou shalt not rest day nor night.”[38]
The Oral Law is superior in dignity to all others.[Pg 78][39]
In the Prompta Bibliotheca we find (p. 297, Order 4,
Tract 4, Dist. 10): “Gravius plectendos esse qui
contradicunt verbis Scribarum quam verbis Mosaicæ
Legis, quibus qui contradixerit, morte moriatur.”
And he must die by the flogging of rebellion, a
Rabbinical practice utterly unknown to the Pentateuch,
which ordered forty stripes, whereas in the
New Dispensation the offender must be flogged
without intermission till he expires. Thus the
Scribes and Pharisees still sit in Moses’ seat. The
modern Jew follows the creed of Maimonides (twelfth
century), which contains thirteen fundamental articles,
the last being the resurrection of the dead. The
ancient Jew obeyed the Twelve Commandments
without a word about the resurrection. The sojourning
proselyte who would be saved must become a
Noahite, and obey the Seven Commandments assured
to the Noachidæ; the Hakhám Abú'l Afíya gave
them as follows:
1. Thou shalt not worship planets, stars, or idols.
2. Thou shalt not fornicate nor commit adultery.
3. Thou shalt not slay (man).
4. Thou shalt not steal.[Pg 79][40]
5. Thou shalt not eat in the street the flesh of a
lamb.
6. Thou shalt not castrate the sons of Abraham,
mankind, or any other animal.
7. Thou shalt not join the several races of
animals.[41]
More correctly speaking, this code given to the
Noachidæ, or Noahites, commands them to abstain
from the Seven Deadly Sins: (1) idolatry; (2) irreverence
to God; (3) homicide; (4) robbery, fraud,
and plunder—generally, not only of a co-religionist;
(5) adultery; (6) disobedience and misrule; and
(7) eating part of an animal still living, or the blood
of the dead. The latter was added (Gen. ix. 4) to
the Six Sins forbidden to Adam—namely, idolatry,
blasphemy, shedding of blood, incest, robbery, and
injustice.
But the sojourning proselyte[42] receives scant con[Pg 80]solation,
as he may not be received when the Jubilee
cannot be observed (Hilchoth Issure Biah, xiv. 7, 8);
and this ceased after Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh
were led away captive, or in b.c. 884, according to
common chronology. Add to this 1,873, and we
have 2,757 years since the last feast of the kind,
and we have twenty-seven centuries and a half
since any Gentiles were converted from the errors
of idolatry to the religion of the sons of Noah.
Those who transgress any of the Commandments
transgress them all.[43] The goods of Gentiles who
have not conformed to the Noahite code, that is
to say, all now living, are lawful to the Hebrews.
This right was first conferred by Jehovah during the
Exodus from Egypt, and it was confirmed to the
descendants of the wanderers by the Talmud (Baba
Masiaah, or Middle Gate, second of the fourth
order, and Abodah Zarah, eighth of the same).
Rabbinical religion is rampant in the kitchen.
Blood first forbidden to Noah (Gen. ix. 4), and
afterwards to all the sons of Abraham (Lev. iii. 17
and vi. 30)—because it was supposed to contain the
vital principle which it does not—must be drained
out of the meat before this can be eaten. The[Pg 81]
usual practice is by macerating it in water for thirty
minutes, and leaving it in salt for an hour. It is
then taken out and washed again, a peculiar wooden
tub and sieve being used for the purpose. In Morocco
the Jews also pound the flesh till the fibre is broken,
and thus it becomes more tender and less able to
be kept—this, however, is a local practice unknown
to the Jews elsewhere. The Talmud declares that
there are two kinds of blood pleasing to the Lord—viz.
(1) that of the Paschal holocaust; (2) that of
circumcision. In the books of Moses we find that
blood is used as a purifier. For instance, the Lawgiver
(Exod. xxiv. 6-8) took half of the blood drained from
victims and put it in basins, with which he sprinkled
the people to cleanse them from the abominations
of the Egyptians, and the other half he sprinkled
upon the altar. Human blood is not used by us
in its pure state; nor can we[44] call it human, for the
Gentiles are mere vermin, and of their daughters
it is said, “Cursed be he that lieth with any beast.”
It must also mostly undergo through manipulation
a change of essence.[45] Nor is it administered
indiscriminately, but only to the most zealous.
On the eve of the Passover the chief Scribe attends
the oven, and mixes what he pleases with
the cakes, which are then sent round to the
congregation.
[Pg 82]
A Jew abandoning the faith of Israel must die
the death; also he should be surely slain for all
such breaches of the Law as committing adultery.
All who admit the doctrine of the Trinity, whether
they be Jewish perverts, Christians, Muslims, or
Pagans; all Hebrews who have violated the secrets
of the Synagogue;[46] and all those especially who speak
against or who injure a co-religionist, have forfeited
their lives. In these days minor offenders are usually
excommunicated;[47] but those who have been informers
or who proved themselves hostile to Israel must be
killed at all risks, either by the Jews themselves, or,
better still, through the local authorities. This is
an invariable rule.[48]
We read in the tract Sanhedrin (fourth of fourth
order, p. 58) that the Gentile who strikes a Jew has
committed a capital offence; this ordinance is as old
as the sojourn of Moses in Egypt. He who strikes
a Jew strikes the Deity. The “sons of Noah” may
be slain by the sentence of a single Rabbi, or upon the[Pg 83]
testimony of a solitary witness, although the latter be
a relation. A descendant of the Hebrews who, learning
the true God in the days of Abraham, thereby
separated themselves from and exalted themselves
above the rest of humanity, may not be put to death
but by the decision of twenty Rabbis and on the
testimony of two witnesses. A Gentile forfeits life
if he cause a pregnant Jewess or her fruit to perish;
a Jew is not to be punished capitally for such crime,
but he must pay for the loss of the child (p. 57).
The “son of Noah” who blasphemes the Holy
Name, who has committed adultery with or who
has slain a co-religionist, ceases to merit death
by becoming a sojourning proselyte; but he must
not be suffered to escape if he has slain a Jew,
or if he has committed adultery with a Jewess
(p. 71). The Jew must not contract friendship
with Gentiles, lest, an oath being necessary, he
be compelled to swear by an idol (p. 63). He
may not eat bread prepared by the heathen, for
fear of undue intimacy being the result. Market
bread may be bought and eaten, but on condition
that it was made for sale, not for private use and
then sold—it is usual to burn a bit of such bread
before using it. A Jew may not eat victuals cooked
by Gentiles, although vessels from a Jewish house
were used in the presence of Jews—this extends
even to a roasted egg.
The tract Abodah Zarah, before alluded to,[Pg 84]
asserts (p. 4) that all the commandments kept by
Jews[49] shall bear friendly and favourable witness in
heaven before all the assembled souls of men, and to
the confusion of every other faith. Hebrews dwelling
out of the four Holy Cities are as idol-worshippers,
but without blame. A Jew going to a Gentile
marriage feast eats impure food, although the meats
be cooked by Jews and served by Jews in the presence
of Jews; he even commits a sin if he enters the house
within thirty days of the coming ceremony (p. 8).
Gentiles should be prevented as much as possible
purchasing immovable property. It is not allowed
to speak well of a Gentile, man or woman, and it is
a sin to make a present to them (p. 20), to greet or
to approach them; and the Jew becomes as ceremonially
impure by handling anything touched by
them, by drinking out of the same cup, or by sleeping
under the same roof, as if eating with them.
Hebrews should never tether their beasts in places
not belonging to them, at least without locking them
up, lest the heathen plunder or pollute them.
Gentiles preferred the Jews’ beasts to their own
women, because evil entered into Eve on the day
when the serpent (demon) committed adultery with
her. A Jewess may not live amongst the heathen,[Pg 85]
because possibly the latter do not hold adultery to
be a sin; a Jew should also beware for fear of their
killing him, as they probably will do. Israel was
purified of every sin upon Mount Sinai; but the
descendants of the peoples not present there preserve
their perversity (p. 22). If a Hebrew wayfarer
meet a Gentile armed with a sword (worn on the
left), he should pass on the other’s right side, and
vice versa if the stranger has only a staff, so that
the arm can be seized before the weapon can be
used; he must also name a distant place when asked
his journey’s end, in order that the Gentile may
defer slaying him till too late (p. 25).[50] The better
to prevent all intimacy, the Jew must not buy wine
or vinegar from a Gentile, who also may perhaps
have used it in pagan rites. If a Christian, a
Muslim, or an idolater touch a cup containing
wine, the Jewish owner must throw away the wine
or sell it to the heathen, and cleanse the cup. The
same is the case with grapes. The Law forbids the
Israelites to marry the daughters of the Seven Tribes
that held the land before the conquest—namely, the
Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites,
Hivites, and Jebusites. This, say the writers of[Pg 86]
and commentators on the Talmud, arose from the
fact of these women being impure from their childhood
upwards. Others, however, whilst including
all Gentiles in these Seven Tribes, assert that the
prohibition was not on account of any special impurity,
such women being vermin or brute beasts
not subject to the normal feminine infirmities.
Thus the learned restrain their weaker brethren
who might suppose that an impure Gentile woman
is pure to them, and who might even extend it to
the case of a Jewess. Hence again the deduction
that only the Hebrews are human beings (p. 35).[51]
Tract Arubim (second of the second order, Seder
Moed, Of Appointed Seasons) declares (p. 62) that
if a Jew live under the same roof with a Gentile
who breaks the Sabbath (Saturday),[52] the former, lest
he be robbed, should drive out the latter by hiring
the whole house. But he may expel the heathen
as he can or as he pleases; all tenements inhabited
by others than Jews are dens of beasts which cannot[Pg 87]
become householders. The “son of Noah” who
steals even a farthing should be put to death—one
of ten commandments given by God in His covenant
with Noah—and he cannot be pardoned unless he
restore the stolen goods. But God enjoined this
restitution only upon Gentiles becoming Israelites
(i.e. sojourning proselytes); all other thieves must
be instantly and pitilessly slain.
In tract Ohaleth (second of the sixth order, called
Seder Taharoth, or Of Purification) we read (§ 6)
that the graves of Gentiles cannot be held impure
because they are not tenanted by human beings, and
that when the law declares sitting upon tombs a
cause of defilement it alludes only to those of Jews.
Chapter Baba Bathra (third tract of the fourth order)
declares (§ i, p. 10, also repeated in another part
of the same tract) that all alms given by Jews are
acceptable to God, whereas those of the Gentiles
are so many sins because their objects are ostentation
and the preservation of their children. If,
however, the Jew declare that his alms-deeds are
meant to save his family and to win Paradise, still
they are grateful to Jehovah—a privilege allowed
only to the children of Israel. In the same tract
we are also informed that Esau, the son of Isaac,
sinned five times in one day, by committing adultery
with a heathen, by slaying his neighbour, by profaning
the name of his God, by insulting the resurrection
of the dead at the coming of the Messiah,[Pg 88]
and by degrading the rights of primogeniture.[53] Rabbi
Shalomon argues, from the fact of Ishmael laughing
when his brother Isaac was born, that Sarah concluded
therefrom, either that he held her to be an
adulteress, or that she saw him commit a murder;
thus he draws the deduction that Ishmael had
broken the Seven Commandments, and that consequently
his descendants cannot bear witness
against Jews (p. 16).
Tract Bechoroth (on Primogeniture, fourth of the
fifth order, Seder Kodashim, Of Holy Things)
gives (i. 17) the formula of the Scribes’ prayers,
and tells us that there are two things which hinder
men from keeping the law of God—the action of
demons and dependence upon Gentiles. The Lord
explains to the angels that usury is permitted only
to the Hebrews, who, being ordered to give thanks
after food, praise their Creator even when they
have eaten only an egg or an olive (p. 20). A
Jew may not pray before a naked Gentile, though
the latter be in the category of a wild beast (p. 25).
This tract relates that a Jew, beaten by a Scribe
when detected in adultery with an Egyptian woman,
complained to a Gentile ruler that the law had
been taken into private hands. The Scribe pleaded[Pg 89]
that he had surprised the criminal with a she-ass,
and called the prophet Elijah to bear witness. “Why
didst thou not slay him?” asked the magistrate.
The reply was that, since the children of Israel had
been driven from their own country, such a punishment
could not be inflicted by them, but that the
judge could do as he pleased. When both left
the court, the Jew charged the Scribe with having
called Elijah as a witness to a lie. “Wretch!”
exclaimed the learned man, “and are they not
the same as she-asses?” But as the Jew was
about to return and report this explanation, the
Scribe slew him with his staff (i., p. 58). Hence
it appears that this tenet is a religious secret whose
violation merits death. When a Jew looks upon the
grave of a brother Jew, he must say: “Blessed is He
who hath created us by law, who has promised to
raise us again by law, and who knoweth our number;
blessed is He who revives the dead.” But if the
tomb be that of a Gentile, he must say: “Shame
upon thy mother, cursed be she that bare thee;
for the end of the heathen shall be dry and desolate
as the soil of the desert” (p. 58). It also explains
earthquakes by the lamentations of the Lord, who
bewails the miseries of the Jews (p. 59). If a Jew
find an object lost, we will say, by a Muslim, he
must not restore it, even though he knew the proprietor.
Also, if a Gentile make any mistake in
accounting with the Jew, or leave property in his[Pg 90]
house, the latter, when not in fear of the authorities,
must rob him. At all times, in fact, the Jew should
spoil the Gentile as much as possible. If one Jew
injure another, though even his personal enemy
and the greatest villain in the world, especially
if such injury be to the advantage of a Gentile,
the Jew shall surely die (chap. 388 of the Khalehah
Orah Haím Meshat, one of the most accredited
parts of the Oral Law). All those present are bound
to put the denouncer to death before he can do
the deed; and if he has done it, they must remove
him from this world, every Israelite in the place
contributing to pay the assassin. The oath of a
Gentile or a Samaritan cannot be taken in evidence
against a Jew. If a dispute occurs between two
Israelites, they must go before their own judge.[54] It
is sinful to have recourse to foreign tribunals, and
all the decisions of the latter, when adverse to
Jews, must be quashed. Although the heathen
court pass sentence according to Hebrew Law,
the plaintiff or denouncer becomes impious, sacri[Pg 91]legious,
and religiously excommunicated, whilst the
Rabbi is bound to make him lose his cause by
every possible contrivance, even by suborning
false witnesses against him. And at last due
punishment must be dealt out. The latter is not
a Biblical command, but it results from the commentaries
on the Talmuds. When these works
were written Muhammadanism did not exist;
Muslims therefore are now included amongst the
Gentiles. They are not, however, like the Christian
idolaters.
In tract Keritoth (or Excision, the seventh of
the fifth order, Kodashim) the learned R. Moshe
Meimunah, after describing a fight between two
bulls,[55] the one belonging to a Jew, the other to
an Egyptian, declares (p. 36) that, in case of a
dispute between men of these different races, the
Hebrew, if in the right, should go to the local
authority and say, “See, such is the Law!” But
he must not do so if he prefer the Jewish tribunal.
The Rabbi adds that no one should be astonished[Pg 92]
at such a condition, for all who do not keep the
revealed commandments are not men, but beings
whose sole purpose upon earth is to serve men.
Tract Muad Katon (Little Feast, eleventh of the
second order) forbids Jews to salute Gentiles unless
in fear of them, and even then never twice. When
it was observed to the author that many Scribes
had so done, he replied that doubtless it was with
some such mental reservation as this, “I salute
thee, A., son of B.,” meaning the Rabbi who had
taught the speaker to read the Scriptures (p. 62).
El Ruzich, in his commentaries on the Talmudic
tract Abodah Zarah, speaking of Hebrew accusers
of Hebrews and eaters of flesh not ceremonially
killed, declares their death to be a necessity.
At this point it may be advisable to offer a short
view of the two Great Schools of the Holy Land
which have influenced Jewish thought in Christian
times. These are, first, that of Tiberias, whence
issued the Talmud of Jerusalem, followed by the
Talmud of Babylon; and, second, the School of
Safed, which rendered itself remarkable by the
extreme opinions of its commentaries and glossaries.[56]
We read in a Jewish writer (M. J. Cohen on the[Pg 93]
authority of the Talmud, Archives Israëlites, 1841)[57]:
“When after two hundred years of energetic struggles
against an empire which was fated to be universal
the Hebrew race found its political nationality in
peril, the first want felt was to lighten, as much
as possible, the bonds of personality, so as morally
to preserve by identity of belief that unity which dispersion
was about to dissolve. And the plan which at
once suggested itself was to determine, by an invariable
method, the principles of the Mosaic Law, to
develop their sense, and to fix their interpretation.
“But in those times, if I may so speak, the lights
of Israel were eclipsed; ages had elapsed since the
voices of the prophets had delivered to this people
the Oracles of God; and divine inspiration, the
heightening of the national faculties by supernatural
means, seemed to have returned to its home in
heaven. Moreover, after the destruction of Jerusalem
and the expulsion of the Jews, all authority had
disappeared with national power, and, social organization
no longer existing, man could not magisterially
impose his opinion upon others. The only rational
step in this state of things was to assemble all the
Israelites, or those who represented them, and to
form a sovereign synod.”
[Pg 94]
The Jewish Senate, Sanhedrin ([Greek: Συνεδριον: Synedrion]),[58] or
national council, was first transferred from the ruins
of the Holy City to Javneh, and after many removes
to Saffúríah,[59] the Sephores which in the days of
Josephus was ever faithful to the Romans. Finally,
about the middle of the second century, during the
reign of Antoninus Pius (a.d. 138-161), it was transferred
to Tiberias, another city of Galilee. Rabbi
Yahúda, universally known as ha-Kodesh, or the
saint, was the Nashi (Prince) of his nation and the
President of the Sanhedrin. He lived at Saffúríah,
where there is a cave through which the Roman[Pg 95]
Emperor, whose reign in history is almost a blank,
used to visit him from Tiberias; this tunnel is now
blocked up. The modern Jews residing in Galilee
are not agreed whether the Great Rabbi died at
Saffúríah, or at Túrean, a neighbouring village,
where two large caves exist; but neither of them
shows traces of a tomb. When this Prince of Israel
died, it was Friday evening, and the sun stood still
whilst his corpse was carried to its distant grave,
lest even the body might break the Sabbath.[60]
“The work of this Sanhedrin consisted in committing
to paper that which had before been entrusted
to memory and had perpetuated itself by tradition—the
jurisprudence of the Jews, the various interpretations
of the Law by the principal doctors, and the
rules of man’s duty; in other words, all that was called
the Oral Law. Thus the Synod began by transgressing
a principle of Israelitism, which until those days
had decreed that the supplementary code should
never be written, and hence indeed its vulgar name.
In this point the Œcumenical Council followed the[Pg 96]
example of Hadrian (a.d. 117-138), the adopted
father of Antoninus Pius, who also commanded the
jurist Salvius Julianus to draw up the Edictum
Perpetuum, or fixed code, and the Responsa
Prudentium, which before his time formed an unwritten
corps of doctrine embodying legal decisions
and precedents. The book, which was compiled by
R. Yahúda, with the adhesion of the Jewish majority,
received the name of Mishnah, ‘doubling,’ or repetition
of the Law, and its principles became obligatory upon
all men.” The great work was completed, according
to some, about a.d. 119; David Ganz prefers a.d. 219,
or a short time before the compiler’s death; whilst
others contend that R. Yahúda collected the principles
of the code, and that the nation accepted it
by order of Gamaliel, his son, and successor in
the princely dignity of Nashi and presidency of the
Sanhedrin;[61] “and others again make it of still
later date. At all events, it is the most ancient
composition known to the Jews after the Law and
the Prophets.”
By almost imperceptible degrees the notes and
commentaries upon this text grew to formidable
proportions, and became a special science, whose
technical name, found in the Book of Chronicles
(2 xiii. 22 and xxiv. 27), is Midrash, from darash; in
Arabic, dars, a lesson. Of the innumerable methods
of studying these Holy Writs, the three principal are[Pg 97]
embodied in the Persian Paradís, the Arabic Firdaus,
and the Greek [Greek: Παραδεισος: Paradeisos], written Semitically without
vowels PRDS, and the mysterious letters were
assumed mneumonically as the initial of a technical
word. Thus P (Peshat, the simple rendering of
words) recorded the elementary law of Talmudic
exegesis, “No verse of Scripture practically admits
any sense but the literal sense,”[62] although in a
different or familiar signification it may be explained
in a host of ways. R (Remiz, the Arabic Ramz,
a secret, intimation, insinuation, or suggestion of
meaning) illustrates certain letters and signs apparently
superfluous and explained only by tradition;
in a more general manner, it gave rise to a memoria
technica and a stenography resembling the Roman
Notaricon. Points and notes were added to the
margins of manuscripts, and thus was founded the
Massorah (tradition), or diplomatic conservation of
the text, intended to preserve its purity. D (Derush,
illustration) was the familiar application of historical,[Pg 98]
traditional, anecdotical, allegorical, and prophetical
sayings to the actual state of events; it was a
sermon aided by ethics, logic, poetry, parable, proverb,
apologue, and the vast mass of legendary lore
known as the Hagadah (plural Hagadoth), as opposed
to the Halakah,[63] or dogmatic part—perhaps it was
suggested by the New Testament. Finally, the fourth
and last, S (Sod, secret, mystery), included the
mystical and esoterical sciences of theosophy, metaphysics,
angelology, and a host of supernatural visions,
brilliant and fantastic. It borrowed with impartial
hand from the magic of Egypt, the myths of Hermes
Trismegistos, the works of the Platonists and Neo-Platonists,
and the labours of the Christian Gnostics.
Few were initiated into “the Creation,” or “the
Chariot,” as it was called, alluding to the vision of
Ezekiel; yet its attractions were such that at last
“Paradise” was confined to this special branch of
esoteric science, even as later in Gnosticism it came
to signify the Spiritual Christ.
Yet the Talmudic authors lay down the principle
that their decisions are in no wise absolute, but
can always be modified by a power equal to that
which lay them down.[64] Their sole object was to[Pg 99]
fix the sense and the rules of Written Law; for as
Moïse de Coucy says in his S'mag, or Great Book
of Precepts: “If the interpretation of the Oral Law
had not been added to the Written Law, the whole
code would have been obscure and unintelligible,
because Holy Writ is full of passages which seem
to oppose and contradict one another.” Rambáni
Maimonides of Cordova declares (Introduction to his
Guide, Vol. I., p. 29): “Thus we find continually
written in the Talmud, ‘The beginning of the chapter
differs from the end’; and the explanation is given,
‘Because the first part emanates from such-and-such
a doctor, and the last from another.’ Furthermore,
we read, ‘Rabbi Yahúda the Holy approved
the opinion of that doctor in that case, and merely
records the opinions of this doctor in this case,
without even naming him.’” The following formulas
are also frequent: “To whom belongs this anonymous
assertion?” R. “To A. B., the doctor!” and, “To
whom belongs our paragraph of the Mishnah?”
R. “To such-and-such a person!”
To resume the history of the Talmud.
Some years after the publication of the Mishnah
in the third century (a.d. 230-270), R. Yochanan,
who for eighty years had been President of the[Pg 100]
Sanhedrin, undertook a commentary on the text like
the Sharh, which accompanies the Arabic Matu.
Aided, it is said, by Rab and Samuel, the disciples
of Gamaliel, son of R. Yahúda, he produced about
a.d. 390 a book which, united with the Mishnayoth,
received the title Talmud (doctrine or learning) of
Jerusalem, though written at Tiberias. The product
of the Schools of Palestine, it was composed
in the West Aramæan tongue; and it calls the
Mishnic text by the simple name of Halakah (rule),
or dogmatic part. The School of Tiberias flourished
apparently in the days of St. Jerome, and passed
into oblivion during the fourth and early fifth
centuries.
In a.d. 367 Askhi, President of the Babylonian
Sanhedrin, whilst teaching the Mishnah, annually
commented upon two tracts of that work, which,
being concise, and as it were axiomatic, like all
books that announce legislative principles, required
explanation of the author’s exact intention. He was
aided by the opinions of many doctors omitted in
the Mishnah, either those who died before R. Yahúda
the Holy had finished his labours, or the many
who followed during the ensuing years. In order
that his learning might not be lost to the world,
he compiled and transcribed thirty-five tracts, and
died a.d. 427. His son Mar and Marimon his
disciple continued the work, and after seventy-three
years appeared the Gemara, complement or[Pg 101]
conclusion. It was written in the Eastern Aramæan
tongue, and it corresponds with the Hasheyah of
Arabic standard works.
The Mishnah and the Gemara, now forming a
single code, became known to history as the Talmud
Babli (of Babylon); and when the Talmud is
mentioned, the second work, being the fuller and
the more minute, is always meant.[65] Presently the
Talmudists separated into two great and rival schools
in ante-Christian times: that of Hillel,[66] remarkable
for his learning, his humility, and his charity, extending
even so far as to forbid usury (Tract Baba
Metzin, folio 17b); and that of Shammai, inflexible
in principles and often inclining to severity.
Both of these voluminous compositions are
essentially a corpus juris, to be compared with the
Edictum Perpetuum and Responsa Prudentium, with
the Pandects, the Novellæ,[67] and the Institutes. They[Pg 102]
form an encyclopædia of Judæan Law, divine and
human, national and international, laical and ecclesiastic,
civil and criminal; a doctrinal, judicial,
and sentential digest, dealing in exegesis and hermeneutics;
a huge compilation of what Muslim
divines call Fatwá, or decisions upon legal subjects;
and a thesaurus of ceremonial observances
borrowed from the Oral Law and the traditions
of the heads of schools from Rabbi Gamaliel downwards.[68]
Composed in the East, that classic land of
the supernatural, they abound in Hagadistic matter,
wild and picturesque legends sometimes inculcating
moral lessons, like the four nocturnal spectres Lilíth,
Naama, Aguerith, and Mahala,[69] at other times puerile
tales of the great angels Patspatsiah, Tashbach,
Hadarniel, Enkatham, Pastam, Sandalphon, Shamsiel,
and Prasta. Its historical, topographical, ethnographical,
and geographical information must be[Pg 103]
received with the greatest reserve, coming from
authors of different ages and of several values. For
instance, the Gemara (Sanhedrin, vi. 2) informs us
that our Lord, having vainly endeavoured during
forty days to find an advocate, was sentenced, and on
the 14th of Nisan was stoned and afterwards hanged.
It is a storehouse of curious allusions to the products
of various countries, the occupations of races, agriculture,
gardening, professions and trades, arts and
sciences, connubial relations, manners and customs,
the interiors of houses, and even dress. It portrays
the cosmopolitanism and the luxury of Rome in her
later days, thereby filling up the somewhat meagre
sketches of the post-classical school. We find in the
Mishnah allusions to the fish of Spain, the apples of
Crete, the cheese of Bithynia, the zythus,[70] lentils, and
beans of Egypt, the citrons of Greece, the wines of
Italy, the beer of Media, the garments of India
and Pelusium, the shirts of Cilicia, and the veils
of Arabia.
“At five years of age,” says the Mishnah, “let the
child begin to study the Scriptures; let him continue
so doing till the age of ten, when he may begin to
study the Mishnah; at the age of fifteen let him begin
the Gemara” (T. Aboth, chap. v.). This passage in
the “vast work or ocean of learning,” as some call[Pg 104]
it, could not but be distasteful to Christianity. The
tone adopted in speaking of the Almighty is anthropomorphic
and anthropocentric in the extreme.[71] God
spends a fourth part of the day in studying the Law.
At every watch of the night He sits and roars like a
lion, saying, “Woe is Me that I have laid desolate
My house and burned My sanctuary, and sent My
children into captivity among the nations of the
world” (Berachoth). He plays for three hours every
day with the leviathan. And bear in mind there are
far more objectionable representations than these in
the writings of the Rabbis. It revels more than
any known faith in the degradation of women; the
Rabbinic court declares women “disqualified by the
Law from giving testimony”; the Talmud excludes
them from the public worship of God, and teaches
that they are under no obligation to learn the revealed
will of their Creator,—peculiarly antipathetic
doctrines to those who believe in an Immaculate
Virgin and in a St. Mary Magdalen. Moreover, the
large space given to cursing the Jew and the non-Jew,
and to the unhallowed practices of magic and[Pg 105]
necromancy, the summoning and conversing with
devils and spirits, the advocacy of astrology, charms,
and philters, served as a pretext for Pope and Inquisition
to attack it. In a.d. 553 Justinian proscribed
it by Novella 146 as a “tissue of puerilities, of fables,
of iniquities, of insults, of imprecations, of heresies,
and of blasphemies”; it was destroyed by Gregory IX.
in a.d. 1230; it was burnt in Paris by Innocent IV.
(a.d. 1244); and it was proscribed by Clement IV., by
Honorius[72] IV., and by John XXII. The first printed
edition (Venice, 1520) saved it, and not until the
third had appeared (Basle, 1578) did it come under
the eye of the censor.
In 1553 and 1555 Julius III. promulgated a
proclamation against what he called grotesquely
the Talmud Gulnaroth; and this proceeding was
repeated by Paul IV. in 1559, by Pius V. in 1566,
and by Clement VIII. in 1592 and 1599.
A well-known anti-Talmudical writer remarked in
1836: “The promised German translation of the
Talmud, if ever completed, must without any discussion
overthrow Talmudism. Its exhibition in
any European language is the most fatal attack that[Pg 106]
can be made on its authority.” This is utterly
unphilosophical; the Book of Mormon, with all its
Americanisms and its internal evidences of futile
forgery, confirmed instead of destroying Mormonism.
The Mishnah was translated into Latin by Surenhusius
(Amsterdam, three vols. 4o) as early as 1698-1703,
and into German by the Chaplain J. J. Rabi
(Onolzbach & Ansbach, first to sixth part, 4o) in
1760-1763. Without any knowledge of Hebrew or
Aramæan, those who read Latin, French and Italian,
German and English, will find in any great library—that
of the British Museum for instance—a translation
of almost every part, and they may be assured that
the small remnant still untranslated contains nothing
of importance. The modern verdict is that the
Talmuds are a “spotted orb,” and that they contain
two distinct elements—the sacred light in the true
interpretation of the word of God, and the purely
human darkness in its folly and infirmity. But it
does not confirm the following assertion of the
Initiation of Youth (Rabbi Ascher): “The Talmudical
writers enjoin upon us to treat Christians as
our own brethren in every social matter.”[73]
The second great Rabbinical School arose at Safed,
also a city of Galilee, and rising within sight of
Tiberias. Benjamin of Tudela (a.d. 1163) visited[Pg 107]
the tombs of Hillel and Shammai, “near Merún,
which is Maron,” supposed to be the Beth-maron of
the Talmud; but he says nothing about Jews being in
Safed, then a fortress held by the Templars. “The
city set upon a hill” is also ignored by travellers of
the next three hundred years, and appears in history
only about the sixteenth century.[74] It then became
the great centre of Jewish learning—in fact, another
Jerusalem. The children of Israel dwelt there in
great numbers, and had a vast Khan, a square lead-roofed
fortress, where many of them lived, and which
contained a fine synagogue. Besides the schools in
which the sciences were taught, they counted eighteen
synagogues, distinguished by the names of the several
nations which possessed them, as the Portuguese,
Spanish, Italian, and others. The printing-press, of
which there are remnants at the north-eastern village
Ein el Zeitún, issued many volumes, now becoming
exceedingly rare because so much in request amongst
European bibliophiles. The College (Madrásh) of the
Rabbis still remains, a two-arched hall, of which no
part is ancient except the eastern side. All the rest
has been shaken down by earthquakes, which are
supposed to destroy the city as each Sabbatical year
comes round. In the cemetery below the settlement
are the whitewashed graves of Joseph Caro, of
Shalomon Alkabez, and of other notables.
The peculiar ferocity of the Safed School resulted[Pg 108]
partly from the domination of the sons of Ishmael,
which, however mild, is everywhere distasteful to the
children of Israel.[75] If “Esau hateth Jacob because
of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him,”
Jacob returns the hate with at least equal heat,
adding fear and contempt—he would willingly, to use
the words of Rashi, “blot out Esau and his seed.”
But doubtless the harshness and cruelty which distinguished
its doctors must be explained by the nature
of the place and its surroundings. Situated in the
bleak and windswept, the stony and barren highlands
of Upper Galilee, shaken by earthquakes, and exposed
to terrible storms, Safed is one of the least amene
sites in the whole of Syria. The climate is ever in
extremes, the water is hard and full of constipating
lime, the earth is cold and fruitless, and the people
are crafty and cruel as Simeon and Levi. After a
few days’ residence, strangers complain of sickness,
cramps, and malaise, and their only desire is to
escape from the gloom and seclusion of this town
upon the hillside. Even the Muhammadans contrast
the facile manners of their own women at soft and
low-lying Tiberias with the asperity and the violence
of those who inhabit the upland settlement. “Safad
fasad” (Safed ever giveth trouble) is the jingling
saw of the neighbourhood, and it contains abundant[Pg 109]
truth. The amount of intrigue and plotting is
excessive even in a Syrian settlement, the charges
bandied about by men against one another are
atrocious—this doctor is a murderer, that scribe is an
adulterer, and the third is a swindler and a thief. If
the visitor were to believe half what he hears, he
would find himself in a den of brigands. That not
a few of these charges are founded on fact may be
gathered from what travellers have printed concerning
certain sons of this Holy City, some of which
are too revolting for publication. The rich divines
are accused of shamelessly embezzling the Halúkah,
large sums sent from Europe for the maintenance
of the community; and the poor are ready with complaints
upon the most trivial occasions—the breaking
of a hen’s leg sends them on a hurried official visit
to their Vice-Consuls. It is not too much to say
that if Safed again produced a theological school, it
would rival in its narrow bigotry and peculiar ferocity
that which disgraced the sixteenth century.
The Talmud had spoken its last upon the interpretation
of the Torah, it had closed the discussions
which arose from the sacred text, and it had exhausted
the traditional lore and the rules established
by the Rabbis of Palestine and Babylon till the
fifth century after the Christian era. Still, the
Talmud itself required after the course of ages to
be interpreted, and this gave rise to a variety of
mediæval abridgments and to a vast series of glosses[Pg 110]
and commentaries. The more modern Rabbis
especially resolved that no uncertainty should rest
upon the Halakah, or doctrinal part of the work,
and they strictly applied themselves to codify the
whole body of the Talmud.
To cite only the best-known names. We have to
begin with Rabbi Ishaz al Fasi, who first resumed
the Talmud, and who had the boldness to expel from
the text everything not strictly bearing upon the
discussion. Then came the celebrated Maimonides of
Cordova (a.d. 1150), whose Yad ha-Hazaka (Hand of
Power) is a compendium of Talmudic lore valued
almost as highly as the original. He was followed
by Ascheri, a powerful dialectician, who knew how to
conciliate with the Talmudic argument the observations
of the Tossaphists, or Glossarians, represented
before and after him by Rashi, Rabbenu Tam, Coucy,
and a host of others. His son succeeded him,
and made a new attempt at a codification, in which
the opinions of Ascheri naturally occupied the place
of honour.
About this time rose the Safed School. The
first and greatest commentator was the Rabbi by
some called Rabanu Jacob Be-Rab, an exile from
Spain, and subsequently Chief Rabbi of Fez and
Safed, where, after long teaching, he died in a.d.
1541. This Baal ha-Turim (Lord of the Books),
as he is called, wrote four works, which, being
considered in the light of “religious laws,” were[Pg 111]
known as the Diním. The first of the Arbah
Turim, Orach Chaüin (Urah ha-Yiim, the Way
of Life), treats of observances enjoined upon the
Jews. The second is Joré Déah (Yurah daah, the
Teacher of Knowledge); it describes the ceremonious
observances of butchering, eating, making vows,
circumcising, and so forth. The third is Eben ha-Azar,
the Stone of Assistance (to mankind). And in
the fourth, Hoshen Mishpat (Breastplate of Judgment),
law, civil and criminal, is discussed.
The School of this commentator was kept up
by Moses of Trani in Apulia, who lectured during
fifty-four years to a.d. 1580, the year of his death.
The next name of repute was R. Joseph Karo, or
Caro, a Jew of Spanish descent, born at Constantinople,
who died in a.d. 1575. He was a voluminous
writer. In the Shoulkhan Aroukh, a code of religion
adopted universally by the Israelites, he analyzed
and resumed the opinions of his predecessors. His
magnum opus is the Beth Yúsúf (House of Joseph),
in four folios, first printed at Venice, and repeatedly
republished; it consists of commentaries upon the
four Diním of Rabanu Jacob, on the Talmudic
writings of the R. Ishaz al Fasi, and on the labours
of Rabbino Yakúb ben Rosh, not to be confounded
with Rashi the glossarian. The fourth great name
is R. Shalomon Alkabez, also of Constantinople,
who wrote in a.d. 1529, and who was still living
in a.d. 1561. This theologian has left the worst[Pg 112]
name amongst the Christians, whom he seems to
have hated from his very heart. A pupil and
colleague of Caro and Alkabez was Moses of Cordova,
the most famous Cabalist since the days of Simeon
ben Jochai; he died Chief Rabbi of Safed in a.d.
1570. Moses Galanté, a native of Rome, was
somewhat later, dying in a.d. 1618. But the
academy was not indebted for its fame to strangers
alone; Samuel Oseida and Moses Alsheikh, both
natives of Safed, contributed to its celebrity during
the sixteenth century. The latter died between
a.d. 1592 and 1601.
Of the mediæval Rabbis and their successors
generally, it may be observed that the later the
school the more prominent became its bigotry and
violence. This is easily explained. Anna Comnena[76]
describes the Crusades, which were guided by a giant
and a goose, with truly Eastern relish, as having
left a “very admirable mound of bones, high, deep,
and broad.” But they left something more—a
tradition which presently enabled the Christians
to recover power in the Holy Land, and their
abomination of the Jew inspired him with kindred
sentiments. Nor can we wonder that the later
and more fanatical writings are preferred by the
Israelites to those of the earlier schools. Religious
exclusiveness and the ambition of being a peculiar
people, set apart from and raised above the rest[Pg 113]
of humanity, appeal to the heart of every man
through the sure channel of his passions. And
thus in the youngest faith of the world we find
the same phenomenon as in one of the most ancient—the
Book of Doctrines and Covenants is read at
Salt Lake City whilst the Book of Mormon is
neglected.
R. Jacob Be-Rab, in the second part of his Joré
Déah (Yurah daah), asserts that it is unlawful to
draw a Gentile out of a well into which he may
have descended or fallen. He also declares that the
scrupulous Jewish physician who thoroughly conforms
to Talmudic Law will not attend a Gentile without
honorarium, because this will be his sole reward. He
may do so gratuitously, if he wishes to study medicine
by that means; but he should usually kill such
patients whilst pretending to cure them. This,
however, must be attempted only when there is no
chance of detection. R. Joseph Caro of Safed, one
of the most pestilent of that School, in his commentary
upon the Way of Knowledge, enables the
doctor to do additional harm by calling Gentile
fees Kashmad, that is to say, the wages of sin—a
term applied to the price of a woman’s honour;
and in speaking especially of Christians, he declares
that if the Jewish physician takes his fee without
poisoning them it is as the gift to the wicked
woman. On the other hand, should the mediciner
be unwilling to be paid, he must absolutely poison[Pg 114]
his patient. He also forbids the doctor who has
not thoroughly studied the healing art to attend one
of his own faith, lest his ignorance cause death;[77]
but he may practise amongst all others, because if he
kill them it is lawful and no matter (commentary of
Gittin, the sixth tract of the third order). Others
declare that the Hebrew physician must not treat a
stranger even for fees; but if he fear the Gentile, and
the latter know him to be a Jew, he may do so for
money. Rubbi argues the question by reference to
the Gittin, in which it is related that R. Richmi
bin Askhi had prepared a dose for a stranger; he
explains that the drug may have been given by way
of experiment, or for the purpose of study.
The Safed School continued its labours into the
seventeenth century, and Quasimus (writing about
a.d. 1625) speaks of it [Safed] as inhabited chiefly by
Hebrews, who had their synagogues and schools, and
for whose sustenance contributions were made by the
Jews in other parts of the world. After that it
gradually sank under the oppression of the Muhammadans,
who probably took the place by degrees.
[Pg 115]
CHAPTER V
THE CONTINUITY OF TRADITION IN THE EAST
Obviously such cruel and vindictive teaching
as that recounted in the previous chapter
must bear fruit in crime and atrocities. The
occurrence of such deeds explains much of what
appears to have been the mere results of superstition
and greed of gain amongst semi-barbarous
peoples. From the earliest ages to these modern
days, and not in one place, but all the world over,
the hatred of the Jew against the non-Jew has been
of the fiercest. Those who are so ready to admit
and deplore the mighty provocations which roused
a spirit of retaliation in the Rabbinical mind should
equally make allowance for the natural feelings
of the unfortunate Gentiles and heathens when the
“People of the Synagogue” had their wicked will.
In the fifth century the Hebrew colony, which, flying
from Syria and Palestine after the wars of Titus and
Hadrian, settled near Yathrib (Medina), was powerful
enough to murder the Viceroy of the Tobbaa, or[Pg 116]
Himyarite King, and to convert to Judaism, Du-nawás
(a.d. 480), one of the last of that dynasty. He
acquired the title “Lord of the Fiery Pit,” by burning
alive, in a trench filled with combustibles,
thousands of the Christians of Nejerán at the instigation
of the Jews. In later times the “People of the
Synagogue” brought upon themselves a war of extermination
by insulting an Arab woman, and after the
siege of Kheibar they attempted to poison Muhammad.
In a.d. 614 the Hebrews of Galilee, according to
Eutychius, joining the Persian army under Chosroes
II., caused a great slaughter of the Nazarenes.
When the Holy City was captured, they bought at a
cheap rate those taken by the Persians, especially from
the Greek monastery of Mar Saba, for the sole purpose
of butchering them. Even in Abyssinia, when the
Falashas, or black proselytes, established a powerful
kingdom, this quasi-Jewish race, under their King
Gideon and their Queen Judith, was a scourge to all
the nations around. These are but a few instances of
the many which would fill a volume. It is absurd
to suppose with the “liberal” writers of the nineteenth
century that whole colonies have been expelled, driven
away half naked, from England and France, from
Germany, Spain, Portugal, and other Christian
kingdoms; that communities were imprisoned in
Ghettos, and subjected to tumultuous and wholesale
massacres; and that thousands of individual Jews and
Jewesses, old men and children, were roasted with[Pg 117]
dogs over slow fires, were skinned alive, tortured,
dismembered, and slain like savage beasts for the
mere frenzy and the ignorance of superstition, for
simply diabolical barbarity, and for clipping coin
or for claiming more than two shillings per week as
interest on a loan of twenty shillings.
We must seek for a solid cause underlying these
horrible acts of vengeance; we find ample motive in
the fact that the Jew’s hand was ever, like Ishmael’s,
against every man but those belonging to the Synagogue.
His fierce passions and fiendish cunning,
combined with abnormal powers of intellect, with
intense vitality, and with a persistency of purpose
which the world has rarely seen, and whetted moreover
by a keen thirst for blood engendered by defeat
and subjection, combined to make him the deadly
enemy of all mankind, whilst his unsocial and
iniquitous Oral Law contributed to inflame his wild
lust of pelf, and to justify the crimes suggested by
spite and superstition. Because under the present
enlightened Governments of the West the Jews have
lost much of their ancient rancour, and no longer
perpetrate the atrocities of the Dark Ages, Europe
is determined to believe that the race is, and ever
has been, incapable of such atrocities. The conclusion
is by no means logical. We have seen them even
now repeated in the Holy Land, and presently we
shall see that they are still not unknown to Western
Europe, Asia Minor, and Persia.
[Pg 118]
And what can we expect from a system which
teaches men to believe and to act as follows?[80] “A
tradition of the Talmud says (Talmud, Book Baba
Kama, Chapter Haggozel) if an Israelite and a
Gentile come before thee to judgment, if thou canst
absolve the Israelite according to the Jewish Law,
absolve him, and say, ‘This is our way of judging.’
But if thou canst absolve him by Gentile Law,
absolve him, and say, ‘This is your way of judging.’
But if not, then they are to come upon him with
cunning frauds. R. Samuel says the error of a
Gentile is also lawful. For, behold, Samuel bought
a piece of gold for four small coins, and added one
more (that he might go away the sooner, and not
perceive the fraud). Chahana bought a hundred
and twenty casks of wine for the price of a
hundred; he said, ‘My trust is in thee.’ So far the
Talmud. From these and similar passages Jews
infer that they may and ought to deceive Christians
and others who are not Jews. Thus also from other
passages they infer that they may and ought to kill
Christians, of which the following example is found
in the book Mechilta: Exod. xiv. 7, And he took six
hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of
Egypt. From whom did he take them? If you
say from the Egyptians, is it not said already, Exod.[Pg 119]
ix. 6, And all the cattle of Egypt died? If you
say Pharaoh, then there is a difficulty; for it is said
already, ix. 3, Behold, the hand of the Lord shall
be upon thy cattle. But if you say they were from
the Israelites, it is said already, x. 26, Our cattle
shall go with us. From whom then were they?
It is plain that they must have been from those who
feared the word of the Lord. Hence we learn that
those of the servants of Pharaoh who feared the word
of the Lord were a stumbling-block to Israel, and
hence R. Simeon ben Jochai says, ‘Slay thou the
best amongst the Gentiles, and of the best of serpents
bruise the head.’[81] Thus far the Talmud; and by
this they mean to say, that as of serpents he
especially is to be killed that is the greatest and
best of its kind, so Christians are to be dealt with
in the same way. For killing Christians and
throwing their children into pits, and even for killing
them when they can do it secretly, they derive an
argument from that which is said in the book Abodah
Zarah, Chapter En Maamidin: ‘As to Gentiles and
robbers, and those that tend small cattle, they are
neither to be helped out of a well nor to be thrown
into it. But heretics and informers and apostates
are to be thrown in, but not to be helped out.’ The
commentary of Rashi says: ‘Heretics mean the
priests of idols; informers mean calumniators who
betray the wealth of their brethren into the hands of[Pg 120]
the Gentiles.’ R. Shesheth says: ‘If there be a step
in the pit, let him find an excuse, and say, Lest an
evil beast descend upon him.’ Rabba and R. Joseph
both say: ‘If there be a stone upon the mouth of
the well, he is to cover it, and say, I do it that the
beasts may pass over it.’ R. Nachman says: ‘If
there be a ladder in the well, he is to take it away,
and say, I wish to get down my son from the roof.’
Thus far the Talmud. Thy prudence, O reader, may
perceive that the Talmud, which so perniciously
teaches them to lie and to kill Christians, is not the
law of God, but the figment of the devil.”
We can hardly be surprised, after reading such
atrocious doctrines, at what history tells us concerning
the Jews, their crimes, and their condemnations.
For instance:
In a.d. 419, according to Socrates (Eccles. Hist.,
Lib. VII., chap, xvi.), some Jews of Inmestar,
between Chalcis and Antioch, as a drunken frolic,
tied a Christian child[82] upon a cross and mocked
it, and that, hurried on in their wickedness, they
afterwards scourged it until it died.
In a.d. 560 a Jew was stoned for carrying away
and profaning an image of the Saviour. The same
happened at Odessa in a.d. 1871, where the[Pg 121]
Hebrews were charged with stealing the image of
the “miraculous Madonna of Kutperova.”
About a.d. 787 the Jews of Beyrut repeated the
offence. The result was the conversion of almost all
their number, and the consecration of their synagogue
by the bishop.
a.d. 1010. Massacre of the Jews in France.
a.d. 1017. Certain Jews beheaded by order of Pope
Benedict at Rome.
a.d. 1135. The Jews crucified a boy at Norwich.
According to the general report, they hired a
Christian lad aged twelve as a leather-sewer, and
converted him into a Paschal offering; they placed
a bit in his mouth, and after a thousand outrages
they crucified him, and pierced his side in order to
mock the Redeemer’s death. The corpse was borne
in a sack to be burned outside the town gates; but
a surprise caused the murderers to fly, leaving the
remains hanging upon a tree.
a.d. 1166. The Jews at Ponthosa crucified a lad
aged twelve.
a.d. 1185. For similar outrage upon a girl and
others, King Philip Augustus confiscated the goods
of the Jews, and banished them from his realms in
the April of the following year.
a.d. 1189. The Jews were massacred at London
and in other parts of England.
a.d. 1190. The Jews were massacred at York.
a.d. 1250. The Jews of Saragossa nailed a child[Pg 122]
named Dominic to the wall in the form of a cross,
and then pierced his side with a spear. During the
same century those of Toledo also killed a Christian
youth. According to the Cronica Serafica (della
Vita di S. Francesco d’Assisi, Opera del Padre
Damiano Cornejo, 1721, Lib. I., chap, i.), the Jews
superstitiously used the blood of Christians in child-birth,
and sent it in a dried state to China and other
places, where they had synagogues, but where worshippers
of Christ[83] are not to be found. Hence the Jews
were eventually expelled from Spain and Portugal.
a.d. 1255. “Jappen,” one of the chief Jews of
Lincoln, and others of his faith, kidnapped a lad
eleven years old (August 27), beat him with rods,
cut off his nose and upper lip, broke some of his
teeth, and pierced his side. King Henry III. and
his Parliament at Reading condemned the murderers
to be dragged to death at horses’ heels, and gibbeted
their carcases.
[Pg 123]
a.d. 1271. The Jews of Pforzheim murdered a
girl seven years old.
a.d. 1287. The Jews of Wesel murdered a boy
named Werner.
a.d. 1288. The Jews of Pacherat [?] (Würtzburg)
murdered a Christian, and extracted his blood “as it
were with a winepress, and which they are said to
use as a medicine.” About the same time the Jews
of Munich murdered a Christian child.
a.d. 1290. A Jew was burnt in Paris for insulting
a consecrated wafer. In the same year, during the
reign of Edward I., fifteen to sixteen thousand
Jews were banished from England; nor were they
allowed to return till the days of Cromwell, the first
Liberal (a.d. 1660).
a.d. 1299. Many Jews were put to death for
insulting a consecrated wafer at Roettingen of
Franconia.
a.d. 1303. The Jews of Thüringen murdered a
child, and were slain in numbers.
a.d. 1306. King Philip of France was induced by
a multitude of accusations, involving magic, sacrilege,
and murder, to expel the Jews from his country, to
confiscate all their goods except what was wanted
for the journey, and to forbid their return under
pain of death—all were arrested on the same day,
July 22.
a.d. 1330. The Jews of Gustow in Vandalia
[Pomerania] insulted a Host.
[Pg 124]
a.d. 1348-1350. The Jews were accused of poisoning
the wells and rivers, and of causing the plague
which then devastated Europe. Many were slain and
thousands were driven away from Germany, where
the cry of “Hep” was first raised. At length the
Papal power was compelled to defend their lives by
threats of excommunicating their destroyers.
a.d. 1379. The Jews of Belgium insulted a consecrated
Host.
a.d. 1399. The same was done by the Jews of
Poland.
a.d. 1468. The Jews of Toledo in Spain crucified
a Christian boy.
a.d. 1475. The Jews again insulted the Host,
and were expelled the territories of the Bishop of
Passau.
a.d. 1492-1498. The Jews were expelled from
Spain, in consequence of popular clamour, by Isabel
the Catholic. Many retired to Portugal, where asylum
was granted to them under the conditions, first, that
each should pay a certain sum of gold for admission,
and, secondly, that if found in Portugal after a certain
day, they should either consent to be baptized or be
sold for slaves. At the expiration of the appointed
time many remained. “The King therefore gave
orders to take away all their children under fourteen
years of age, to distribute them amongst Christians,
to send them to the newly discovered islands, and
thus to pluck up Judaism by the roots.” This expul[Pg 125]sion,
which has been strongly commented upon by
modern historians, is still fresh in the memory of the
Jews, and an Eastern Rabbi can hardly conceal the
hatred with which even in these days he regards a
Spanish official.
a.d. 1495. The Jews of Trent, by means of one
of their number, a physician, decoyed to his house,
whilst the Christians were at church, it being
Maunday Thursday, a boy two years and a half old,
by name Simeon, the son of a tanner. Before the
Paschal festival commenced, the principal Jews
collected in a room near their synagogue. The child,
gagged with a kerchief, was extended in the form
of a cross, and was held down by his murderers.
The blood, pouring from heavy gashes, was collected
in a basin, and when death drew near the victim
was placed upon his legs by the two men, and the
others pierced his body with sharp instruments, all
vying in brutality and enjoying the torture. The
corpse having been found in the Etsch river, which
flows through the city, led to the detection of the
crime; the murderers were put to death, the synagogue
was razed to the ground, and a church was
built over the place where the horrid deed was done.
A sculpture was put on the Bridge Tower in Frankfort-on-the-Maine,
and a picture of a “Christian Infant
murdered by the Jews” was placed in one of the
galleries in the Hôtel de Ville. Of late years it has
been removed, in deference to the feelings of the[Pg 126]
Hebrew community, which, of late years, has formed
a large and important section of the commercial
population. This murder has been abundantly commented
upon. Dr. John Matthias Tiberinus, in Trent
at the time, and Jacobus Philippus Bergamensis, of
the Order of the Hermits of St. Augustine, who was
then living at the neighbouring town of Bergamo,
gave accounts of it; whilst an engraving was produced
in the Chronicles of John Louis Gottfried,
edited by Matthæus Merianus. On the other hand,
Pietro Mocenigo, the Doge of Venice, and his Senate
asserted: “Credimus certe rumorem ipsum de puero
necato commentum esse et artem; ad quem finem,
viderint et interpretentur alii.”
a.d. 1518. The Jews ill-treated consecrated Hosts
and murdered Christian children in the Electorate of
Brandenburg.
a.d. 1669 (September 25). A child was barbarously
slaughtered by one Raphael Levi, and the
cause was publicly tried at Metz. The Nuremburg
Chronicle produces, in the same year, three other
cases of kidnapping—one in England and two at
Fiesole. Baronio (Raccolta delle Cause Celebri,
p. 288, etc.) supplies many similar instances of
child stealing and murder.
M. Tustet, a Lazarist priest, used to relate what
he had heard when living at Turin from the lady
who nearly fell a victim to Jewish superstition,
even in the early part of the present century. A[Pg 127]
certain Signor Antonio Gervalon, born at Castiglione
d’Osta, and settled in business at Turin, happened,
when walking with his wife Giulietta Bonnier,
to enter the Jewish quarter. This Ghetto used
to be closed at night, as in Hamburg and Frankfort.
Whilst he was talking business with one of
his Hebrew acquaintances, Madame Gervalon left
him, and strolled on a short way. Suddenly she
was mobbed by a crowd of Jews, who hustled her
forwards, and at last forcibly thrust her into a
souterrain closed by a trap-door. She was stripped
to the waist, and presently visited by two Rabbis,
who, after reading their books for about half an
hour, retired, saying, Voi dovete morire. The
husband, after the conversation ended, followed his
wife, whom all the Ghetto folk denied having seen;
and thinking that perhaps she had gone home, he
returned there to seek her, but in vain. Thence he
went to various houses, till a relative said to him in
jest, “Have a care! You know how the Jews treat
us Christians.” The words struck him. He hurriedly
collected a party of policemen, and whilst these
searched the Ghetto he went about shouting, “La
mia moglie! La mia moglie” (My wife! my wife!).
Though half dead with fear, the lady at length
screamed a reply, and was saved. The affair was
hushed up with money, which made the Jews as
powerful at Turin as they are at Aleppo and
Damascus; but the tale was long told by the children[Pg 128]
of Madame Gervalon. In this section of the nineteenth
century the subject has passed into the domain
of politics, and is no longer submitted to reason
and judgment. The Italian Liberal denies and
derides the charges, whilst the Conservatives or
Retrogrades are almost ashamed to support them.
a.d. 1811. A Christian woman disappeared in the
Jewish quarter of Aleppo.[84]
a.d. 1821. The Jews sacrificed a man at Beyrut.
a.d. 1824. The Jews of Beyrut made away with
Fatallah Sayegh, an Aleppine Muhammadan.
a.d. 1829. The Jews of Hamah murdered a
Muhammadan girl, and were expelled the city.
a.d. 1834. The Jews of Tripoli were accused of
murdering an Aleppine Christian.
a.d. 1838. The Jews of Jerusalem attempted to
murder a Muhammadan.
a.d. 1839. A flask of blood passed through the
Custom-house of Beyrut.
a.d. 1840. The Jews murdered Padre Tomaso and
Ibrahím Amárah at Damascus. In the same year
they made away with a Greek boy at Rhodes, a
Greek boy disappeared from Corfu, and an attempt
was made to murder a Muhammadan.
a.d. 1847. The Jews crucified a Christian boy in
Mount Lebanon.
[Pg 129]
a.d. 1853. The Jews of Caiffa murdered the wife
of an Algerine Jew.
a.d. 1865. The Jews of Safed put to death a
Spanish Jewess.
Do not these things remind us of that “generation
of vipers,” certain of the Jews, who banded together
and bound themselves by a curse, saying that they
would neither eat nor drink till they had killed
Paul? And was not the Apostle justified in asserting,
“They please not God, and are contrary to all men”?
How vain it is, in presence of all these horrors, to
quote the testimony of Grotius, who, speaking of
the Jews since the Dispersion, says: “Et tamen tanto
tempore Judæi, nec ad falsorum deorum cultus defluxerunt,
nec de adulteriis accusantur”; and, “Apud
Batavos Judæi suspecti talium facinorum non sunt.”
Yet these men excommunicated Spinoza and attempted
his life because he wrote the truth that was
in him. Granting, however, that the Jews of Holland
were like the mild and unoffending Karaïtes of the
Crimea and Aden, it does not follow that all the
widely parted families of the house of Israel deserve
an equally favourable verdict. At any rate, sufficient
has been advanced in these pages to open the eyes
of the student and the ethnographer; it will stand
on record “until Elijah.”
[Pg 131]
II. THE GYPSY
[Pg 132]
“A people proscribed by opinion, and doomed by the laws to
opprobrium and ignominy; a race which, driven from all liberal
professions, has been for ages, and still is, robbed of its right to
hold landed property; which, subjected to special and severe regulations,
has learned at once to obey and yet to preserve a manner of
independence; which, despite the contempt that it inspires and the
hate that it awakes and the prejudices wherewith it is received and
judged, still resists this contempt, this hatred, and finally all those
causes which ought to disunite, loosen, and annihilate the family, the
race, the nation;—such a people, I say, deserves the observer’s
attention, if only from the fact of its existence.”
Jaubert de Passa.
[Pg 133]
TO THE READER
Of general works upon the subject of the Gypsies
we have perhaps enough, and more than enough;
this objection, however, cannot be urged against
specialities, which still are highly desirable in every
department of “Chinganology.” I use the latter
term in preference to the French Tsiganologie, of
which more presently, and the “Romanology,” a term
of dubious import, lately introduced into English.
I wish to place in extenso before the public the
following conclusions which the study of some years
has, it is hoped, justified me in drawing with
regard to the relation of the Gypsies and the Jats:
1. The mediæval Gypsies of Europe were the last
wave of Aryan emigration that flowed westward
during the early fifteenth century; and this wave was
possibly preceded by more than one similar exodus.
2. The mediæval Gypsies show family resemblances,
physical and moral, ethnological and
linguistic, with the modern Jats, a highly important
race, which extends from the mouth of the Indus[Pg 134]
to the head of the great Valley, thence ramifying
over Turkistan and the far North.
3. There are solid reasons for believing the Jats
and the Jin-tchi of Tatary to be the modern representatives
of the classical Getæ and the Goths of
later days.
4. The language of both tribes (Jat and Gypsy)
is of Indo-Persian type, the Indian ingredient not
being so much decomposed as in the modern varieties
of Prakrit. An absolute isolation of speech, especial
reasons for secrecy, and the fact of being oral and
never written have preserved its purity among the
Gypsies; while the Jats, in close contact with alien
tongues, have made those secular linguistic changes
which are familiar even to English and French.
5. The most ancient name of the race is Chingáneh,
a term still used in Persia and Turkey, and necessarily
corrupted by the Arabs, who have no ch,
to Jingáneh.
6. Concerning the origin of the Gypsy article
(o—os, a—as, etc.), which is unknown to both
Sanskrit and Prakrit, the suit is still pending.
Possibly it is original and peculiar to the dialect;
more probably it is an European and especially a
Greek innovation. Briefly, until we have grammatical
and vocabularian sketches of the Central
Asian and the Turkoman-Gypsy tongues, we are
not in a position to draw conclusions.
I propose to discuss the Indian affinities of the[Pg 135]
Gypsies. I begin with a detailed critique of the
various reviews proceeding from the prolific pen of
M. Paul Bataillard, who claims the merit, such as
it is, of having first identified the Gypsies and
the Jats. I end with topographical notes on both
tribes throughout their extension from the Indus
to Morocco and even to the Brazil.
[Pg 136]
Part I
NOTES ON MODERN STUDIES OF
“CHINGANOLOGY”
CHAPTER I
THE INDIAN AFFINITIES OF THE GYPSIES
The following letter to the Academy (March 27,
1875), which opened the discussion between
M. Paul Bataillard and its author, speaks for itself[85]:
“In the Academy of February 27, 1875, I had
these words:
“‘Professor de Goeje, of Leyden, has printed some
interesting Contributions to the History of the
Gipsies (sic). He accepts the view propounded by
Pott,[86] as early as 1853, that the Gipsies are closely[Pg 137]
related to the Indian Jatt (a name which the Arab
historians transform into Zott).... Dr. Trumpp[87]
has already pointed out the close resemblance between
the European Gipsies and the Jatt of the banks of
the Indus.’
“I venture to hope that you will permit me to
show the part taken by myself in this question.[88]
Sindh and the Races that inhabit the Valley of the
Indus (London: Allen), my volume written between
1845 and 1849, and published in 1851, thus treats
of the peoples of the plains:
“‘The Jat, or as others write the word, Jath, Juth,
or Jutt, was, in the time of the Kalhorá dynasty, one
of the ruling classes in Sindh. It was probably for
this reason that the author of the Tohfat el Kirám
(a well-known book of Sindhi Annals) made them of
kindred origin with the Belochis, who now repudiate
such an idea with disdain. The Jat’s account of
his own descent gives to Ukayl, the companion of
Muhammad, the high honour of being his progenitor;
but what class of Muslim people, however vile, do
not claim some equally high origin?
“As Játaki, the dialect peculiar to the people,
proves, they (i.e. the Sindh division of this extensive
race) must have come from the Panjáb,[Pg 138]
and the other districts Ubho or Báládasht, Jhang-Siyál,
Multán, and other regions dependent upon
the great Country of the Five Rivers. Driven by
war or famine from their own lands, they migrated
southwards to Sebi (Sibi or Siwi, Upper Sindh)
and to the hills around it. They are supposed
to have entered Sindh a little before the accession
of the Kalhorá Princes, and shortly afterwards to
have risen to distinction by their superior courage
and personal strength. At present they have lost
all that distinguished them, and of their multitude
of Jágírdárs, Zemindárs, and Sardárs now not a
single descendant possesses anything like wealth or
rank. The principal settlements are in the provinces
of Kakrálo, Játi, Chediyo, Maniyár, Phuláji, and
Johí. [Those of Umarkot speak, it is said, a
different dialect from the Indine Jats, and not a
few migrating tribes graze their herds on the great
Delta.[89]] They are generally agriculturists or breeders
of camels, and appear to be a quiet, inoffensive race.
Throughout the eastern parts of Central Asia, the
name Jat is synonymous with thief and scoundrel.
“‘The Sindhi Jats have many different Kamus
or clans, the principal of which are the following:
Babbur, Bháti, Jiskáni, Kalaru, Magási, Mir-jat,
Parhiyár, Sanjaráni, Siyál, and Solángi.’
“To this text were appended the following notes:
[Pg 139]
“Jatu in the Sindhi dialect means: 1. A camel-driver
or breeder. 2. The name of a Beloch clan. Generally in
the lower Indus Valley it is written Jatu, and pronounced
Dyatu. It has three significations: 1. The name of a
tribe, the Jats. 2. A Sindhi, as opposed to a Beloch; it
is in this sense an insulting expression, and so the Beloch
and Brahins of the hills call the Sindhi language Játhki.
3. A word of insult, a ‘barbarian,’ as in the expression
do-dasto Jatu, ‘an utter savage.’
“Lt. Wood’s work shows that the Jats are still found
in the Panjáb and all along the banks of the Indus.
“Under the name Jat no less than four races are
comprised.
“I continued:
“‘It appears probable from the appearance and
other peculiarities of the race that the Jats are
connected by consanguinity with that peculiar race
the Gypsies. Of 130 words used by the Gypsies
in Syria, no less than 104 belong to the Indo-Persian
class of language. The rest may be either the
remains of the barbarous tongues spoken by the
aboriginal mountaineers who inhabited the tract
between the Indus and Eastern Persia, or the invention
of a subsequent age, when their dispersion
among hostile tribes rendered a “thieves’ language”
necessary. The numerals are almost all pure Persian.
There are two words, “kuri” (a house) and “psih” (a
cat), probably corrupted from the Pushtu “kor” and
“pishu.” Two other words are Sindhi “mánna”
for “máni,” bread, and “húi” for “hú,” he. As
might be expected from a tribe inhabiting Syria,[Pg 140]
Arabic and Turkish words occasionally occur, but
they form no part of the groundwork of the
language.’
“It was my fortune to wander far and wide, during
four years of staff service, about the Valley of the
Indus; and to make personal acquaintance with
many, if not all, its wild tribes. I saw much of the
Jats, lodged in their huts and tents, and studied the
camel under their tuition. They are the best ‘Vets.’
and breeders known to that part of the Indian
Empire. My kind friend, now no more, then Colonel,
and afterwards General, Walter Scott, of the Bombay
Engineers, had a Jat in his service; and the rough
old man’s peculiarities afforded us abundant diversion.
Thus I was able to publish in 1849 the first
known notice of Játaki and its literature. The
author of the famous ‘Dabistan’[90] applies the term
‘Jat tongue’ to that in which Nánah Sháh, the
Apostle of the Sikhs, composed his Grauth[91] and
other works. Throughout the Panjáb Jatki bút
(‘Jat tongue’) is synonymous with the Gunwár ki
boli or ‘peasants’ jargon’ of Hindustan.
“I wrote the word Játaki with two italics. The
first denotes the peculiar Sindhi sound, a blending
of j and t; the second is the familiar cerebral of
Sanskrit and Prakrit, which survives to a certain[Pg 141]
extent in our modern English tongue, though
unknown to the Latin and the Teutonic languages.
The tribal name is Jatu, with the short terminal
vowel which in Sindhi, as in Sanskrit, follows the
consonant; its plural, Jatán, ends with a well-marked
nasal.
“At that time I divided this rude race of semi-Bedawin
into four great tribes; namely:
“‘The Panjábí Jat, who is neither a Hindu nor a
Hindi (Muslim). He first appears in Indian history
as a nomad, alternately shepherd, robber, and temporary
tiller of the ground. Many became Sikhs,
and did good service to Nánah Shah’s faith by their
zealous opposition to Muhammadan bigotry. As this
was their sole occupation for many years, they
gradually grew more and more warlike, and at one
time they were as fighting a race as any in India.
They have been identified by Colonel Sleeman and
others with the ancient Getæ and their descendants
the Goths.[92]
“‘The Jat or Dyat of the Hazárah country, Jhang-Siyál,
Kach (Kutch) Gandáva, and Sindh generally,
where they may number two hundred and fifty
thousand out of a total population of one million.
They are all Muslims, and are supposed to have[Pg 142]
emigrated from the north during or shortly after the
Kalhorá accession; hence their dialect is commonly
called Belochki. In those days the Belochís were very
little known to Sindh, whose aristocracy, the Amírs,
Jágírdárs, and opulent Zemindárs, was either Sindhi
or Jats. About Pesháwur “Jat” is still synonymous
with Zemindár or landed proprietor; at times, however,
it is used as a term of reproach.
“‘The third is a clan of Belochís, who spell their
name with the Arabo-Persian, not the Sindhi j. In
the lower Indine Valley they hold the province of
Játi, and other parts to the south-east. The head
of the tribe is entitled Malik (literally “King”), e.g.
Malik Hammál Jat.[93]
“‘The next is a wandering tribe, many of whom are
partially settled in Candahár, Herát, Meshhed, and
other cities of the Persico-Afghan frontier. They are
found in Meckran; and they sometimes travel as far
as Maskat, Sindh, and even Central India. They are
held to be notorious thieves, occupying a low place in
the scale of creation. No good account of this tribe
has as yet appeared; and the smallest contributions
upon the subject would be right thankfully received.’
“The fifth which must now be added is the Jin-tchi
of Central Asia. These people are not, as Mr.
Schuyler[94] seems to think, ‘Káfirs from Káfiristan’;[Pg 143]
they are apparently true Jats—an idea once advanced
by Mr. Andrew Wilson of the Abode of Snow.[95]
“These tribes are looked upon as aborigines, which
simply means that their predecessors are unknown.[96]
“Such were the notices collected by me in manuscript
some years before 1849. At that time the
Orientalists of Europe were almost unanimous in
identifying the Gypsies with the Nat’h, a scattered
Indian tribe of itinerant tinkers and musicians, the
‘poor players’ of the great Peninsula, utterly
ignorant of horse-couping, cattle-breeding, and even
poultry-snatching. And the conviction still holds
its ground; only lately my erudite correspondent,
Dr. J. Burnard Davis, reminded me of it.
“Of course the humble linguistic labours of a
perpetual explorer can hardly be familiar to the
professionally learned world; but I cherish a hope
that you will aid me in resurrecting my buried
and forgotten work.”
[Pg 144]
CHAPTER II
THE CLAIMS AND PRETENSIONS OF M. PAUL
BATAILLARD
The following letter, which bears the author’s
signature and the date Paris, May 28, 1875,[97]
was the result of my communication to the
Academy.[98] As I had objected to my thunder being
stolen by Professor Pott and De Goeje, so M. Paul
Bataillard charges me with having purloined his
artillery:
“The Academy of March 27 last published an
interesting letter which only came to my knowledge
a few days ago. In this letter Mr. Richard Burton,
F.R.G.S., claims the priority in identifying the
Gipsies or Tsigans with the Jat of the banks of
the Indus, whose name, he adds, is pronounced
Dyat. The question has lately been treated at
length (25 pages in 8vo, almost entirely consecrated
to this subject) by Professor J. de Goeje, of Leyden,
who attributes the first idea of this identification[Pg 145]
to Mr. Pott in 1853, as is stated in the Academy
of February 27, in a short article mentioning this
Dutch Contribution to the History of the Gipsies.
“Mr. Burton, who has wandered far and wide in
the Valley of the Indus, and has much frequented
the Jats, published in 1849 a grammar of the Játaki
dialect (41 pages), which contains an interesting
classification of this race, reproduced in his letter,
and, in 1851, a volume upon Sindh—Sindh and the
Races that inhabit the Valley of the Indus—in
which he starts the theory of a probable relationship
between the Jats and the Gipsies, as proved
in the extracts which he commences by giving of
this work.
“Allow me to claim a still earlier priority (dating
from 1849), and to begin by establishing exactly
the share belonging to each.
“Professor Pott, in his great work, Die Zigeuner,
Vol. I. (1844), p. 62, had spoken of the tradition
mentioned by Ferdoussy, by the Tarikh-Guzydeh,
and ‘by another ...’ that is to say, by the Modjmel-al-Tevarykh,
according to which Bahram-Gur,
King of Persia, had caused ten or twelve thousand
musicians, designated in two at least of these three
texts under the name of Luri,[99] to come from India.
One or two other names, of which it is not necessary[Pg 146]
to speak, are added to this one. (See pp. 41, 42
of my memoir, published in 1849, and mentioned
by-and-by.)
“Five years later, Professor Pott, coming back to
the subject in his article ‘Ueber die Zigeuner,’
published, as a second supplement to his great work,
in the Zeitschrift der Deut. Morgenl. Gesellschaft,
Vol. III., 1849, said (p. 326):
“Concerning the tradition of which I spoke, Vol. I., p. 62,
of the transmigration of Indian musicians into Persia,
ordered by Bahram-Gur, and set forth in the Shahnameh,
a tradition which is applied perhaps rightly to the Zigeuner,
I owe to Fleischer a very interesting notice, and wholly
unknown to me hitherto, drawn from Hamza Ispahani,
Gottwaldt edition, 1834 (p. 40 of the translation of Gottwaldt),
according to which Bahram-Gur, for the pleasure
of his subjects, caused twelve thousand musicians, those
designated by the name of Zuth, to come from India. They
are called Luri in the Shahnameh[100], which is a proof that
Hamza did not simply copy this fact. But Fleischer adds
what follows relative to the name of Zuth, which I have
not yet met with anywhere, and which was a complete
enigma to me: ‘The Kamûz says that the Zotth are a
race of men of Indian origin, and that the true pronunciation
of this word is Djatt, but that the Arabs pronounce
it Zotth.’ (See notes 3 and 4 at p. 43 of my memoir
of 1849, concerning the rather free translation of this
passage of the Kamûz.) In the French and Arabic Dictionary,
by Ellious Bocthor, we find: ‘Bohémien, Arabe
vagabond, Tchinghiané, qui dit la bonne aventure, vole, etc.,
is called Zotti at Damascus, plural Zotte.’
[Pg 147]
“Nothing more. It is clear that, in the identification
of the Djat of India with the Tsigans, Professor
Pott’s share is very small up to the present. The
great Indianist of Halle is rich enough in his own
learning to be content with what belongs to
him, and the respect I entertain for him and his
kind feeling towards me form a sure guarantee that
he will not be offended at my setting forth my
claim.
“I think I may say that it is I (thanks, it is
true, to M. Reinaud) who first treated the question.
I had published, in 1844, in the Bibliothèque de
l’École des Chartes, a rather long memoir upon
the Apparition des Bohémiens en Europe (the
tirage à part, which is long ago exhausted, has
59 pages octavo). In 1849 I contributed to
the same collection a second paper upon the same
subject, examining especially Eastern Europe, and
establishing for the first time that the Gipsies were
in this region at an epoch far anterior to the date
(about 1417) of their appearance in the West. I
may add, incidentally, that nearly all those who
have since spoken of the appearance of the Gipsies
in Europe have done little more than draw upon
these two memoirs, without always exactly saying
what part belonged to me, so that I have often had
the annoyance of seeing such or such an author,
Francisque Michel more especially, mentioned afterwards
in third-hand notices as the original source[Pg 148]
of what I had written. Now my second memoir
(Nouvelles Recherches sur l’Apparition des Bohémiens
en Europe, 48 pp. in the tirage à part, Paris,
1849: Franck, rue de Richelieu, 67) ends with an
‘Additional Note’ of ten very compact pages, the
principal object of which is precisely to identify the
Gipsies and the Indian Djath.
“In this note, or appendix, I begin by collecting
and giving, in French, in order that they may be
compared, the accounts that Professor Pott had only
pointed out, relating to the ten or twelve thousand
musicians that Bahram-Gur, King of Persia (420-440
of our era), had sent for from India, that is to
say, the tradition related by Ferdoussy in the Shahnameh
(about 1000), by the Modjmel-al-Tevarykh
(about 1126), by the Tarikh-Guzydeh (about 1329,
for this last I have not been able to give the text),
and lastly, by Hamza Ispahani, the Arabian author
whom Professor Fleischer had just made known to
Professor Pott, and who is the oldest of all, since
he belongs to the tenth century, while Professor Pott
supposed him to have been posterior to Ferdoussy.
It is to be remarked that Hamza mentions the
descendants of the twelve thousand musicians as
still existing in Persia in his time under the name
of Zuth, and that Ferdoussy says the same of the ten
thousand Luri, whom he represents as vagabonds
and thieves. But the new and important point is
the name of Zuth given to them by the Arabo-[Pg 149]Persian
author of the tenth century; and it is here,
as I remark in my work (p. 42 of the tirage à part),
‘that the real interest commences.’
“I again find this name (p. 44) under the form
of Djatt and Djatty in a fifth account of the same
matter by the Persian Mirkhond (fifteenth century);
and, after having remarked that the same name is
given by the Kamûz under the form Zotth as the
Arabian equivalent of Djatt, an Indian race, and
that, according to Ellious Bocthor, it serves precisely,
under the form Zott, to designate the Gipsies at
Damascus, I start from thence to gather from the
important Mémoire, etc., sur l’Inde, by M. Reinaud,
a few data upon the history of the Zath or Djatt
of India, and to establish, pp. 45-48, the probable
identity of this race and the Gipsies. I repeat
that this is precisely the essential object of my
‘Additional Note.’
“I am not an Orientalist, and besides, as I have
not failed to mention, this note of ten large pages
was written when my memoir was already in the
press. But I had the kind assistance of the learned
and lamented M. Reinaud, to whose memory I am
glad here to render my tribute of gratitude.
“Also, the eminent scholar of Leipzig, the same
who had first opened the way for discovering the
connexion between the Gipsies and the Djatt, Professor
Fleischer, in a general account embracing
the scientific publications of three years (the same[Pg 150]
Zeitschrift, Vol IV., 1850, p. 452), has not disdained
to mention my work in these terms:
“Bataillard, the author, etc., taking up the supplement
to Pott, published in our journal, III., pp. 321-335, has,
with the aid of Reinaud, shown the great probability of
the opinion that the Zigeuner descend from the G’at or
G’et, the most ancient inhabitants of the north-west of
India; and might not the name Zigeuner, Zingani, Zingari,
[Greek: Τζιγγανοι: Tzinganoi], etc., by the intermedium of the form Gitanos,
be derived from the name of this people?
“This last supposition of Professor Fleischer’s does
not appear to me admissible, for there is no doubt
that Gitanos is derived from Egipcianos, as Gipsies
is from Egyptians.
“I come at last to Professor Pott’s article ‘Last
Contributions towards the Knowledge of the Gipsies
and their Language,’ in the same Zeitschrift of 1853
(Vol. VII., pp. 389-399), mentioned in the Academy,
quoting Professor de Goeje, as the starting-point for
the identification of the Gipsy and the Jat. What do
we find there upon this subject? The following
lines (p. 393):
“I am indebted to the obliging friendship of Professor
Fleischer, of Leipzig (see our Zeitschrift, III., p. 326), for
an important passage upon the Zuth of Hamza Ispahani,
whose Annals are anterior to the Shahnameh, as M.
Bataillard demonstrates in his Nouvelles Recherches, p. 42.
For the origin of the Gipsies we ought to consider very
attentively these Zotth, who, according to what Rödiger
communicates to me, are also confounded with the Zengi[Pg 151]
(called also Aethiopes, and whose name is even sometimes
employed for Zingari: see my Zigeuner, i., p. 45). In
fact, the Zuth appear to be the same as the Jats, or,
according to the Turkish Kamûz, Tchatt, concerning whom
we find in Elliot, Biogr. Index, i. 270-27 (sic) (and
especially, Ibid. in Masson, Journey to Kelat, pp. 351-353),
an interesting article. See, moreover, Reinaud, Mém. sur
l’Inde, 1849, p. 273, note 3 upon the Dschats, which may
also be compared with the Proverb. Arab. of Freytag,
Vol. II., p. 580 (communicated also by Fleischer, to which
I must add the further statement of Bataillard). Above
all, it would be very important for us to have some details
concerning their language.
“Thus the learned professor of Halle here contents
himself with the fresh mention of the passage in
Hamza, for which he was indebted to Fleischer, and
with pointing out some fresh sources to be consulted
for the Zotth, Jats, etc., which had been made known
to him by the same savant, and refers besides to my
‘further statements (weitere Auseinandersetzung)’;
and, as he afterwards devotes a long page to the
analysis of the principal part of my Nouvelles
Recherches, which he had mentioned at full length
(pp. 389-390), and which he quotes again in
several other places, one would think that he had
done enough.
“This mention has none the less escaped, according
to all appearances, Professor de Goeje, of Leyden,
who nevertheless was acquainted with this passage
of Pott (since he mentions it, p. 16, so as to induce[Pg 152]
the belief that the learned professor of Halle was the
first to establish a connexion between the Zott or
Djatt and the Tsigans), and who quotes in several
places my long articles in the Revue Critique on
‘Les derniers travaux relatifs aux Bohémiens dans
l’Europe Orientale’ (of which the tirage à part
forms an octavo volume of 80 pages, 1872), but who
says not a word of my work of 1849. This is an
omission such as the most conscientious savants
sometimes make; and I do not intend to address a
reproach to the learned professor of Leyden, whose
work must besides have all the superiority belonging
to a deep study made twenty-five years later by a
most competent Orientalist. But since the question
of priority upon this subject has been raised in your
paper, you will, I think, perceive, in perusing what
I wrote in 1849, which I send you with this letter,
that I have a right not to be completely forgotten,
especially when it concerns an interesting point in
the history of the Gipsies upon which I have hitherto
published only some fragmentary works, but to the
study of which I have devoted so many years.
“My letter is already long: allow me, nevertheless,
to add yet a few more words. Although I have in
my possession the work of Professor de Goeje (the
author has had the kindness to send it to me), I
cannot say that I am acquainted with it, because I
cannot read Dutch, and have not yet found an opportunity
of having it translated, which I doubly regret[Pg 153]
under the present circumstances. I think, however,
that I may say that the point treated by the professor
of Leyden, and twenty-five years ago by myself,
although it be already sufficiently complex, is only
one side of the very much more complicated question
of the origin of the Gipsies, considered in all its
bearings. I hope to be able to show that the
historical documents of Eastern Europe, of Western
Asia, and of Egypt itself furnish very important
data, hitherto very insufficiently considered, upon the
question. I think I have also the means of giving
an explanation of the word tsigan, and of the other
names approaching to it, more certain and more
interesting than those proposed by Professor de
Goeje and Mr. Burton.
“It is not the less interesting to examine any
point of the very complex question of the origin
of the Gipsies, and especially one so important as
this appears to be of their connexion with the Jats
or Djatt. But this point itself has, so to speak,
several faces. There is the part belonging to erudition
in the strict sense, and I think that Professor
de Goeje has treated it very ably; but there is the
ethnological, anthropological, and even the linguistic
part of the subject, which does not appear to me
to be very far advanced up to the present time.
It is this part that Mr. Burton has handled; and
as he has lived in the midst of the Jats, he was in
some respects in the best condition for throwing[Pg 154]
great light upon it; but, on the one hand, he ought
perhaps to have been better acquainted with the
Gipsies, and, on the other, it does not appear that
the connexion between the Gipsies and the Jats has
occupied him much. He has perceived a probable
relation between these two tribes of men, and he has
expressed it in half a page; but this is not sufficient.[101]
No doubt in occupying himself specially
with the Jats, in giving in 1849 a grammar of
their language (of which I cannot appreciate the
value, but which did not prevent Professor Pott, in
1853, from saying that we were wanting in information
respecting this idiom),[102] in collecting some very
summary data concerning their division into four
tribes, and upon their history and manners, he has
furnished some materials, but materials quite insufficient,[103]
for a comparison, which is still unmade,
between this race and the Gipsies. He tells us, for
example, that the appearance and other peculiarities
of this race authorize as probable the supposition
of a relationship between it and the Gipsies. But
he does not give us even the smallest information
respecting the type (appearance) of the Jats; and[Pg 155]
the other ‘peculiarities’ which he does not explain,
and which we are obliged to seek in scattered traits,
furnish such fugitive comparisons that one can
conclude nothing from them. In reality nearly every
tribe in India (not to speak of certain tribes in
other countries) will furnish, when compared with
the Gipsies, quite as many, if not more, points of
resemblance. Indeed this is, more or less, the defect
of nearly all the comparisons which have been made
between the Gipsies and such or such populations
of India; the authors of these comparisons are not
sufficiently acquainted with the Gipsies, and their
study of the resemblances is not sufficiently specific.
“The Jats must belong, I suppose so at least, to
the Hamite (Chamite), and more particularly to the
Kuschite stratum of the Hindoo populations,[104] and
for my part I do not doubt that the Gipsies,
although their idiom is connected with the Aryan
languages of India, belong to this same branch of
the human species.—I remark, by the way, in the
division made by Mr. Burton of the Jats into four
tribes, that one of the districts inhabited by the
second is called ‘Kach (Kutch).’[105]—But this branch
is widely spread in Asia and in Africa. It would
be necessary, in the Kuschite family, to remark[Pg 156]
the particular traits which distinguish, on the one
hand, the Jats, on the other, the Gipsies, in all
the very complex affinities allowed by ethnography,
and start thence to compare them. This is what
remains to be done in order to throw light upon
this part of one side of the question of Gipsy
origin. It is useless to say that, in following out
more particularly this comparison between the Gipsies
and the Jats, the other points of comparison that
may be furnished by other tribes, related or not to
the Jats, such as that of the Tchangar, for example,
pointed out by Dr. Trumpp in the Panjab (Mittheil.
der Anthrop. Gesellschaft in Wien, T. II., 1872,
p. 294, quoted by Miklosich in his third memoir
on the Zigeuner, 1873, p. 2), and several others,
which it would be too long to mention, must not
be neglected. But all this can only be well done in
India, and by a person who has specially studied
the Gipsies of Europe, of Eastern Europe especially,
and, if possible, those of Western Asia and even
of Egypt. Unfortunately these conditions are very
difficult to find.
“(Signed) Paul Bataillard.”
[Pg 157]
CHAPTER III
A REVIEW OF M. PAUL BATAILLARD’S REVIEWS
§ 1. Preliminaries
M. Paul Bataillard—ominous name!—who
has thus offered me battle in the
Academy, is apparently an indefatigable Tsiganologue,[106]
to use his own compound; and he
seems to have been studying Chinganology since
1841. Of bookmaking on the Gypsy theme there[Pg 158]
is no apparent end; even the mighty “Magician
of the North” proposed, we are told, adding his
item to the heap. The reading public, indeed, seems
to hold these Hamaxóbioi an ever virgin subject;
and since the days of “Gypsy Borrow’s” Translation
of St. Luke (1838),[107] The Zincali, The Bible in
Spain (1841), and other popular works, it has
ever lent an ear to the charmer, charm he never
so unwisely. A modern author was not far wrong
when he stated: “A great deal of what is called
genius has been expended upon the Gypsies, but
wonderfully little common sense.”[108]
And the subject has its peculiar charms. These
“outlandish persons calling themselves Egyptians
or Gypsies”; these cosmopolites equally at home in
the snows of Siberia and in the swamps of Sennaar;
these Ishmaelites still dwelling in the presence of
their brethren, at once on the outskirts and in the[Pg 159]
very centres of civilized life; this horde of barbarians
scattered over the wide world, among us
but not of us; these nomads of a progressive age
isolated by peculiarities of physique, language, and
social habits, of absolute materialism, and of a
single rule of conduct, “Self-will,” all distinctly
pointing to a common origin; this phenomenon of
the glorious epoch which opened a new thoroughfare
to the “East Indies,” and which discovered
the other half of the globe, is still to many,
nay, to most men, an inexplicable ethnic mystery.
Englanders mostly take the narrow nursery view
of the “Black Man”; at the highest they treat
him picturesquely in connexion with creels and
cuddies, hammer and tongs, the tin-kettle and the
katúna or tilt-tent. Continental writers cast, as
usual, a wider and a more comprehensive glance.
M. Perier, with French “nattiness,” thus resumes
the main points of interest in the singular strangers:
“Une race extraordinaire, forte, belle, cosmopolite,
errante, et cependant (?) pure, curieuse par conséquent,
à tant de titres.” The Rumanians have
deemed the theme worthy of poetry; witness the
heroic-comic-satyric “Tsiganida,” or Gypsy-Camp,
of Leonaki Diancu.[109]
The “wondrous tale” of the old Gypsy gude-wife
concerning the “Things of Egypt” is more won[Pg 160]derful,
observe, than aught told of Jewry. Certain
of the learned credulous, as we read in the
Evidences of Christianity and other such works,
essentially one-sided, point to the dispersion and
the cohesion of the self-styled “Chosen People” as
a manner of miracle, a standing witness to certain
marvellous events in its past annals. They ignore
or forget the higher miracle of the “tinklers.”
Whilst the scattering abroad of the Israelites arose
naturally from the same causes which in the present
day preserve their union, the powerful principle of
self-interest and wealth-seeking, the deeply rooted
prejudices, social and religious, fostered by a theocratic
faith and by a special and exclusive revelation,
the lively tradition of past glories and the promises
of future grandeur confirmed by the conviction of
being a people holy and set apart, the barbarous
Romá[110] are held together only by the ties of speech[111]
and consanguinity, and by the merest outlines of
a faith, such a creed as caste, or rather the outcast,
requires. Still the coherence is continuous[Pg 161]
and complete; still, like the rod of Moses, this
ethnological marvel out-miracles the other, and
every other, miracle.
Hardly less peculiar is the historical relation of
the Jew and the Gypsy. They have many points
in common. Both have had their exodus, and are
dispersed over the world. Both have peculiarities
of countenance which distinguish them from the
“Gentiles,” whom they hate, the Goyím and the
Busne. Both have their own languages and preserve
their racial names.[112] Similarity of conditions, however,
which should breed sympathy, as usual amongst
men has borne only hatred. But the Jew was wealthy,
like his cousin the Morisco. Hence the horrible
persecution of the Israelites in Spain (a.d. 1348-98),
when a prevailing pest was attributed to their
poisoning the water, and which endured till the
Hussites drew down upon themselves the earthly
“anger of Heaven.” During those dreadful years
many of the Hebrews fled to the mountains, the
Alpujarras and the Sierras—Morena and de Toledo—and
to the wild banks of the Upper Ebro, the
Guadiana, and the Tagus. Meanwhile the Gypsies
suffered under the conviction that they were Jews[Pg 162]
who, denying their forefathers, represented themselves
to be of Egyptian blood. Presently, when
the revenues of the Catholic kings, Henry III. and
John II., amounting to 26,550,000 reals (dollars)
reduced to our present value, fell under Henry IV.
to 3,540,000, the plethoric money-bags of the
Israelites led to the establishment of Holy Office and
its inquisitorial tribunal (January, 1481). Finally,
as if persecution and death were not sufficient, a
wholesale expulsion took place in March, 1492.
These horrors are still, after the lapse of ages, fresh
in the Jewish mind. I have seen at Jerusalem a
Khákhám (scribe) so moved by the presence of a
Spanish official, that the latter asked me in astonishment
how he had managed to offend his host.
But what could the Santa Hermandad alias
La Bruja (the witch) find to plunder and pillage
in the tent of the Rom? During three centuries
of loose wild life, often stained by ferocious crime,
and made bestial by the Draconian laws of mediæval
Christianity, the Gypsies had their seasons of banishment,
torture, and execution; but their poverty and
isolation saved them from the horrors of a deliberate
and official persecution. Mas pobre que cuerpo de
Gitano (Nothing poorer than a Gypsy’s body) is
still a proverb in Spain, where men also say,
Tan ruin es el conde como los Gitanos. All
these barbarities ended in Europe with the close of
the eighteenth century, where the new Religion of[Pg 163]
Humanity had been preached by the encyclopedists
whose major prophets were Voltaire and Rousseau,
Diderot and D’Alembert.
No Disraeli has hitherto arisen to vindicate the
nobility of these “masterful beggars”; and to
chronicle their triumphs in court and camp, in arts
and arms; to trace them in the genealogies of titled
houses, or to strip off the disguises assumed during
the intolerant times when the Jew was compelled to
swear himself Gentile and the Muslim a Christian.
Yet the Gypsies have had their great men, whilst
their pure blood has leavened much dull clay and
given fresh life to many an effete noble vein.
Witness the “King Zindl” or “Zindelo”; the
Dukes Michael and Andrew; Counts Ion (Juan) and
Panuel (Manuel) of Little Egypt; the Waywodes
(Vaivodes) of Dacia; the noble cavalier Pedro,
and the chief, Tomas Pulgar, who in a.d. 1496
aided Bishop Sigismund to beat off the Turk invader.
Witness, again, the Hungarian Hunyadis, the
Russian Tolstoys, and the Scotch Melvilles, not to
speak of the Cassilis and the Contis under Louis XIV.
Certain Gypsies became soldiers of renown; and
John Bunyan, one of the immortals of the earth, is
shrewdly suspected of Gypsy descent. Borrow mentions
an archbishop and “four dignified ecclesiastics”;
while some of the most learned and famed of the
priesthood in Spain have been, according to a
Gypsy, of the Gypsies, or at least of Gypsy blood.
[Pg 164]
Such is the Gypsy summed up in a few lines.
These pages have no intention, I repeat, of treating
the subject of the Romá generally. My humbler
task is confined to showing the affinities between
the Gypsies and the great Jat tribe, or rather
nation, which extends from the mouths of the Indus
to the Steppes of Central Asia. And my first objection
must be to a question of precedence with
M. Paul Bataillard.
The Tsiganologue claims, as has been seen, “a
still earlier priority” in the identification of Gypsy
and Jat; and he proposes to “establish exactly the
share belonging to each of us.” This is the normal
process of the cabinet savant, who is ever appearing,
like the deus ex machinâ, to snatch from the
explorer’s hand the meed of originality. The former
borrows from his books a dozen different theories;
and when one happens to be proved true by the
labours of the man of action, he straightway sets
himself up as the “theoretical discoverer” of the
sources of the Nile, or of any other matter which
engages popular attention. But in the present case
I deny that my rival has any claim whatever. My
personal acquaintance with the Jats began in 1845,
and my Grammar and Vocabulary were sent to the
Royal Asiatic Society in 1848 before my departure
from India. On the other hand, M. Paul Bataillard,
I understand, knew nothing of the Indine Jats when
he wrote his first paper De l’apparition, etc., in 1844.[Pg 165]
He honestly owns that he is no Orientalist; and that
he required the assistance of the late M. Reinaud,
who was a scholar, to identify the Zuth of Hamza
Ispahani (tenth century), the Luri musicians of the
Shahnameh (eleventh century), and the Zoth or Zutt
of the Kamûz dictionary (fourteenth century) with
the Zatt or Dyatt of India. This was in 1849. His
exposé étendu was accepted by Professor Pott in the
same year, and appeared in the Nachtrag before
mentioned, which completed the grand travail—Die
Zigeuner. Such was the extent of my claimant’s
discovery. He had even to learn from Professor
Fleischer, of Leipzig, that “the Zigeuner descend
from the G’at or G’et, the most ancient inhabitants
of North-Western India,”[113] a second-hand opinion,
derived from “Gypsy Borrow,” Colonel Sleeman, and
other Englishmen. I need hardly say that Professor
Pott, the distinguished member of that heroic band
which founded comparative philology, knew nothing
practically or personally about either the Gypsies or
the Jats. And it is evident that Professor de Goeje
is in outer darkness when he speaks of “the view
propounded by Pott as early as 1853.”
At that time, and indeed until I wrote to the
Academy in 1875, M. Paul Bataillard evidently
ignored “M. Burton”; and no blame be to him for
not knowing a paper published by a colonial society
a quarter of a century ago. But he also ignored[Pg 166]
far more important facts. He applies the term
petite population Djatte to the great scattered nation
called Jat. He was of course not aware that this
people preserve in the Indine Delta, the “Salt
Country” of the Sindhis, the purity of its tongue,
which, farther north, is corrupted by an admixture
of Sindhi, Belochki, and Panjabi. Nor could he be
alive to the fact that many points of similarity,
anthropological and linguistic, connect the Gypsy
and the Jat. There are men who are personally
averse to new things, and the easy alternative is to
depreciate their value. “He,” I am assured by my
rival claimant, “has perceived a probable relation
between these two tribes of men, and he has expressed
it in half a page; but this is not sufficient.”
Such an assertion, however, is more than sufficient
for estimating and appreciating the Bataillard system
of treating a literary question. For “half a page”
read a dozen pages,[114] which might easily have been
extended to many a dozen. But I had hoped that
the statement of a traveller who had met the Gypsies
at Oxford (Bagley Wood), in England, and on the
Continent, and the knowledge of their racial characteristics,
general amongst educated Englishmen,
justified a conciseness imperiously demanded whilst
treating in one volume the geography, history, and[Pg 167]
ethnology of a country nearly equalling England in
length. Again, when M. Bataillard assures his readers
that I have “not given even the smallest information
respecting the type (appearance) of the Jats,” he
once more makes it evident that he should have read
me before pretending to write about me. I will
quote my description in full,[115] so that the public may
judge between him and me:
“We are now in the provinces inhabited by the
Jats. Your [i.e. Mr. John Bull’s] eye is scarcely
grown critical enough in this short time to see the
tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee-like difference between
their personal appearance and that of their kinsmen
the Scindians; nor can I expect you as yet to distinguish
a Jat wandh (village) from a Scinde
goth (village). You are certain to take some
interest in a race which appears to be the progenitor
of the old witch in a red cloak, whose hand, in
return for the cunning nonsense to which her tongue
gave birth, you once crossed with silver; and of
the wiry young light-weight, whose game and sharp
hitting you have, in happier days, more than once
condescended to admire.
“Our authors[116] probably err when they suppose
the Jat to be the original Hindu of Scinde converted
to Islam. Native historians and their own[Pg 168]
traditions concur in assigning to them a strange
origin; their language, to this day, a corrupt dialect
of that spoken throughout the Indine provinces of
the Panjab, gives support and real value to the
otherwise doubtful testimony.[117] It is probable that,
compelled to emigrate from their own lands by one
of the two main causes that bring about such
movements in the East, war or famine, the Jats of
Scinde travelled southward about the beginning
of the eighteenth century of our era.
“Under the quasi-ecclesiastical Kalhorá dynasty,
when Scindians composed the aristocracy as well
as the commonalty of the country, the Jats, in
consequence of their superior strength, their courage,[Pg 169]
and their clannish coalescence, speedily rose to high
distinction. The chiefs of tribes became nobles,
officials, and ministers at court; they provided for
their families by obtaining grants of ground, feoffs
incidental to certain military services, and for their
followers by settling them as tenants on their broad
lands. But the prosperity of the race did not last
long. They fell from their high estate when the
Belochis, better men than they, entered the country,
and began to appropriate it for themselves; by
degrees, slow yet sure, they lost all claims to rank,
wealth, and office. They are now found scattered
throughout Scinde, generally preferring the south-eastern
provinces, where they earn a scanty subsistence
by agriculture; or they roam over the barren
plains feeding their flocks upon the several oases;
or they occupy themselves in breeding, tending,
training, and physicking the camel. With the
latter craft their name has become identified, a
Jat and a sarwan (camel-man) sounding synonymous
in Scindian ears.
“The Jats in appearance are a swarthy and
uncomely race, dirty in the extreme, long, gaunt,
bony, and rarely, if ever, in good condition. Their
beards are thin, and there is a curious (i.e. Gypsy-like)
expression in their eyes.[118] They dress like[Pg 170]
Scindians, preferring blue to white clothes; but they
are taller, larger, and more un-Indian in appearance.
Some few, but very few, of their women are, in
early youth, remarkable for soft and regular features;
this charm, however, soon yields to the complicated
ugliness brought on by exposure to the sun, by
scanty living, and by the labour of baggage-cattle.
In Scinde the Jats of both sexes are possessed of
the virtues especially belonging to the oppressed and
inoffensive Eastern cultivation; they are necessarily
frugal and laborious, peaceful, and remarkable for
morality in the limited sense of aversion to intrigue
with members of a strange Kaum.[119] I say in Scinde;
this is by no means the reputation of the race in
the other parts of Central Asia, where they have
extended (or whence possibly they came).[120] The
term ‘Jat’ is popularly applied to a low and servile
creature, or to an impudent villain; and despite of
the Tohfat el Kiram,[121] a Beloch would consider
himself mortally affronted were you to confound his
origin with the caste which his ancestors deposed,[Pg 171]
and which he despises for having allowed itself to
be degraded. The Brahins, Afghans, and Persians
all have a bad word to say of them.”
Thus far M. Paul Bataillard has shown himself
only the carpet-slippered littérateur de cabinet, who
laboriously borrows from others, and who evidently
expects his second-hand labours to faire époque.
But my rival claimant, let me hasten to own, has
solid merits. His theory that Gypsy emigrations
are of ancient date, and probably of high antiquity,
deserves consideration. His later notices of the
Jats correct the vulgar error which made Taymur
the Tatar cause the first exodus of our “sorners.”
He notes the especial hatred, possibly racial, nourished
by these Gentile vagrants against the other scattered
nation, the Jews. Other minor but still interesting
matters of which he treats are the history of the
Gypsies especially with respect to their slavery and
serfdom—Crown captives, not chattels personal;
their periodical wanderings and visitings; their
vestiges of faith; their vernacular and humble
literature; their private and tribal names suggesting
those of the modern Israelitic Synagogue; and
their supplying the dancing-girls of the nearer
East, while in the lupanars of Europe a Gypsy girl
is unknown.
I now propose to run as rapidly as the subject
permits through M. Paul Bataillard’s four papers
seriatim. The critique will not only notice[Pg 172]
novelties, but will also attempt to correct what
to a practical man appears to want correction in
connexion with the Gypsies.
§ 2. “Derniers Travaux, etc.”
This paper treats chiefly of South-Eastern Europe,
which has been estimated to contain at least six
hundred thousand of the Romá—a number, by-the-bye,
wholly inadequate. The author’s self-imposed limits
would be the western Slav frontier, a meridian
drawn from the southern bend of the Baltic to
the Adriatic head. Topographically disposed, upon
a line trending from east to west, the review deals
in its progress with writers mostly modern; and
it forms an excerptive rather than an exhaustive
or even a summary bibliography.
The first of the two component parts travels
with the authorities who treat of Russia, Poland
and Lithuania, Germany, Bohemia, Hungary, Transylvania,
the Banat, the Rumanian Principalities,
and Turkey, or rather Constantinople. The lands
about the Balkan Range, so unknown not many
years ago and now so much talked of, are justly
considered a second Gypsy patria, the “old home”
being India. The review is accompanied and
followed by side-glances at those who treat of
Finland and Norway, of Persia and Basqueland,
of Scotland and Holland, of Sicily and Italy,
which once owned an exceptional castrum Giptiæ.[Pg 173]
This section ends with linguistic and ethnographic
remarks borrowed from many sources and specifying
a considerable number of requisites.
In the second part the critic reviews M. Alexandre
G. Paspati, D.M., a famous name in Gypsydom. This
learned Greek physician—one of the few children,
by-the-bye, who escaped the “gentle and gallant”
Turk in the foul Chios massacre of 1822—was
educated in America, and is as highly distinguished
for his Indian and Byzantine as for his Gypsy studies.
The Étude, etc., of 1870, which continued and completed
his elaborate memoirs (1857-1862), is the
work of a scholar who knew the Romá personally,
not of a mere littérateur. The book teemed with
novelties. For instance, it suggested that the article
(o or u; í and e), as unknown to the Asiatic
Gypsy (?) as to the Sanskrit and the Prakrit,
had been borrowed by his European congener from
the Greek [Greek: ὁ: ho] and [Greek: ἡ: hê], thus suggesting long residence
in Hellas and familiarity with its people. Might
it not, however, have been a simple development
of íhá and uha, the demonstrative pronouns in
Játaki—this and that becoming the? But as all
Germanic, neo-Latinic, and Slav tongues have either
produced or borrowed an article, the same may have
been the case with the Gypsy, which comes from the
same root.
M. Paspati satisfactorily proved that the wandering
tribes of the Romá, e.g. the wild Zapáris or Dyáparis[Pg 174]
(Szapary?),[122] have preserved in Rumelia the langue
mère of their ancients, whereas the “domigence,”
the sedentary dwellers in cities and towns, have
“falsified” the tongue. The same is said by the
Bedawin concerning the “Jumpers of Walls,” the
settled Arabs. This part of the subject leads to
notices of Gypsy tales and legends, in which, by the
way, Gypsies rarely figure, and to other productions
of la pauvre Muse tsigane.
After some discursive matter, our critic passes
from M. Paspati to M. Bartalus, who has quoted
from certain very rare tracts (La Véritable origine,
etc., a.d. 1798 and 1800) on the rise of the
Gypsy nation. The Bohémiens, it appears, are
descendants of Cham or Ham, “which is admissible”;
and, like their brethren, they were
damned by Noah. But, on the destruction of the
Plain cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, Adama and
Saboim—Segor being honourably excluded—Zoar and
its inhabitants were saved because they harboured
one Lot. The lands, however, were assigned to this
“patriarch”; and the Hamites, being dispersed,
became Gypsies. Once more that myth of Noah!—for
how much false anthropology is it not responsible?
Again, we do not fail to meet another
old friend. The wicked king of Egypt appears[Pg 175]
in a famous “Pharaoh Song,” whilst in Iceland
he gave his name to a cavalry of seals. The
oath formula of the Hungarian Gypsies prescribed
by the courts was: “As King Pharaoh was engulfed
in the Red Sea, so may I be accursed and swallowed
up by the deepest abyss if I do not speak the truth!
May no theft, no traffic, nor any other business
prosper with me! May my horse turn into an ass
at the next stroke of his hoof, and may I end my
days on the scaffold by the hands of the hangman!”[123]
The critic then passes to a second and a remarkable
characteristic of the Gypsy race, the musical,
which is now becoming known throughout Europe.
At the Paris Exposition of 1878 the “nightingales
of Koursk,” a troop of forty Romá from
Moscow, followed the Hungarian Cziganes, and
were equally admired. Even the celebrated Catalani
appreciated the Chingáneh girl of Moscow, “who
performed with such originality and true expression
the characteristic melodies of the tribe”; and threw
over her shoulders a papal gift in the shape of a
rich Cashmere shawl. Most Englishmen now know
that Mr. Bunn’s “Bohemian Girl,” thus unhappily
translated from La Bohémienne of St. George, was
a Romni girl. The far-famed Abbé Liszt[124] attributed
to these “tinklers” the chief rôle in treating the[Pg 176]
musical épopée; but this opinion of the great master
is opposed by the artistic M. Bartalus. I, however,
incline to Liszt’s view. Let me note that the popular
Romani word for musician, Lautar (plural Lautari),
may either be the Persian Lútí,[125] or more probably
a deformed offspring of the Arabic El `Aúd[126], which
gave rise to our “lute.” Our critic holds that
the Gypsy’s music, like his tales and poetry, is his
own; whilst the matter of the songs and ballads is
borrowed from Hungarians, Rumans, and even the
unimaginative Turk: he also points out that many
of the legends are cosmopolitan. When the Catalan
Gypsy, met by the author in 1869 at St. Germain,
told him that the état (Dharma or religious duty)
of the Romni-chel, the “sons of women” (i.e. their
mothers), is to cheat their neighbours; that they
learned this whole duty of man from St. Peter,
who as our Lord’s servant habitually tricked and
defrauded his Master; that le dieu Jesus, who
established all human conditions on the creation
day, had taught them, by example as well as precept,
to beg and to vagabond naked-footed; that his tribe
were veritable Christians “who knew only God and
the Blessed Virgin”; and that all these things were
written in the “Book of the Wanderings of our Lord,”—we
recognize the old, old tale. The ancient Rom,
like a host of other facetious barbarians, was solemnly[Pg 177]
hoaxing a simple student, a credulous “civilizee.”
Still the joke has its ethnological value; it shows
that the pseudo-Christian saints of the Gypsy
Evangel are thieves and “sorners.” Highly characteristic
also is the address to the Gypsy deity:
“Good, happy God of gold!” On the other hand,
such laical legends of the Apostles are current
even amongst Christian peoples, from whom they may
have been kidnapped by the Romá. Witness the
French peasant’s tale of Jesus and St. Peter, the
horseshoe and the cherries, which has for moral
the market value of thrift.
The supplementary article analyzes the scholarly
work of M. Franz Miklosich.[127] This erudite Slavist
whose only reproach is that he finds Slavism in
every place, distributes the Gypsies into twelve
linguistic groups, to which he assigns an inadequate
total of six hundred thousand head.
Amongst the highly conservative Romá of Northern
Russia he detects, besides Russian and Polish, Ruman
and Magyar words, expressions borrowed from the
neo-Greek of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
As these Hellenisms are also adopted by the Spanish
Gypsies, the natural deduction is that Greece generally
formed an older home long inhabited by the
wanderers, who thence passed on viâ Poland to Russia.[Pg 178]
But this theory, if proved to be fact, would not
invalidate the general belief that some Gypsy
tribes migrated through Egypt and Morocco into
Spain without crossing the Pyrenees. The Romá,
being “sturdy vagabonds,” rather than true nomads,
would borrow from one another during their frequent
and regular meetings the terms wanting to their
scanty and barbarous speech. It appears rich enough
in material and sensuous expression, and the same
is notably the case with the wandering Arab and
the Turkoman. M. Paspati[128] notices that “the
[Rumelian] wanderer has more than forty words
for his tent and the implements of his trade.” A
“Thieves’ Latin” would not be required by these
bilinguals; but for the purposes of concealment and
villainy they would readily adopt strange vocables.
Thus in the Scottish Lowlands they make their
English speech unintelligible by French and Gaelic,
Welsh and Irish insertions. As will appear, they
have invented in Egypt and Spain, and I believe
there only, a regular argot. Such irregularities
prevent our attributing much importance to the
general remark that the Gypsy dialect does not
return; i.e. that the Polish Romá do not use Russian
terms, nor the Turkish Romá Magyar words.
Finally, M. Miklosich puts to flight the “Tamerlane
tenet” of popular belief which would place
the last Gypsy exodus after a.d. 1399. He adduces[Pg 179]
documentary evidence, the well-known donation
instruments of a.m. 6894 (= a.d. 1386-87) issued
by the Kings of Wallachia; noting that during the
fifteenth century, and even between 1832 and
1836, the Principalities, which have still preserved
the Jewish disabilities, held the Gypsies to be a
Slav race.
The Derniers Travaux has the merit of bringing
prominently forward the “hypothesis of Hasse,”
advanced in 1803 and presently forgotten. It would
explain the purity of the Gypsy tongue by the
fact of these tinklers being settled in Europe ab
antiquo. It has often been remarked that the
farther we go eastward, and the nearer we approach
the cradle of the race, Sindh or Western India, the
more completely the language changes and degrades.
This is to be expected. The Jats living in close
contact with other dialects would necessarily modify
their own after the fashion of their neighbours; such
is the rule of the world. The Romá have only two
ties: one is of blood, the love of “kith, kin, and
consequence”; the other is of language which serves
to conceal his speech. During the dispersion of
centuries the Gypsies, surrounded by alien and hostile
races, would religiously adhere to the old tongue; and
having a vital interest in preserving a secret instrument,
it would war against change. It is the
more necessary to insist upon this view, as our critic
expects to find after a separation of some four[Pg 180]
centuries the Jats or other tribes speaking pure old
Gypsy. The modern Gypsy may still represent the
ancient Játaki. Hence also the dialect of their
ancestors is dying out amongst the sedentary Romá.
M. Paul Bataillard has carefully separated, and
perhaps too curiously, the historical arrival of the
Gypsies in Western Europe and their establishment
in the south-eastern regions, Thrace, Dacia, etc. An
abuse of his theory makes him urge the identity of
his Tsigane with the mysterious Sicani who held
Sicily before the Siculi. These and other prehistoric
identifications have not yet been generally adopted.
Had M. Paul Bataillard reflected a little more,
he would not have advocated, considering the
extensive habitat of the Jats, the insufficient
theory of M. Ascoli—namely, that the Gypsies are
Sindhis who dwelt long in Hindustan; nor would
M. Ascoli have omitted the widely spoken Játaki
from his list of neo-Indian tongues, which he unduly
reduces to seven. We should have been spared the
“conviction” that the Romá dwelt in Mesopotamia,
which was only one station on their way, Asia
Minor and the Lower Danube being the general
line of Aryan emigration; that they are aborigines
of Kabul, in fact primitive Afghans, as supposed by
another French littérateur, whose lively imagination
strips him of all authority; and, finally, that they
are “descendants of those ancient peoples of Bactriana
and Arya, successively conquered by Persians, Greeks,[Pg 181]
Indogetæ, and Afghans.” A most trivial comparison
is made between Segor, the biblical city, and the
Gypsy name Cingani (Singani). When Professor
Pott and M. de Saulcy find “relationship” and
“close connexion” between Sanskrit and Romani-chíb,
they should have explained that the latter is
a Prakrit or vulgar tongue with an Aryan vocabulary
reposing upon the ruins of a Turanian base. The
former, as its name shows, was a refined and city
language, never spoken, nor indeed understood,
by the peoples of India in general; in fact, a
professor’s speech, like the present Romaic of
the Athenian logiotátoi.
The word Berber (Barbar), again, applied to the
Gypsies in Persia, means, according to its root, a
chatterer, patterer, or speaker of unintelligible cant.
It is the Sanskrit Varvvara, [Sanskrit: वर्व्वर][129], a low fellow, a
savage, the Barbaros of the Greeks and Romans; the
Berber, [Sindhi: بڙبڙ], or Berber, [Arabic: بربر], of modern Hindustan;
and the racial name of that great scattered people
the Barábarah, who stretch from the Nile Valley
to North-Western Africa. The lunar god, Raho, of
the Norwegian Gypsies is a palpable reminiscence
and survival of the demon Ráhu. The Gházieh of
Egypt are not “also called Beremikeh”;[130] the
Barámikah are a substitute of the Ghagar. The
“Chungaló,” the “Jungaló,” and the “Zungaló” of[Pg 182]
Paspati, signifying a non-Gypsy, is evidently Jangalí,
wild or sylvan (jungle) man, the popular title of
Europeans, especially of Englishmen, in India. Das
also, the term applied by the Romá to their Bulgarian
and Wallachian neighbours, bears a suspicious
resemblance to the Hindu Dashya and Dasa, vulgarly
Doss, a low caste or rather a no-caste man, supposed
to represent the original Turanian lords of the land.
Moreover, why assume with M. Paspati that
[Greek: γ: g], [Greek: θ: th], and [Greek: χ: ch] are “Greek importations into the
Gypsy tongue”? Of these letters two are Arabo-Persian:
[Greek: χ: ch] is = Khá, [Arabic: خ]; and [Greek: γ: g] is = Ghayn, [Arabic: غ]; the
gamma pronounced Ghámma in Romaic parlance
when preceding the open vowels, á and o. The third
generally corresponds with the Arabic Sá, [Arabic: ص], pronounced
in Persian and Hindi as a simple Sín (s)[131].
The critic, however, should not have told us,
“Le [Greek: θ: th] répond assez bien au ‘th’ Anglais.” Our
sibilant has two distinct sounds: one soft, as in thy,
answering to the neo-Greek [Greek: δ: d]; the other hard, as
in theme, = [Greek: θ: th]. The Gypsy Owa, Va (yes) bears
a suspicious resemblance to the vulgar Arabic
Aywá, contracted from Ay w' Allah—aye by Allah!
A man must have absolutely no practical knowledge
of the Rom or of his congener the “mild
Hindu” who can ask, “Les esprits grossiers
sont-ils donc plus subtils que les nôtres?” This
is the mere morgue and outrecuidance of European
ignorance. Let the author try the process of[Pg 183]
“finessing” upon the first lad, Jat or Sindhi, who
comes in his way, and he will readily be made to
understand my meaning. Finally, I venture to
throw out a hint that the “barbarous helot” may
preserve the tribal name Nath, [Sanskrit: नट][132], a mime. This
caste, with which the Gypsies used formerly to be
identified,[133] certainly did not represent the “wild
aboriginal inhabitants of India”; they may have
Dravidian affinities, but they are certainly not of
Turanian blood.
§ 3. “Origines, etc.”
This paper was published in 1875, when M. Paul
Bataillard had the benefit of my letter to the
Academy; and apparently its main object is to
prove that he preceded me in identifying the
Gypsies with the “Djatte” (Jats). It is divided
into three parts, which are four. No. 1 contains
the author’s reclamation and his notice of Professor
de Goeje; No. 2 works out more fully his own
theory of Gypsy origin; No. 3 contains a “certain
and definitive explanation of the word Tsigane”;
and No. 4, by way of colophon and endowment of
research, thrusts forward certain preachments upon
the direction of future inquiries for the benefit of
us rude practical men.
Of No. 1, I have already treated, and content[Pg 184]
myself with energetically objecting to the statement
that all who have treated about the peoples of the
Indine Valley have imagined either a possible or
a probable rapport between the Jats (not Juth)
and the Gypsies. M. Paul Bataillard again shows
that in 1850, when my paper was published in
1849, neither he nor Professor Fleischer knew
aught concerning the modern Sindhi Jats, a mere
section of the race, save the corruption of a
name. They were ignorant of its extensive habitat
scattered between the Indus mouths and the Tatar
Steppes. They had never learned that it speaks its
own peculiar dialect, which is like that of the Gypsies
and the Sindhi to a certain extent, Persico-Indian.
Part No. 2 becomes much more sensational. We
find that our critic’s ideas have grown, and that the
antiquity of the Gypsies in South-Eastern Europe
extends deep into the misty regions of the past. In
1872 he merely alluded to the high importance
of the ethnic name Sindho or Sinto (feminine
Sindhi; plurals Sindhe and Sindhiyan), “meaning
the great.” Now he would identify them with the
aborigines of Lemnos, those “lords of Vulcan”
the [Greek: Σιντιες: Sinties]—a word generally understood to signify
robbers ([Greek: σινομαι: sinomai]). The connexion is brought about
because Homer describes these metal-workers as
speaking a wild speech ([Greek: αγριοφωνοι: agriophônoi]), and because
Hellanicus of Lesbos derives them from Thrace.
Two independent authorities—the original hypothesist[Pg 185]
Dr. Johannes Gottlieb Hasse in 1803, and M. Vivien
de Saint-Martin in 1847—had suggested an idea
which M. Paul Bataillard borrowed and adopted.
The Tsigane represent, we are assured, not only
the Sicani of Sicily, but also the [Greek: Σιγυναι: Sigynai, Σιγυνοι: Sigynoi,
Σιγιννοι: Siginnoi], whom Herodotus places in the Caucasus,
Asia Minor, and Thrace. The broad gap of years
is bridged over, in the teeth of M. Paspati, by
means of certain mediæval Byzantine heretics, the
[Greek: Αθιγγανοι: Athinganoi], Manichæans like the Albigenses, the
Paulicians, and especially the dwellers in Bosnia
and its neighbourhood, also called Athigarii, Atingarii,
Anthingarii, and Atingani; and this only
because certain of the modern Greeks call their
Gypsies Athinganoi ([Greek: Αθιγγανοι: Athinganoi]). Brosset[134] notices
that in the eleventh century, when King Bagrat
visited Constantinople, he there heard a marvellous
and wholly incredible thing; namely, that
a tribe of the Samaritans descended from Simon
Magus, and called Atsinkan, were still infamous
for their evil-doings and sorceries. And then we
have a silly story of how the monk St. George of
Athos rendered all their poisons of no account.
Moreover, we are told, if the modern Tsigane
represent the Sinties and the Siginnoi, they must,
ergo, stand in the same relationship to certain[Pg 186]
mysterious tribes inhabiting the Caucasus and
Western Asia, Egypt, the Levantine Islands, and the
Danubian basin. Thus we see the origin of the
Telchini, the Chalybes, and other “Cabiric peoples.”
The latter has the disadvantage of being purely
Semitic, Kabír meaning “the great” applied to the
twelve Dii majores of the Phœnicians who sent
forth Kadmos (El Kadín) = the old or the great.[135]
But let that pass. Our author proves his fact by
showing that these races, like the modern Romá,
were makers of weapons, especially the assegai or
javelin; whilst the Cabiri and the Telchini were
renowned for music and soothsaying. And how not
recognize the Troglodytic Sibyls of Asia Minor and
Egypt, of Greece, and especially Thrace, in the pure
Gypsy, when [Greek: Σιβυλλα: Sibylla] is only a form of [Greek: Σιβυνη: Sibynê] or
[Greek: Ζιβυνη: Zibynê], which naturally derives from [Greek: Σιγυνη: Sigynê], [Greek: Σιγυννος: Sigynnos]
= Tsigane? How not perceive that the Egyptian
prophetesses turned into black pigeons by Herodotus,
and the doves of Dodona, were not identical with
the Romní?
This becomes a disease—Tsigane on the brain;
from which our author evidently suffers in an
acute form—so acute as to render his imagination[Pg 187]
most lively. To the unimaginative ethnologist
the “Sindhi” are simply the Sindh tribes of
Gypsies, so called from the Sindhu, that mighty
stream which gave to Europe a name for the
Indian Peninsula. Hence, indeed, some philologists
would derive the Spanish word Zincale (Zinkale),
making it a compound of Sindh and Kálo (plural
Kále, black) = dark men of Sindh. Rejecting this
treatment, we must consider it a tribal name like
Karáchi (= lower Sindhian), Helebi (Aleppine), Lúri
(from Lúristán), and many others into which the
great Jat nation is divided.
But whilst we reject particulars, we must beware
how we treat the general theory. Tradition and
ethnological peculiarities, far stronger than philological
resemblances or coincidences, tend to prove
that the earliest metal-workers and weapon-makers
were an Indine race whose immigration long preceded
the movement of the last ethnic wave, the
Gypsy of history. Herodotus notices a caste or
corporation of ambulant founders and metal-workers
which came from Asia, possibly belonging to the
age called by M. de Mortillet de la chaudronnerie,
when the hammer took the place of simple fusion.
Modern research has shown that these prehistoric
artisans affected Gypsy habits like the caldereros
(coppersmiths) of the Romá in later ages. They
had no permanent abodes; their ateliers were not
inside the towns, but en plein champ near inhabited[Pg 188]
centres; here they fashioned their new and recast
their old metal, bartering their works for furs, hides,
amber, and other articles of local provenance. Hence
M. Émile Burnouf[136] assumes these wandering workmen
of the Bronze Age to have been a Gypsy race;
while the remarkable similarity, I may almost say
the identity, of the alloy suggests that it was the
produce of a single people. We must, however, be
careful how we accept his derivation from Banca
and Malacca of the prehistoric tin required for bronze.
It would first be supplied by the Caucasus mines to
a race of workmen migrating along the southern
base from the West to the East. The next source
of supply, before passing to Southern France, Spain,
and the Cassiterides, would be North-Western Arabia.
The Book of Numbers[137] distinctly mentions the
metal, placing it between iron and lead, as part
of the spoils taken by the children of Israel from
their cousins the Midianites (circ. b.c. 1450);
and the two Khedivial expeditions (a.d. 1877-78)
have brought home proofs that it may still be
found there. Indeed, I have a suspicion that the
“broken” people of Western Arabia are descended
from the ancient Gypsies who may have worked
the gold mines of Midian.
Part No. 3 corrects Professor de Goeje, M. Fagnan,
and myself in our several explanations of Tsigane.[Pg 189]
The exaggerated value attributed by M. Paul Bataillard
to his own “typical proof and the material confirmation
of all his system” seems to have hindered
his revelation; and he insists upon it naïvely as if
it were proof of Holy Writ. Its venerable “hypothetical
origin” must be sought in the root chináv,
meaning to thrust, throw, fight, cut, kill, write,
and eject saliva. It survives in the word Sagaie
or Zagaie (our assegai): the latter, when split in
two, contains a first part similar to sag-itta, and a
second like gais (gœ-sum), the heavy, barbed Gallic
javelin; whilst the whole resembles the Amazonian
Sagaris, an axe.
In the name of the Prophet—figs! This dreamery
is ushered in as usual by a whole page of discursive
matter. The debased Romaic [Greek: κατζιβελος: katzibelos],
a “maker of javelins,” used by a Byzantine poet of
the middle fourteenth century, is shown = Sigynos
= Tsigane. Kilinjirides, a Græcised form of the
Turkish Kilij-ji, or sword-maker, is the same word.
Let me here note that the “pure Turkish term
Kaldji,” still used at Rhodes, is not the same as
Kilij-ji; it is the bastard compound Arabic and
Turkish Kala'-jí, a tinsmith. Such are some of
the linguistic will-o’-the-wisps which have, I fear,
habitually misled our critic.
I must now consider the origin of the corrupted
“typical term” Tsigane, which M. Paul Bataillard
has converted into a “generic name.” The old[Pg 190]
and obsolete derivations of the Zingaro, which with
various modifications prevails throughout Europe,
are the following.[138] Ciga or Siga, the seaport of
Mauretania Cæsariensis, or the Ciga or Cija River
mentioned by Lucan; the Magian Cineus; Zeugitania
Regio (Zeugis); Singara, the Mesopotamian city;
Zigera, a Thracian settlement; the Zinganes, a
tribe inhabiting the Indus Delta (?); the Zigier
Province in Asia Minor; and “the bird Cinclo”
(motacilla or wagtail), a “vagrant bird which
builds no nest,” and therefore gave rise to the term
Cinli or Cingary. Less absurd is the derivation
from Singus, or Cingus, the chief of a horde
under “Tamerlane,” who employed these men, not
as combatants, but camp-followers and to export
trains[139] (a.d. 1401). Arabshah, the biographer of
the great Tatar Amír, recounts a contrivance by
which in a.d. 1406 he rid his city (Samarkand) of
the rebellious Zingaros; and the account of this
race shows a certain correspondence with the Gypsies.
Hence, probably, Borrow (The Zincali) tells us
that “the Eastern Gypsies are called Zingarri.”
The word is quite unknown to Turkey and Persia.
In 1402 they accompanied the Sultan Báyezíd on[Pg 191]
his invasion of Europe along the Danube, and thus
settled in Bulgaria and Old Servia.
What we know for certain is that the Gypsies
have been known in Persia from time immemorial
as Chingáneh, [Persian: چِنگانه]. Professor de Goeje writes the
word Tsjengán (Chengán), and would explain it by
the Persian plural of Tsenj, a musician, a dancer.
Is this word intended for Chang, a harp, or for
Zang, in Arabic Zanj, a Kálo, a “black man,” as
the Gypsy is still called in England? Chingáneh
in Syria becomes Jingáneh, the Semites having no
ch; and the term now applies, not to the Gypsies
generally, but to a small and special tribe. The
Greek and Romaic [Greek: Ατζιγγανος: Atzinganos] and [Greek: Αθιγγανος: Athinganos] corruptions
of Chingáneh, are, as we have seen by
Atsinkan, as old at Constantinople as the eleventh
century. In Turkish the word is written as in
Persian, but the pronunciation changes to Chingyáneh;
M. Paspati adopts Tchinghiané, the Turco-French
corruption, with the e = eh. Hence evidently the
Hungarian Czigan (Czigany, Czigányok, Czingaricus,
etc.), and the Transylvanian Cingani, which appears
in writings of the fifteenth century; the former
evidently engendered M. Bataillard’s bastard Tsigane.
The Poles turned Chingáneh into Cygan (Cyganaeh,
Cyganskiego, etc.), and the Russians into Zigan.
Here we see the Italian Ciano, Cingano, and Zingano,
the older forms of Zingaro and the Portuguese
Cigano.
[Pg 192]
The Spanish Zincali is derived by Borrow from
two Gypsy words meaning “Kále” (the black
men) of Zend (Sind or Ind), a theory perfectly
inadmissible. The Iberian Gitáno, now a term
of opprobrium, is probably a survival of the racial
name, and not a corruption of the older Egypciano,
the Basque Egipcioac. The latter, evidently
from Aigyptos, Ægyptus, Egypt, an “Egyptian,”
is itself a corruption of Kupt, [Persian: کپط], in modern
parlance a Copt. Hence the Turks also call their
vagrants Kupti or Gupti. Hence also [Greek: Γυφτος: Gyphtos] in
Romaic applies indifferently to a Gypsy or a blacksmith,
and hence finally our Gypsy, which should be
pronounced with a hard g, and written as by the older
writers Gypsy. All four derive from a different root,
the Egyptian.
As regards the German Zigeuner and its older
forms Secane and Suyginer (fifteenth century), Professor
de Goeje would derive it from Sjikâri (Syikári),
as he writes Shekári, a huntsman, much reminding
us of that diction which confounds “srimp” with
“shrimp.” The word means a wanderer, and seems
to derive from the root that gave us zig-zag. The
Dutch call these Indians Heiden af Egyptiër’s; the
French Égyptiens, but preferably Bohémiens, showing
what they believed to be the last halting-place
of the tribe before it passed on to Western Europe.
A curious irony of fate has connected in the Gallic
mind the old land of the Boii with all that is wild[Pg 193]
and unsettled, when its sons are the stiffest and
the most priggish of the Austro-German beamter
class.
Not a few commentators on the Bible[140] have
believed the Gypsies to be that “mixed multitude”
which has done so much for romantic
ethnology. This medley, the Hebrew’s hasaphsuph,
corresponding with the Arabic Habash
(Abyssinian), we are told “went up also with
the Jews out of Egypt.” The learned add that
they marched eastward to India, became veritable
Aryans, retraced their steps to Misraim, the two
Egypts, upper and lower, and thence spread over
Europe.
For the first set of words, Tsigane included, I hold
Chingáneh to be the origin, owning at the same time
my inability to determine the root or history of the
word. For the second, whose type is Gitano, I think
it probable that the wanderers may have modified
their racial name Jat and its adjective Jatáni into
the semblance of Egyptian at the time when they
represented themselves to be descendants of the old
Nile dwellers and to speak an Egyptian (Coptic)
dialect. The Jugo-Slav tongues abound in similar
instances of conversion, vernacular and significant
terms being often applied to the older terms of
conquered or occupied countries. For instance,[Pg 194]
Aurisina, the Roman station near Trieste, became
Nabresina, from na-brek = ad montem.
Returning to M. Paul Bataillard, we find him
declaring that the Gypsies are generically Chamites
(descendants of Ham!), and specifically Kushites,
“who lived long enough under the 'Aryas in
the Indus region to lose their Kushite tongue
and to adopt an Aryan dialect.” This immense
assertion, made perfunctorily, as it were, and without
acknowledgment of its source, is worthy of the
eighteenth century and its “mixed multitude”
borrowed from the Book of Exodus. What the
learned Movers (Geschichte d. Phœnicier) said of the
“Kushites” was that, originally from India, they
migrated in prehistoric days westwards, allied themselves
with the Semites, and became the peoples
speaking such Aryo-Semitic tongues as the Egyptian
and Coptic, Himyaritic and Ghíz. To believe that
this also was the history of the Gypsy movement is
to hold that, whilst other “Kushites” changed their
physique and their morale, their eyes and hair,
their cheekbones and figures generally, the Gypsies
have remained pure Indians without a trace of
other blood.
A word here upon this “Kushite” theory, which
has been accepted by men of the calibre of Heinrich
Brugsch Bey. It appears to be simply a labour-saving
institution, in fact what algebraists call
supposer un inconnu, a pure assumption which spares[Pg 195]
the pains of working out the origination of the
so-called Aryo-Semitic races. These Kushites, who
were they? Where are they mentioned in history
or legend as emigrants from the plains of Hindustan
to the north-eastern angle of Africa? What traces
have they left upon the long route across Western
Asia which connects the Indus with the Nile? How
came it that, without marking their exodus by a
single vestige of civilization, they began at once to
hew the obelisks and build the pyramids in their new
home, the chef-d’œuvres of artistic Egypt’s golden
age? No answer to such objections as these.
In Part No. 4, concluding the paper, M. Paul
Bataillard attempts to conciliate his “principal
thesis” with the views of M. de Goeje. The Leyden
professor opines that the first colonies of Djatts
(Jats) were founded amongst the Persians and
Arabs of the seventh century; and M. Fagnan also
speaks of inscriptions in Buddhist characters treating
of the Jats in the fourth and fifth centuries. The
tribal name, corrupted by Arabization, appears in the
“Canal of the Zott” (Zutt) near Babylon, and in
the “Zott-land.” Families of “Zotts” were transplanted
to Syrian Bosra, Bostra, or Old Damascus
during the earliest Muslim conquests in the seventh
century (circ. a.d. 670), not in the ninth (a.d. 855), as
our author had determined. About a.d. 710 “Zotts”
and Indians were transferred from the Indus to the
Tigris (Khuzistán); and between a.d. 714 and 720[Pg 196]
a certain number were sent with their four thousand
buffaloes—“which make the lion fly (!)”—to colonize
the Antioch regions. Hence possibly the name of
the large tribe which is known in Egypt and elsewhere
as “El H'aleb,” or “Helebi, the Aleppine.”
They waxed powerful enough in their new possessions
to contend with the Caliphat till a.d. 820-834,
when they were subjugated, and some
twenty-seven thousand were transplanted to Bagdad.
Thence they were sent north-eastwards to Khánikin
and westwards to Ayin-Zarba (?) in Syria, a place
subsequently (a.d. 855) captured by the Byzantines;
and finally the “Zott” and their belongings were
carried off and dispersed throughout the empire.
So far so good. But our critic appends a rider
to Professor de Goeje’s tale. He owns that this race,
Zott or Jats, may have transformed itself into Gypsies—not
difficult, as they were Gypsies. But he contends
that they formed a feeble modern addition to
his “Kushites,” to the race which was represented ab
antiquo by the Sicani and Sinties et hoc genus omne.
Further let me note en passant the vulgar error
now obsolete which, confounding Hindi with the Urdú-Zabán
or camp dialect,[141] made the former a bastard
modern tongue when its literature is as old as the
earliest English and French. And here we may note[Pg 197]
that, while the Romni-chíb is in point of vocabulary
a sister of the Hindi, the grammar of the noun
with its survival of regular cases belongs to a
more remote age. It is partly Prakrit and partly
Sindhi, a dialect whose numerous harsh consonants
make us suspect, despite Dr. Trumpp, a non-Aryan
element. Besides the prehistoric occupation of the
trans-Indine regions by the Indo-Scythians noticed in
Alexander’s day, we find another dating from far later
times. The Bactrian kingdom which became independent
sixty-nine years after the great Macedonian’s
death lasted one hundred and thirty years, and
was destroyed about b.c. 126 by the “white Huns,”
Chinese Tatars, who crossed the Jaxartes. Hence
possibly the Dravidian Brahins still dwelling in the
midst of Aryan populations. The apparent anomaly
that the wild and vagrant Gypsies have preserved
in Europe ancient forms which have died out in the
old home has already been accounted for; I may
also number amongst the causes of conservation the
total want of a written character, which also proves
the early date of the Gypsy exodus.
§ 4. “Notes et Questions, etc.,” “Sur le mot
Zagaie, etc.”
I treat of Nos. 4 and 5 out of order of date
because they are mere ausflugs illustrating Nos. 3
and 6. From the first we learn that when the[Pg 198]
French occupied Algiers in 1830 they found the
city and its territory partly occupied by Gypsies,
who did not mix with the Arabs or the Kabyles
(Kabáil or the Tribes), with the Jews or the
Europeans. They spoke their own tongue, and they
were often visited by their congeners of Hungary
and other parts of Europe. It is conjectured that
these Romá may have passed over from Spain, and
possibly that they travelled eastward from Morocco,
as Blidah contains many of the race. The question
becomes interesting when we find the Egyptian
Ghagar claiming to be emigrants from the West.
According to the Librarian of Algiers, the late
M. Berbruger in 1846, they were known as Guesáni,
pronounced G'sáni or G'záne (Gezzání), the feminine
singular being Gezzána (Gezzáneh).[142] Here of course
M. Paul Bataillard finds no difficulty in detecting,
through Dzâna and Tsâna, “a corruption of the
true name Tsigani or Tchingani.” The latter
form, I would observe, retaining the nasal of the
original Chingáneh and the Arabized Jingáneh, is
far preferable to the mutilated Tsigane adopted
afterwards (1875) with so much pomp and such a
flourish of trumpets.
A family dislodged from a house in the present
Rue de Chartres was found lying upon the straw
surrounded by human skulls, serpents, and other[Pg 199]
instruments of their craft. Whilst being evicted
they noisily threatened their molesters with all
manner of devilry; but as usual they ended by
submitting. The men apparently had no occupation;
the women used to wander about the streets in small
parties, generally a matron followed by four or five
girls, crying, “Gezzáneh! who wants to know the
future?”[143] The Durke,[144] or pythoness, carried a
tambourine; and when divining she placed upon her
drum-head a bit of alum and of charcoal, with
pebbles, beans or grains, wheat and barley; these
represented the “elements,” water, fire, and earth,
thus showing that the process was a rude form of
the Arab’s geomancy. Sometimes the “spae-wife”
made passes over the consultee’s head, holding in
her hand a lump of sugar; this reminds us of
the magicians in Morocco and Egypt and their
mesmerized “clear-seers.” Between 1837 and 1838
these Gypsies retired into the Sahará or Desert; and
now they visit the city only in caravans. Their
women, tattooed and painted like the Bedawiyyah,
are generally robed in rags and tatters, and decorated
with the usual tinsel, rings, and hangings.
An interesting subject, but by no means easy of
treatment, would be the order of Dervishes known as[Pg 200]
Aïssaoua, also “called Adrá, from the name of one
of their festivals.”[145] They have been noticed by a
multitude of writers each more ignorant than the
other. These men are probably Gypsies, to judge
by analogy with the Rifá'i Dervishes, who will be
noticed under the head of Egypt. The same may
be said of the Naïlette, the Almah (Álimeh) or
dancing-girl of Algiers, who affiliates herself with
the Aulád Ná'il[146], the large and wealthy Bedawin tribe
occupying the inner regions. Similarly the Nawar
Gypsies farther east derive themselves from the Beni
Nawar. These Naïlettes are public when young, yet
in after-life they become faithful wives; the same
is said of the Egyptian Ghagar and the nach-girls
of India. According to one authority, there are
among the Mozabites two or three Gypsy tribes that
live by prostituting their women to caravans. It
is curious to compare the rigid chastity of the
Gypsy girls in England and Spain, indeed in Europe
generally, where a lapse would lead to certain death,
with their looseness of life elsewhere. But the Romá
is une race curieuse entre toutes, and both extremes
may be expected from it.
It remains only to treat of No. 5, which discusses
the origin of the word Zagaie or Sagaie, the Spanish
and Portuguese Azagaia, a small kind of Moorish
spear which we have named assegai, transferring it to[Pg 201]
the throwing dart of the Básetu or Káfir race. We
have seen (§ 3) that M. Paul Bataillard has fathered
upon this term the mysterious racial name Tsigane
(Chingáneh), and there is no reason to repeat what
has been said of his derivation. We may accept
his dictum: “There are words whose history would,
if known, throw vivid light upon human migrations
and the affinity of peoples in very ancient ages.” But
here we find, in lieu of illumination, outer darkness.
The comparison of Zagaie, Gæsum, and Gais is bad
enough; but it is worse to transport the assegai
into South American speech. Demersay, describing
the Paraguayan tribe of “Payagas” (the Payagúas
or Canoe Indians), calls their lance Pagaie, “which,”
remarks our author, “may, it appears, be permitted
to me to identify with Sagaie.” This is again
transcendental etymology applied to ethnic misuse.
Pagaie here is simply the popular European, and
especially French, corruption of Tacapé or Tangapé,
the paddle-club of ironwood sharpened to serve as a
sword, and used by all the maritime tribes of Eastern
South America. Finally Korik, the bellows, so called
by the Gypsies of Asia Minor, is not Turkish, but a
corruption of the Arabic Kor.
Here ends my long notice of M. Paul Bataillard’s
four papers; the novelties introduced into them will,
it is hoped, be held to justify the prolixity.
[Pg 202]
Part II
TOPOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON THE GYPSIES
AND THE JATS
CHAPTER IV
HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE GYPSY IN EUROPE
Before proceeding to the topographical portion
of my subject, it may be well to review summarily
the historical accounts of the Romá who overspread
Europe during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
Grellman, a classic upon the subject of “Chinganology,”[147]
proved that the last movement to Western
Europe set out, not from Bohemia, but from Hungary
and the adjacent countries, including (Old) Rumelia
and Moldavia. In 1417 some three thousand settled
in Moldavia, whilst late in the same year hordes of
Tatars, then so called, appeared before the gates
of the Hanseatic towns on the Baltic coast, first
Luneburg, and then Hamburg, Lübeck, Wismar,[Pg 203]
Rostock, and Stralsund.[148] Next year they migrated
to middle Germany, to Meissen, Leipzig, and Hesse;
and presently turned their steps towards Switzerland,
entering Zürich on August 1, 1418. There they
divided their forces. One detachment crossed the
Botzberg, and suddenly appeared as “Saracens”
before the Provençal town of Sisteron. The main
body, led by “the dukes, the earls, and a bevy of
knights,”[149] turned towards Alsace, swarmed through
Strasburg, and halted under the walls of Nuremburg.
It is not easy to determine the date of their
arrival in Spain, where they may have dwelt in
far more ancient times; indeed, during the fifteenth
century the Iberian Peninsula was popularly supposed
to be their birthplace.[150] On the other hand,
many Spaniards believe them to be Germans, and
called their tongue “Germania,” Gypsy German.
In 1433 they invaded Bavaria; and thence they
spread over Germany, Denmark, and Sweden.
Their first appearance in French Christendom[Pg 204]
seems to be when a tribe of one hundred and thirty-two
souls, under “a duke,” “a count,” and ten
“knights,” startled the people of Paris, August 17,
1427. Pasquier, an eye-witness, who records the
arrival of these “Christian penitents” at Paris,
where they lodged in La Chapelle, outside the city,
gives them ugly features, with crisp black hair.[151] If
he be correct, the horde either must have sojourned
long in Africa, or must have had intercourse with
negro and negroid. There is no more constant
characteristic of the modern Gypsy, after his eye,
than the long, coarse, black Hindu-Tatar hair.
From an old work[152] it would seem that the Gypsies
drifted to England about 1500, though this is
uncertain. The writer, in his book published in
1612, says: “This kind of people about a hundred
years ago began to gather an head about the
southern parts. And this I am informed and can
gather was their beginning: Certain Egyptians [sic]
banished their country (belike not for their good
condition) arrived here in England; who for quaint
tricks and devices, not known here at that time
among us, were esteemed and held in great admira[Pg 205]tion;
insomuch that many of our English loiterers
joined with them, and in time learned their crafty
cozening. The speech which they used was the
right Egyptian [sic] language, with whom our
Englishmen conversing at least learned their
language.”
We first hear of them in Italy in the early part
of the fifteenth century. On July 11, 1422, a horde
of fully one hundred, led by a “duke,” encamped
before Bologna, passing by Forli, where some of them
maintained they came from India. At Bologna these
“mild Hindus” represented that they were bound on
an expiatory visit to the Pope.
Elsewhere they became “penitents,” who, expelled
by the Saracens from their homes in Lower Egypt,
had confessed themselves to his Holiness, and had
been condemned to seven years’ wandering and dispersion
by way of penance. Thus was visited upon
their heads the crime of those “perverse pagans”
their forefathers, who refused a drink of water to
the Virgin and Child flying from the wrath of
Herod. This was only fourteen centuries after, and
we know that lenta ira deorum est. There was
quoted concerning them the forty years’ dispersion
of Ezekiel: “And I will make the land of Egypt
desolate in the midst of the countries that are
desolate, and her cities among the cities that are
laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will
scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will[Pg 206]
disperse them through the countries” (xxix. 12).
The prophet’s minatory ravings against the old
Egyptians, who had been a “staff of reed to the
house of Israel,” were also recalled to explain their
bondage and vagabondage. Hence some declared
that it was sinful to maltreat these pseudo-pilgrims.
The Gypsies travelled to Rome and secured a
papal safe-conduct twenty years after their first
appearance at Bologna. Hypocritical legend secured
them passes and passports from the European powers
who were then engaged in the perilous Ottoman
Wars. They were more or less supported by the
Emperor Sigismund and the bishop of the same
name, who, a.d. 1540, at Fünf-Kirchen employed
them in casting iron and cannon-balls for the
benefit of the Turks; by Ladislas II., King of
Hungary, and other potentates. The Gypsies doubtless
imitated the Jews in hedging between the two
belligerents, and in betraying both of them for
their own benefit; and this doubtless was part of
the cause of the persecution which the two scattered
races endured. Purely religious movements of the
kind are rare in history; but they are numerous
when religion mixes itself, as it ever has and always
will, with politics.
Presently public opinion changed, and the natural
reaction set in. Lorenzo Palmireno, a.d. 1540,
declared in one of his books “that the Gypsies
lie,” and the lives they led were not of penitents,[Pg 207]
but of “dogs and plunderers.” They were now
loaded with all the crimes of the Middle Ages—espionage
in the cause of the infidel, incendiarism,
professional poisoning and other forms of assassination,
cannibalism, sorcery and bewitching, blaspheming
God and the saints, and personal intercourse
with the foul fiend in the shape of a grey bird.
In 1499, shortly after the institution of the Holy
Office, a.d. 1481, and the expulsion of the Jews,
a.d. 1492, the “Great Pragmatic,” signed by
Ferdinand and Isabella at Medina del Campo under
the influence of Jimenez de Cisneros, the archbishop
who disgracefully broke faith with the Moors of
Grenada, formally attacked the vagrant race.[153] It
decreed that the Egyptians and stranger tinkers,
caldereros, should settle as serfs for sixty days,
and after that time leave the kingdom under severe
personal penalties. This decree was renewed under
Charles V. by the Cortes of Toledo, in 1523, and
of Madrid, in 1528, 1534, and 1560, with the
condition that “those found vagabonding for the[Pg 208]
third time should become the life slaves of their
captors.” Under the timorous Philip III., 1619, the
Professor of Theology to the Toledo University,
Dr. Sancho de Moncada, addressed a discourse to
the king justifying the wholesale slaughter of the
race, even women and children, by the dictum, “No
law pledges us to bring up wolf-cubs.”
Following the lead of the Catholic kings, the Diet
of Augsburg, 1500-1548, revoking all previous concessions,
banished the Gypsies from the Holy German
Empire under similar conditions. This ordinance
was also revived in 1530, in 1544, in 1548, in 1551,
and in 1577, the last time confirmed by a police
regulation at Frankfurt. In 1545 the Superior
Tribunal of Utrecht punished a Gypsy who had
disobeyed a decree of exile by flogging until blood
was drawn, by splitting his nostrils, and by shaving
his head before he was driven to the frontier.[154]
In England the liberal and Protestant Henry VIII.[155]
sanctioned an Act of Parliament persecuting the[Pg 209]
Gypsies to extermination; and it was renewed by
Philip and Mary, and by Elizabeth.
Francis I. of France followed the example of his
neighbours; and under Charles IX. the persecution
was renewed by the States-General assembled at
Orleans, 1561, who decreed extermination by steel
and fire. Another and similar edict appeared in
1612. Charles V., besides his proclamations in Spain
and Germany, condemned the Gypsies of the Netherlands
to enrolment under pain of death, and this
was confirmed by the States-General in 1582.
Fanatic Poland in 1578 issued a law forbidding
hospitality to Gypsies, and exiling those who received
them. Pius V. showed himself equally inhuman,
and the Romá were driven from the duchies of Parma
and Milan, from the republic of Venice, and the
kingdom of Denmark. Sweden distinguished herself
by the severest laws of expulsion in 1662, 1723,
and 1727.
From these barbarities arose the Gypsies’ saying,
“King’s law has destroyed the Gypsy law.” The
latter consisted of fidelity to one another; the code
contained only three commandments, of which the
first two were addressed to women:
“Thou shalt not separate from the Rom (Gypsy
law).”
“Thou shalt be faithful to thy Rom.”
“Thou shalt pay thy debts to the Rom.”
These Draconian laws against the Gypsies died out[Pg 210]
during the development of civilization, and received
their death-blow at the hands of the great and glorious
French Revolution, 1789.
I propose now to collect a series of notices upon
the subject of the Gypsies and the Jats which are not
readily procurable by students; many are obtained
from books little known to the public, and not a few
are gathered by myself. And with a view of introducing
some order into the scattered tribes, we will
begin from the farthest East, the old home.
[Pg 211]
CHAPTER V
THE GYPSY IN ASIA
§ 1. The Punjabi Jats
We find the Jats well and copiously described
as early as 1835 by Lieutenant-Colonel W. H.
Sleeman.[156] He called them “Jâts,” with a long vowel,
and treats them everywhere as low caste, or rather
no-caste, Hindus. Their original habitat was upon the
Indus about Multán, one of the headquarters of Hindu
fable, and thence they spread to the Jumna and the
Chumbul Valleys. They were alternately robbers
and peaceful peasants until about a.d. 1658, when
they plundered the ill-fated Dara Shikoh, son of
Shah Jehan, the Moghol. Enriched by this feat,
they became the nobles and rajahs of the land; and
they expended vast sums in building forts like
Bharatpúr, Matras, and Gohud, and on public works
like the quadrangular garden at Díg. Incited by a
love of conquest and plunder, and united by a feeling
of nationality, which may be called patriotism, they
would have become, but for the Maráttás and for the[Pg 212]
English, the dominant race in India. Fate, however,
was against them, and those dwelling between the
Indus and the Jumna merged into the Nánah-Shákis
or Sikhs. As regards the origin of his “Jâts,”
Colonel Sleeman reminds us that Sultan Mahmoud
carried back with him to Hindustan in a.d. 1011
some two hundred thousand captives, the spoils of
his expedition.
The way of the new faith presently converted
powerful subjects and industrious peasantry into a
fighting caste, and every Jat became a soldier. On
the other hand, those lying along the Jumna and
the Chumbul, never having been inspired with the
martial spirit or united under any conqueror, continued
to drive the plough. Thus external influence
combined to make the Jats restless, and gradually
they turned their steps westward.[157]
Again, Ghenghis Khan, in a.d. 1206, and his
descendant Turmachurn, who in a.d. 1303 invaded
India and carried off hosts of prisoners, may have
given impulse to the current westward. Lastly,
about two centuries after, the great Conqueror whom
Europe has apparently determined by sectarian nickname,
“Tamerlane,” swept over Northern India in
a.d. 1398-1400, and his horde must have caused
a wide scattering of the weaker tribes.
The Jats, I may here notice, inhabited the Indine[Pg 213]
Valley, whence emigration westward is easy; the
other tribes, like the Nats, fancifully connected with
the Gypsies, were by no means so favourably situated
for an exodus. Originally the Gypsies must have
been outcasts, not Hindu Pariahs, as some have supposed
them to be; although they may have borrowed
from those Aryans the horse-sacrifice and the
burning of the dead—the latter custom has become
obsolete in Europe, and now only a few of the
deceased person’s clothes are thrown into the fire.
They had words for God (Deob) and the Devil (Bad
God—Benga), “Já li benga” (Go to the Devil)
being a popular curse. They were unalphabetic: so
clever a race would certainly not have lost a written
character, and they became nominal Christians and
Muslims in imitation of those among whom they
settled.
The Jats are still half nomads, and perhaps of old
they were wholly nomadic. They are breeders of
cattle and rude veterinary surgeons. They are fond
of music, as are all these races; and their dances are
exactly represented by those of the Egyptian Gypsies,
a similarity which has yet to be insisted upon. Their
iron-smelting, like that of the Mahabaleshwar tribes,
is exactly like that of the Romá. Their sword
play is that of the Hindu, whereas the Gypsies in
Scotland use a direct thrust straight to the front,[Pg 214][158]
certainly not learned in India. The village Jats are
said to mould the babies’ heads; perhaps the idea
arose by the shampooing of the younger children by
the mothers. Divination seems to be the growth of
the soil, and palmistry palpably derives from India.
Snake-charming is also common amongst them. As
their history in the Panjab proves, they are disposed
to robbing and to violence. Lastly, though the
history of the country universally derives them from
the Land of the Five Rivers, the modern date of
Muslim annals would not be proof against their
being a race of remote antiquity.
Believing that the Jats may fairly have sent forth
the last wave of Aryan emigration, the Gypsies, a
western flood which was probably preceded by many
others, I attempted during my last trip through Sindh
in the spring of 1856 to enlist fellow-workmen in
the task of illustrating their ethnology and philology.
Able linguists like Lieutenant-Colonel Dunsterville,
Collector of Hydrabad, and others, were willing to
assist me. But I was much disappointed by the
incuriousness of a certain professor who met me
at Milan before my visit to Western India and
Sindh. He had never seen my Grammar and
Vocabulary, of which he desired the republication;[Pg 215]
but he accepted with enthusiasm my offer to enlist
collaborators in the Valley of the Indus for the
purpose of proving or disproving his favourite
theory that the Gypsies are Sindhis who have
long dwelt in Afghanistan.[159] This professor had
of course no personal experience; anything he had
written on the subject was derived from theory only.
Object lessons are not yet popular in Italy; it is
easier to visit the camel of the Jardin des Plantes
than the camel of the desert, and we can hardly
expect a littérateur to take interest in gathering
together raw new facts.
§ 2. The Jats of Belochistan.
The following interesting extract is borrowed from
The Country of Balochistan,[160] by A. W. Hughes
(London, 1877):
“In returning to a consideration of the Jat race of
Kachh Gandāva, it may be mentioned that wherever
they are found—and they may it seems, from what
Masson states, be seen not alone in the Panjab and
Sindh and in those countries lying between the
Satlej and Ganges Rivers, but even at Kābul,
Kandahār, and Herat—they preserve their vernacular
tongue, the Jatki. Of this language many dialects
are believed to exist, and it may well be suggested[Pg 216]
by Masson that the labour of reviewing would not
be found altogether unprofitable. It appears to be a
fact that the Jats in some places preserve the calling
of itinerant Gypsies, and this more particularly in
Afghanistan; and it is not unlikely that some affinity
in their language and habits might very possibly
be traced between them and the vagabond races of
Zingāris which are spread over so large a portion of
Europe. The Jats of Eastern Kachhi, the supposed
descendants of the ancient Getæ, form the cultivating
and camel-breeding classes, and are of industrious
and peaceable habits, but are dreadfully harried and
plundered by the marauding Balochis of the neighbouring
hills. They are, so to speak, the original
inhabitants of this district, the Rinds,[161] Balochis, and
Brahuis having settled in the country at an
apparently recent period. The Jats are numerously
subdivided among themselves, some tribes amounting,
it is said, to nearly forty in number. Some of these
are known under the names of Aba, Haura, Kalhora,
Khokar, Machni, Manju, Palal, Pasarar, Tunia, and
Waddera. In general they are all Muhammadans of
the Suni persuasion.”
As El Islam was established in these countries
before our tenth century, and the Hinduism of the
Lower Valley of the Indus and of Multán dates
from the days of Alexander the Great, the original[Pg 217]
emigration of Gypsies, who hardly preserve a trace
of Hinduism, must either have been outlying pagans
or a race of extreme antiquity.
§ 3. The Gypsies of Persia.
Captain Newbold, after visiting the Gypsies in
Sindh, Belochistan, and Multán, found them in the
“great plain of Persepolis; in the blossoming Valley
of Shiráz in the Butchligar Mountains; on the
scorched plains of Dashtistan and Chaldea.” He
thinks that they may be traced to, and probably
far beyond, the Caspian, and easterly to the deserts
of Herman and Mekran. They affect but little the
scanty fare and the uninteresting life of the desert.
Perfectly distinct from the pastoral “Iliyát,” the
Bedawin of nearer Asia, the Turkomans, Kurds, and
other nomads who camped far from the abodes of
settled men, these tribes wander from town to town
and village to village, always pitching tents near
the more industrious, on whose credulity they partly
subsist, here and elsewhere.
The ostensible trades of the Persian Gypsies are
those of the blacksmith and tinker, the tinner of
iron, makers of winnowing sieves, cattle doctors, and
fortune-tellers; they are also workers in gold, and
forge the current coins of Persia and Turkey. Others
are Zíngar (saddle-makers); and Newbold adds,
evidently without sufficient basis: “Hence the[Pg 218]
Zinganeh, a Kurdish tribe who are supposed to be
of Gypsy origin, the Italian, Spanish, and German
word for Gypsy, Zingari, etc.” Finally, they are
vendors of charms and philters, conjurers, dancers,
mountebanks, and carvers of wooden bowls.
The professors of these arts wander about in
separate bands; but they must not be confounded
with independent tribes of vagabonds and outcasts
of various tribes who lead a roving, thieving Gypsy
life, but are not Gypsy. Their Persian neighbours
hold them to have a separate origin; but identity
of feature and language prove them to be one and
the same stock. They divide themselves into two
classes, the Kaoli or Ghurabti, the Kurbat of Syria
and the Gavbar. Both names are of disputed
origin, and even the Persians and the Gypsies are
at variance. Kaoli is generally supposed to be a
corruption of Kabuli (a man from Kabul). From
this old and venerable city, Sir John Malcolm states,
the Dakrám-i-Gúr imported into Persia twelve thousand
singers and musicians; and the dancing girls
of Persia are to this day called Kaoli. Khurbat, of
which Kurbat is a corruption, involves, it is said,
the idea of wandering. Gavbar is equally obscure;
the meaning would be “one who takes pleasure in
cattle”; but the Persians call a herdsman “Gan-ban,”
never “Gav-bar.” The true Kaoli and Gavbar, who,
like their brethren in Sindh, Syria, and Egypt, outwardly
profess El Islam, rarely, if ever, intermarry[Pg 219]
with Persians, Turks, or Arabs. And whilst the
latter regard them as distinct in origin from themselves,
in fact as Hindus, would their wretched
Pariahs, the Gáo-bár, claim the honour of being
Sayfids, or descendants of the Apostle?
§ 4. The Gypsies of Syria.
According to Newbold, the Gypsies of Palestine
and South Syria[162] are called Náwer; while in Asia
Minor and North Syria they style themselves Kurbat,
Rumeh, and Jinganeh (Chinganeh). The signification
of Kurbat is doubtful, but is only supposed
to mean a wanderer from his own land, a stranger,
derived from the Arab root Gharaba, “he went
far away.” The two last terms he holds related to
the Spanish Romani (?) and Zincali, and the German
Zigeuner. They are true to the character of their
race; they disdain to be shepherds or tillers of the
soil; and they feed like vultures and carrion upon
the credulity and superstitions of mankind. Bedawin
of the intellectual world, they juggle the simpler
sons and daughters of cities by pretended skill in[Pg 220]
the occult, more especially chiromancy. Some are
dancers and minstrels, while others vend charms,
philters, and poisons. Like their English brethren,
the men are profound adepts in horseflesh, in donkey-dealing,
and in game-snaring; but instead of tinkering
pots and kettles, they spin cotton and woollen yarns
for their clothes and tents, and they make and mend
osier-baskets. This and making wooden boxes were
the favourite handicrafts of the Gypsies when they
first entered Europe.
In winter they camp on the outskirts of large
towns, in a sort of half tent, half hut, which is
readily removed. During the fine months they go
forth into the plains or mountains, where they affect
tents or ruins, but never far from the haunts of their
prey, mankind. Their migrations, if regular, are
not of a great extent; and they never wholly forsake
a country unless driven away by absolute persecution.
Shaykh Rasscho, the head of the Aleppine Gypsies,
and responsible for their poll tax, informed Newbold
that his tribe was divided into thirty houses, of
whose names he could only remember twenty-eight.
It is not material to give these names, but they
are evidently Muslim names of men who probably
belonged to “heads of houses.” The old Gypsy
declared that Kurbat, Nawar, Rumeli, and Chinganeh
were all of the same family, and had lived in Syria
and Asia Minor since the creation.
These people in no way differ physically from the[Pg 221]
European tinkers. They have the same slender,
well-knit figures, rather below middle size, tawny
skins, rather prominent cheekbones, and straight
black hair. The facial angle is rather Hindu and
Tatar than Turkoman, and they have the Hindu’s
long horse-tail hair. Dark eyes are not invariable;
in the mountains of Antioch the colour is sometimes
grey or blue, and the same occurs occasionally among
the Arabs of Petra and Palmyra, among the Syrians,
the Zebeks, and other races of Asia Minor. A
great mixture of blood is the cause. The Zebeks
of Smyrna have now been deputed to represent the
bandit regular troops of Turkey as opposed to the
bandit police. The Asiatic Gypsy has also that
peculiar indescribable appearance and expression of
eye which is so strongly developed in the Romá
of Morocco and Moorish Spain, “a feature which,
like the brand on the forehead of the first murderer,
stamps this marked race over the whole globe, and
when once observed is never forgotten. The ‘Evil
Eye’ is not the least of the powers with which this
people is superstitiously invested; and if there be
any truth in the overstrained (?) doctrines of animal
magnetism, one could not possibly frame to the
imagination an eye so well calculated, so intense
a magnetic force.”[163]
[Pg 222]
These Gypsies have never been seen to pray or
perform any religious rite; some of their elders, like
the Druzes and other Syrian tribes, circumcise their
children, and conform to the exterior observances
of El Islam.
Shaykh Rasscho could repeat with sundry mistakes
the Arabic Faith Formula, omitting the second half,
“Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah.” He said that
he and his tribe acknowledged one supreme, everlasting,
omnipotent Being, and believed in an existence
after death, a state of reward and punishment
connected with metempsychosis. He denied the
charges made against the Kurbat by Syrians,
Muslims, and Christians that they worshipped the
stars or the creative principle under a symbol.
He also denied that they abhorred the eel and
the celebrated black fish of the Antioch Lake, like
the Jews, to whom the Mosaic Law—which, by-the-bye,
is equally binding upon Muslims—makes it
unclean, because it lacks fins and scales.[164] Newbold,
however, was assured that the Kurbat, who, like the
India Pariahs, are the flayers of animals dying a
natural death, devour the carcases of all animals
except the man and the hog.
According to the Turks and Syrians, the Kurbat
girls are not so chaste as their European sisters;[Pg 223]
yet they wear till marriage the “lacto diklo,” a
certain cloth, in token and in pledge of spotless
virginity, which the bridegroom alone is permitted
to take off. The women dress like the lower orders
in Syria; but they affect more ornaments of silver
and brass, ear-and nose-rings, armlets and bracelets,
anklets and bangles. They spin, take care of the
poultry, ducks, cats, and children, and cook exactly
like the English Gypsy women. Especially they tell
fortunes, which practice, confined to a certain caste
but forbidden to others, seems to be a kind of
sacerdotalism.
The Kurbat, like their brethren all the world over,
have no written characters or symbols for letters or
words. Their Shaykh told Newbold that, although
they themselves could not write, two men in the
tribe could write. As, however, neither the men nor
specimens of their writing were produced, the inference
drawn from this, and other similar inquiries,
was that “the written characters, or symbols, of
their language, or rather jargon, have either been
lost, or are known to only a few, who superstitiously
keep them secret.”[165] In the bazars of Syria they
speak Arabic or Turkish; at home they use their
own tongue.
The following scanty list of Kurbat words was
obtained viva voce from the Aleppo tribes, and[Pg 224]
were subsequently checked by comparison with the
tribe near Antioch:
Vocabulary: Kurbat-Duman.
| Kindred. |
| English. | Kurbat. | Duman. |
|---|
| Father | bábúr | bábúr. |
| Mother | aida | aida and ana. |
| Brother | bhairú | berávau. |
| Sister | bhanu | kochi. |
| Natural Objects. |
| Sun | gáham | gáham. |
| Moon | heiúf | heiúf. |
| Star | astara | astara. |
| Air | vál and vái | kannad hává. |
| Heavens | khúai | ghennader. |
| The earth | bar, ard (Arab.) or turra | bar. |
| Fire | ag | ár. |
| Water | páni | hou (Pers. áb, áo). |
| Rain | bursenden | bárán. |
| Snow | khíf | súrg. |
| Cloud | barúdi | bullút. |
| Light | tshek | ar and aidinlik. |
| Sea | dúnguz (Turk.) | daíreh and dúnguz. |
| Mountain | thull (At. tall) | ghiella. |
| A spring | kháni | kháni. |
| Stone | vúth | káwer. |
| Salt | lóu | khoi. |
| Milk | kír (Sanak. Pers.)and lebben (Ar.) | shir (pure Persian). |
| Barley | jou (jau) | jou. |
| Wheat | gheysúf | ghiannam. |
| Iron | náhl | khallik. |
| Night | arát | shou (Pers. shub, shao). |
| Day | bedis | ghiundez. |
| [Pg 225]Onion | lussun, piyaz | piyáz. |
| Dhurra (Holcus, Sorghum) | ak | ar. |
| Rice | brinj | silki. |
| Animals, etc. |
| A hare | kunder | kunder. |
| Dog | súrunter | kúchek. |
| Cat | psík | kadizor. |
| Horse | ghora or aghora | asp. |
| Mare | míno | míno. |
| Ass | kharr | kharri. |
| Sheep | bakrá | khaidú. |
| Cow | góru | kaikuz. |
| Bull | grouf, or maia góru | meshjúk. |
| Fowl | jeysh-chumári | mirrishk. |
| Pig | dónguz (Turk.) | dónguz. |
| Camel | aubba, asht | ashtur. |
| Crow | kíl, hashzeik and tánuk | sereh. |
| Snake | sánb, sámp | marr (Pers.). |
| Fish | machchi | machchi. |
| Parts of the Human Body. |
| Finger | anglú, ángul | pechi. |
| Hand | kustúm, kustúr | dast. |
| Eye | akki and ánkhi | jow. |
| Hair | vál or bál | khalluf. |
| Ear | kán and kannir | príúk. |
| Neck | gúrgúr | kántlagu. |
| Knee | lúlúk, chokyúm | koppaku. |
| Teeth | dándeir | ghiólu. |
| Head | sir, chir | murrás. |
| Flesh | mársi | gósht. |
| Miscellaneous Nouns. |
| A well | astal, chál | chál. |
| An egg | ánó | heili. |
| A ring | angúshteri | dastúri. |
| God | Khánarje | Allah. |
| A ship | ghemmi, durongaye | ghemmi. |
| [Pg 226]Boat | shátúr | shátúr. |
| War | lagísh, káwye | káwye. |
| A Christian | kuttúr (dog?) | nosaru (Nazarene). |
| Door | Kápi (Turk.) | kapi. |
| Boy | chágú | láwak. |
| Girl | lafti | kechikeh. |
| Thief | kuft | khaiúk. |
| Tent | cháder (Pers.) | cháder. |
| Knife | chírí | khair. |
| Rope | kundóri | kundóri and sijúm. |
| Book | kitál | kitáh, mushulleh. |
| City | viár | viár. |
| Village | deh, diyár | deh, diyár. |
| Bridge | kienpri (Turk.) | kienpri. |
| Castle | killa | kalla. |
| Paper | kághaz | kághaz. |
| Bread | manna | nán. |
| House | kuri or kiri | málá. |
| King | padshah | beghirtmish. |
| Love | mankamri and kamri | kamri. |
| Month | muh, mas | viha, mas. |
| Colour | táwúl | táwul. |
| Year | das di mas, varras or barras | deh di mar or dah di viha. |
| Personal and Possessive Pronouns. |
| I | man | man. |
| Thou | tó | to. |
| He | húi | húi. |
| Mine | maki or man ki | maki or man ki. |
| Thine | to ki or toi ki | to ki or toi ki. |
| His | hui ki | hui ki. |
| Cardinal Numbers. |
| One | ek. | The Duman is the |
| Two | di. | same, except sih for |
| Three | turrun. | “three,” and deh for |
| Four | char or shtar. | “ten.” |
| Five | penj. |
| Six | shesh. |
| [Pg 227]Seven | heft. |
| Eight | hesht. |
| Nine | na or nu. |
| Ten | das. |
| Eleven | das ek. |
| Twelve | das di. |
| Thirteen | das turrun. |
| Fourteen | das char. |
| Fifteen | das penj. |
| Sixteen | das shesh. |
| Seventeen | das heft. |
| Eighteen | das hesht. |
| Nineteen | das na. |
| Twenty | víst or bíst. |
| Twenty-one | víst ek. |
| Twenty-two, etc. | víst di, etc. |
| Thirty | si. |
| Forty | chhil. |
| Fifty | penjeh. |
| Sixty | turrun víst. |
| Seventy | turrun víst das. |
| Eighty | chár víst. |
| Ninety | chár víst das. |
| One hundred | sad. |
| Two hundred | di sad. |
| A thousand | hazar. |
| Adjectives. |
| Sick | numshti | bímár, ruár. |
| Bad | kumnarrey | kíóná. |
| Good | gahay | arunder. |
| Great | durónkay, burro | mázin. |
| Small | túróntay, thoranki | chúchúk (Pers. kuchik). |
| Black | kálá, kálo | káni, shippia. |
| White | pannarey | suffeid. |
| Red | lorey, loley | kunnu. |
| Yellow | zard | zara, kulp. |
| Green | kark | sukkul. |
| Blue | niley | níla. |
| Cold | siá | súki. |
| [Pg 228]Hot | tottey | khunney. |
| Adverbs. |
| Much | bhúyih | phurga. |
| A little | thoráki | ennika. |
| Enough | basey | nar. |
| Here | veshli, itan, idhur | búndeh. |
| Verbs. |
| To come | pá | } imperative | pa. |
| To go | jó | jo. |
| To eat | khm | } imperative | khám. |
| To drink | piún | piúm. |
| To bring | nán | winni. |
| To tell fortune | fál | wunnakerim. |
[The above list is printed exactly as written by Burton; but it
has been found impossible to verify it from other sources.]
§ 5. The Gypsies of the Haurán, South-Eastern Syria.
In January, 1871, I accompanied the Damascus
Pilgrim Caravan some marches; and at Mazáríb in
the Haurán, the well-known station near which Ali
Beg el Abbasi, the Spaniard, was poisoned, I found
three Gypsy tents. The inmates called themselves
Nawar, a popular term throughout the country. In
the same way as the Romá of Spain affected to be
devout Christians “living in a peaceable Catholic
manner,” so the head of the little party I discovered
insisted upon all his people being born Muslims,
evidently disliking the suspicion that they belonged[Pg 229]
to the “obsolete faith,” Christianity, with which the
ignorant faithful confused all later creeds. (These
people thus saved themselves from exile when Sultan
“Báyezíd” expelled all Gypsies from the Ottoman
Empire.) In proof of his assertion he recited a verse
of the Koran with peculiar twang. The headquarters
of the tribe and the abode of the chief Shaykh were
at Ghazzeh, and Muhammad and his “lamentable
retinue” had wandered northwards, intending to
stay four or five days at Mazáríb—in fact, whilst
the caravan was passing. Their peculiar industries
were metal-work and making sieves, so they stated;
but to these their neighbours added plundering and
petty larceny, together with trading in asses and
horses. According to my informant, many of his
people attend the Haj, doubtless to throw dust into
Muslim eyes.
My Syrian companions compared the general look
of the dark-skinned, tanned dwellers with the Ashdán,
whilst they found a certain resemblance between the
Roumís and the women of a certain Arab tribe who
camped about near Damascus; but the long, coarse,
lank hair, with the duck-tail under curl, the brown
white eyes, whose peculiar glance is never to be
mistaken, the prominent Tatar-like cheekbones,
and the irregular-shaped mouths, suggested Hindu
origin and physiognomy. The beard was long and
somewhat wavy, possibly the result of inhabiting
for generations a hot dry land. Some have gashed[Pg 230]
faces like the “Bohemians” when they first entered
Paris. Their women, adorned with ear-rings and
necklaces, bracelets and anklets of brass and tinsel,
were Macbethian witches; and both sexes, like the
outcasts of India generally, seem to abhor cold water.
I tried them with a few words of Sindhi, introduced
into Hindustani, when their faces assumed the normal
puzzled expression, and their eyes appeared to close
and film over. Of magic and divination they would
not speak to a stranger; but they readily gave me
the following words: Ag, fire (pure Hindi); Ake,
eye (Aukh); Chirí, knife (Churi); Goray, horse
(Ghora); Kálá, oracle (pure Hindi); Munám, bread
(an Arabic corruption?); Pánay, water (Pani); Zari,
mouth (?). Conversing with one another they spoke
fluently, and introduced few Arabic words.
The Nawar make their appearance with the Eastern
Bedawin, Wuld Ali, and others about the beginning
of summer, and occupy huts built of cane, sticks,
and mud. The roofs are hides weighted with sticks.
They work at getting in the harvests, and they are
said to work much harder than the average husbandman.
Of course they are charged with plundering
poultry. They speak bad Arabic, and talk together
in their own tongue; wherefore the peasants affect
to despise them. In fact, here, as elsewhere, they
constitute a strange sort of commonwealth amongst
themselves—wanderers, impostors, and jugglers.
[Pg 231]
§ 6. The Gypsies of Damascus.
Consul E. T. Rogers, my predecessor at Damascus,
made the following brief notes, and obliged me with
permission to publish them. His long period of
residence led him to study subjects which escaped
the passing traveller.
“I remember quite distinctly that the Gypsies
of Syria, or people resembling them, were divided
into three distinct families, not supposed to intermarry,
and, as I was told, supplying two distinct
languages:
“(1) The Nawar[166] follow the ordinary Gypsy
vocations, stealing, fortune-telling, tinkering, attending
fêtes and marriages as itinerant musicians,
jugglers, etc.;
“(2) The Zutt were generally seen with trained
animals, goats, donkeys, etc., performing in the
streets; and
“(3) The Barámaki, who give more attention to
horse-dealing. They are farriers and blacksmiths,
and are generally found on the outskirts of isolated
villages, or near the camps of small Arab tribes,[Pg 232]
where they let out stallions for breeding purposes.
They buy broken-down horses and mares of good
breed, and are very clever at doctoring them up
and rendering them fit for sale.”
Mr. Consul Rogers also showed me a sketch he
had made of a Zutti boy with a performing goat
borne upon sections of bamboo—a common sight
in India.
[Pg 233]
CHAPTER VI
THE GYPSY IN AFRICA
§ 1. The Egyptian Ghajar or Ghagar
If there is anything persistent in Gypsy tradition,
it is the assertion that the Gypsies originally
came from the banks of the Nile—that Egypt, in
fact, gave them a local habitation and a name.
Yet, curious to say, this is the country, and the
only country, where a tribe of the Romá, preserving
the physiognomy and the pursuits of its ancestors,
has apparently lost its old Aryan tongue, or rather
has exchanged it for a bastard argot, mostly derived
from Arabic.[167] Nor does this phenomenon seem to be
of modern date. A very rare Italian comedy of the
middle sixteenth century, La Cingana, pronounced
“Tchingana,” was expected to yield treasures of
philological lore; but on investigation it proved
that the Gypsies spoke only a corrupt Arabic.
[Pg 234]
The following pages are mostly taken from the
well-known work Aegypten, etc. (Leipzig: Brockhaus,
1860), by the famous Orientalist, Alfred von Kremer.
As will be seen, he made a careful study of the
“Zigeuner” or “Aegypten,” the “Ghagar”; whereas
these interesting families of the Gypsy race, a
people of wanderers, who have nowhere a house, and
who have everywhere a home, are most perfunctorily
treated of by Lane.
“On the banks of the Nile,” says Von Kremer,
whose words I shall now quote, as in other places,
“the Ghagar men, like the Polloi of Herodotus,
are tinkers, ape-leaders, rope-dancers, and snake-charmers;
whilst the women are Áhnahs, prostitutes,
and fortune-tellers. They are very numerous; they
trade in asses, horses, and camels, and, as pedlars
(Baddaah), they manage almost all the petit commerce
of the country. The Ghagar buy goods wholesale
in Cairo, and frequent the two annual fairs of
Tantá; that of May was instituted about 1853, and
entitled the Maulid El Shilkáni (birth-festival of
the Shaykh El Shilkáni), who is buried some three
hours’ march from Beni Suef. Thus they not
unfrequently become rich.
“The Háwi[168] (snake-charmers) and the snake-eaters[Pg 235]
(Rifaijjeh) live at Cairo; and many travellers have
seen the disgusting spectacle without suspecting that
the Dervish’s frock covered the ‘tinkler.’ These
classes are useful to the naturalist, as they have
always a supply of live or dead serpents, with and
without poison-fangs, lizards, uromastix, jerboas,
jackals, wolves, ferrets (Stinkthiere), and so forth.
They find and catch serpents with surprising
dexterity: armed with a bit of palm frond to tap
the walls and ceilings, and with a pipe whose tones
draw the reptiles from their hiding-places, they
rarely fail to make captures, as the older houses
of Cairo are mostly haunted by harmless snakes.
This proceeding of course awes the ignorant, and
none dare to engage a room when the Háwi has
declared it to be snake-possessed.
“The term ‘Ghagar’ or ‘Ghajar’ is general; the
people, according to their own account, are divided
into tribes, who all, however, represent themselves
to be pure Arabs and wandering immigrants
from the West.[169] The date of this movement is
apparently unknown; but its reality is confirmed
by the fact that all, without exception, belong to[Pg 236]
the Maliki school, prevailing in Morocco and in
North-West Africa. They are vagrants by profession,
and obtain written permission to travel, either
from the police or from the Guild Shaykh of the
Rifai Dervishes.
“The most numerous tribe everywhere in Egypt
is the Ghawázi;[170] in every city, town, and village
there are representatives of these arch-seductresses,
whose personal beauty makes them dangerous. They
call themselves Baramaki,[171] and derive themselves
from the Persian Barmekides, the historical house
ruined and annihilated by the Khalif Harun-er-Raschid.
Yet they are very proud of their Bedawin descent; and
they lead the lives of the sons of the desert, dwelling
in tents, which they carry from fair to fair. The[Pg 237]
maidens are dancers, the old women spae-wives;[172]
the girls rarely marry before securing a competency,
and they often take their slaves to husband. The
Gháziyah’s goodman is generally nothing more than
a servant, who brings her new acquaintances, and
who pipes or drums when she dances. There are
cases of these girls marrying village chiefs; and
their after-lives are as correct as their youth was dissolute
(compare p. 145, Burckhardt’s Arabic Proverbs:
London, 1830). The Ghawázi speak the Gypsy
jargon which is in use amongst all the other tribes.
“The Gypsies of the Sa'íd (Upper Egypt), who
call themselves ‘Saáideh,’ have purely Asiatic, not
African, features, with dark brown skins, piercing
black eyes, and lank hair, also black. The women
tattoo their lips, hands, and bosoms generally in
blue, wear heavy brass ear-rings, and hang round
their necks strings of blue and red beads. They
divine by muscle-shells, broken bits of glass, coloured
stones as agates and jaspers, pieces of stained
wax, and so forth, carried upon the shoulders in a
kirbah, or bag, generally of gazelle-skin. After
taking her seat on the mat or carpet, the woman
empties her sack, and, choosing one article which
shall represent the person who pays, draws her
revelations from the grouping. Money is required
at various stages of the process; and at the end the[Pg 238]
Gypsy presents some bits of stone or coloured wax
by way of charms to her employer.[173]
“These people may be seen in the streets of Cairo,
dressed like the Felláhah (peasant woman), in taubs,
or long shirts of home-made indigo-dyed cotton,
but lacking the shintiyán (drawers) and the burka'
(nose-bag). Their features at once distinguish them
from the Muslims and the Copts; and they are noted,
moreover, by the sheep-skin or gazelle-skin thrown,
besides the bag, over their shoulders. They frequent
the bazars, and stroll about the principal thoroughfares
of the great towns, especially in summer-time,
as the Nile begins to rise; and their favourite
cries are ‘Nibejjin-ez-zein!’ (We show the good,
i.e. luck), ‘Ta'ál! shuf el Bakht’ (Come and see
your fortunes), and ‘Nidmor el Ghaib!’ (We find
the lost).
“The capital contains a large company of Ghagar
women, who speculate upon public credulity; and
their quarter is the Hosh Bardak, once a fine quarter,
now a squalid hole behind that noble pile the Sultan
Hasan Mosque. I visited it in November, 1877, and
found the courts still occupied. The people, tinkers
and blacksmiths, who sell ear-rings, bracelets, amulets,[Pg 239]
and other metal articles, exactly resembled Fellahs
to a superficial glance. Apparently they had forgotten
their favourite craft, fortune-telling. Moreover,
they did not like the term Ghagar. There is,
or rather was, another colony at Masr el 'Atíkah
(Babylon or Old Cairo). A third used to camp
chiefly during winter and spring near a village on
the right of the Cairo-Shubrá road, and I believe
they are still there. Their rivals, the Maghribí
(North-West African) magicians, and those from the
central regions, of which Darfur[174] supplies the greatest
number, are known by their sitting in the streets
and performing upon cards or sand.[175] Predicting
by marks drawn on the sand (Ilm el Raml) is old
in the East, and plays a great part in the Arabian
Nights.
“Other tribal names are H'aleb or Helebi
(Aleppine), Schah'āini, and Tatar (T'at'ar). The
men of the last class, almost all farriers or tinkers, are
also termed A'wwādāt or Mua'merrātijjeh.[176] Amongst
the other Ghagar there are many smiths, who make[Pg 240]
the brass rings worn on the fingers and arm-joints,
in the ears and nose, and around the neck.
“The monkey-leaders so numerous in Cairo,
especially about the Ezbekijjeh quarter,[177] the Kuraydati,[178]
so called from Kird, an ape, also belong to
the Gypsy tribes; and these mostly supply the
Bahlawán,[179] gymnasts or strong-men, athletes, and
especially wrestlers, who frequent fairs and festivals.
During the 'Id ed Dahijjeh[180] they swarm in the
capital.[181]
“All these subdivisions speak the same Rothwelsch,
or ‘Thieves’ Latin,’ which they call El Sím. It
explains the idea prevailing in the middle of the
last century; namely, that the Gypsy language was
an invented tongue; a ‘Germania,’ as the Spaniards
say; a conventional jargon; a jail-bird’s speech,
varying with every horde.[182] The origin and full[Pg 241]
import of the term Sím are undetermined; but it
is understood to mean something hidden or secret;[183]
and it is applied to the impure and gilt ‘gold-wires’
imported from Austria. It is said, however,
that the Bahlawán above use another speech; of this
I have been unable to collect proofs, nor do I hold
the information wholly credible.”
The following vocabulary was compiled by Von
Eremer at Cairo, where he persuaded many of
the Ghagar to frequent the Consulate, especially
Muhammad Merwán, who pompously styled himself
“Shaykh of all the Snake-charmers of Egypt.”
He also consulted many Gypsy women from Upper
Egypt; these appeared to speak a somewhat different[Pg 242]
dialect, and the words taken from them are distinguished
by an S. The numerals, all save one
corrupted Arabic, are as follows:
NUMERALS.
- 1, Mach[184] (Etruscan, Max): according to Newbold (loc.
cit.), Helebi, Ek; Náwer, Yek.
- 2, Machayu (evidently a dual form purely Arabic): Hel.
Dúi; Naw. Dú.
- 3, Tulit (S), or Telát (Salás) Máchát (three ones): Hel.
Dúi-ek (i.e. 2 + 1), or Sih (Pers.); Naw. Súso (Sih).
- 4, Rúbi' (S), or Arba'ah Máchát (four ones), and so forth:
Hel. and Naw. Chár, or Dúi fi dúi (the fi being pure
Arabic “in”).
- 5, Khúmis (S), or Shammáleh (i.e. the hand): Hel. Penk,
Peng; Naw. Fowi.
- 6, Sutet (S): Hel. and Naw. Penk-ek (5 + 1).
- 7, Súbi': Hel. and Naw. Penk-i-dúi (5 + 2).
- 8, Túmin (S): Hel. and Naw. Ister or Heshter (Nasht,
Pers.).
- 9, Tiwa' (S): Hel. and Naw. Enna, Nau, or Peng-i-dui-fi
dúi (5 + 2 in 2).
- 10, Ushir (S): Hel. Das, Des, Desh; Naw. Halaheh.
Evidently Von Kremer’s numerals are altered just enough
to be hardly intelligible in a sentence hurriedly spoken;
whilst Newbold’s are Persian and Hindi.[185]
[Pg 243]
Vocabulary.[186]
- Water, Móge (evidently Máych, Moyyeh), Himbe (S).
Newbold: H. Hembi, Sheribni (Pers.), or Pani
(Hindi); G. Páni; and N. Óah.
- *Bread, Shenúb, Bishleh (S).
- Father, Ab (Arab.) or A'rub;[187] my father, Abamru or A'rubi.
- *Mother, Kodde, plur. Kadáid; my mother, Koddéti; it
also means generically woman: H. Ammámri; G.
Kuddi.
- *Brother, Sem'a or Khawíj (from Akkawí, adj. brotherly?);
my brother, Sem'ai; thy brother, Sema'ak or Khawijak;[188]
also generically a boy, lad, youth: H.
Huwiji; G. Búrdi.
- Sister, Sema'ah[189] or Ukht (pure Arabic); thy sister,
Sem'atak: H. Khawishti; G. Marash; N. Maras:[Pg 244]
also generically a girl, lass, e.g. Sema'ah bahíleh, a
pretty girl.
- *Night,[190] Ghalmúz'a: H. Dámúd; G. Rátse.
- *Horse, Soh'lí (Sohl, neighing), Husánáish (S) (from Husán,
a stallion): H. Sohli; G. Ghera (Hind.).
- *Ass, Zuwell: H. Zowilli; G. Kharís (Pers. Khar).
- *Camel, Hantif: H. Huntif; G. Hunt (Hind.), Ashtr
(Pers.).
- Buffalo, En Naffákheh (from the Arab Nafkh, blowing,
the blower?).
- *Lamb, Mizghál, Minga'esh (from classical Arabic Naja'ah)
(S), Khurraf (Arab. Kharúf) (S).[191]
- Tree, Khudrumán (Akhdar, green?), Shagaráish (Arab.
Shajar) (S).
- Flesh, A'dwaneh Mahzuzah (S).
- Fowl, En-Nebbásheh (Nabsh, scratching the ground): H.
Churīya (Hind.); G. Kagmiyeh; N. Burah.
- *Fat (subst.), Barúah.
- Ghost, angel, devil, Astrúm (Shúm, Arab, ill-omened?).
- Hell, Ma-anwára, ma, the thing which is light, i.e. fire,
from núr, anwár, light, lights (e.g. add el-ma-anwara,
light the fire); not the Sa'idi, El-Mugánwara (S).
- [Pg 245]
- Date, Ma'ahli, Mahalli (S) (the thing sweet).
- Gold, El-ma-asfar (the thing yellow for El-má-asfar, a
transposition), Midhabesh (S) (corrupted from Dahab).
- *Silver, Bítúg.
- Iron, Hadidaish (Arab. Hadid): H. Megan; G. Sista;
N. Shir.
- *Corn, Duhúbi, Duhúba (S): H. Dahuba; G. Ghiú; N.
Ghiudem (Pers. Gaudum).
- Hunter, Dabaibi (from Díb, a wolf-hunter?).
- *Magician, Tur'ai.
- Stone, Hogger (Arab. Hajar, Hagar; dimin. Hujayr): H.
Hajar; G. Path.
- *Land, region, Anta, plur. Anáti.[192]
- *Uncle, A'rúb; and Aunt, A'rubeh.
- Milk,[193] Raghwán, Hirwán (S) (Arab. Raghwah, foam of milk).
- Onion, Musanúm, Mubsalcheh (S) (Arab. Basal): H.
Musmunum; G. Piyaz (Pers.).
- Cheese, El-Mehartemeh, Mahárteme (S).[194]
- *Soured milk, Atreshent, Mishsh (the Arabic Laban).
- Millet, Handawil, Mugaddiriyyeh (S) (the dish Mujadderah,
rice and lentils mixed, from Judrá, the small-pox).
- *Beans, Buhus.[195]
- *Dog, Sanno: H. and G. Sunno.
- Wolf, Dibaish (Arab. Dib).
- [Pg 246]
- Knife, El-Khúsah: H. Tillúmeh; G. Matwa, Churi (Hind.);
N. Chiri.
- Foot, Darrágeh (Arab. Daraj, a step), er-raghaleh (Arab.
rijl, rigl) (S), Mumeshayát (S) (Mashi, walking).
- Head, Kamúkhah, Dumákheh (S) (Pers. Damágh, brain):
H. Ras; G. Sir (Hind.), Sherit, Kamokhti.
- Eye, Bassáseh (Bassáseh, she that sees?), Huzzárah (S):
H. Hazára; G. Ankhi (Hind.).
- *Thief, Damáni: H. Gowáti; G. Dumáni, Kálo; N.
Showústi.
- Hand,[196] Shammáleh (Arab. Shamala, he collected; Shimál,
the left-hand?), also two number five: H. Kumáshteh;
G. Gadno, Kustúr (Augushti?), Chang
(Pers.); N. Fowítak.
- North, Baharaish (from Bahar, the sea, i.e. towards the
Mediterranean).
- South, Kiblaish (Kibleh, Arab, the fronting-place, i.e.
Mecca).
- East, Sharkaish (Arab. Shark; hence probably Saracen).
- West, Gharbaish (Gharb, whence probably Maurus, a Moor).
- Coffee, Magáswade (Má aswad, that which is black).
- *Clothes,[197] Sarme (S).
- Shoe, Merkubáish (Arab. Merkáb).
- Nose, Zenúnáish.
- Ear, Widu (Arab. Uzu); thy ear, Widuamrak[198] (S) or
Mudáusheh (S): H. Wudu; G. Kirkawiyeh.
- [Pg 247]
- Cow, Mubgársheh (S) (Arab. Bakar): H. Mubgursha; G.
Góm (Goa, Pers.?).
- Bull, Mutwáresh (S) (Arab. Taur): H. Mutwarish; G. Maia,
Góno (male cow?).
- River, Mistabhar (S) (from Bahr, sea or river).
- Palm (tree), Minkhalesh (S) (Arab. Nakhl).
- Tent, El-Mikkwáshesh (S) (Arab. Khaysheh).
- Wood, Makhshabesh (S) (Arab. Khashab).
- Straw, Tibuáish (Arab. Tibu).
- Christ, El-Annawi (el-Nabbí, The Prophet?).
- *Egg, Mugahrada (S): H. Mejáhaled; G. Wáin.
- Fire,[199] El-Mugáuwara, (S): light the fire, Walláish el-Mugáuwara.
- *Food, esh-Shimleh.
- Sack, Migrábesh (Arab. Kirbeh, Girbeh).
- Arm, El-Kemmásheh; my hand hurts, Kemmashtu waga'ani
(Arab. Kamasha, he collected, picked up; the last
word pure Arab.).
- Hair, Sha'aráish (S) (Arab. Sha'ar): H. Hára; G. Bál or
Vál (Hind.).
- *Tobacco, Tiftaf (S) (possibly formed like the Turk. Tutun).
- Mountain, Migbalish (S) (Arab. Jebel, Egypt. Gebel,
whence Monte-Gibello): H. Gebel (Arab.); G.
Melúsh, Durum; N. Koh (Pers.).
- *Nasty (adj.), Shalaf.[200]
[Pg 248]
Verbs.
- *Go, Fell; I went, Felleit (Arab, termination—ayter, ayt).
To go: H. Fil; G. Já (Hind.).
- Come, E'utib (S); he came, Gádat. To come: H. Ig;
G. Utelo or á (Hind.).
- *Say, Agmu; I said, Agemtu.
- Strike, Il'big; he struck, H'abash, Habash (S) (Himyaritic?);
he still strikes, Hay yihbig (Ha fa háza el
wakt; vulgar Egyptian).
- *We ate, Rakkhayná or Shamalna (Arab. we gathered). To
eat: H. Eshna, Shemb; G. Khaba, Jála; N. Arkus.
- Sit, Watib.
- We drank, Mawwajná (from Manj, a wave?); I drank,
Mawwagt, Hamball (S). To drink: H. Hunnib;
G. Mowwak.
- He cut, Shafar.
- He called, cried, Nabbat'a.
- *He died, Entena.
- [Pg 249]
- He killed, slew, Tena; he kills, Yitni.
- *He sleeps, Yidmukh; I slept, Dammacht. To sleep: H.
Dumak; G. Sobelar; N. Suk.
- *He rides, Yita'alwan.
- *He gives, Yikif; he gave, Kaf.
- *He steals, Yiknisk; he stole, Kanash. To rob: H.
Gunwani; G. Churabi (Hind.); N. Lahis.
- *He cooks, Yittabig; he cooked, Tabag (Arab. Tabaxa).
- He saw, Haseb.
- *He laughs, Biarr'a.
- *Sit, Ukriz.
- Stand up, Utib.
- *He married, Etkaddad.
“From these philological facts,” says Von Kremer,
in conclusion, “I draw no inference, the material
being perhaps too scanty to warrant deductions. It
is very regrettable that the old original words are
dropping out of use, being replaced by a cant or[Pg 250]
jargon from Arabic according to a purely conventional
plan, a changing of the ending, like Kiblas
for Kibla. It is also evident that the Ghagar have
sunk in favour of the vernacular their own peculiar
names for colours, for the sun and moon, for earth
and fire, and for other terms of universal use.”
In Newbold’s vocabulary, on the other hand, we
have distinct signs of an Eastern, not a Western provincialism,
as the author says: “There is a marked
difference in the three dialects, or jargons; that of
the Ghagar most resembles the language of the
Kurbat, or Gypsies of Syria. The Gypsy dialect in
Borrow’s work contains more words of Indian origin
than the Helebi and Nawar jargon. The Helebi
comprises a large number of words of Arabic root,
indicating a long sojourn in Yemen, or other parts
of Arabia. Its numerals, which are also used by
the Ghagar when secrecy is required, bear strong
marks of Eastern, or Persian, origin. Usually the
Helebis adopt the vulgar Arabic numerals in use
throughout Egypt.[201] ... The numerals of the Nawars
are evidently of Persian origin.... All the tribes
disclaim having any written character peculiar to
themselves,[202] and it is rare to find one among them[Pg 251]
who can write the common Arabic of the country.
I have been informed, however, by a respectable
Copt that they have secret symbols which they
sedulously conceal. It seems to me probable that
the whole of these tribes had one common origin
in India and the adjacent countries on its western
frontier, and that the difference in the jargons they
now speak is owing to their sojourn in the various
countries through which they have passed. It is
certain that the Gypsies are strangers and outcasts in
the land which has given them a name, and which
has long been supposed to have given them birth.”
In Sindh I met Captain Newbold, and, assisted
by my late friend James Macleod, then Collector
of Customs at Karachi, supplied him with a short
vocabulary. His studies gained breadth by noting
the manners and habits of a singular wandering tribe
called the Jats, whose remarkable physical appearance
reminded him strongly of the Gypsies of Egypt and
Syria. He saw a tribe living in tents and rude
movable huts in the wood of Balut, near Jujah,
between Karachi and the Indus. Hence he drew the
following conclusions:
“Since my visit to the banks of the Indus, I am
more than ever convinced that from the borders
of this classic river originally migrated the horde
of Gypsies that are scattered over Europe, Asia, and
the northern confines of Africa. The dialects spoken
by the numerous tribes which swarm upon the[Pg 252]
territories adjacent to the Indus, from the sea to
the snowy mountains of Himalaya and Tatary, have,
with those spoken by the Gypsies, a certain family
resemblance, which, like their physical features,
cannot be mistaken. I find it impossible at present
to place my hand on any particular tribe, and say,
‘This is the parent stock of the Gypsies’; but as far
as my researches have gone, I am rather inclined to
think that this singular race derives its origin, not
from one alone, but from several tribes that constitute
the family of mankind dwelling on, or adjacent to,
the banks of the Indus.”
Captain Newbold’s studies in Egypt, where he was
assisted by the Shaykhs of the Romá, complete those
of Von Kremer, and prove that the latter had chiefly
noticed the Ghawázi and Ghagar families. The
former would divide the vagrants into two—the
Helebis and their wives, the Fehemis (wise women),
who practise palmistry and divination, and look down
with supreme contempt upon their distant kinsmen
the Ghagar or Ghajar, whose better halves are
musicians and rope-dancers. The Helebis, who
evidently derive their name from H'abel (Aleppo),
claim to be derived from El Yemen, and declare
that in the early history of their race a great king
persecuted and expelled them. The tribe then
wandered over Syria, Egypt, Persia, and Europe
under some brother-chiefs, whose tombs are still
held holy to this day. The Helebis confined their[Pg 253]
wandering to the Rif or Nile Valley and the Delta.
They rarely go deep into the desert, except when
they sally forth to sell cattle medicines, or to buy
jaded beasts from the returning pilgrim caravans,
and a few perform the pilgrimage in order to win
the title of Hagi.
The Shaykhs speak of four tribes scattered about
Egypt, and each comprising fifty families, a number
of which Newbold had reason to believe is much
and designedly underrated. According to the Helebis,
the sworn chiefs obtained from the sovereign of
Egypt the right of wandering unmolested about the
country, and the privilege of exemption from taxes.
Muhammad Ali Pasha compelled them, however, to
pay a poll tax, which accounts for their numbering
only two hundred instead of perhaps five thousand
families. In 1847 the pasha had ordered the people
not residing in their native villages to return to them,
causing great distress and scenes of violence and
misery. The Gypsies took the hint, struck their
tents by night, decamped bag and baggage, and
disappeared altogether. They are expert in disguises,
and do not yield the palm to European brethren in
cunning and deception. Remarkably intelligent and
quick in gaining information, they would make
capital spies in an enemy’s camp. The women during
their halts on the outskirts of towns and villages,
and in running about the streets, bazars, and coffeehouses,
pick up with wonderful tact and accuracy all[Pg 254]
requisite information concerning the private history
of those on whom they may be expected to exercise
their vocation of fortune-telling. In this secret
intelligence department they are aided by the men,
who, it is said, are numerous in official employment,
although unknown to be Gypsies. At all
events they mingle with residents on the spot, and
with strangers in the caravanserais and other public
places.
The Helebis, leading a vagabond, wandering life,
usually pitch tents or portable huts on the outskirts
of towns and large villages. The former resemble
in all points those of the pauper Bedawin, and
contained little beyond wretched horse and ass
furniture, mats, cooking-pots, and similar necessaries.
Everything denotes externally the most squalid
poverty, except only the enormous mass of fowl,
mutton, and savoury vegetables seething in the large
caldron suspended from the familiar crossed sticks
over the embers of a large fire, thus proving to
more senses than one that the care of the flesh-pots
of ancient Egypt has not devolved upon a race
insensible to their charms. All deny the common
charge of eating dogs, cats, and other meat held
impure by Muslims.
The male Helebis are ostensibly dealers in horses
and asses, camels and black cattle. They pretend to
great skill in the veterinary art; but their character
for honesty does not stand high with those who know[Pg 255]
them best. Without known religion, priests, or
houses of prayer, this tribe, like the Ghagar and all
others, conform to El Islam, or to the predominant
religion whenever policy or convenience demands.
They bury their dead, but have no fixed places of
interment. The men will marry Ghagar damsels,
but will not give their daughters to Ghagar. The zone
of chastity is even made, they say, of plaited things
like that of the Nubian, and is cut off on the wedding
night. The women, though chaste themselves, will
act as Mercuries to the Gentile male and female; and
they have been charged with sundry indecencies for
money. The Muslims and Copts declare that they
kidnap children, and they of course swear they do
not. The women never intermarry with strangers,
and in this respect they are as rigid as the Hindus.
They are not remarkable for cleanliness either of
person or apparel. In this respect, and in their
passion for trinkets of brass, silver, and ivory, they
remind one of certain native women of India.
Their special privilege is the practice of palmistry
and divination. The Fehemi takes the inquirer’s
right hand by the finger tips, and bends them gently
backward so as to render the lines more visible. She
mutters a spell while with all gravity she reads the
book of destiny, and then reads the result; of course
her hand must be crossed with silver. Palmistry,
I must add, is one of the many superstitions to
which India gave birth, and all the world over the[Pg 256]
lines and mounts and spaces and other distributions
of the hands are the same.
Newbold says comparatively little of the Ghagar,
who claim to be of the same stock as the Helebis,
and who speak of brethren in Hungary, while the
original tongue is preserved. Comparatively poor in
physical appearance and in vagabond habits, they
bear a family resemblance to the Helebis and to the
Syrian Kurbat. During the summer months they
wander about the cultivated land, and pitch tents
and Kaysh. A favourite way of gaining a livelihood
is by carrying water-jars, and by singing at the
birthday fêtes of saints, etc., during the fine season.
In wandering they prefer the towns. In ancient
Arabia they have Ghettos, as at Old Cairo and
elsewhere.
Being subject to the poll tax, they have an interest
in understating their numbers, which can scarcely
be less than sixteen thousand. When the publican
is abroad, they quietly abscond across the Nile, and
take refuge in some village on the skirts of the desert.
After paying a first visit to them, which aroused
their suspicion, Newbold returned the following day,
and to his surprise found the quarter quite deserted.
Subsequently, however, a better acquaintance was
established.
With few exceptions the Ghagar are all thieves.
Ostensibly the men are athletes, monkey-leaders,
and mountebanks attending several fairs. They[Pg 257]
are also metal-workers and horse-dealers. The
women are not allowed to practise palmistry and
divination, consequently they are despised by the
Fehemis. Many of them are excellent rope-dancers;
others are musicians, playing chiefly on the talla,
a kind of castanet. They also practise female
circumcision upon Muslim girls, bore ears and
nostrils, and tattoo lips and chins.
The Nawar of Egypt were hereditary robbers, like
certain tribes in India. They were protected and
even employed by the Billi tribe of Arabs, and the
relations of patron and client were those of the Highland
chiefs and the crofters upon their properties.
Muhammad Ali Pasha succeeded in taming this lawless
tribe, which for generations had given immense
trouble to his predecessors, upon the principle of
setting a thief to catch a thief. He employed them
as police and watchmen upon his country estates,
and he allowed them 50 per cent. on property
recovered from plunderers brought to justice. Since
that time they have seldom broken the law, except
at Cairo, where there is less chance of detection.
They intermarry with the Fellahin, or Egyptians
of the soil, from whom in physique and raiment
they can hardly be distinguished. Outwardly they
profess Muhammadanism, and they have little intercourse
with the Helebis and Ghagar. In 1847 their
chief was a certain Shaykh Yusuf, one of the most
notorious thieves in Egypt.
[Pg 258]
§ 2. The Gzane of Algeria and Morocco.
This race is interesting because it shows the origin
of the Darb el-mendel, the Magic Mirror of Egypt,
known to the Hindus as Aujan. It was first
noticed in India by the learned Dr. Herklots, who
in 1832 published a most valuable volume on the
manners and customs of the Hindi Muslims. Unfortunately
the British public misjudged its title, and held
it to be a cookery-book. The next to notice it was
Mr. Lane (Modern Egyptians, Vol. II., chap, xii.) in
1835. He tells us that two Europeans, an Englishman
and a Frenchman, learned to induce the phenomenon;
and he concludes with the normal deprecatory formula
of his age: “Neither I nor others have been able to
discover any clue by which to penetrate the mystery;
and if the reader be alike unable to give the solution,
I hope that he will not allow the above account to
induce in his mind any degree of scepticism with
respect to other portions of this work.” Since that
time the Zoist, the Journal de Magnétisme, and
similar publications took up the subject, and traced
it from Cornelius Agrippa and Dr. Dee to the most
degraded of existing savages, the Australians:
The following is Dr. de Pietra Santa’s account
of the two modes of fascination employed by the
“magicians” of French Africa (Algiers)[203]:
[Pg 259]
“The first forms part of the baggage of all Arab
Gzanes, Gypsies, sorceresses, and fortune-tellers.
When one wishes to strike the imagination of the
multitude, it is absolutely necessary to find phenomena
which are both intelligible to all and which each
one can instantly verify for himself. Amongst such
there is not one more evident than sleep. It is
therefore important for the Gzane, in order to prove
in an undeniable manner her moral power and supernatural
influence, that she should be able to send to
sleep at a given moment the person who has recourse to
her occult science. She employs the following means:
“Upon the palm of the hand she describes, with
some blackish colouring matter, a circle, in whose
centre is marked a spot equally black. After looking
fixedly at the latter for a few minutes, the eyes
grow heavy, they blink, and the sight is confused;
the heaviness is presently succeeded by sleep, and
sleep by a sort of insensibility,[204] of which the Gypsy
profits to exercise her manœuvres more securely. I
give you the simple fact without commentaries; and
abjuring any pretensions to determine its importance.
“Let us now pass on to the second mode of fascina[Pg 260]tion.
Upon a table covered with a white cloth is
placed a bottle, usually filled with water and backed
by a small lamp lighted. The subject is comfortably
seated on a chair, and told to look at the bright
point placed before him at the distance of a few
steps. After a few minutes the eyelids grow heavy,
then they gradually smile, and sleep is induced.
With nervous temperaments palpitation of the heart
and headache also manifest themselves.
“In order to give an odour of the supernatural to
these phenomena, the Moroccan, Gypsy or Marabout,
has a certain quantity of benzoin burnt behind the
table; and while the vapour spreads itself through
the room, the person undergoing the process falls
into a complete state of anæsthesia.”
Borrow mentions in Barbary sundry “sects of
wanderers,” which he shrewdly suspects to be
Gypsies, and whom he provides with the worst of
characters. The first are the “Beni Aros” (?),
who wander about Fez, and have their homes in
the high mountains near Tetuan. A comely, well-made
race, they are beggars by profession, notorious
drunkards, addicted to robbery, murder, and effeminate
crimes. They claim to be Moors, and their
language is Arabic. The second are the “Sidi
Hamed au Muza,” so called from their patron saint.
In many respects they not a little resemble the
Gypsies; but they speak the Shilhah, or a dialect of
that tongue. They earn their livelihood by vaulting,[Pg 261]
tumbling, and tricks with sword and dagger, to the
sound of wild music, which the women, seated on the
ground, produce from their uncouth instruments.
§ 3. The Gypsies in Inner Africa.
It is generally believed that the Romá have
extended far southwards from Morocco and Barbary.
Borrow remarks of the Dar-bushi-fal (fortune-tellers),
that if they are not Gypsies, the latter
people cannot be found in the country. Numerous
in Barbary, they wander during the greater part
of the year, pilfering, fortune-telling, and dealing
in mules and donkeys. Their fixed villages are
known as “Char Seharra,” witch hamlets. They can
change the colour of an animal, and transform a
white man into a negro black as a coal, after which
they sell him as a slave. They are said to possess
a peculiar language, which, being neither Arabic nor
Shilhah, is intelligible only to their own caste.
Borrow often conversed with them; but he neglected
to apply his favourite Shibboleth, Pani (water).
Their faces are described as exceedingly lean, their
skins swarthy, and their legs are reeds; “when they
run, the devil himself cannot overtake them.”
Their vehicles of divination are oil, a plate full of
flour, or a shoe placed in the mouth. They are
evil people, and powerful enchanters, feared by the
emperor himself.
[Pg 262]
M. Paul Bataillard (Notes et Questions) refers,
for information concerning the Gypsies, to the
Voyage dans le Nord et dans les Parties Centrales
de l’Afrique, the journey of Denham and Clapperton,
translated by Eyries and another (Paris, 1826, 3 vols.
8vo). These authors, he says, pretend to assimilate
the “Chouâa” Arabs of Bornou with the Gypsies.
Indeed, they expressly declare that their Arabic
is almost pure Gypsy. This is, however, incompatible
with another passage, which declares that
these “Chouâas” have imported into Bornou the
Arabic, which they speak purely.
I can only find[205] that the women of the Chouâa
Arabs are described as “a very extraordinary race,
with scarcely any resemblance to the Arabs of
the north: they have fine open countenances, with
aquiline noses and large eyes; their complexion is
a light copper colour; they possess great cunning
with their courage, and resemble in appearance some
of our best-formed Gypsies in England, particularly
the women; and their Arabic is nearly pure Egyptian.”
Major Denman afterwards found the “Shouaas of
the tribe of Waled Salamat, extending eastward quite
as far as the Tchad.” He notes their difference from
the Fellalahs, and their practice of sending plundering
parties to Mandara. We also hear of their skill in
the chase and their use of the spear on horseback.
[Pg 263]
CHAPTER VII
THE GYPSY IN EUROPE
§ 1. The Gypsy in Hungary
The Czigany, as they are called, appeared early in
the fifteenth century, and were supposed to have
fled from Moghol persecution. King Sigismund, father
of the heroic John Hunyadi,[206] allowed them to settle in
his realm, and the law called them “mere peasants.”
In 1496 Bishop Sigismund at Funf-Kirchen ordered
iron cannon-balls from the Gypsies to be used against
the Turkish invaders of Hungary; and he was
doughtily supported against the Turks by King
Zindelo, Dukes Miguel and Andrew, by Counts
Manuel and Juan, by the “noble knight” Pedro,
and by the chief Tomas Polgar.
[Pg 264]
The reforms of 1848 found them in a state of
slavery, adscripti glebœ, who could not legally take
service away from their birthplace. Their condition
was worse than that of the Wallach peasant, who says
of his haughty Magyar Magnate, “A lord is a lord
born in hell.” Some forty years ago Mr. Paget[207]
says Gypsies were exposed for sale in the neighbouring
province of Wallachia. In the Hungary of the bad
old régime the relation of the landowning peasant,
however oppressive might have been his obligations,
was never that of master and slave. If the agriculturist
chose to give up his session-lands, the
ground he occupied by hereditary use, he could go
where he pleased. Practically this was rare; it was
equivalent to giving up his means of subsistence,
and he preferred the tax-paying while all the nobles
went free, and the odious burden of the “Robot”
corvée, or forced labour, two and in some cases
three days a week. Hence he hated the military
conscription, the only means of civilizing him
established by Austria in 1849.[208] But the Czigany,
however deep-rooted is his love of liberty, never[Pg 265]
preserved the modicum of freedom to which the
Hungarian clung.
Though now legally free, the Czigany’s deep
respect for everything aristocratic attaches him to
the ruling caste. In Transylvania “Magyar” is a
distinctive term for class as well as race. The
Czigany who do not assimilate with the thrifty
Saxons prefer to be mere hangers-on at the castle
of the Hungarian Magnate, as in England of old
they take his name; and they profess the same
faith—Catholic, Protestant, or nothing. Notwithstanding
their incurable propensity for pilfering, they
are trusted as messengers and carriers; like the
old Spanish arriero, they form a general “parcels-delivery
company.” And they are ubiquitous, for
never a door is left unlocked lest a Gypsy will slip
in and steal. In old days they were most efficient
spies upon Christian and Muslim, and they trimmed
between the twain to their own advantage. They
also made the best of smugglers; they dug for
treasure, and they washed for paillettes of gold the
Transylvanian affluents of the Danube. At times
they set out upon plundering excursions, which
extended to Italy, France, and Spain. They are
still accused of incendiarism by the Wallachs, who
apparently thus seek to hide the malpractices resulting
from their inordinate lust of revenge, the ugly
survival of the savage character. These people
forget that “curses, like chickens, come home to[Pg 266]
roost,” and will play with fire even when it damages
themselves.
The settled Gypsy’s dwelling is even more primitive
than the Wallachs. The hut is formed, like
the African’s, with plaited sticks, and swish is
plastered into the gaps. Before the hut entrance often
stands the nomad cart, two wheeled and tilted, and
always stands the tripod supporting the iron pot—a
sight, like the scarlet cloak, once familiar to us, but
now disappeared from England. In time the earth is
grass-grown; and as the hovel is rarely more than
seven feet high, it looks rather like an exaggerated
ant-hill or a tumulus than a habitation for man.
Yet the ragged inmate, whose children go about in
nature’s garb, is clever with his hands. He is the
best blacksmith in the country, and he fashions
simple wooden articles for household use with
dexterity and even with taste. Despite his wretched
surroundings, he keeps his good spirits, he sings to
his work, and he plays the violin in his leisure
hours.
I need hardly repeat the commonplaces about
the music of the Hungarian Gypsy, and the legends
concerning Catalani and Liszt. Strolling bands, in
civilized attire, and performing upon divers instruments,
are and have been for some time well known
to the capitals of Europe. So great is the contrast
between their art and their surroundings, that
more than one traveller has suspected this mar[Pg 267]vellous
gift of pathetic strains to be a “language
brought with them in their exile from another and
a higher state of existence.” I find in it only the
marriage of Eastern with Western melody, the high
science of the former, so little appreciated by the
ignorant Anglo-Indian, with the perfect practice of
the latter.
Though utterly unalphabetic, these people have a
strange power of stirring their hearers’ hearts. They
play by ear, in style unsurpassed by the best training,
the violin, the ’cello, and the zither, with which
London is now familiarized. The airs, often their
own, tell a thrilling national tale in a way that
makes an indelible impression upon the stranger.
Now it is the expression of turmoil, battle, and
defeat, followed by a long wail of woe, of passionate
grief, mostly in the minor key. Then it
suddenly passes to the major in a wild burst of joy,
of triumph, of exultation, of rapture, which carries
along with it the hearer in irresistible sympathy.
It has all the charm of contrast; of extremes, excitement
and depression; subjection and deliverance,
delight and despair. The strains rob the excitable
Hungarian of his reason; he drinks in the music
till he is drunk.
The Gypsy is capable of a noble self-sacrifice, and
Mr. Crosse tells a tale which proves it. He passed
in a wild, romantic glen a steep, overhanging rock
known throughout the land as the “Gypsy’s stone.[Pg 268]”
About the middle of the last century, it is supposed,
there was a famine; and the Czigany, poorer than their
neighbours, were reduced to beg or starve. When
turned away by certain hard-hearted villagers, one
poor fellow refused to go, declaring that his children
were dying of hunger. “Then,” said one of the
boors in a mocking tone, “I will give your family
a side of bacon, if you will jump from that rock.”
“You hear his promise!” cried the Czigan, appealing
to the crowd. Without another word he
rushed from amongst them, clambered up the rock,
and took the leap, which was—death.
This is exactly what we might expect under the
circumstances from a Hindu. The system of Badli—in
plain English, paying a man to “take blame” and
to be hanged for you—is the best proof.
It should be remembered that a Hungarian was
the first to publish the “Indic origin” of the Romani
tongue. At the end of 1765 an interesting communiqué
was addressed to the Vienna Gazette by
Captain Szekely de Doba. He related that the
Protestant parson Stephen Vali while studying at
Leyden made acquaintance with certain Malabar
youths sent there by the Dutch Government, and
their vernacular reminded him of the Gypsy tongue
which he had heard in his home at Almasch.
They also assured him that in Malabar there
is a district called Zigania (?), which suggested
a comparison with the German Zigeuner. At their[Pg 269]
dictation he wrote down almost a thousand words,
and returning to Almasch he was surprised to find
the Czigan understanding them.
Then set in the first period (1775-1800) of Sanskrit
and Zend study, accompanied by publications
of Bengali, Urdu, and others of the eighteen Prakrit
tongues still spoken in the great Peninsula. This
led to careful study of Romani. The celebrated
Mezzofanti did not hesitate to assign it high rank
amongst the thirty-two languages he had studied;
and when he lost his mind (1832) he never confounded
it with other idioms. Then followed in 1837
the Gospel of St. Luke translated into Spanish Caló
by “Gypsy Borrow,” who, however, inserted Castilian
words from Father Scio instead of forming them from
Gypsy roots.
§ 2. The Gypsies of Spain.
We have ample material for studying the Spanish
Gypsy, or Flamanco, as he is contemptuously called,
probably because he entered Andalusia in the train
of the Flemings during the first third of the fifteenth
century. Yet it is somewhat remarkable that Europe
believed up to the end of that century the purely
Spanish origin of the Gypsies.
Pasquier, describing the arrival of these “penitents”
in Paris a.d. 1427, adds that from that time all
France was infested by these vagabonds, but that the[Pg 270]
first horde was replaced by the Biscayan and other
peoples of the same origin. This suggests an early
occupation of the Peninsula; although Francisca de
Cordova in his Didasculia declared they were first
known in Germany, and the general belief now is
that the last horde entered Europe by the highroads
of Andalusia and Bulgaria, or rather Greece,
and they must have been settled for many years
in these countries.
Northern Spaniards find in Andalusian blood a
distinct Gypsy innervation.
In Spain, as elsewhere, the Gypsy made himself
hated by his systematic contempt of the laws of meum
and teum; whilst he was protected by two widely
different conditions: the first was his poverty (“As
poor as a Gypsy” is still a proverb); secondly, he
was a spy equally useful to Christian and unbeliever.
Yet action was not wanting. In 1499 was published
the Gran Pragmatica (Royal Ordinance) of Medina
del Campo, under the influence of a fanatic archbishop,
banishing on and after the term of sixty
days the Egyptian and foreign tinkers (caldereros),
and forbidding return under pain of mutilation. This
Pragmatica was renewed under Charles V. by the
Cortes of Toledo and of Madrid, with the additional
punishment of perpetual slavery for those found
wandering a third time. Yet in 1560, on his
marriage at Toledo with Isabelle of France, Gypsy
dances formed part of the festivities. He was com[Pg 271]paratively
mild, and after moderating the old rigorous
laws he ordered the outcasts to live in towns. In
1586 the same king allowed them to sell their goods
at ten fairs and markets under certain conditions.
These nomads picked up information from all
classes, and the women, with their black magic,
sorcery, and devilry, palmistry, love-potions, and
poisons, penetrated into every secret. The Holy
Office, established in January, 1481, disdained to
persecute such paupers; and the strong arm of the
law could not do more than hang a few witches.
Ticknor remarks: “Encouraged by the expulsion
of the Jews in 1492, also by that of the Moors
in 1609-11, Dr. Sancho de Moncada, a professor in
the University of Toledo, addressed Philip III. in
a discourse published in 1619, urging that monarch
to drive out the Gypsies, but he failed.”
Another authority says that he himself, 1618,
had prepared a memorial to that effect, adding, “It
is very vicious to tolerate such a pernicious and
perverse race.” Cordova, writing in 1615, accused
them of preparing, some years before, an organized
attack upon Sogrovo town when the pest raged, and
declares that it was saved from such by the arts
of a certain wizard who had mysterious relations
with the vagabonds.
The charges of cannibalism became universal,
founded probably upon the fact that Gypsies do not
disdain the flesh of animals poisoned by them.
[Pg 272]
That many of the persecuted outcasts were compelled
to fly the country we shall see presently in
the Morerias of Brazil; and when religious zeal
cooled down, political interests took its place,
and led to the great legal persecution. Philip IV.
in 1633 prohibited the Gypsy dress and dialect,
expelled them from the Ghettos, and by rendering
intermarriage illegal aimed at fusing the vagrants
with other subjects. In 1692 Charles II. ordered
them to practise nothing but agriculture. The decree
was renewed in 1695, and article 16 threatened
punishment to all, gentle and simple, who aided
and abetted them. Philip V. in 1726 banished from
Madrid certain Gypsy women who had petitioned in
favour of their persecuted husbands. Nineteen years
afterwards (1745) he ordered the fugitives to return
to his dominions under pain of fire and steel, denying
to them even the right of asylum in sacred places.
This terrible decree was renewed in 1746-49.
Better days now began to dawn. The racial
hatred and brutality suffered by the Gypsies became
by slow degrees to be considered the abrogations of
past ages. Already, in 1783, Don Carlos of Spain
followed the Emperor Joseph of Germany, 1782,
and revoked the ultra-Draconian laws which aimed
at the extinction of a people, and substituted decrees
contrasting strongly with the Pragmatica of 1499;
he even threatened pains and penalties to those who
hindered the Gypsies in their occupations. In fact,[Pg 273]
the Gitano, no longer the Egipciano, was allowed
intermarriage with his caste, his family rights were
recognized, and he was allowed to choose his own
trade. He was forbidden only to wear any special
dress, to display his language in public, or to exercise
the ignoble parts of his calling. Briefly, after having
been for centuries of persecution a social pariah,
he became a subject. The change must be attributed
only to the French philosophical school, and
the works of the encyclopedists, which presently
led to the greatest benefits of modern ages, the first
French Revolution of 1789. It made men and
citizens where it found serfs and slaves.
These humanitarian measures bore their natural
consequences. Under the effect of toleration the
Gypsies lost much of the savage wildness which distinguished
them in the depths of the Toledo Mountains,
the Sierra Morena, and the wild Alpujarras. They
flocked to the valleys of the Ebro, the Tagus, and
the Guadiana, where many, waxing rich and caring
little for a community of goods, lost much of their
devotion to caste and their fear and horror of their
Christian fellow-citizens. And the grey-beards did
not fail to complain that the Zincálo was speedily
becoming a Gacho or a Busno, opprobrious terms
applied to non-Gypsies.
The Gitanos of Spain are supposed to number from
fifty to sixty thousand, and the increased toleration of
society is rapidly concentrating them into the great[Pg 274]
towns. They abound in Madrid, Cadiz, Malaga,
Granada, Cordova, Ciudad Real, Murcia, Valencia,
Barcelona, Pamplona, Valladolid, and Badajoz. In
parts of Upper Aragon and the Alpujarras Mountains
they are troglodytes rather than nomad hordes.
Even in the northern provinces, Old Castile, Asturias,
and Galicia, where they formerly were most hated
and feared, they are now freely allowed to settle. A
complete assimilation is expected from the position
which they have acquired in places like Cadiz and
Malaga. They are beginning to educate themselves
in a country where hardly 20 per cent. can read, and
where a grandee of the last generation was a kind
of high-caste chalan (horse-cooper) or torero (bull-fighter)—the
Gitano’s peculiar trades. Though they
preserve the Gypsy tradition, some of them traffic
largely in cattle and own extensive butcheries; they
keep inns and taverns; they deal with the chief
merchants; and they live in luxury. Gitanos of
the poorer classes buy and barter animals; act
jockeys and race-riders; people the bull-ring (especially
in Andalusia); work nails and ironmongery,
as at Granada and Cordova; and plait the coloured
baskets for which Murcia, Valencia, and Barcelona
are famous. Their women sell poultry and old
rags; prepare buns (buñuelos) and black puddings
(morcillas de sangre); engage themselves as tavern
cooks; are excellent smugglers; and find in interpreting
dreams, in philter-selling, and in fortune-telling[Pg 275]
the most lucrative industries. They sing and
play various instruments, accompanying the music
with the most voluptuous and licentious dances and
attitudes; but woe to the man who would obtain
from these Bayaderes any boon beyond their provocative
exhibition. From the Indus to Gibraltar
the contrast of obscenity in language and in songs
with corporal chastity—a lacha ye drupo, “body
shame,” as they term it—has ever been a distinctive
characteristic. No brothel in Europe can boast of
containing a Gypsy woman.[209] The mother carefully
watches and teaches her child to preserve the
premices for the Rom, the Gypsy husband. At
marriages they preserve the old Jewish and Muslim
rite, that disappeared from Spain only with the
accession of the house of Austria. Even Isabella of
Castile, when she was married at Valladolid to
Ferdinand of Aragon, allowed her “justificative
proofs” to be displayed before the wedding-guest.
Gypsy marriages, like those of the high-caste Hindus,
entail ruinous expense; the revelry lasts three days;
the “Gentile” is freely invited; and the profusion
of meats and drinks often makes the bridegroom
a debtor for life. I have explained this practice
in Hindustan as the desire to prove that the first
marriage is the marriage.
The Spanish Gypsies are remarkable for beauty[Pg 276]
in early youth: for magnificent eyes and hair,
regular features, light and well-knit figures, easy gait,
and graceful bearing. Their locks, like the Hindus,
are lamp-black, and without a sign of wave; and they
preserve the characteristic eye. The form is perfect,
and it has an especial look to which is attributed
the power of engendering grandes passions—one of
the privileges of the eye. I have often remarked its
fixity and brilliance, which flashes like phosphoric
light, the gleam which in some eyes denotes madness.
I have also noted the “far-off look” which
seems to gaze at something beyond you, and the
alternation from the fixed stare to a glazing or
filming over of the pupil.[210] Hence the English song:
A Gypsy stripling’s glossy (?) eye
Has pierced my bosom’s core,
A feat no eye beneath the sky
Could e’er effect before.
And in Spain it is remarked that the Gypsy man
often makes a conquest of the Busno’s wife.
The women are more voluble in language and
licentious in manners than the men. These characteristics,
combined with the most absolute repulsion
for other favours, even to the knife, explain[Pg 277]
how many sons of grandees and great officials took
part in the nightly orgies and by day favoured
the proscribed caste. Moreover, the Gitana protected
herself by the possession of family secrets. Besides
soothsaying and philter-selling, she had a store of
the Raiz del buen Baron (the goodman’s, i.e. the
devil’s, root), alias Satan’s herb, which relieved incommodious
burdens. At fairs, while the husbands
were chapping and chaffering, the good-wives made
money by the process called coger á la mano (to
catch in hand); that is, pilfering coins by sleight
during the process of exchanging. Amongst other
malpractices is one called in Romani Youjano báro
(the great trick), translated gran socaliña (great
trick) by Jermimo de Alcalá in his novel the
Historia de Alonzo, mozo de muchos amos (a youth
with many uncles), written in the early seventeenth
century. Rich and covetous widows were persuaded
to deposit jewels and money in dark and unfrequented
places, with the idea of finding buried
treasure. Useless to say that the Gypsy woman was
the only gainer by the transaction.
We read that the old Gypsy dress was repeatedly
forbidden by law; but Spanish tradition preserves
no memory of what the dress was. I have little
doubt that the immigrants of the fifteenth century
had retained to some extent the Hindu costume,
the Pagrí (head-cloth) and the Dhoti (waist-cloth).
So in Moscow I have seen the Gypsy dancing-girls[Pg 278]
assume the true toilette of the Hindustani Nachni,
the Choli, or bodice, and the Peshwáz, or petticoat of
many folds. Some writers imagine that the “picturesque
vagabonds,” Calós, had borrowed their peculiar
garb from the Moors.
In these days the well-to-do Spanish Rom affects
the Andalusian costume, more or less rich. He
delights in white linen, especially the “biled shirt,”
often frilled and embroidered. The materials are
linen and cotton, silk, plush, velvet, and broadcloth.
The favourite tints are blue, red, and marking
colours. The short jacket or pelisse (zamarra)
is embroidered and adorned with frogs (alamares)
or large silver buttons; the waistcoat is mostly red,
and a sash of crimson silk with fringed ends supports
the waist; the overalls narrow at the ankle, where
they meet boots or buskins (borcegúies), slippers
or sandals (alpargatas). Finally, the long lank
locks, which hang somewhat like the Polish Jew’s
along the cheeks, are crowned with the Gypsy
sombrero or porkpie, and sometimes with the red
Catalan gorro (bonnet), not unlike the glengarry.
The Romi also has retained the dress worn till
lately in Andalusia, and now gradually becoming
obsolete. The gleaming hair is gathered in a Diana
knot at the neck, and lit up with flowers of the
gaudiest hue; it lies in bands upon the temples, and
the whole is often covered with an embroidered
kerchief. A cloak of larger or lesser dimensions[Pg 279]
thrown over the shoulders hardly conceals the bodice
and the short, skimpy petticoat (saya), which is
embroidered, adorned with bunches of ribbons, trimmings,
and other cheap finery.
The Spanish Gypsies have not preserved, like the
Hungarian, their old habit of long expeditions for
begging and plundering purposes. Consequently
they have lost the practice of the Pateran or Trail,
the road-marks by which they denote direction.
These are fur twigs, or similar heaps of newly
gathered grass disposed at short distances. At
cross-roads the signs are placed on the right side
of that followed. Sometimes they trace upon the
ground a cross whose longer arm shows the way,
or they nail one stake to another. The Norwegian
Gypsies trace with their whips a mark on the snow
called Faano; it resembles a sack with a shut mouth.
In the course of ages they have lost that marvellous
power of following the spoor which their kinsmen
on the Indus preserve to perfection. They retain a
peculiarly shrill whistle, for which the Guanches
were famous. By the signs and the whistles two
parties could communicate with each other; and
if anything particular occurred, messengers were
sent to report it.
The Gypsy language was looked upon as a mere
conventional jargon, and its Indian origin, as has
been shown elsewhere, was not recognized before the
middle of last century. It was, moreover, con[Pg 280]founded
with the Germania (Thieves’ Latin), whose
vocabulary, collected by Juan Hidalgo of Saragona,
has found its way into the Diccionario de la Academia.
The only Gypsy words it contains are those borrowed
from the Caló by the bullies and ruffians of the days
of Quevedo. Many corruptions and barbarisms,
however, have been introduced into books by pseudo-literati
of “white blood,” who prided themselves
upon their knowledge of Romani. For instance,
Meriden means Coral; and as in Spanish reduplication
of the consonant changes the word, an
inventor, in order to express Corral (Curral, Kraal,
cattle-yard), produced the most barbarous term
Merridden. This was the work of aficionados (fanciers)
like the Augustine friar Manso de Sevilla in the
Cartuja or Carthusian convent of Jirez, whose
famous breed of horses brought them into direct
communication with the Gypsies. Happily, however,
the language was spoken, not written; and thus, as
Mr. Buckle held of legend and tradition, its purity
was preserved.
Gypsy verse is generally improvised to the twanging
and tapping of the guitar, sometimes to the
guitar and castanet, and oftentimes without music.
Much that has been printed appears to be of that
spurious kind unintelligible to the Gypsies themselves.
The favourite form is in quartettes, more or less
carefully rhymed; they are impressed upon the
hearers’ memory; and thus they pass from mouth[Pg 281]
to mouth throughout Spain. Borrow gives a few
translations of Gypsy songs in Romani. The Cantes
Flamancos of Demófico, in phonetic Andalusian,
chanted at the fairs and markets, in the cafés and
ventas, the streets and alleys of Seville, date from
the last century. The poetry is weak, the moral
is not always irreproachable; but the sentiment is
strong and touching. These Cantes are sung by
many a tailor and many a barber who have not
a drop of Gypsy blood in their veins. They can
hardly be accepted as genuine Gypsy work.
[Pg 282]
CHAPTER VIII
THE GYPSY IN AMERICA
The Gypsies of the Brazil
The Romá of the North American Republic are
well known, and their emigration is of modern
date. During the wars between England and France
which followed the great Revolution many of them
exchanged a wandering life for the service of the
country, having been either kidnapped or impressed,
or having taken the shilling. Of course, after obtaining
a passage to the American colonies, they deserted
the army, found friends, and settled in the country.
The half-bandit bands of Scottish Gypsies were
mostly broken up in this way.
On the other hand, South America is very little
known; and yet the part with which I am most
familiar, the Brazil, is full of Gypsies. When
Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic (a.d. 1492)
issued the exterminating edict against Moors, Jews,
and Gitanos, the latter slunk into hiding-places; they
were again proscribed by Charles V. (a.d. 1582);
and Philip III. (a.d. 1619) issued from Belem in[Pg 283]
Portugal an order for all the Gypsies to quit the
country within six months—an order renewed by
Philip IV. in a.d. 1633. There was some reason
for this severity. The “masterful beggars” had
made themselves infamous by turning spies to the
Turks and Saracens; and if the general prejudice
against them was unfounded, it rested at least upon
a solid foundation—their hatred of the Christian
Busno, Gacho, or non-Gypsy. Thus every maritime
city of the Brazil to which the exiles were shipped
presently contained a Gypsy bairro, or quarter, the
Portuguese Moreria (Moorery) corresponding with
the Spanish Gitaneria, and not a little resembling
the Ghettos of the Italian Jews. For instance, the
Rocco, now the handsomest square in superb Rio de
Janeiro, was of old the Campo dos Ciganos—the
Gypsies’ Field. The “Egyptian pilgrims” thence
spread abroad over the Interior, where their tents
often attract the traveller’s eye; and some of them
became distinguished criminals, like the Gypsy Beijú,
one of the chief Thugs, whose career, ended by
hanging for the murders which long disgraced the
Mantiqueira Mountains, I have described in the
Highlands of the Brazil (i. 63).
Wandering about the provinces of S. Paulo and
Minas Geraes, I often met Gypsy groups whose
appearance, language, and occupations were those of
Europe. They are here perhaps a little more violent
and dangerous, and the wayfarer looks to his revolver[Pg 284]
as he nears their camp at the dusk hour; yet they
are hardly worse than the “Morpheticos” (lepers),
who are allowed to haunt the country. Popular
books and reviews ignore them; but the peasantry
regard them with disgust and religious dread.
They protest themselves to be pious Catholics,
yet they are so far the best of Protestants, as they
protest, practically and energetically, against the
whole concern. Their religion, in fact, is embodied
in the axiom: “Cras moriemur—post mortem nulla
voluptas.” We may well believe the common rumour
which charges them with being robbers of poultry
and horses, and with doing at times a trifle in the
way of assassination.
On May 3, 1866, when riding from Rio Claro
to Piracicava Saõ Paulo, I visited a gang of these
“verminous ones”; and attended by my armed
servants, I spent a night in their tents. The scene
was familiar: the tilt-tent swarmed with dark
children, the pot hung from the triangle, and horses
and ponies for carriage, and perhaps for sale, were
picketed about. The features and complexion were
those of the foreign tinkler; the women, besides
trumpery ornaments of brass, coral, and beads, wore
scarlet leg-wraps; and some of the girls were pretty
and well dressed as the memorable Selina, of Bagley
Wood, Oxford. Apparently they were owners of
negro slaves, possibly runaways. According to the
Brazilians, they are fond of nomes esquisitos (fancy[Pg 285]
names); Esmeralda and Sapphira are common, and
they borrow from trees, plants, and animals.
Their chief occupations are petty trade and fortune-telling,
when they reveal for a consideration all the
mysteries of “love and law, health and wealth,
losses and crosses.” They also “keen” at funerals
during the livelong day, and drink, sing, and dance
through the night—a regular wake. I could not
induce them to use their own tongue, yet they
evidently understood me. This desire to conceal
their Gypsy origin I have frequently noticed elsewhere.
It is probably a relic of the days of
their persecution. Fortunately in most civilized
countries to-day the Gypsy can count equal rights
with other men.
[Pg 287]
III. EL ISLAM
[Pg 289]
EL ISLAM
OR
THE RANK OF MUHAMMADANISM AMONG
THE RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD
A great philosopher in days of yore informs
us that we may search the world throughout,
and that in no region where man has lived can we
find a city without the knowledge of a god or the
practice of a religion (Plutarch).
This apophthegm embodies a dogma somewhat too
rash and sweeping. The necessity of a Demiurgos—a
Creator—so familiar to our minds is generally
strange to savages. The wilder tribes of Singhalese
Veddahs, for instance, have no superstition; these
savages have not even attained the fear of demons.
It has but scant hold upon the imagination of
barbarous men. The Buddhists and Jains ascribed
after Sakya-Muni the phenomena of the universe to
Swabháva, or force inherent in matter, Matra, and
independent of an Ishwara-Karta, or Manufacturing[Pg 290]
God. Aristotle and Spinoza believed with Pythagoras
the world to be eternal, and that a God cannot exist
without the world, as height without breadth. Hence
Hegel’s “eternal nihilum”—creation being everything
for created beings—in direct opposition to
Calvin, who opined that creation is not a transfusion
of essence, but a commencement of it out of nothing.
In the present day, the Kafirs of the Cape, the ancient
Egyptians, and African races generally, barbarians
and semi-barbarians, by no means deficient in
intellect and acuteness, have never been able to
comprehend the existence or the necessity of a One
God. With them, as with a multitude of civilized
philosophers—the Indian Charvakas, for instance—Nature
is self-existent, Matter is beginningless and
endless; in fact, the world is their God. Ex nihilo
nihil fit is the first article of their creed. Absolute
ignorance of any God, then, was the earliest spiritual
condition of the human family.
But veneration is inherent in the human breast.
Presently mankind, emerging from intellectual infancy,
began to detect absurdity in creation without
a Creator, in effects without causes. As yet, however,
they did not dare to throw upon a Single Being
the whole onus of the world of matter, creation,
preservation, and destruction. Man, instinctively
impressed by a sense of his own unworthiness, would
hopelessly have attempted to conceive the idea of a
purely Spiritual Being, omnipotent and omnipresent.[Pg 291]
Awestruck by the admirable phenomena and the
stupendous powers of Nature, filled with a sentiment
of individual weakness, he abandoned himself to a
flood of superstitious fears, and prostrated himself
before natural objects, inanimate as well as animate.
Thus comforted by the sun and fire, benefited by
wind and rain, improved by hero and sage, destroyed
by wild beasts, dispersed by convulsions of Nature,
he fell into a rude, degrading, and cowardly Fetissism,
the faith of fear, and the transition state from utter
savagery to barbarism.
In support of this opinion it may be observed
that this religion—if indeed Fetissism merit that
sacred name—in its earliest form contains no traces
of a Godhead or a Creator.[211] It is a systematic
worship of the personified elements, productions, and
powers of Nature, male and female, and supported
by a host of associates and subordinates. Its triad
is Indra, the Æther-god; Varuna ([Greek: ουρανος: ouranos]), the
Sun-god; and Agni, the Fire-god. The polytheistic[Pg 292]
triad of the Puranas being then unknown, the Creator,
Brahma, appears in the Vedas; the Preserver,
Vishnu, inferior to Indra, represents the firmament;
and Siwa is proved by Lassen to have been a local
god, subsequently admitted by the Brahmans into
their vast Pantheon. Still further from man’s belief
in those early days is the bold and original thought
of the Upanashids and Vedantas, destined so soon to
fall before the formulæ of the schools and law-books,
the Puranas and other traditions. There Brahm,
or the One Almighty, is made the pinnacle of the
gorgeous pagoda of belief; the whole universe,
matter and spirit, is represented to be the very
substance and development of the Demiurgos. In
support of their grand Pantheism the Brahma-Sutra
declares the human soul to be a portion of the Deity—divinæ
particula auræ—“the relation not being
that of master and servant, but that of the whole and
part.” Creation was assumed to be the extension
of the Creator’s essence, as the mathematical point
produces by its increase length, depth, and breadth
by endowing empty space with the properties of
figure. From this refined and metaphysical dogma,
this theoretical emanation of being from, and its
corollary, refusion into, the Soul of the World, springs
the doctrine of Metempsychosis, “implying belief in
an after-state of rewards and punishments and a moral
government of creation.” The votary of Hinduism
has now progressed so far as to symbolize the vulgar[Pg 293]
idolatry of the people. Beneficent animals are explained
as symbols of Brahma’s creative and Vishnu’s
preserving functions; wild and ferocious beasts
are typified as the Deity’s destroying power. They
revere men of splendid abilities and glorious actions
as having more of the divine essence and a directer
emanation than the vulgar herd. Hence the senseless
idol worship of the unlearned. Select forms also,
as the cleft of a tree, are chosen to represent
materially—oculis subjecta fidelibus—the passive
power of generation, an upright rock expressing the
active.
Thus semi-civilized man explains away the follies
of his childhood, and excuses himself for leaving the
ignorant in the outer glooms of a symbolical faith.
But does knowledge precede ignorance—the explanation
the fable? Or is it reasonable to suppose that
a symbol, a type, a myth, was ever worshipped, or
that men were ever ashamed of their gods? The
Hindu, and indeed many a Christian, still adores
the bull and cow, the rock, the river, the idol, the
relic, and the actual image; they do not kneel before
its metaphysics. The learned explain them into
mere deifications. They are, however, still deities
to the layman and the esoteric; and any attempt to
allegorize them would be held, as in ancient Greece,
like the reform of Epicurus, mere Atheism. We
must, however, justly to appreciate these ancient
dogmas, rebecome the primitive children of earth[Pg 294]—man
in his infancy.[212] The wisdom of Egypt, the
learning of the East are now puerility. But “who
knows what luminous proofs were propagated under
the disguise of their old idolatry? Who cannot
see that imagination, first active faculty of the mind,
was fostered by myth, the moral sense by fable,
and the first vacillating steps of knowledge were
encouraged by precepts now seemingly childish and
absurd?” (Dabistan). Confucius was as disposed
to primarize secondary causes as his predecessors.
Owning that he knew nothing about the gods, he
therefore preferred to avoid the subject.
The ancient Persians, according to Herodotus, who
conversed with them, ignored Dualism, their later
scheme. Rejecting the images of gods and angels,
they worshipped without personification or allegory
æthereal fire drawn from the Sun. The universe
was their temple, their altars Pyrætheia, or circles
of stones, in the centre of which stood the kiblah
of their simple ignicolism. The very Puritans of
heathenry, they hated the grandiose fanes of the
Egyptians, they plundered their magnificent tombs,
slew their bestial deities, and devoured their garden
gods. Presently symbolism began to intrude upon
the simple and primitive faith of Iran. Light and[Pg 295]
fire, according to Strabo, were worshipped as the
fittest emblems of spirit and subtile intelligence.
Zoroaster was made to believe in a God, “the
Best, Incorruptible, Eternal, Unmade, Indivisible,
and most Unlike everything”; in fact, an abstraction,
a negative. Yet Hyde, Anquetil du Perron,
and other moderns make the Parsee sect to
represent with their complicated system of rites
and ceremonies, their legion of supernatural beings,
powers, and influences, and abstruse Dualism, the
pure ignicolism of the old Guebre.
But the dark epoch of savage Atheism having
fulfilled its time, already in the Fetissism, the
Polytheism, the Pantheism, the Metempsychosis
dogma, and the Idolatry of the early East may be
descried the dawning of an enlightened Theism.
Like the dogma of a future state of rewards and
punishments in Moses’ day, it was not unknown
though unexplored. The Hindus had their Vedas
Shashwata, and the Guebres their Akarana Zarwána.
The former ruled the triads; the latter was superior
to Hormuzd, the Sun, and Ahriman Ahura-mana, the
Evil Principle personified. So the Greeks had a
[Greek: Θεος: Theos], and the Romans a Deus, ignored except as a
theory. The Arabs and the Mexicans in their vast
Polytheism still distinguished Al, the Supreme Being,
from the crowd of subaltern gods, angels and devils,
mediators, subordinate intelligences, incarnations,
transmigrations, emanations, manifestations, and[Pg 296]
similar earthly representatives. Here, then, was the
thought-germ of an eternal, unmade, incorruptible,
and creative Deity. Enveloped in the mists and
shades of priestly fraud and popular ignorance, still
the dogma did exist; and so comforting has been
its light to the soul of man, that no earthly power
has ever availed to extinguish it.
The Vedas Shashwata has been interpreted by
philologists to signify the Sun. Akarana Zarwána
(boundless time) is clearly synonymous with venerable
Chronos. So the Mulungu of East Africa
and the Uhlungu of the Kafirs mean equally a
spirit, the sun, or the firmament. Amongst the
Masai race, near Kilimanjaro, Engai, the Creator, is
feminine, God and rain being confounded.
The similarity of belief, of manners and customs,
and even of the coincidence of lawful and unlawful
food, between India and Egypt is too striking to be
accounted for by mere chance. The Fetissism of
the one exactly resembled that of the other. Both
worshipped personified Nature, or Manushya-Ohakta;
they exalted into godhead and adored the objects
of gratitude and reverence, of hope and fear. The
“great holy family” of India became, on the banks
of the Nile, Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Osiris, afterwards
typified as the “incarnate Goodness of the
Supreme,” perished to overcome Evil, was raised to
life once more, and became the Judge of the quick
and the dead. Isis again is the giver of Death, and[Pg 297]
Horus, or Hor, the entrance or re-entrance into Life.
Every male deity in both systems had his Sakti,
or passive energy, symbolized by a woman. Both
mythologies had sacred cattle. Eggs, onions, and
beans—favourite articles of diet among the present
Muslims—were forbidden to both for mystical reasons.
The lotus flower, an aboriginal of India, and connected
with the superstitions of either country, has
perished out of Egypt with the Muslims, who have
no object in preserving the exotic. In Indian
mythology was the Trisiras, in Egypt the Tevnon,
in Greece and Rome the Cerberus, that three-headed
dog in Hades, whose existence must have been
communicated from one people to another. India
worships the Sacred Serpent, the modern Muslim of
Egypt adores that of Jebel Shaykh Haridi. Hindu
Yogis and Saunyasis still wander to the banks of
the Nile, and prostrate themselves before its ruined
fanes. Society in India was divided into four great
separate bodies—priests, soldiers, tradesmen, and
serviles. The Egyptians numbered a sacerdotal
order, a military caste, husbandmen, tradesmen and
artificers, and, lastly, the shepherds, their abomination.
Diodorus Siculus enumerates five castes. The fifth,
however, or shepherds, probably did not belong
to society; they were outcasts, corresponding with
the Hindu mixed bloods. In ancient Persia the
rigid castes were also four in number. And
as the Aryas or Hindus of Aryavarrta, the Land[Pg 298]
of Men, are aborigines of Ariana and cognates of the
Arian race, perhaps this system of artificial and
unnatural distinctions arose in the regions of Mid-Asia.
Indeed, Sir W. Jones came to a broader
conclusion; namely, that the three primitive races
of mankind must originally have migrated from a
vast central region of earth, and that that region
was Iran.
As time wore on, Pantheism, which sees a deity
everywhere, even within ourselves, regarded the
terrestrial gods as earthly vessels animated with a
spark of the Universal Soul. The subaltern deities,
the objects of Sabæan worship, as the sun, the
moon, and the fixed stars, were held to be superior
mediating powers with the Almighty Power. A thousand
interpretations, physical, symbolical, mystical,
and astronomical, were framed by the wise of
Memphis. And as amongst the Hindus, so the Deity
of Egypt was, though revealed to the initiated,
sedulously obscured to the vulgar by a host of Avatars
and incarnations, of transmigrations and subordinate
intelligences.
History is silent upon that most interesting subject,
the early connexion of India and Egypt. There
are, however, still traces of its existence through
Arabia, although Wilford greatly exaggerated the
subject. Throughout Oman and Eastern Arabia
there are traces to the present day of castish prejudice.
No Kabílí, or man of noble tribe, however[Pg 299]
poor, will become a Haddâd (blacksmith), a Shámmár
(shoemaker, in Hindustani Chamár), a Dabbagh
(tanner), and a Nayyál (dyer). The Hindus of
Maskat have an Avatar. Every Pandit knows that
Shiva and his wife, under the names of Kapot-Eshwara
and Kapot-Eshwari, visited Mecca, and were
there worshipped under the form of male and female
pigeons. This notes a direct communication along
the coast of the Shepherd Kings. Again, it is
possible that in ages now forgotten the Æthiopians
may have received from the Hindus their arts,
sciences, and civilization, which would naturally
float northwards with the Nile.
From Egypt these dogmas passed over to Greece,
from Greece to the Rasenian people of ancient Etruria.
This diffusion, proved by the similarity of their belief,
is supported by old tradition. Herodotus explains
the fable of the black pigeon that fled to Dodona, and
there established the oracle on the ground that it was
founded by a female captive from the Thebaïd. The
manifest resemblance of the rites and ceremonies, the
processions and mysteries, together with the historic
fact that the greatest minds in Greece had studied
with the priest-philosophers of Helispotes and
Memphis, are the main points of circumstantial
evidence whence rose Warburton’s luminous theory
that the knowledge of the “Secret One” was preserved
by the esoteric, but concealed for fear of the
profane. He was an atheist who believed in a Single[Pg 300]
Deity because he thus degraded and dishonoured the
vulgar gods; and the ancients, most pious men,
solemnly tore to pieces all guilty of similar impiety.
The Arcana, however, were sacred; under their
shadow any dogma might flourish.
Some ethnologists have wondered at the remarkable
coincidences between the Etruscan cosmogony
and that of Moses. The marvel is easily explained.
Both systems were borrowed from the Egyptians
“skilled in ancient learning” (Apuleius).
India and Persia, we have seen, left their Deity an
abstruse and philosophical doctrine, a mere abstraction,
“infinite and eternal Nothings.” Simple efforts
of the mind and intellect, they were probably added
by after-thought to perfect and complete the Pantheon.
They were involved in the deepest gloom, whilst man’s
vision was engrossed by the stars and other objective
creations familiar to his eyes, and through them to
his sensuous mind. The most ancient philosophers
then theorized concerning an Almighty Creator,
believed in him by stealth and theory, but in practice
left him to oblivion and neglect. The vulgar bowed,
not to a deity, but to deifications of his attributes,
which they had rendered material and congenial.
It is to be presumed that Egypt advanced a step
beyond India and Persia, otherwise so many of her
dogmas would not have been incorporated with the
Mosaic Code. Doubtless Egyptian priestly seers
made their Demiurgos not a mere being of the[Pg 301]
intellect, but a dominant idea in religious theory,
whilst the grovelling Fetissism of the people received
from them a mystic and abstruse interpretation.
But herein lay their fatal error. The priests were
not only ministers of religion, they were the repositories
of every branch of useful knowledge, from
medicine to philosophy. The king was by law a
priest. If a member of the second or military
caste was raised to the throne, he was at once
initiated; for the “sons of God,” as the sovereigns
were called, could belong to none but the holy
order. The learned respected and revered as types
and symbols what the vulgar worshipped and adored
with heart and soul. But they kept to themselves
the benefits of their reason, and invented mysteries
and gnostic ceremonies—the purple robe of religion—to
veil that Holy Truth the contemplation
of whose unadorned charms belongs to mankind.
They left their fellow-creatures, “the most religious
of men,” utterly ignorant of divine knowledge, the
abject worshippers of the Nile and the desert, of
the ichneumon and the cat. True they secured to
a caste the knowledge which is power amongst semi-civilized
races. But an ecclesiastical order, even in
the most extensive hierarchies, is only the fraction
of a people; they divided therefore their brother-men
into priests and slaves. Woe to him who thus bids
the human mind go into darkness!
We have seen, then, that Fetissism supplanted[Pg 302]
Atheism in the developing mind of man. Even as
alchemy preceded chemistry, magic physics, and
astrology astronomy, in fact as ignorance and error
have ever paved the way for true learning, so was
the worship of Nature the fit preliminary to the
worship of Nature’s God. The fulness of time now
came for the revelation of Theism, the religion of
Love, and the only dogma that has taken firm root
in the hearts and minds of the nobler types of man.
It matters little what was the modus operandi of this
inspiration. Any information above the common
understanding of the age is justly called a revelation,
and every nation has received some by which the
human family has benefited (Dabistan). We may
leave Zealots and Thaumaturgists, Sceptics and
Atheists to dispute ad libitum a point unsolvable,
and which, if solved, would be of little advantage
to mankind.
Moses, whose mighty mind drew from obscurity
Theism, or a belief in the One God, to become the
corner-stone of the creed, not of a few initiated sages
and esoteric students, but of a whole people—who
shared out to mankind their birthright, a knowledge
of divine truth—fully understood the fatal error
of his preceptors, the priestly sages of Egypt. His
history, elaborately dressed in the garb of fable by
after-ages, appears to be this. Circumstances of an
accidental nature drove him from the banks of the
Nile into the eastern deserts. Whilst feeding the[Pg 303]
flocks of his Bedawin father-in-law amid the awful
scenery and the silent, solemn wolds of Shur, he
nerved his mind to the patriotic task, the gigantic
scheme of converting into a great nation and a
Chosen People a mere handful of degraded slaves.
There, too, he made those local observations which,
seen through the mists of antiquity and exaggerated
by the additions and traditions of subsequent ages,
became the groundwork of what is never wanting in
the East—wonders and signs and miracles from
heaven. His powers and energies concentrated by
solitude—and there is no such strengthener of the
soul when the soul is strong—he returned to Egypt
for the purpose of carrying into execution his
stupendous scheme.
But Moses found it impossible, with no stronger
hold upon his people than certain obsolete tenets
almost forgotten by the unworthy descendants of
patriarchal ancestors, in the atmosphere of superstition
around him and under the baneful shadow
of a hostile and priestly rule, to elevate to the dignity
of manhood the spirits of an enthralled, despised,
and therefore a degraded race. What better proof
of their degeneracy than their demanding to know
the name of a God?
This is the spiritual state of the Indian Pariah, who
has his idols, but no idea of an Almighty Godhead,
and who deems his dead deities inferior in dignity
to a live Brahman. What more indicative of their[Pg 304]
mental subjection to the superstitions of Egypt than
their imaging the One Supreme by a calf or young
bull, the emblem of Priapus all over the ancient
world? They were equally inferior in physical force.
Manetho numbers them at 80,000—a prodigious rate
of increase, considering their circumstances and social
state, for the descendants from seventy persons in the
short space of 430 years. The compilers of the Book
of Numbers[213] give 603,550 fighting men from twenty
years old and upwards; this, with women and
children, would amount to nearly three millions of
human beings—an extravagant estimate.
From this state of degradation the thousands of
Israel must be raised—must return to the condition
of their ancestors the bold free chiefs of the Bedawin.
They must therefore depart from Egypt, and must
prepare themselves, morally as well as physically by
the discipline of the vast and terrible wilderness, to
enter as conquerors the holy Promised Land. Many
must perish under the hardships, privations, and
fatigues of desert-travelling. According to Ibn
Khaldun, the Hebrews, debased by slavery, were unable
to oppose the Philistines or Arabs of Canaan until
the old generation had died off and a new one had
grown up in the hardy life of the wilderness.
The great Lawgiver, a man of angry temper, as
are all who accomplish wonderful actions, and master
of the learning of Egypt, displayed in effecting the[Pg 305]
deliverance of his compatriots a work of itself
wonderful, a strength of will, a power of contrivance,
a might of words and deeds, which, seen by after-ages
through the dim atmosphere of tradition and the
mists of national vanity, has caused him to stand
forth in the eyes of later ages a giant amongst his
kind. He has been made the subject of fable,
physically as well as spiritually. Josephus speaks
of his divine form and vast stature. To the present
day the Arabs of Sinai show traces of gigantic feet
and indentations made by a rod which must have
been taller than a mast. The monuments of Egypt,
so full of minute information, allude neither to Moses
nor to the Exodus. The migration of a few brickmaking
slaves was, amongst a people surrounded by
nomadic tribes, an event too common, too unconsequential,
to claim a line of hieroglyph. But the
people of old, in this point reversing our modern
style of national genealogy, ever strove to dignify
and to adorn their birth; and the Hebrews, who
claimed the most ancient as well as the noblest of
pedigrees, could not tell the tale of their origin
as a nation without elevating its simple estate by
a hundred fables, and embellishing it with signs
and marvels and wonders tending to the honour of
the Chosen People and of their great leader.
In one main point the Lawgiver miscalculated his
powers. He had proposed making of his Hebrew
followers a race of pure Theists, a kingdom of[Pg 306]
priests, a holy nation, reverencing nothing but the
One Supreme, worshipping him without medium or
mediator, and therefore independent of temples and
sacerdotal castes and the long list of ceremonies
and sacred paraphernalia by which hierarchies
strengthen and perpetuate their sway. But the
Hebrew mind was thoroughly unfitted to receive
pure truth. Amid the awful preternatural scenes
which, according to their own accounts, heralded the
proclamation of the God of Israel, with battle and
destruction, miraculous plagues and fire and openings
of the earth ever ready to punish those who denied
their Deity or disobeyed his servants, this wonderful
people were in a perpetual state of useless gainsaying
and impotent revolt. Deeply imbued with
the tenacious superstitions of the Nile, the stiff-necked
race had become irritable rather than strong
under the painful training of the desert, they longed
and begged for a return to slavery, and none had
eyes to look steadfastly upon the unveiled light
of Revelation emanating from their leader and
lawgiver.
Finding, after his return from temporary seclusion
and retirement,[214] his chosen people worshipping a
molten calf, the god Apis, and playing—in other[Pg 307]
words, a scene of Egyptian debauchery—Moses broke
in wrath the first Tables of the Law (Exod. xxxii. 19).
These consisted simply of the Ten Commandments,
a forbiddal to make gods of gold and silver,
easy directions for building an earthen altar
of sacrifice, and a brief civil and criminal code
embodied in three chapters. After another term
of forty days and nights spent in solitude amongst
the awful and impressive scenes which had witnessed
his meditations when feeding Jethro’s flocks, and
now saw the disappointment of his early aspirations,
Moses returned with a code (Exod. xxxiv.) better
fitted to the sickly and diseased condition of the
Hebrew soul. Of this the proportion of the ritual
to the moral precepts is as ten to two. It is a
priestly system, a faith of feasts and sacrifices,
of holy days and ceremonies purposely assimilated
to those idolatries of Egypt with which the minds
of the people were familiar but secured to the
worship of Jehovah their God. The Lawgiver no
longer disdained to borrow from symbolical religion,
especially in the ceremonial worship, which at first
he appears to have avoided. The ark and the
tabernacle were old types amongst the Egyptians,
memorials of their Northern migration. The Urim
and Thummim (Ra and Thenei) were the Sun and
personified Justice—Light and Truth. The Elohim
were Kneph and Pthah, the presiding spirit and the
creative intellect of the Supreme. The Spirit of God[Pg 308]
that moved upon the face of the waters is again the
Deity Kneph. The silence with which Jehovah was
to be adored appears to be an idea borrowed from
Amun Ra, the Unutterable Word, similar to the
Hindu “Aum,” which never must be spoken of man.
The Tree of Life, whose fruit made gods of those who
tasted it, was a mere symbol, long before the day
of Moses incorporated in the Indian and Egyptian
mythologies. It survived in the Christian’s early
belief, and has even left its traces in the Tuba or
Paradisiacal tree of El Islam.
The cosmogony of Moses may be traced to the same
origin. The formation of the globe, so different from
modern theory; the separating of matter into four
elements, fiery firmament, air, sea, and earth; and the
derivation of animals from dust, were Egyptian
dogmas. The Hebrew historian held to the eternity
of matter, the theory of ancient philosophy in
general.
The creation of man (Gen. i.), which we take
figuratively, referring divine resemblance to the soul,
to righteousness, and to true holiness, the Hebrews
believed in literally and physically. As the Lord
formed man in his own image, so man in return
anthropomorphized the Deity. Theirs was a personal
God with mortal shape and human passions,
who hated the Canaanites for no sin of their own, and
loved the Hebrews for no merit of their own, but
for the sake of their ancestors. The “angry God[Pg 309]”
and the “jealous God of Moses” stand for the
orthodox opinion of even the modern Jews.[215]
In proportion as we return to the ignorance of
antiquity and seek out the metaphysics of savage
races, so we find the personality of a God, a description
of his form, and an account of his actions and
passions most prominently brought forward. Savages
and barbarians cannot believe without anthropomorphizing
their Great Spirit. On the other hand,
Muslims reject the tenet. Amongst them some
sects, as the Bayzawi, deny, and hold it impiety to
assert, that even in a future state the eyes of the
beatified shall see Allah.
Again, the Hebrew Paradise is the vestige of an
old legend current throughout the Eastern world.
The Hindus had their Satya Yug, the Persians Eriene
Vigo, and the Greeks their Golden Age. It must be
observed, however, that, though we place the Garden
upon earth, learned Rabbis locate it in the first or lowest
heaven, which is the exact reflection of this nether
world. Sakya Buddha taught that human beings first
appeared by apparitional birth. They were glorious
and happy, pure and passionless, till one of them
tasted a savoury substance produced by the earth.[Pg 310]
The example was followed by the rest; thus purity
decayed, the empire of sense gained the ascendency,
excess followed indulgence, and degeneracy excess.
The same legend has been preserved in grosser form
by El Islam. Adam is made to eat wheat, and
thus became subject to human infirmities. The
Magian Scriptures contain traditions of a migratory
march of the people of Hormuzd, under their
patriarch Jamshid, from Eriene Vigo or pure Iran,
supposed by the Guebres to be the primeval seat
of their race, and located near Balkh, the ancient
Bactria. It was the region of all delights till
Ahriman the Evil One made in its river the Serpent
of Winter. With respect to the inhabitants of
Paradise, our first parents, it may be mentioned that
many Eastern as well as Western learned men have
supposed that Adam prior to the creation of Eve
was androgynous; that is to say, at once male and
female (Mirabeau).
The promulgation of Moses’ new code was not
popular among the Hebrews. Checked in his
patriotic intentions, the Lawgiver, however, bravely
persisted in the course of preparation which he had
commenced. Long and long years the Chosen People
wandered in danger and difficulty round and round
a region ever and in every way fitted to produce
a hardy, rugged, and warlike race. And when all
was prepared for the work of conquest, the great
Leader would not head the expedition to the Land[Pg 311]
of Promise. In his latest act he displayed the
magnanimity which had supported him through a
life of labour and disappointment, the real vigour
and grandeur of his mind. Casting away the superstitions
concerning man’s body which Egypt taught,
and resisting the temptation that might have seduced
a softer soul, namely, a train of mourners and a
mausoleum as a last home, he did for himself what
he had done for his followers: he wandered over
the desert till his hour approached, he chose as
leader of the expedition a younger and more energetic
man, and finally he died and left the place of his
tomb to this day unknown. He bequeathed, however,
to the world a cosmogony, history, and ethnography
the essence of old Oriental learning, and to the
present day perhaps the most interesting document
of the kind ever penned by man. He gave to his
followers a code in which the highest intellect is
blended with experience and thought in the most
trivial things; the cantonment orders, for instance,
cannot be improved in the present century. He
left men where he had found slaves, a successor
trained to carry out the favourite scheme and hope
of his life, and finally a name that will float down
the stream of time till merged into the ocean of
eternal oblivion.
But Moses left his dispensation imperfect. He
feared the relapse of his followers into the dark
idolatries of the Nile. He therefore dealt only in[Pg 312]
obscure allusions to a resurrection, to another life,
to a futurity of rewards and punishments—the
mighty lever with which religion moves the moral
world of man. That such was the case is proved
by this fact: the prophets and others who succeeded
Moses, viewing the future practically and not with
philosophical indifference, made in all their schemes
the hereafter of man a prominent feature. The
dogma, moreover, as we have seen, was known, and
well known, to all the semi-civilized races of men.
In the creed of Moses, however, a purely temporal
system of rewards and punishments supplied the place
of that future retribution so elaborated in the Hindu,
the Guebre, and the Egyptian systems. This was
the great defect in his grand scheme. The hope
and fear of a life to come, of a world in which the
apparent inconsistencies of the transient mundane
state shall be explained and remedied, where suffering
virtue shall triumph and triumphant vice shall suffer—a
proclivity for this belief is implanted by nature
in the very soul and heart of man. Like veneration,
it is instinctive rather than reasoning, an exertion
of sentiment rather than an effect of intellect.
Against a dogma based upon such foundations it is
vain to contend. And in the moral government of
the world it presents such vantage-ground to all
who would discipline and elevate mankind, that it
has been cultivated in every system, proscribed by
none. The Hebrews, however, were left to learn[Pg 313]
this essential article of faith, during the Babylonish
captivity, from the Assyrians, the Guebres, and other
Pagans.
The Jehovah of Moses, moreover, was in other
points than personality an imperfect conception.
The Deity, it is true, was drawn forth from the thick
veil of mystery with which the learned of India
and Egypt had invested him. His existence was
proclaimed not to a caste or a class; it was published
to a whole people. Still, he was the God of Abraham,
of Isaac, and of Jacob, not the God of Eternity—the
God of all men. A local deity, his cult and
knowledge were confined to one people, to a mere
fraction of the human kind. Moses, then, was
essentially a benefactor to the Hebrews, but he was
not a benefactor to man.
Presently a new Reformer appeared upon the
worldly stage. The Hebrew code had long before
his day begun to decline; for forms of faith, being
but earthly things, are subject to that eternal law
which to every beginning pre-creates and ordains
an end. Its decay was hastened by political convulsions.
The captivity of the Jews had supplied
them with a multitude of new and strange articles
of belief derived from their Pagan masters. Hence
arose heresies and schisms, which further weakened
the ancient edifice, tottering as it was from the
effects of age, from the new creed-wants of the
people, and from the shocks of the passing events.[Pg 314]
The Sadducees, adhering to the letter, rejected the
spirit of the Books of Moses. Pharisaic superstition
founded upon tradition—that earthy alloy ever added
to the pure ores of heavenly revelation—was fast
undermining the temple of Judaism. Idolatry had
perished by slow degrees out of the land; but the
contrary extreme, bibliolatry, to use a modern word,
sown upon the wide ground of priestly pride and
castish prejudice, had spread rankly over the world
of Judaism. To clear away this poison growth, to
reform the people of Israel, Jesus of Nazareth began
his ministry.
A man of humble fortune, but of proud birth,
the Founder of Christianity preached a creed in
conformity with his circumstances. His tenets were
the Essene, the third sect of philosophizing Jews.
“While the Pharisees were heaping traditions upon
the original structure of the Mosaic system, and
the Sadducees were rigidly preserving and adhering
to the simplicity of that structure, the Essene gave
their whole mind to the ascertainment and realization
of its moral import.” They were thus the Sufis,
the Spiritualists, and the Gnostics of Judaism. They
abounded most at Alexandria, then the grand centre
where the Greek and the Roman, the Indian and the
Persian, met the Arab and the Egyptian. A species
of anchorite philosophers, they called themselves
physicians of souls and bodies; they lived in voluntary
poverty, rigid chastity, and implicit obedience[Pg 315]
to the civil power; they were purists in language,
non-resistants, and haters of political action.
Such tenets, publicly announced as a voice from
heaven, were of course offensive to the ruling
factions at Jerusalem. The people also that flocked
to the preaching of the new Prophet were disappointed
by his proclaiming to them a spiritual
kingdom not the heritage of wealth, splendour, and
glory, so distinctly promised to them by the seers
of former generations. They were but poorly put
off with a type or symbol. A reformer is rarely
popular, and reform is a dangerous work among
a people so hasty and headstrong as the Jews.
But Christ’s teaching was not for the Jews only; he
was preparing to spread abroad amongst mankind
a knowledge of the One Supreme, when, falling a
victim to priestly wiles, the Prophet of Nazareth
suffered an ignominious death. But he had given an
impetus to the progress of mankind by systematizing
a religion of the highest moral loveliness, showing
what an imperfect race can and may become; and
by the labour of a devoted life he had instituted
a college of successors who after him might preach
the glad tidings to all the nations of the earth.
The Prophet of Nazareth had declared his mission to
be for the purpose of establishing and confirming the
Law of Moses. As it first appeared, Christianity was
rather strong in the weakness around it than strong
in its own strength. It was a system for anchorites[Pg 316]
and ascetics. The reformed faith abounded also in a
matter usually consigned in the East to bards and
mystics; namely, principles of almost superhuman
beauty often couched in highly poetical language,
principles not the creation of one mind, but the
current coinage of philanthropy from time immemorial.
Islam all over the East has left its principles
as a heritage to poets, and right well have they performed
their duty to mankind. From the literature
of the Hindus and Persians, the Egyptians and the
Arabs, it would be easy to collect a code of morality
and a law of benevolence as pure and amiable as ever
entered the heart of man. The whole practice of the
Sufi consists in seeking the Divinity, not as the
“popular prudential and mercenary devotee,” but
from fervency of love to God and man. He “proclaims
the invisible truth above the visible comfort”;
his entire resignation can face the horrors of eternal
death inflicted by divine Will; “he has something
higher even than everlasting gain.”
Eventually, however, this almost supernatural
morality, incorporated with a creed to the detriment
of its practical tendency; this substitution of
love for justice, of mercy for retribution, of forgiveness
for punishment; this purely spiritual
system, that first neglected all the most necessary
material details of ablution, dietetics, and even
formulæ and positions of prayer, could never endure
in the sensuous and passionate populations of the[Pg 317]
East. From its further hold upon the instincts, the
affections, and the prepossessions of the Jews, this
reformation had neither extension nor continuance.
The Ceremonial Law of Moses, adapted to an idle
and unoccupied race in a temperate climate and a
land of plenty with its operose and time-wasting
system of prayer and purification, of festivals and
processions, was it is true at first not abolished but
confirmed. But a simple and far more catholic
system was required for the wants of the universe.
Amongst the inspired followers of the Founder of
Christianity one was found capable of executing the
task. With a daring hand Paul, the Apostle of the
Gentiles, rent asunder the tie connecting Christianity
with Judaism. His efforts were crowned with success.
He offered to the great family of man a Church with
a Deity at its head and a religion peculiarly of principles.
He left the moral code of Christianity untouched
in its loveliness. But he abolished the civil
and criminal law of Moses. And he boldly did away
with the long-cherished customs and the ordinances
of food and diet which in olden times were used as
the means of segregating the Israelites from the races
around them. Circumcision was no longer necessary,
although his divine Master had submitted to the
rite; the distinction between beings pure and impure,
one of the strongholds of Judaism, was broken down;
and finally, as neophytes began to multiply, the
Gentile was raised to the level of the Jew.
[Pg 318]
The last step taken by the stern Apostle suggests
the possibility of his having determined to disconnect
totally the reformed religion with Judæa. A
Roman himself, and therefore well acquainted with
that ruling race, and convinced of their physical and
psychical superiority over the Asiatic family, he
courted conveyance to Rome, and there energetically
carried on the work of propagandism. He died a
martyr; but not in vain was his blood shed. From
the grain of faith implanted by him in the little
dungeon below the Capitol sprang a goodly tree,
under whose comfortable shade half the civilized
world have found repose. In process of time the
offshoots spread amongst the noble barbarians of
the North, then beginning to occupy the stage of the
world. Christianity, which in Judæa and confined to
the East would have been the faith of a few hermits
and visionaries, acquired in Europe a depth and fervency
of popular belief which shortly overthrew all
opposition. It is not wonderful that in this course of
events the Christian distinguishes the finger of God!
When the master-minds had vanished from the
scene, their successors in the East introduced other
and less defensible changes. Christianity in the
East was surrounded by the impurest of influences.
Its latitude of belief and absence of ceremonial
allowed it to be worked upon by the theurgic
incarnations of the Buddhists, the demiurgic theories
of the Eastern and Western Gnostics, the Triad[Pg 319]
of the Brahmans, the Dualism of the Persians, the
Pharisaic doctrine of the first Son of the Supreme—Osiris
in a new shape—together with the metaphysics
of the Ebionites, the Speculatists, and other
sects of Grecian or rather of Egyptian origin. From
the Straits of Hercules to the coast of Coromandel,
it was split up into a legion of heresies and schisms.
Syria and Arabia seem to have been the grand central
focus. The Church was distracted by the frowardness
of her children, and the Religion of Love was
dishonoured by malice and hate, persecution and
bloodshed.
Still the reformed religion throve—and what
tenets do not?—under the influence of a moderate
persecution. When, however, under the rule of Constantine,
the sun of prosperity poured its splendours
full upon the favoured faith, an ascetic enthusiasm,
gloomy ideas of seclusion, celibacy, and self-immolation,
and a censure on wealth and industry pronounced
by religious hallucination, in fact the
poisonous portions of the Essene School, spread
subtilely through the whole body of Christianity.
Everywhere in the East these practices require to
be suppressed, not to be encouraged. Where the
face of Nature is gay and riant, to impressionize
mankind gloom and horror in the World of Spirit
are contrasted with the glory and the brilliancy
of the scenes of sense. This is the stronghold
of the Demonolatry and Witchcraft of the Fetissist,[Pg 320]
the abominable paganisms of the Hindu, the
superstitious follies of the Guebre, and the terrible
Sabaism of the ancient Mexican. All are perfectly
suitable to the genius of the people, to the climate,
and to the scenery around them.
Thus in Syria and Egypt Christianity became
degraded. It sank into a species of idolatry. The
acme of absurdity was attained by the Stylites, who
conceived that mankind had no nobler end than to
live and die upon the capital of a column. Thus
nations were weakened. Self-mortification and religious
penances soon degenerate a race, especially
in hot climates, where a moderate indulgence in
the comforts, the luxuries, and the pleasures of life
strengthens the body and with it the mind of man.
The founders of Christianity had neglected to insist
upon daily prayer at stated times, and ceremonial
cleanliness, which is next to godliness. They forgot
those dietetic directions and prescriptions so necessary
in the East, and allowed the use of inebrients, together
with impure and unwholesome meats as pork and
rabbit’s flesh. Man’s physique suffered from their
improvidence. Thus, whilst Christianity increased
in numbers and powers, some once populous and
flourishing countries—Egypt for instance—declined,
and fell to the lowest depths of degradation. It is
the race of man that exalts the faith in proportion
to man’s moral and material excellence. The faith
fails, on the other hand, to raise a degraded race.[Pg 321]
The Armenians and Abyssinians have derived little
from the specific virtues of Christianity. Inferior
in mind and body to the Turks and Arabs, they have
degenerated into a semi-idolatry at once ridiculous
and contemptible. With respect to moral conduct,
a modern traveller (Curzon, Armenia) has had the
courage openly to state that in Turkey not one-tenth
part of the crime exists which is annually committed
in Christendom. Sectarians are fond of citing in
favour of their Reformation the superiority of the
Protestant over the Catholic cantons of Switzerland.
They forget that the former belong to the hardy and
industrious nations of the North, and that the latter
are in climate and population indolent Southrons.
To return eastward. About the sixth century of
its era the Christian world called loudly for reform.
When things were at their worst, Muhammad first
appeared upon the stage of life. It is here proposed
to touch briefly upon the points wherein due measure
of justice has not yet been dealt by philosophic and
learned Europe to the merits and value of El Islam.
The Western nations were so long taught to look
upon the forcible propagandism of Muhammad as a
creed personally hostile to them, they were so deeply
offended by the intolerant Deism and Monotheism
of the scheme, and finally so rancoured by their
fierce wars and deadly collisions with the Muslim,
that certain false views have long been, and still
continue to be, part or rather essence of the subject.[Pg 322]
And though in this our modern day a wiser and more
catholic spirit of inquiry and judgment has not been
deterred from manifesting itself, still even in the
writings of those who pride themselves most upon
candour and freedom from prejudice not a little of
the bad old leaven offends the taste. Men do not now,
it is true, fear the imputation of “turning Turk”[216]—an
expression since become common, and coupled by
old writers (Burton, Anatomy of Melancholy) with
“betraying father, prince, and country, forsaking
religion, and abjuring God.” Nor does there survive
in Europe the former rancorous hate for the founder
and creed, for the apostles and followers of El Islam.
Still, it is to be repeated the Saving Faith has not
yet been allowed to assume its proper rank and
position amongst the religions of the world. And
the moderns rather busy themselves in philosophizing
over and in detecting flaws and falsehood rather than
in seeking out the truth, the merits, and the beauties
of a religion which for thirteen centuries has been
the light and “life guidance” of one-fifth of mankind
(Carlyle, Hero Worship).
These four are briefly the most popular errors of
the present day upon the subject of El Islam:
In the first place, it is determined to be merely
a perceptive faith, and therefore adapted only to that
portion of mankind whose minds, still undeveloped
and uncultivated, are unripe for a religion of prin[Pg 323]ciples.
This is partly correct of the corrupted,
untrue of the pure, belief; it will somewhat apply to
the tenets of the Turks and Persians, but not to those
of the first Muslims and the modern Wahhabis. The
spirit of the religion, its sentiments, and its æsthetics
were committed to the poets of El Islam, and
right worthily have they fulfilled their task. It is
not too much to assert that almost every celebrated
metrical composition amongst Muslims is either
directly or indirectly devotional. Even the licentious
Anacreons of Persia and India, Hafiz and Jafar i
Zatalli, disguise their grossness under a garb of
mystical double entente.
But even in their purely spiritual songs and
hymns the poets of El Islam do not betray that
poverty of invention and puerility of imagination that
distinguish the religious rhymesters of Christianity.
In the great and noble literature of England, for
instance, there is but one poem founded upon the
base of revelation—Paradise Lost. Who can arise
from its perusal without the conviction that a
splendid genius has so fettered himself with his
theme that many ballad-mongers have produced more
poetical effects upon the reader? Who rises without
disgust at the dialogues of the Father and the Son
in which is discussed at length Calvinistic sectarianism?
And what Christian, who deems his Holy
Trinity a sacred mystery of the Spirit beyond, not
contrary to, material reason, would not blush to[Pg 324]
see his Divinity thus degraded in the eyes of the
stern deistical Muslim?
The Koran—the only standard of divine Truth
universally admitted by El Islam—consists of threefold
matter: of historical and legendary lore, of
principles moral and psychical, and of materials for
a loose and scattered code of laws. And here, it
may be observed, that, with perhaps the exception of
the Pentateuch, which we have seen required its
tradition, no code embodied in the sacred writings
of any race has sufficed to govern it. What Christian
nation has ever been ruled by Christian law?
Even its codes are either of its own invention or
borrowed from ancient custom or translated from
Pagan legislation. No divine system yet promulgated
to mankind has sufficed for the civil and criminal
wants of future and more civilized generations. And
thus it was with the Koran. The precepts of the
Saving Faith were not fixed and definite enough
for the sensuous and objective spirit of the East. In
religion, as in politics, wherever public opinion is
lax and impotent, law is, and must be, a mass of
stringent ordinances so disposed as to provide for
every contingency. Such codes cannot deal in
principles and spirit; these must be extracted—by
the few that require them—from a well-organized
system of practical precepts. Thus the Muslim in
the earliest ages sought to supply the imperfections
of the code bequeathed to him. A remedy was at[Pg 325]
hand. The deceased Prophet’s sayings were still
fresh in the minds of his wives and immediate descendants,
of his companions, and his early successors.
All lent their best endeavours to the pious task.
The earliest traditions were of sensible and useful
import. Presently the most trivial precepts and
the most puerile practices were either forged or
remembered by so-called saints who made this collection
the business of their lives. Thus in course of
time and by slow degrees appeared that bulky mass of
traditional lore popularly known as the Ahadis or
Sayings and the Sunnat or Doings of the Prophet.
By such arts were subtle practices and silly legends
grafted by scholasticism upon the primitive annals
and laws of El Islam. In that faith almost every
tenet or practice to which the philosopher could
object may be traced to the Sunnat and Ahadis;
the Koran is wholly free from them. Amongst
others, upon these, and upon these solely, must be
charged the defect of making the system eminently
perceptive. Muhammad, like all other Eastern lawgivers,
had suited his ordinances to the genius of
his people by addressing them as semi-civilized men.
The schools degraded their Muslims to the intellectual
rank of babes and sucklings.
Regarding these Sunnat and Ahadis, however, it
must be borne in mind that they are purely sectarian.
The four self-called orthodox schools hold to one
tradition. The principal heresies, as the Shiahs and[Pg 326]
the Bayzawi, have their own recognized collections,
whence all emanations from impure, that is to say,
from other sources, have been carefully removed.
But El Islam has existed, and can exist, independently
of them. Had the Wahhabis, those Puritans or rather
Reformers of the Saving Faith, succeeded in restoring
to the Arabs their simple primitive belief, little of
the Ahadis and the Sunnat would have been left
to misguide and offend mankind.
Secondly, men object that the Saving Faith is
one of pure sensuality. It is difficult to divine how
this most erroneous estimate could have been formed
except by the grossest ignorance. Possibly it was a
vicious conclusion thus drawn: that as the Muslim’s
Paradise is one of sense, consequently there is no
limit to his sensuality in this world. But El Jannat,
or the Heavenly Garden, has many mansions; the
ignorant and savage, the hungry and sensual Bedawin
will taste the flesh of birds, live in a golden house,
command any number of angelic wives, and drink
the nectars of Kafur and Zingibil. But, as in Christianity
so in El Islam, eye hath not seen, nor hath
ear heard, nor hath fancy conceived the spiritual joys
of those who in mundane life have qualified themselves
for heavenly futurity. The popular error that
the Muslim Prophet denied immortal souls to women,
and therefore degraded them to the mere instruments
of man’s comfort and passions, might also have tended
to represent El Islam as a scheme of sense. Possibly,[Pg 327]
again, the monogamic races of a Northern clime—for
monogamy, polygamy, and polyandry are an affair
of geography—shocked by the permission to marry
four wives and to maintain an indefinite number of
concubines, overlooked in characterizing Muhammad’s
ordinances the strict limits therein laid down for
luxury and pleasure. The Muslim may not take
to himself a single spouse, unless able to make a
settlement upon her, to support, clothe, and satisfy
her. He must act with the most rigid impartiality
towards the whole household, and strictly avoid
showing undue preference. He is allowed four wives
with a view of increasing and multiplying his tribe.
Man in hot and enervating climates coming to
maturity early, and soon losing the powers which
he is tempted by moral as well as physical agencies
to abuse, would never raise up a large family as the
husband of only one wife. Like the Patriarchs, he
must have handmaids. Like the Jews, he must be
allowed polygamy and power of divorce. These,
forbidden by the ascetic Essene, are necessary to
the increase of mankind in the East, and no religion
can consecrate an ordinance which, directly opposed
to the first law given by the Creator to his creatures
(Genesis), tends to check that natural increase of
population which is the foundation of all progress
and civilization.
Laying aside these considerations as too shallow
for discussion, can we call that faith sensual which[Pg 328]
forbids a man to look upon a statue or a picture?
Which condemns even the most moderate use of
inebrients, and indeed is not certain upon the subject
of coffee and tobacco? Which will not allow even
the most harmless game of chance or skill? Which
rigorously prohibits music, dancing, and even poetry
and works of fiction upon any but strictly religious
subjects? Above all things, which debars man from
the charms of female society, making sinful a glance
at a strange woman’s unveiled face? A religion
whose votaries must pray five times a day at all
seasons, in joy as in sorrow, in sickness as in health?
A system which demands regular almsgiving and
forbids all manner of interest upon money to those
who would be saved? Whose yearly fast often
becomes one of the severest trials to which the
human frame can be exposed? To whom distant
pilgrimage with all its trials and hardships is
obligatory at least once in life? Whose Prophet
exclaimed, like the Founder of Christianity, [Arabic: الفقر فخري: Al-faqru fakhary][217]
(Poverty is my pride), and who taught his followers
that two things ruin men, “much wealth and many
words”?
Those who best know El Islam, instead of charging
it with sensuality, lament its leaven of asceticism.
They regret to see men investing these fair nether
scenes with mourning hues; “the world is the
Muslim’s prison, the tomb his stronghold, and Paradise
his journey’s end.” But this could not be otherwise.[Pg 329]
Asceticism and celibacy are the wonted growth
of hot and Southern climates, where man appears
liable to a manner of religious monomania. The
Brahman householder, after doing his duty to mankind
by becoming a husband and the father of a
family, ought by the law of Menu to leave the
world and to end life a Sanyasi amongst the beasts
of the jungle. No religion is more monastic than
Buddhism; yet it is atheistic. Thus the votaries
of this organized system of selfishness, this vast
scheme of profits and losses, reduced to regularity,
are deprived of all hope in death, and yet live the
most comfortless and unnatural of lives. “The
world knows nothing of its greatest men,” is true
in more views than one. To the Muslim, time
is but a point in illimitable eternity, life is but
a step from the womb to the tomb. He passes
from this world directly into the other, but not into
a new existence; its every aspect and circumstance
is as familiar to his mind as is the routine of
earthly existence. He has no great secret to learn.
The Valley of Death has no shadow for him;[218]
no darkness of uncertainty and doubt horrifies his
fancy. So it came to pass that, although Muhammad
expressly and repeatedly declared, “There is no
monkery in El Islam,” few schemes have produced a[Pg 330]
more systematic or rigid asceticism. Even before his
death monasticism began to appear; and now the
Muslim world is overrun with Sufis and Kalandars,
with Fakirs and Derwayshes, with Santons and
recluses.
The third error is that the Founder of the Saving
Faith began his ministry as an enthusiast and ended
as an impostor. This is the improved modern fashion
of treating the “perjuryose lying Machomete” of
our forefathers. We are less gross and dogmatical
than they were, though scarcely more charitable or
philosophical. The recognized proofs of “imposition”
seem to be:
Firstly, the convenient appearance of the Ayát, or
inspired Versets. But what would have been their
use had they not descended when wanted to solve
a difficulty or convey a precept? Do we doubt
the Books of Moses because Revelation is conducted
upon precisely the same principle? And who will
deny that enthusiasm would have produced them
more effectually than fraud? It is a general rule
that to deceive others well we must first deceive
ourselves. He that would be believed in by others
must thoroughly believe in himself. Is it likely
that such men as Abubekr and Umar would become
the victims of a mere fraud, so palpable to every
petty annalist and compiler in this our modern day?
Neither they nor Muhammad even at his dying hour
seem to have doubted his inspiration. The Prophet’s[Pg 331]
last words were, “Prayer! Prayer!” And, according
to the Shiahs, a few minutes before breathing his
last he called for an inkholder and a pen to write
the name of his successor. Is this the death-bed
scene of a hypocrite or an impostor?
Secondly, the delivery of the inspiration by the
Archangel Gabriel, and the frequent visions of heaven
and heavenly beings recorded by the Muslim Prophet.
Without having recourse to any other explanation,
are not instances of the kind perpetually recorded
in the history of mankind? And granting that
such apparitions are purely subjective, shall we charge
with fraud all those subject to them? How often
has the Founder of Christianity appeared to the
highly imaginative races of Southern Europe? How
frequently have fervent Muslims been favoured with
“a call” by Muhammad and Ali? Physicians and
men of science have accounted for these seemingly
marvellous apparitions by natural causes. Why
then, unless by the action of mere prejudice, should
we determine the same thing to be imposture in one
man and yet regard it with reverence in another?
Who also has even ventured to decide what the
modus inspirandi or the divine afflatus really is?
The most ancient theory apparently is that angels
([Greek: αγγελοι: angeloi]) were used as messengers between God
and man; and thus the Muslims, whose tenets are
identical in this point with the Jews, rank angelic
below human nature.
[Pg 332]
Thirdly, the change from peaceful to warlike
language, from the arts of eloquence and persuasion
to the propagandism of fire and steel. But did
not the Founder of Christianity declare, “I came
not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt, x. 34)?
And did Moses disdain to place carnal weapons
in the hands of his people? The great Lawgiver
of Israel sanctioned the murder in cold blood
of women and childish captives. Even kings
were hewed in pieces before the Lord. These
atrocities were strictly forbidden by Muhammad.
Even forcible proselytism was not allowed. The
protégé of El Islam paid a small capitation tax, and
was allowed to practise his faith and to worship
his God as his law directed. Had, moreover, the
Prophet forged the fresh order to propagate his
scheme by the sword, surely he was not so shallow
an impostor as to leave behind him those peaceful
revelations which might so easily have been cast
into the fire. No; the man honestly believed, like
Moses, that the voice of Allah spoke within him.
The fourth error is that Muhammad, unable to
abolish certain superstitious rites and customs of the
ancient and Pagan Arabs, incorporated them into his
scheme, and thus propitiated many that before
avoided him. We have seen that the same might be
objected to Moses. But Muhammad may surely have
believed in the defilement of Allah’s holy places by
Pagans, and have restored them to their pure original[Pg 333]
purposes. Thus the Kaabah, that Pantheon of the
idolater, was given to El Islam as the house built
by Abraham and Ishmael. And what antiquary so
wise as to declare that the Friend of God did not
visit Mecca and there lay the foundations of a mosque
and an abode?[219] The gigantic tombs of Adam
and Eve at Mecca and Jeddah were in the olden
times places of litholatry. Yet might not the
numerous Arab Christians, in whose religion Muhammad
believed before the old dispensation was
abrogated by a new scheme, have had traditions
concerning the meeting of our first parents on the
Mount of Arafat, and their sepulture in the Holy
Land? Mecca was at that time consecrated by
no less than five religions. The Guebre had
established there the Shrine of Saturn. The Hindu
had made it the residence of the third person
of his triad. The Pagan Arabs had erected there
a gigantic Pantheon. The Jews revered it because,
as Ibn Shaybat relates, Moses and Aaron performed
pilgrimages there; when the famous Tobba Judaized,
he invested the house with a splendid curtain.
And, finally, the Christians, according to some
authors, had procured admission into the Kaabah
for the images of the Virgin and Child. Colonists
and expatriated men readily connect the remarkable
events and incidents of their religion and history[Pg 334]
with the strange objects revered in foreign lands.
The Muslims in Sindh, as an instance, have occupied
in force most of the sacred places of the Hindus;
often, too, both Monotheist and Polytheist worship
at the same shrine. The original Yoni becomes
a Da'asah, or footprint of Hazrat Ali; and the sacred
alligator of the Hindus is revered as the creation of
a Muslim saint. Thus in Ceylon Buddha’s retreat has
become Adam’s Peak. The description of St. Mary
and the Holy Infant resting in the shade of the
sycamore tree of Heliopolis in the old apocryphal
gospels is clearly borrowed from the old Egyptian
symbol, Isis with Horus in her lap sitting under the
Hiero-sycaminon. In the incorporations of traditions
then current amongst the Arab Christians there
is no valid reason for charging Muhammad with fraud.
To rank the Saving Faith amongst the religions
of the world, it is necessary briefly to relate what
its founder did for mankind. A youth of noble
origin, but fallen fortunes, as was the Prophet of
Nazareth, he was strengthened like the Jewish Lawgiver
Moses by travel, solitude, and meditation. Jebel
Hira was his Mount Horeb. But though surrounded
by learned Jew and Christian, his education was
defective; and though, a genuine Arab, he thought
strongly and clearly, and he was a perfect master of
eloquence, he had none of that knowledge which passes
for a preternaturalism amongst a barbarous people.
His probity won for him in early manhood the[Pg 335]
surname of El Amin, or the Trusty, and his noble
qualities enabled him to marry the wealthy widow
in whose service he had lived a hireling.
After a long course of meditation, fired with anger
by the absurd fanaticism of the Jews, the superstitions
of the Syrian and Arabian Christians, and
the horrid idolatries of his unbelieving countrymen,
an enthusiast too—and what great soul has
not been an enthusiast?—he determined to reform
those abuses which rendered revelation contemptible
to the learned and prejudicial to the vulgar.
He introduced himself as one inspired to a body
of his relations and fellow-clansmen. The step was
a failure, except that it won for him a proselyte
worth a thousand sabres in the person of Ali, son
of Abu Talib. With an uncommon mixture of
prudence and energy he pursued his task till he
overcame the hate, the ridicule, and the persecution
of such men as Abubekr, Umar, and Usman. Expelled
by the violence of his enemies, he fled his native
city—a wonderful contrast to the fierceness and
the impatience of his race. But after a long course
of meekness and longsuffering in the work of
proselytizing, his spirit, like that of Moses, rose high
against violence and oppression, and at last—for
he was an Arab—abrogating his peaceful precepts
he appealed to the God of Battles in his combat
for a righteous cause. Heroes and mighty men
like Hamzah Khalid and Amru el Ays flocked[Pg 336]
to his standard, and his personal valour and high
qualities as a guerilla soldier soon led him on to
fortune. After several years’ exile, he re-entered
as a visitor the walls of his native city, whence he
had fled persecuted and proscribed. And he lived
long enough to witness the splendid success of
his early projects.
Abolishing all belief in a local or personal
God, he announced to his Arabs the One Supreme,
now in terms as terrible as man could bear,
then in words so lofty and majestic that they
sank for ever into the heart-core of his followers.
He broke to pieces with his own hand the images
of the Kaabah, and he witnessed the total extinction
of a gigantic idolatry—a work of itself
sufficient to immortalize the memory of one reformer.
He said of the Deity, “He is not enclosed
by the bonds of space or by the limits of time;
he hath no form which requireth a former from
whom he is free; and whatever concerning him
entereth thy mind to that he is the contrary.” He
preached Allah, the God unapprehensible, incomprehensible,
omnipotent, all-beneficent, spiritual, and
eternal.
He revived the earliest scheme of Mosaicism and
the pristine simplicity of Christianity by making
every man priest and patriarch of his own household.
Preceding faiths had attempted to elevate human
nature above itself, and had, as might be expected,[Pg 337]
degraded the object of their endeavours. He inculcated
the dignity of man instead of perpetually
preaching human degradation, he respected mortal
nature, and therefore he made his scheme eminently
practical with something of a higher flight. He
did away with the incestuous marriage with a
father’s widow; he abolished the Wad el Banat,
or the murderous inhumation of female children.
He corrected the laxity and immorality of the age
by making drinking and gambling penal offences,
and by forbidding modest women to appear in public
unveiled. Finally, to mention no other great
and good works, by the enunciation of a modified
Fatalism—they greatly err who confound it with
an absolute Predestination—he attempted to check
that tendency of self-mortification which he could
not wholly expel from the affections of his countrymen.
He died, not like an enthusiast or an impostor,
but as one true to the tenets and practices of his
life; and he bequeathed to the world a Law and
a Faith than which none has been more firmly or
more fervently believed in by mankind, whose wide
prevalence—wider indeed than that of any other
creed—alone suffices to prove its extrinsic value
to the human family. This much did Muhammad
for his fellow-creatures.
Can we wonder that the Arabian Prophet, finding
himself, despite the accidents of fortune, of time,
and place, so much in advance of his age, so solitary[Pg 338]
a being amongst the fanatic, the superstitious, and
the debased, fondly believed himself Allah’s Apostle,
and the chosen instrument of man’s regeneration?
Considering the ardent temperament of the Arab,
his high development of veneration, and his discerning
the divine hand in every human work
and change, can we marvel that he attributed
the fire of his soul and the strong workings of his
mind to a something preternatural—an inspiration
or a revelation? The celebrated mystic Mansur
el Hallaj was stoned by the crowd for using the
words, “I am Truth” (i.e. the Lord). But his
Sufi confraternity still explain away the apparent
irreverence of the saying, and believe him to have
been, as was said of Spinoza, a God-intoxicated man.
Muhammad’s mission, then, was one purely of
reform. He held that four dispensations had preceded
his own, and that his object was to restore
their pristine purity. But the Adamical had been
obsoletized by the Noachian scheme; and this by
the Mosaic, which in its turn becoming defunct, had
left all its powers and prerogatives to Christianity;
thus also the latter dispensation in the fulness of
time had been superseded by the revelations of
El Islam, the Saving Faith. All the past was now
effete and abrogated. All the future would be
mere imposture; for his was the latest of religions,
he the Soul of the Prophets. He accused the Jews
and Christians of entire corruption, of spiritual death,[Pg 339]
and preached to them with fervour a new faith,
a doctrine of life. He openly charged them with
having altered and remodelled their sacred writings.[220]
Nor could this charge be denied. It is now, and
was then, impossible to discover what Moses wrote
or what was written for him by Ezra the scribe
and other compilers. The difference of style and
language, the frequent changes from the first person
to the third, and finally the account of the Law[Pg 340]giver’s
death and burial conclusively prove that
the Pentateuch had in its present state more than
one author. Probably the original draught was
concise and short.
Even the Koran contained little that was new.
With the exception of some legends, the addition
of some regulations touching the daily prayers and
the purification of property, with a few ordinances
as that of Diyat or blood-money, disallowed by the
Pentateuch (Numb. xxxv. and Deut. xix.), but
rendered necessary by the state of Arab society,
and some dietetic modifications—the camel for
instance and the horse were recognized as pure
food,—the Koran might almost be extracted from
the Mosaic and Rabbinical writings, from the Evangelists
and apocryphalists of the Christian era.
There is also but little to commend in it, except
its fiery and commanding eloquence. As a code
of laws it is eminently defective. He who could
write such a work could have written much better.
Muhammad, however, relied for the success of his
mission upon far higher claims than any book.
Muhammad laid no claims to prophecy or to
miracles. He called himself El Rasúl, and El
Nabbi, the announcer of good tidings from Allah
to the Adamites. He did not give his name
to a new system of belief; his ordinances were
designated in a mass as El Islam, the Salvation
or the Saving Faith. His night journey to heaven,[Pg 341]
the subject of so much opprobrious declamation, was
either a vision or a dream. The splitting of the
moon, a tale so monstrously told by his posterity,
rests upon no broader basis than a line in the Koran
which might properly be translated: “The hour
[of Judgment] shall come, and the moon shall cleave
asunder.” Probably this absurdity was the invention
of followers who determined to dispute for their
lawgiver with Joshua’s command over the host
of heaven. An ignorant Afghan is said to have
boasted that his Pir, or spiritual pastor, the celebrated
poet Abd el Kahman, was in the habit of
making night journeys like Muhammad to Paradise,
and to have bastinadoed the holy man severely
when, taxed with impiety, he denied the irreverent
assertion. Such a Muhaddis, or relater of the
Prophet’s sayings, as Abu Hurayrah, the Father of
the Kitten, may fairly, to judge him by his recognized
writings, be suspected of such a forgery. Muhammad
the more especially disdained the claim to miraculous
powers which, as those who know Eastern lands,
belong to every petty saint and village santon.
The “most extraordinary of ordinary men,” the
historian Hume, inferred that, because he himself
had never seen a miracle, no one else ever saw a
miracle. The Oriental traveller will disbelieve in
miracles for the opposite reason—because he has seen
so many.
The rapid and extensive spread of El Islam,[Pg 342]
considered by the Faithful a remarkable instance
of divine aid, is to be accounted for without the
intervention of a Deity. The Arabs poured forth
from their great centre, till the whole surplus population
was exhausted. Everywhere they appeared
as liberators of slaves, especially in Turkey and
Persia, where an artificial and over-refined state of
society had produced tyrannical despots, an innumerable
and insatiable nobility, and a people robbed
and spoiled. Another circumstance favoured the
growth of “the Religion of the Heavens and the
Earth.” Whether we consider the Arabs to have
been the aborigines of their native wilds, or, as the
modern theory is, we derive them from the Highlands
of Æthiopia, it is certain that their great success
lay amongst a kindred people speaking cognate
languages. From the earliest times, indeed, Arabia
had sent forth several extensive streams of emigration.
Essentially an Asiatic form of belief, El
Islam could not progress beyond the barriers opposed
to it by geography. Not having a St. Paul to modify,
to change it, the Saving Faith broke upon the rock
of a new race.
But this I claim for El Islam.
The recurring purpose which runs through the world
is chiefly manifested by the higher esteem in which
man holds man. David made him little lower than
the angels. Christianity, a system of asceticism, confirmed
this estimate: we are fallen beings, fallen not[Pg 343]
through our own fault; condemned to eternal death,
not by our own demerits; ransomed by a Divine
Being, not through our own merits. El Islam, on
the contrary, raised man from this debased status,
and with the sound good sense which characterizes
the creed inspired and raised him in the scale
of creation by teaching him the dignity of human
nature. Thus modern Spiritualism is giving a
shock to Christianity, whereas El Islam has power
to resist it.
But, however El Islam prospered amongst the
kindred races, it fell flat elsewhere. No power of
propagandism availed in China. In Southern Spain
the faith maintained itself for a long time; its letter
and spirit, however, were almost lost. The Zegris
and Abencerrages were European knights, not Eastern.
And when pushed forward into a Northern people,
a single destructive defeat sufficed to set for it
bounds which it has never attempted to cross. In
Hungary and Austria again, with a tenfold power,
it failed to establish a footing; and when “Holy
Russia” became sufficiently united to be powerful,
El Islam was cast out like a corpse.
Again, what reconciled the ancient Muslim and
endears the modern to his creed is its noble simplicity.
The votary has little or nothing comparatively speaking
to pay for his moral and spiritual necessary—religion.
He has no tithes, and few fees. His places
of worship are built and maintained by religious[Pg 344]
bequests, carefully guarded by law and custom.
Muhammad Ali, it is true, confiscated the “Wakf”
left to many of the Cairene mosques and tombs. He
also, following the example of Turkey, substituted
at Mecca and El Medinah yearly pensions for the
produce of their ancient extensive church lands. But
he carried out these measures among Egyptians, a
race of men whose languor and apathy require
repeated inducements to fight for the faith; in Kabul
and Bokhara the boldest and most powerful extortioners
would hardly venture upon such a sacrilege. The
Islam Muslim, moreover, has no priesthood; those
whose duty it is to preach and pray to the people are
not churchmen; they temporarily receive from the
Wahil, or mosque-warden, a few piastres per month;
but all must live by some honest secular calling. Even
the Sultan, the Defender of the Faith, the Representative
of the Khalifs, and the Vicegerent of Allah upon
earth, does not disdain handicraft, to make and sell
toothpicks. Finally, the Muslim has no baptism; he
is circumcised by a barber; he can marry himself
with a reason for deviating from popular custom; and
he can be bathed, buried, and prayed over by any
lay fellow-religionist.
It is generally believed in Europe that El Islam
is on the decline; and the old prejudices bequeathed
by Crusades tend to make the assertion popular. It
is based upon insufficient grounds. With as much
correctness might the Muslim predict the present[Pg 345]
fall of Christianity by the heresies and schisms
that distract the Church, from the wide spread
of visionary Swedenborgians and of the shallow
imposture Mormonism.[221] Turkey and Egypt may
show traces of latitudinarianism, even as France and
Germany have done; no Muslim people, however,
has yet ventured to abolish El Islam by law. But
Arabia and Afghanistan still stand firm as in the
first ages of the faith. Generally it may be remarked
that in Eastern religions the propagandism and
missioning of the West has tended to strengthen and
confirm the tenets against which they have been
directed. Thus Hinduism, after giving a few outcasts
to Christianity, has entrenched itself behind
the stronghold of Vedantism; the learned are pure
Deists, the ignorant pure idolaters. Buddhism
remains untouched, and the very nature of its encyclopedian
tenets renders it unassailable. Even the
sect of Guebres has been strengthened by polemical
arguments, and bids fair to rival its antagonists in
disputative theology. In spite of the mighty force
brought against it, the Parsee converts to Christianity
might be numbered on a man’s fingers. Nor can
these faiths yield to compulsion. The laws of
Menu, of Zoroaster, and of Muhammad have still
bulwarks not easily to be battered down. And should[Pg 346]
Christianity, as it has often threatened, ever meet
the Saving Faith in mortal conflict, and the Cross
assail the Crescent in the latest of crusades, the
Muslim scimitar, rusty as it is with the rust of ages,
will prove the good metal of which it was in the
beginning forged.
Supposing, however, El Islam abolished by civilization,
underminded by the slow action of the Christian
Powers closing around it, or become decrepit from
old age, what would be the result? Some renewal
essentially the same, formally different; some revival
of its eternal principle, Monotheism, disguised under
a fresh garb of those outward accidents that constitute
a religion. Such has ever been the history of the
world’s creeds. At all times
emerging from the storm,
Primeval faith uplifts her changeful form,
Mounts from her funeral pile on wings of flame,
And soars and shines another and the same.
FINIS.
[Pg 347]
INDEX
N.B.—Numbers printed in italics refer to the footnotes.
- Abbott, William, 18.
- Abyssinians, the, 321.
- Academy, Burton’s letter to the, 136-143.
- Academy, Bataillard’s letter to the, 144-166.
- Africa, the Gypsies of, 233-262.
- Algeria, the Gypsies of, 258-261.
- America, the Gypsies in, 282-285.
- Arabshah, 190.
- Armenians, the, 321.
- Arnim, Count, 17.
- Arubim, 79.
- Arya, 180.
- Ascheri, 110.
- Ascoli, 180.
- Ashkenazím, the, 46-56.
- Asia, the Gypsies in, 211-232.
- Asia Minor, the Gypsies of, 219.
- Aviabron, 18.
- Bactriana, 180.
- Baramaki, the, 231, 236.
- Barbary, 260, 261.
- Bartalus, M., 174-176.
- Basnage, 15.
- Bataillard, Paul, letter to the Academy, 144-156;
- list of works by, 157, 158;
- claim to priority in discovering identity of Gypsy and Jat answered, 164-171;
- his reviews reviewed, 171-201.
- Bauer, 17.
- Bavaria, 203.
- Bearnary, 17.
- Bedawin, the, 174, 199, 200, 217, 219, 230, 234, 236, 254.
- Belochis, the, 139, 142, 169, 170.
- Belochistan, the Jats of, 215-217.
- Belochki dialect, the, 142, 166.
- Beni Aros, the, 260.
- Berber (Barbar), 181.
- Berbruger, M., 198.
- Beth Yusuf, 111.
- Black Jews, the, 58.
- Bocthor, Ellious, 146, 149.
- Borrow, George (quoted), 158, 161, 163, 165, 169, 170, 190, 192, 241, 260, 261, 269, 281.
- Boudin, Dr., 12.
- Braham, 17.
- Brazil, 282-285.
- Brosset, 185.
- Bunyan, John, supposed to be of Gypsy descent, 163.
- Burnouf, Émile, 188.
- Cairo, 238, 240.
- Cantemir, Count, 17.
- [Pg 348]Caraïtes, the. See Karaïtes.
- Chinganeh, 134, 219, 220.
- Ciga, 190.
- Cingani, 181.
- Cohen, M. J., 92 ff.
- Cordova, Francisca de, 203, 270, 271.
- Crosse, A. F., 264, 267.
- Cushite theory, the, 155.
- Damascus, 231, 232.
- Darfur, 239.
- Das, 182.
- Davis, Dr. J. B., 143.
- Denman, Major, 262.
- Denmark, the Gypsy in, 203, 209.
- Derush, 97.
- “Diním,” the, 111.
- Djat, the, 141, 146, 147, 148, 149, 152, 165, 183, 195.
- Doba, Capt. S. de, 268.
- Dunsterville, Col., 214.
- Eben ha-Azar, 111.
- Ebionites, the, 54.
- Egypt, the Gypsy in, 233-257.
- Egyptian religion, the, 296, 297, 298, 300, 320.
- El Islam, 216, 218, 255, 321-346;
- popular errors concerning, 322-334.
- England, Gypsy in, 208.
- Essene School, the, 319.
- Europe, Gypsy of, 202-210, 263-281.
- Excommunication, Jewish forms of, 82.
- Fagnan, M., 188, 195.
- Falashas, the, 116.
- Ferdoussy, 145, 148.
- Fetissism, 291, 292, 293, 296, 301, 302.
- Fez, 260.
- Fleischer, Prof., 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 165, 184.
- France, the Gypsy in, 203, 204, 209, 265, 269.
- Frascator, 13.
- Gavbar, the, 218.
- Gemara, the, 100, 101, 102, 103.
- Getæ, the, 134, 141, 150, 165, 216.
- Ghagar, the, 198, 200, 233-257.
- Ghawázi, the, 236, 237, 252.
- Gházieh, the, 181.
- Gill’s Notices of the Jews, 3.
- Goeje, Prof. de, 136, 144, 150, 151, 152, 153, 165, 183, 188, 191, 192, 195, 196.
- Goldsmids, the, 18.
- Gondomar, 18.
- Goths, the, 134, 141.
- Grellman, 202, 241.
- Greece, 177, 182, 299.
- Grisi, 17.
- Gypsy, the, of Africa, 233-262;
- of Algeria, 258-261;
- of America, 282-285;
- of Asia, 211-232;
- of Barbary, 260, 261;
- of Bavaria, 203;
- of Belochistan, 215-217;
- of Brazil, 282-285;
- compared with the Jat, 133, 134, 137, 139 ff;
- compared with the Jew, 5, 17, 161, 162;
- of Damascus, 231, 232;
- of Denmark, 203, 209;
- dress of, 277;
- of Egypt, 233-257;
- of England, 208;
- of Europe, 202-210, 263-281;
- famous Gypsies, 163;
- of France, 203, 204, 209, 265, 269;
- of Germany, 203-208;
- of Hungary, 202, 263-269;
- Indian affinities of, 136-143;
- of Italy, 205, 206, 265;
- language of, 134, 240, 279, 280;
- [Pg 349]of Morocco, 258-261;
- of the Netherlands, 209;
- of the Panjab, 211-215;
- of Persia, 217-219;
- of Rome, 206;
- of Said, 237;
- of Spain, 203, 207, 265, 269-281;
- of Sweden, 203, 209;
- of Switzerland, 203;
- of Syria, 219-224.
- Ha-fraká fast, 10.
- Hagadah, the, 98.
- Halakah, the, 98.
- Halevi, 18.
- Hamza Ispahani, 146, 148, 150, 151.
- Hasse, hypothesis of, 179, 185.
- Hawi, the, 234, 235.
- Heine, 17.
- Helebis, the, 250, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257.
- Herklots, Dr., 258.
- Hermann, 17.
- Hillel, 101.
- Horus, 297.
- Hoshen Mishpat, 111.
- Hughes, A. W., 215.
- Hungary, 202, 263-269.
- India, 296, 297, 298, 303.
- Indian mythology, 297.
- Irby, O. P., 22.
- Ishaz al Fasi, Rabbi, 110.
- Isis, 296.
- Islam. See El Islam.
- Ispahani, Hamza. See Hamza.
- Italy, 205, 206, 265.
- Játaki language, the, 137-140, 180, 215.
- Jats, the. See Gypsy.
- Jerusalem, population of, 68.
- Jesus, 313-316.
- Jews, the, acclimatization, 13;
- atrocities among, 115-129;
- cause of vitality, 9, 10;
- compared with Gypsy, 5, 17, 161, 162;
- consanguinity, 7;
- cupidity, 18, 26, 27, 28;
- fecundity, 5;
- future prospects, 62-71;
- general character of, 20-45;
- illustrious, 17;
- immorality, 8;
- of the Holy Land, 46-62;
- longevity, 14;
- mental characteristics of, 6, 7;
- mutable character and physique of, 6;
- physical appearance of the Eastern, 59;
- physique of, 6, 7;
- population, 25;
- vitality, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13.
- Jin-tchi, the, 134, 142.
- “Jore Déah,” 111, 113.
- Joseph Karo, Rabbi, 111.
- Judophobic opinion of the Jew, 62, 63.
- Jurisdiction, Jewish, 90.
- Kamûz, the, 146, 148, 151, 165.
- Kaoli, the, 218.
- Karaïtes, the, 56, 57.
- Khabad, the, 54, 55.
- Khasidím, the, 53, 54, 55.
- Koran, the, 324, 340, 341.
- Kremer, Von (quoted), 199, 234-250, 252.
- Kurbat, the, 218, 219, 220, 222, 223, 250, 256.
- Kurbat words, vocabulary of, 224-228.
- Kushite theory, 194, 195.
- Lane, 234, 258.
- Lemnos, 184.
- “Liberal” opinion of Jewish future, 62.
- Luri, the, 145, 146, 165.
- [Pg 350]Macaulay, Lord, speech of, 18, 19.
- MacGregor’s Rob Roy on the Jordan, 31.
- Mackenzie, G. Muir, 22.
- Maghribí, the, 239.
- Maimonides, 110.
- Massena, 17.
- Massorah, the, 97.
- McCaul, Dr. Alexander, 37, 75, 85, 88.
- Mendelssohn, 17.
- Mendizelal, Señor, 17.
- Metempsychosis, 295.
- Meyerbeer, 17.
- Mezzofanti, 269.
- Midrash, the, 96.
- Miklosich, 156, 177, 178, 179.
- Mills’ British Jew, 37.
- Mishnah, the, 96-106.
- Montefiore, Sir Moses, 32, 33.
- Mormons, the, 97.
- Morocco, 258-261.
- Moses, 302-313.
- Moses of Cordova, 112.
- Moses of Trani, 111.
- Movers, 194.
- Muhammad, attempt to poison, 33, 116;
- life of, 334-337.
- Nat'h, the, 143.
- Nawar, the, 220, 228, 230, 231, 250, 257.
- Neander, Prof., 17.
- Netherlands, the, 209.
- Neufville, De, 14.
- Newbold, Capt., 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, 223, 238, 239, 240, 242, 243, 247, 250, 251, 252, 253, 256.
- Noachidæ, the, 79, 80.
- Noachidæ, code of the, 78, 79.
- Nott’s Physical History of the Jewish Race, 3.
- Offenbach, 17.
- Orach Chaüin, 111.
- Oral law, Jewish, 72-92, 99, 102, 117.
- Osiris, 296.
- Palestine, 219.
- Palgrave, 17.
- Panjab, 137, 139, 140, 141, 168, 211-215.
- Pantheism, 295, 298.
- Parushím, the, 53, 55.
- Paspati, A. G., 160, 173, 174, 178, 182, 185, 191.
- Pasquier, 269.
- Pasta, 17.
- Paul, 317, 318.
- Perier, 159.
- Persia, 217-219.
- Persians, religion of the ancient, 294, 295, 297.
- Peshat, the, 97.
- Physician, the Jewish, 113, 114.
- Pococke, Bishop, 219.
- Polytheism, 295.
- Postans Capt., 167.
- Pott, Prof., 136, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 154, 165, 181.
- Proselytes, Jewish, 79.
- Quasimus, 114.
- Rabanu Jacob Be-Rab, 110, 111, 113.
- Rabbinical law, 72-114.
- Rachel, 17.
- Rasscho, Shaykh, 220, 222.
- Ratisbonne, De, 17.
- “Reformed British Jews,” the, 58.
- Reinaud, 147, 149, 150, 151, 165.
- [Pg 351]Religion, earliest forms of, 289-302.
- Remiz, the, 97.
- Ricardos, the, 18.
- Roberts, Samuel, 276.
- Rödiger, 150.
- Rogers, Consul E. T., 231, 232.
- Romá, the, 160, 164, 172, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 186, 187, 198, 202, 221, 228, 233, 252, 261.
- Roman Catholic view of Jewish future, 62, 63.
- Romani-chíb, 181, 197.
- Rome, 206.
- Rossini, 17.
- Rothschilds, the, 18.
- Rouhers, the, 18.
- Rumeli, 220.
- Russia and the Holy Land, 66, 67, 70.
- Sabbath, the Jewish, 74-77, 86.
- Sabbath Services, the Jewish, 76.
- Sadík, 11.
- Safed, School of, 68, 92, 106-114.
- Said, 251.
- Saint-Martin, V. de, 185.
- Samaritans, the, 57, 58.
- Sanhedrin, the, 94, 95, 96.
- Santa, Dr. de Pietra, 258-260.
- Saracens, 203, 205.
- Scotland, 172, 178, 213, 282.
- Segor, 181.
- Sephardím, the, 46, 47, 48, 49, 55, 56.
- Shahnameh, the, 146, 148, 150, 165.
- Shalomon Alkabez, Rabbi, 111.
- Shammai, 101.
- Sicani, the, 180, 185.
- Sidi Hamed au Muza, 260.
- Siginnoi, the, 185.
- Sím, El, 240, 241.
- Sindh, 138, 139.
- Singani, 181.
- Sinties, the, 184, 185.
- Sleeman, W. H., 141, 165, 211, 231.
- Sochæus, 11.
- Sod, 98.
- Soult, Marshal, 17.
- Spain, 178.
- Spinoza, 17, 70, 95.
- Sweden, 203, 209.
- Syria, 219-224, 228-232, 250, 320.
- Talmud Babli, 101, 102.
- Talmudic law, 72-114, 118.
- Tchangar, the, 156.
- Theism, 302.
- Tiberias, School of, 92-106.
- Ticknor, 271.
- Torlonias, the, 18.
- Trumpp, Dr. Ernest, 137, 156, 168, 197.
- Tschudi, 13.
- Tsigans, the, 147, 152, 153, 175, 183, 185, 189, 190, 193, 198, 201, 263 ff.
- Ukayl, 137.
- “White Jews,” the, 58.
- Wohl, 17.
- Wolff, 17.
- Xapol, 18.
- Yad ha-Hazaka, 110.
- Yahuda, Rabbi, 94, 95.
- Yom ha-Kippur, 65.
- Zengi, the, 150.
- Zigeuner, the, 150, 151, 165, 192, 219, 234, 241, 268.
- Zincali, the, 187, 192, 219.
- Zingaro, derivation of, 190.
- Zuth, the, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152, 165, 231, 239.
PRINTED BY
HAZELL, WATSON, AND VINEY, LD.,
LONDON AND AYLESBURY.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Archaic, obsolete and inconsistent spellings are maintained from the original book. There were no obvious misspellings.
No changes were made to the text with the following exceptions:
- some footnotes inserted to comment about transliterations,
- for words in the Arabic alphabet (including Arabic, Persian,
Sindhi, etc.) or Devangari (Sanskrit, Hindi, etc.), I have included
a transliteration if one was not already in the text,
- all footnotes moved to the end of their chapter,
- CONTENTS, PREFACE, INDEX, and TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE added to the Table of Contents, and
- added this note.
The cover was produced by transcriber using images in the book, and is hereby placed in the public domain.
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Jew, The Gypsy and El Islam, by
Richard F. Burton
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE JEW, THE GYPSY AND EL ISLAM ***
***** This file should be named 57208-h.htm or 57208-h.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/5/7/2/0/57208/
Produced by Fritz Ohrenschall, Emmanuel Ackerman and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
(This book was produced from scanned images of public
domain material from the Google Books project.)
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive
specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook
for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports,
performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given
away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks
not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the
trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the
Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country outside the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work
on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you
are located before using this ebook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format
other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain
Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
provided that
* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation."
* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm
works.
* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The
Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the
mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its
volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous
locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt
Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to
date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and
official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
gbnewby@pglaf.org
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.