§§
§§
§§
。
**ś
*:::
ſae. №
§.
3$.
。
§§§
§
.*..*****®.
<！&* * * * *
::::：:::
+-+-+-+-，+，-，*， ** ******.*
- S --， --★：-（ſae;
،·، ، ، ،ersae ！---- → -+ - *~***??.
±±±，±，±,±，±），
→→→→→→→→→→→→ ·≡≡≡≡≡≡≡::。、:5Ēā№，
ſaeae----•* •
|-;; rºț¢zzz:::::：::：:：:::::::::::::-es-ºrae cº-ºrie::
¿№ºt***，№*****~）;
::::::：:：::：:*№ſ:::::：:：:::：:
§:：:::::：::::：:： ~~~~ ~~* * * * * * ·
±±√¶
¿№
§§****
±∞.
±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±,±，±，±），
::::：:::=≡:::::№
********$，?，！，:，:№:№aeae
---*>2， （√≠√≠√¶-

Źź№Ę
-、、、。、、。
********** --~~）;
----
±√（√∞ √æ**…**）>）•=--~~~~）;）--~~~~
ſaeº-~~~~~~！！！|-
±±5， ±，±，±，±,±，±，±，±，±，±，±），-
！！！！！！！！！！！！！！&&！！！!！！！！
<--！！！！!！！-
******
§§§
§§:
:$$$
**w.
§:（*.*?）&=& 2，
�
>>:ze
Æſ，-|-|-|-， *<<）.
§§§-***-§§24
（~~~G×）';
ſæ********r'，
-*******rw aeſº?
*、、、、、、。
×&*）*，，，，
¿№ Sā
�
¿?
！\，
[ſl]
!!!!!
}
|
|
№ſ，
\,
ĶĒĶī£§！！！！！！！
:PEN INse
GºGº
ſeaeaeaeae × .
ſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ¿JEJŲ ĮJĮ
Hiſtºli
f
;f
º
rººf
iii.
ºfs
w
±，±，±，±，±，±，± …:… ………**<！，•■■■===：：=≡g，，…wººº，
5aŒ№º！！！！！！！！！！！！≡≡≡=
Ēzſ， №ĒĶĒ№ĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒ！！！
№ĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒ№ĒĢĒ
***^*^;，&wraer
！！！！！！！！！！！
-******< *s*…***.**…;
！！！！！！！！！!！!??！！! ¿-
¿
-§§§
№ſae&ł::：*e
§§§:（&$$ſaernïaeae
±∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
§§§§§§ĒĒĒĢ
№c，
¿
sae
§ģēģĘĢĒĒĒĒŠ
、、、、、、、、、。

JOHN BUNYAN

THE GIPSIES.
sº
ANYO
THE EAWCYCZOAAA)/A BR/TAAVAWICA OAV THE VIPER.
BY i;
J AM E S S IMS ON,
Editor of
‘‘SIMS ON’s HISTORY OF THE GIPSIES.”
And Author of
“CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATURAL HISTORY AND PAPERS ON OTHER SUBJEcts,” ETc,
“And hath made of one blood all nations of men.”—Acts xvii. 26.
NEW YORK: THOMAS R. KNOX & CO.,
813 BROADWAY.
EDINBURGH ! MACLACHLAN & STEWART.
LONDON: DAILLIERE, TYNDALL & Cox.
1886.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Ever since entering Great Britain, about the year 1506, the
Gipsies have been drawing into their body the blood of the ordin
ary inhabitants and conforming to their ways; and so prolific has
the race been, that there cannot be less than 250,000 Gipsies of all
castes, colours, characters, occupations, degrees of education, cul-
ture, and position in life, in the British Isles alone, and possibly
double that number. There are many of the same race in the
United States of America. Indeed, there have been Gipsies in
America from nearly the first day of its settlement; for many of
the race were banished to the plantations, often for very trifling
offences, and sometimes merely for being by “habit and repute
Egyptians.” But as the Gipsy race 1eaves the tent, and rises to
civilization, it hides its nationality from the rest of the world, so
great is the prejudice against the name of Gipsy. In Europe and
America together, there cannot be less than 4,000,ooo Gipsies in
existence, join Bunyan, the author of the celebrated Pilgrim’s
Progress, was one of this singular people, as will be conclusively
shown in the present work. The philosophy of the existence of
the Jews, since the dispersion, will also be discussed and established
in it.
When the “wonderful story” of the Gipsies is told, as it ought
to be told, it constitutes a work of interest to many classes of read-
ers, being a subject unique, distinct from, and unknown to, the rest
of the human family. In the present work, the race has been treated
of so fully and elaborately, in all its aspects, as in a great meas-
ure to fill and satisfy the mind, instead of being, as heretofore, little
better than a myth to the understanding of the most intelligent
person.
The history of the Gipsies, when thus comprehensively treated,
forms a study for the most advanced and cultivated mind, as well
as for the youth whose intellectual and literary character is still to
be formed; and furnishes, among other things, a system of science
not too abstract in its nature, and having for its subject-matter the
strongest of human feelings and sympathies. The work also seeks
to raise the name of Gipsy out of the dust, where it now lies;
while it has a very important bearing on the conversion of the
Jews, the advancement of Christianity generally, and the develor
ment of historical and moral science.
London, Qctober 1 oth, 1865.
WSX.
\?- O
JOHN BUNY AN’sº

AND
THE GIPSIES&
7 HE EAWCYCLOPAED/A BRIZ ANNICA OAW THE VIPER.
BY
JAMES SIM so N.
f Editor of
‘‘SIM so N’s HISTORY OF THE GIPSIES.”
And Author of
“CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATURAL HISTORY AND PAPERs on oth ER subjects,” ETC.
“And hath made of one blood all nations of men.”—Acrs xvii. 26.
NEW YORK: THOMAS R. KNOX & CO.,
813 BROADWAY.
EDINBURGH : MACLACHLAN & STEWART.
LONDON: BAILLIERE, TYNDALL & Cox.
I886.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
COPYRIGHT, 1886, By
J AM ES SIMS ON.
THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA ON THE VIPER.”
N the article Reptiles, by Messrs.
Albert Günther and St. George
Mivart, in Vol. XX., I find the fol-
lowing:—
“Embryology: Most of the Reptilia
are oviparous, but certain of the Lacer-
tilians and many Ophidians, notably
Vipers and Sea-snakes, hatch their
eggs before they are laid; that is, they
are ovoviviparous.” .
This illustrates what they say in
the article:—
“Passing over eighteen centuries we
find the knowledge of Reptiles to have
remained as stationary as other branches
of natural history, perhaps even more
so.” “Such evidences of a popular
knowledge of Reptiles, however, form
no part of a succinct review of the
literature of the subject such as it is
proposed to give here.” -
In an article entitled Do Snakes
Swallow Their Young 2 forming part
of a pamphlet, published in 1883, I
said:— . -
“It would be interesting to hear how
anyone knew as a fact that the eggs of
vipers are hatched inside ; about which
I said in Land and Water, on the
II th January, 1873:—‘It would be a
curiosity in nature to find an animal
that hatched an unlaid egg inside of it-
self; so great a curiosity as at once to
be rejected unless it could be supported
by evidence,’” (p. 38.) And in Contrº.
butions to Natural History, etc. :
“White wrote thus of vipers:– Though
they are oviparous yet they are vivipar-
ous also, hatching their young within
their bellies, and then bringing them
forth.” In supporting this assertion it
would have been interesting had he
given us his authority. Like others,
before and since, he evidently concluded
that, as some vipers are killed pregnant
with eggs and others with young, the
latter must have been, and therefore
were, hatched inside” (p. 189). In the
* This article was prepared after the
preface had been written.
pamphlet alluded to I said, that “Vipers
pass their young with a covering on
them—the original egg attenuated to
the last degree—which breaks as it
leaves the mother, or immediately after
it touches the ground; and asked, how
could we possibly find vipers, nearly
double the size of these new-born ones,
inside of a viper, unless they had en-
tered it by the mouth--as we find ová-
Aarous snakes with young inside of
them that were hatched zn the so:/?”
(p. 37). Miss Catherine C. Hopley, in
her book on Suakes, alludes to “a brood
of young vipers lately born at the Zoë-
logical Gardens,” and says that “the
young viper comes into the world in
the shape of an egg, and its first business
is to push through the filmy membrane
which envelopes it in its imprisoned
form " (p. 433).
After the birth the mother “opens
her mouth and admits her helpless
young down her throat on sudden
surprises,” as expressed by White
of Selborne, and is more correct
than “swallowing,” the word com-
monly used. On that head I wrote
thus in Contributions to Matural
Aſistory, etc. —
“A scientific, or even common-sense,
naturalist will not necessarily stoop so
low as to demand ocular proof of snakes
swallowing their young. He ascertains
that ‘vipers pass their young with a cov-
ering on them ' . . . . and are killed
with young inside of them, sometimes
upwards of seven inches long, and
divested of a covering; and he con-
cludes at once that the young were
swallowed. And his opinion is con-
firmed by the fact of oviparous snakes
being killed with young inside of them
that were hatched in the soil, which
proves beyond doubt that they must
have been swallowed. Ocular testimony
confirms the opinion in both instances
that the young were swallowed ” (p.
195.) I have spoken of this as a “ma-
thematical certainty,” and that it may
be laid down as “an axiom that we
must hold that all snakes, when living
in a state of nature, swallow their
(15)
I6
young till the opposite can be proved
of any particular species of them” (p.
I98).
In Contributions to AWatural Aſis-
tory, etc., I said:—
“Older and more intelligent people
[in America] understand the phenom-
enon of the animal laying her eggs to
be hatched in the soil, and then taking
the young inside of her for their pro-
tection; and they often express their
surprise that this peculiarity of the ser-
pent tribe is not described, or hardly
recorded, in the pages of natural his-
tory” (p. 16). “The popular belief in
America is that snakes, without regard
to species, do it, while there are few
neighbourhoods in which one if not sev-
eral people cannot be easily found who
can testify to it as a fact” (p. 26) “that
can be ascertained on the outskirts of
almost any village or town in America.”
It thus appears that the article in
the Encyclopædia Britannica, on the
point in discussion, is not “up to
the times,” when it should have been
ahead of them. In The Scottish
Churches and the Gipsies, I said that
an article in it
“Should be high-toned and hand-
Somely pitched, and should contain,
more or less compressed, everything of
importance bearing on the subject” (p.
7); and that “everything published on
the subject treated, if it could be had,
should be studied and exhausted before
a writer would commit the work, as
well as himself, before the world, since
there would be no real remedy in the
event of a mistake being made” (p. 11);
and that “while its writers would be
allowed to show how their minds ran
in their articles, it would be expected of
them to give what others had said, and
be as full, discriminating, and impartial
as the space at their command would
admit of ’’ (p. 59).
In my first alticle in Zand and
Water, on the 21st December,
1872, on the viper swallowing her
young, I said:—“I did not see it
noticed in the long article in the
THE EAVCYCLOPAEDIA BRITA AWAVYCA ON THE V/AAA’.
Encyclopædia Britannica,” (Com. p.
Io); and in a note to my Reminis-
cences of Childhood, etc., I wrote:—
“The evidence on this question I
submitted last December (1881) to the
publishers of the Fncyclopædza Brzfan-
nica, with the idea that justice will be
done to it in the article on the Reptz/za
when it appears. In the last edition
the subject was not noticed, either be-
cause it was accidentally or purposely
omitted, or was doubted or denied, or
because the writer or editor would not
assume the responsibility of maintain-
ing the affirmative, in the face of what
he might look upon as the ridicule of a
certain part of society. In the forth-
coming article on the Repſ:/za the
question, it is hoped, will be settled
‘once for all,” so that it may never again
come up for discussion. If it is again.
omitted, the article will have left out
what might be said to be “the most
interesting trait in the snake family’”
(p. 59).
In the pamphlet reviewing Miss
Catherine C. Hopley's book on
Snakes I again alluded to the sub-
ject, and wrote to the editor, on the
3d July, 1883, as follows:—
“The undersigned takes the liberty
of sending herewith to the editor of
the Encyclopædia Brztammzca printer's
proofs of an article entitled Do Snakes
Swallow Their Young & which he ex-
pects to publish in Great Britain soon,
as part of a pamphlet of some size. He
trusts that these pages will not prove
uninteresting to the editor or writer of
the forthcoming article on the Rep-
fz/za.”
I received a courteous acknowl-
edgment from the proprietor. My
surprise is great that the writers
of the present article on Reptiles .
should have ignored what was sent,
and asserted that vipers “hatch their
eggs before they are laid (!).” It is
to be hoped that I am yet in time
to have the subject discussed under
the head of Vipers, so that there
may not be left out “the most in-
teresting trait in the snake family.”
ºl<rtº)*
\
o
r ..”. “
Yºsex ex- <-- sº, ºr tº: º-J -
TSS ºr \
\ . A - **
* \, \º- TREFA CE.
HE two following articles, entitled John Bunyan and The
Gipsies, were offered, unsuccessfully, to several English
publications, and are now submitted in this form to the British
Press generally. I am not in a position to assert very positively
why they were rejected. I think that they explain themselves,
and require little to be said on that head. The race, blood, family
or name, never having been acknowledged, necessarily led to what
I have called the “Gipsy current in society”; that is, the Gipsy
element has no alternative but to keep itself separate in its feel-
ings from the rest of the world. The subject is one that is, or
should be, easily understood, were it only by the admission of a
very respectable Scotchman, made under great excitement, and
confirmed by an oath, when he said, “I am one myself, for ours
is a Gipsy family.” It necessarily follows that the subject should
be thoroughly investigated and have justice done to it. There
seems hitherto to have been a great aversion to do that, whatever
the cause—whether from a fear of offending conventional feeling
or from business, social, or personal timidity. But it is to be hoped
that something will be done in the future. I may well make such
a request, for since I left Scotland, in 1851, I have had the subject
on hand for thirty years, and spent on it fully £1,000 in money,
which at simple interest would now exceed £2,000, and would be
very valuable to me to-day. And yet the “Social emancipation
of the Gipsies,” could it be brought about, would be cheap at an
expenditure of even £20,000, to a person who had the money to
lay out on it. It is to be hoped that the British and especially
the Scotch Press will bring into prominent notice the subject in
all its bearings, so that any one possessing “the blood” can say.
Nº. X-
*.
*
4. A REFA CE.
plainly that he or she is “one of the tribe"; especially as it in-
cludes such people as the late Mrs. Carlyle, whose progenitor,
William Baillie, and his tribe are very fully described in The History
of the Gipsies. Her admission, as I have said, “should endear her
to all of ‘the tribe,’ as well as human nature itself” (p. 12). Still,
it seems to be a difficult matter to get a new idea like this even
entertained, for when one speaks of Gipsies people are apt to
think exclusively of what are popularly understood to be such.
J. S.
NEw York, 1st May, 1886. º
JOHN BUNYAN.
HE Rev. John Brown, of Bed-
ford, in the preface to the book
just published by him, says of Bun-
yan that “everything relating to him
that can be reliably told is matter of
unfailing interest to minds the most
diverse. . . . . There is still room,
and even need, for one that should
aim at strictest accuracy, and bring
up to present date all that can
be known concerning him.” In re-
|ality he has not told us who Bunyan
was, and has ignored what has been
advanced by others on that head.
Thus Sir Walter Scott said that
“Bunyan was most probably a Gipsy
reclaimed,” Mr. Offor, an editor of
Bunyan's works, that “his father
must have been a Gipsy,” and Mr.
Leland that he “was a Gipsy.”
In opposition to this, Mr. Brown
says:—“It is more than probable that
the Bunyans sprang from those
Northmen who came to us through
Normandy. . . . . In this way prob-
ably the Bunyans came to be the
feudal tenants of Nigel de Albini,
the ancestor of the Earls of Arundel.”
(p. 22). In his Book of the Bunyan
A'estival Mr. Brown asserted that
the fact of the name of Bunyan (va-
riously spelt) having existed in Eng-
land before the Gipsies made their
appearance there “effectually dis-
poses of the supposition that the
Bunyans were Gipsies.” He does
inot make the same assertion in the
£resent work, but assumes it, although
he is well aware (for I informed him
of the fact) that in a Writ of the
Scots Parliament, of the 8th April,
1554, we have “John Brown and
George Brown, Egyptians.” In re-
gard to this I said, in Was John
Bunyan a Gipsy % that these “had
been the children of a native father,
or had previously assumed the sur-
name of Brown, the first being the
most probable”; and that they
“seem to have been the first Gipsies
mentioned officially in Great Britain
with full native names” (p. 18). If
Bunyan's ancestors came into Eng-
land with William the Conqueror he
could have said that his descent
was “the noblest and most honoured
of all the families in the land.” Instead
of that he told us that his “descent”
was “of a low and inconsiderable
generation,” his “father's house being
of that rank that is meanest and
most despised of all the families in
the land,” and “not of the Israelites,”
but “tinkers,” that is, Gipsies of
mixed blood. His descent, he said,
was “well known to many,” so that
there never was occasion to question
it, although it was most likely sup-
pressed by those who became pos-
sessed of the secret.
In regard to the “Tinkers,” it is
natural to ask, who were they P All
over Great Britain and Ireland, and
the world generally, they are looked
upon as almost a foreign caste, dis-
tinct from the rest of the population,
who will not marry with them, and
will avoid all but business or out-
door intercourse with them. Still, it
is not generally known who they are
in reality. I have on previous oc-
casions very elaborately shown that
they are Gipsies of more or less
mixed blood, of whatever length of
descent from the original stock ; and
that if there were native travelling
tinkers in England before the arrival
of the Gipsies there, the latter as
travelling Smiths, with their organiza-
tion, would soon have driven off the
others or amalgamated with them.
Another admission of Bunyan Mr.
ºF-#
6 5.of/W BUAVYAM.
Brown has not noticed, although I
pointed it out to him when I saw him
in New York in 1882, and it is this:—
“Another thought came into my
mind, and that was whether we [his
family and relations] were of the Israel-
ites or no; for finding in the Scriptures
that they were once the peculiar people of
God, thought I, if I were one of this
race, [how significant is the expression ſ]
my soul must needs be happy. Now,
again, I found within me a great longing
to be resolved about this question, but
could not tell how I should. At last I
asked my father of it, who told me, No,
we [his father included] were not.”
Such an admission, taken with his
“father's house being of that rank
that is meanest and most despised
of all the families in the land,” and
being “ tinkers,” that is, Gipsies of
mixed blood, is proof that Bunyan
did not consider that his “father's
house” was a broken-down branch
of an aristocratic family that entered
England with William the Conquer-
Or.*
In the appendix to my Reminis-
cences of Childhood, etc., I said :—
“Even in regard to solid English farm-
ers of to-day, no one would ever think of
saying that a tinker (whatever his pedi-
gree) was necessarily, or under any cir-
cumstances, a brother or a cousin of
them, merely on account of the similari-
ty of the surname, and his frequenting
or living in their neighbourhood, or hav-
ing been born in it. And no more rea-
son would there be for saying the same-
in 1628, when Bunyan was born. Be-
tween 1506, when the Gipsies arrived in
Great Britain, and 1628, there had doubt-
less been six generations of the race
born in the land, so that there had been
ample time for it, in its mixtures of
blood, to have settled and advanced so
far as it did to the birth of the immortal
dreamer” (p. 81). In Was john Bun-
* In The Social Emancipation of the
Gipsies, I said:—“Still it is probable that
if the name Bonyon indicated a Norman
origin, there was that blood in Bunyan's
veins, as there was Knox and Welsh
blood in Mrs. Carlyle, in addition to her
Gipsy blood" (p. 15).
yan a Giżsy? I said:—“Asserting as a
fact that from the surname, his ancestors
were ordinary natives of England, and
landed proprietors at that, is nearly as
unreasonable as to maintain that every
English Gipsy of the name of Stanley is
nearly related to the Earl of Derby be—
cause Az's name is Stanley " (p. 13).
This still leaves the question to be
answered, What was Bunyan's pedi-
gree ? It was most probably as
given in Was John Bunyan a Gip-
sy % :- -
“William Bonyon (who died in 1542)
and his wife were apparently ordinary
English people, which would make
Thomas of the same race. His wife—
the “lawless brewer and baker'— was
either of the native race or of a supe-
rior class of mixed Gipsies, perhaps of
the second generation born in Eng-
land. If she was the former, the male
heir of Thomas married a Gipsy while
he kept his little wayside public house,
leading to their issue being turned into
the Gipsy current in society. Thus the
little property of “Bunyan's End '
would remain in the family, leading to
a will being made to bequeath it from
generation to generation. “Petty chap-
men and tinkers' (using tinker instead
of brazier) are the happiest words that
could be used to describe many Gip-
sies of mixed blood in England to-day.”
Had William Bonyon and his wife been
ordinary English people, “the tradition
of it would soon have died out in their
Gipsy descendants of mixed blood but
for the little property that remained in
the family; for the associations of de-
scent from the native race are not
pleasant to the tribe when they con-
sider the hard feelings which it has
entertained for their Gipsy blood"
(p. 19).
Acquiring the little property of
“Bunyan's End” would give the
family a settled residence and ap-
parently prevent its descendants.
using a tent in its hereditary calling of
travelling tinkers. And it is as likely
that the family, having been “turned
into the Gipsy current in society,”
would, with its travelling tinker
calling and habits, sooner or later
become completely separated from
5.of/W BUAVYAN. 7
the blood on the “native side of the
house.” Their settled residence,
belonging to the family, would lead
to them having their marriages and
baptisms recorded, like their neigh-
bours, and as is common with Gip-
sies under such circumstances.
Hence it follows, as I have said in
the appendix to my Reminiscences of
Childhood, etc., that,
“The whole trouble or mystery in
regard to Bunyan is solved by the sim-
ple idea of a Gipsy family settling in
the neighbourhood of native families of
influence whose surname they assumed
[or marrying into a native family] and
making Elstow their headquarters or
residence, as was the uniform custom
of the tribe all over Great Britain.
This circumstance makes it a difficult
matter in some instances to distinguish
by the Christian and surname, in
county parish registers, “which was
which,' so far back as the early part of
the seventeenth century " (p. 82), or at
any time or under any circumstances.
Fven Mr. Brown writes as fol.
lows : —“There were in Bedfordshire
at that time no fewer than three
other John Bunyans, each of whom
would be more likely to be asked to
sign the return [relating to a mem-
ber of parliament] than the tinker of
Elstow. One of these was a farmer
at Streatley, the other two, father
and son, were yeomen at Cranfield’”
(p. Io2).
John Bunyan’s father, himself, and
his son styled themselves “braziers”
to the last, while John admitted that
he was a “tinker”—the public de-
signation of at least three genera-
|tions of the family. Brazier is a
favourite word with the Gipsies, as it
sounds better than tinker, and is
frequently put on their tombstones.
On the 20th August, 1672, a barn
was conveyed to “John Bunyan of
the town of Bedford, brazier,” and
others whose businesses were also
designated (p. 230); and in a deed
dated 23 December, 1685, he styles
himself a “brazier" (p. 350). “His
eldest son, John, was brought up to
the ancestral trade of a brazier, and
carried on business in the town till
his death in 1728’’ (p. 401), and
styled himself a “brazier’” in his
will (p. 402).
Mr. Brown says:—“John Bunyan,
born in the English Midlands, may
be taken as in some sense a character-
istic representative of the region that
gave him birth” (!) (p. 1). “Even
as a child,’ he says, “I had few
equals in cursing, swearing, lying
and blaspheming the holy name of
God.” The wickedness begun thus
early lasted long. He was a grown
man when one who was “herself a
loose and ungodly wretch,” and
therefore not over-nice, ‘protested
that it made her tremble to hear
him that was the ungodliest fellow
for swearing ever she heard in all
her life, and that it was enough to
spoil all the youth in the whole
town.' . . . . But it was Bun-
yan’s misfortune to be surrounded
by men who, either from want of
sympathy or lack of light, could help
him very little till his fiercest battle
was fought out and ended” (p. 60).
“ Unfortunately their son, while tell-
ing so much about his own inward
experiences, tells us but little con-
cerning his father and mother” (p.
3).
h fact of them being “ tinkers,”
with the prejudice that existed against
the calling and caste, would prevent
Bunyan, with his natural tact and
taste, from saying almost anything
about them, as well as his other
relations. His case, as he himself
expressed it, was one of “Grace
Abounding,” however it might have
been with his relatives. Still, as his
ancestors owned a cottage, and a
little ground surrounding it, and left
wills bequeathing them and personal
property, it could not have been
said by John Bunyan, according to
any native hypothesis, that his
“father's house ’’ was “of that rank
that is meanest and most despised
of all the families in the land,” and
“not of the Israelites.” They were
8 johy BUAVYAM.

simply tinkers, that is, Gipsies of
mixed blood. Bunyan’s language I
have elsewhere described as “in
harmony with that of the population
at large,” but that he “doubtless
had the feelings peculiar to all of
the tribe with reference to their
origin and race.”
Mr. Brown, so far from telling us
who Bunyan was, has misled the
world in regard to the immortal
dreamer. He cannot plead igno-
rance, for of all I have published lat-
terly on the subject I have sent
copies to him, as well as several
copies to his congregation. I did
the same with the Rev. James Cop-
ner, vicar of Elstow, and his congre-
gation. These, I think, included
the following:—1st John Bunyan and
the Gipsies ; 2d. Was John Bunyan
a Gipsy # 3d. The Gipsies as illus-
trated by John Bunyan, Mrs. Car-
Ayle and others ; 4th. The Scottish
Churches and the Gipsies ; 5th.
Aeminiscences of Childhood, etc., con-
taining an appendix on the Gipsies ;
and 6th. The Social Emancipation of
the Gipsies, containing articles en-
titled The English Universities and
John Bunyan, and The Encyclopæ-
dia Britannica and the Gipsies—all
as published by Messrs. Maclach-
lan & Stewart, Edinburgh, and
Messrs. Baillière, Tyndall & Cox,
London ; besides a double circular
entitled The Scottish Churches and
the Gipsies, and Zhe Church of Eng-
land and the Gipsies. -
When I saw Mr. Brown in New
York in 1882, “I alluded to al/
of Bunyan's admissions. . . . . And
when I said that “one cannot say in
England that Bunyan was a Gipsy
for society would not allow it,” he
made no reply, so far as I noticed,
but appeared to wince at the remark.
. . . . I was satisfied that he did not
wish to have the truth about Bunyan
admitted. . . . . Now he says that
there is no “ferocious prejudice of
caste against the name of Gipsy,'
and that “none of Bunyan's admirers
would object to his being shown to
*T*- - -–-
be a Gipsy if only sufficient proof
were adduced,’ while he has ignored
everything that bears upon the sub-
ject, even what came out of Bun
yan's mouth *-as I wrote in Was
John Bunyan a Gipsy % pp. 15 and
16. What has been said of Mr.
Brown applies equally well to the
Rev. James Copner, vicar of El-
St.C. W.
In The Social Emancipation of the
Gipsies I wrote as follows:—
“The objection on the part of the
world to acknowledge the Gipsy blood,
and the aversion on the part of ‘the
blood ' when mixed with that of others
to present itself for acknowledgment,
seem to constitute the knot or ‘snarl'
which requires adjusting. And yet this
subject is well worthy of the attention
of humanity as a turning-point in his—
tory, viz.: the social emancipation of a
people, or at least of an idea, that calls
for little more trouble or expense, on the
Żart of the world, than the ‘stroke of a
pen,’ supported by the influence of
such people or organs of Society as the
world regards as leaders in the realms
of progress and thought " (p. I 5).
In my Contributions to Matural
Aſſistory, etc., I wrote thus:–
“It unfortunately happens that, ow-
ing to the peculiarity of their origin
and the prejudice of the rest of the
population, the race hide the fact of
their being Gipsies from the rest of the
world, as they acquire settled habits or
even leave the tent, so that they never
get the credit of any good that may
Spring from them as a people” (p. I 58).
“Settling this question in the affirma-
tive would resemble a decision in a su-
preme court of justice, in a case that is
representative of many others, and
could not fail to have an immense influ-
ence on the raising up of the Gipsy
tribe to which Bunyan belonged ” (p
2O3).
In The Gipsies as illustrated, etc.,
I said:—
“ The Graphic, for the 26th August,
expressed its pleasure on finding, ac-
cording to Mr. Brown's fanciful theory,
that Bunyan's family were ‘positively
respectable people,’ and not ‘tinkering
Gipsies.’ Therein lies all the trouble.
5 OHN BUAVYAM.
9
Surely the Rev. Dr. Robert Gordon
{of the High Church, Edinburgh]
was, in every way in which he could |
be considered, a man of the high-
est respectability, and Mrs. Car-
lyle's respectability can be questioned
by no one. As I have already said, her
admission ‘has a very important bearing
on the elucidation of the history of the
Gipsy race in Scotland’ ” (p. 9).
She gave her descent as from Will.
iam Baillie, who was killed in 1724,
and spoke of his son Matthew, who
was living about 1770, as “a thor-
ough gentleman in his way, and six
feet four in stature” (p. 22); and of
Tennyson having “something of the
Gipsy in his appearance, which for
me is perfectly charming” (p. 26).
“Her affections or real allegiance
doubtless went to “ her tribe’ that
entered Scotland before 1506, and
in particular to Towla Bailyow and
Geleyr Bailyow, two of the “twelve
patriarchs of Scottish Gipsydom’;
one of them probably having been
her progenitor. . . . . Hence Car-
lyle's account of her indifference to
her native connexion ” (p. 29).
Mr. Froude, in his highly conven-
tional work on Bunyan, did not
raise the question of his nationality,
and, like Mr. Brown, entirely ignored
the immortal dreamer's informa-
tion about his “father's house” moz
being “of the Israelites.” And he
left out the most interesting fact
connected with Mrs. Carlyle. Neither
has made any reply to what I have
published on these subjects. The
fifteen interrogatories in Was John
Bunyan a Gipsy % (p. 16) addressed
to Mr. Brown are not likely to be
answered by him. The question at
issue is the acknowledgment of John
Bunyan “as the first that is known to
the world of eminent Gipsies, the
prince of allegorists, and one of the
most remarkable of men and Chris-
tians,” who doubtless spoke the Gipsy
language in great purity.
THE GIPSIES.
I. Mr. V. E. Morzwood on the
Gipsies.
HE History of the Gipsies, by
Walter Simson, collected for the
most part between 1817 and 1831,
and edited and brought down by me,
and published by Messrs. Sampson
Low & Co., in 1865, contained the
following:—
“To thoroughly understand how a
Gipsy with fair hair and blue eyes can
be as much a Gipsy as one with black
may be termed ‘passing the pons as:-
norum of the Gipsy question.” Once
over the bridge and there are no diffi-
culties to be encountered on the jour-
ney, unless it be to understand that a
Gipsy can be a Gipsy without living in
a tent or being a rogue" (p. 383).
This work, including the index,
made a closely printed book of 575
pages, and contained “all or almost
all of the points referring to the sub-
ject in hand”; and yet Mr. Mor-
wood speaks of it as “a short ac-
count of the Gipsies written a few
years since "; and of his own as fol-
lows:—“Although, according to the
best authorities, Gipsies have lived
in England nearly four hundred
years, yet comparatively little is
known either of their origin, charac-
ter or general life.”
His title is incorrect, as his book
is not an account of the Gipsies in
“city, tent and van,” but in the tent
and van only, for he speaks of “the
few instances in which Gipsies of
this and other countries have been
induced to abandon tent life and to
settle in towns.” At its best his book
is a collection of anecdotes of the
outdoor primitive Gipsies, taken
from others who have written on the
subject, and his own experiences,
which are given in a fair, tolerant
and kindly spirit; but seldom or
never does he intimate the sources
from which he takes his anecdotes
from others when that would lead his
readers to refer to the works alluded
to. Thus he takes at least two from
the book I published, without ac-
knowledgment. I might say of Mr.
Morwood's book what I wrote of
those of Mr. Borrow, Mr. Groome,
and Mr. Leland :—
“These writers are useful in their
ways, but beyond that they spoil the
subject of the Gipsies, in consequence
of the utter absence in them of every-
thing of the nature of a philosophy of
the subject, which is peculiar to all the
works that have hitherto appeared on
the Gipsies (p. 532), so far as I have
seen or heard of them.” *
Mr. Morwood's contributions to
the subject are but illustrations or
repetitions of an “oft-told tale.”
And so are his opinions on the points
raised by him, such as the Sudra
origin of the Gipsies. He gives no
reason why this caste only should
have left India, in the face of the
argument given by me to the con-
trary (p. 38). In the work published
by me, and in my subsequent publi-
cations, there will be found how the
Gipsies acquired British names, that
is, by assuming them, and by inter-
marriage with males of the native
Iſa Ce.
In short, Mr. Morwood's book has
no real standing on this subject, in-
asmuch as it contains little or noth—
ing of what may be called “original
research,” and accords almost noth-
* The Scottish Churches and the Gipsies,
p. 18.—I have reviewed these three writers
very fully:—Mr. Borrow, in . The His-
tory of the Gipsies (see index), and in
Contributions to AWatural History, etc., pp.
II2–150, and pp. 200–201; Mr. Groome, in
The Scottish Churches and the Gipsies, pp.
7–19, and pp. 59–61 ; and Mr. Leland, in
Şohn Bunyan and the Gipsies (1882), pp.
Il-2I.

THE GIPS/ES.
II
ing of importance to those who have
treated the subject. He does not
advance it, but rather spoils it, as I
have said. He lays great (but not
undue) stress on the prejudice that
exists against the Gipsies. That
prejudice forces all the Gipsies to as-
sume an incognito, except when it is
unavoidable, or when it will serve
their purposes to be known as Gip-
sies; so that the race, in its mixed
state as regards blood, occupying
many positions in life,"never get the
credit of any good that may spring
from them as a people.” When we
come to define “what a Gipsy is,” we
find that a person may be one of the
race whether he lives in a tent or a
house, in a “but-and-a-ben '' or a
palace, representing “the blood" in
its descent since 1506, as I have il-
lustrated at great length on so many
occasions that it would take up too
much room to enumerate them here.
Let this fact be established and it
breaks down, at least in feeling
or principle, the prejudice of caste
that exists against the name and
blood as such ; and presents to the
primitive Gipsies a position to which
they may aspire, so that the preju-
dice that exists against them in their
present condition is applicable to
their ways of life only, and not to
their blood and descent, or tribe and
language. This is the most import-
ant step towards improving the Gip-
sies. It does not serve much pur-
pose to interfere too directly with
them as Gipsies.
I notice that the word Gipsy is al-
ways printed by Mr. Morwood with
a small g. In that respect I said:—
“Among the various means by which
the name of Gipsy can be raised up, it
may be mentioned that beginning the
word with a capital is one of no small
importance. The almost invariable
custom with writers in that respect has
been as if they were describing rats and
mice instead of a race of men’’ (p.
441), that is to be found in the British
Islands in hundreds of thousands, and
in many positions of life.
II. The Social Emancipation of
the Gipsies.
In one of my publications on the
Gipsies, I said that “perhaps the
most remarkable phenomenon con-
nected with the Gipsies is that the
rest of the world, without any real in-
vestigation or knowledge, should have
believed that “ceasing to be Gipsies’
has been brought about by a change
of dress, character, habits or ideas,”
so that “we have the bare suppo-
sition that if there are Io,0oo Gipsies
of the popular kind in England
to-day, there will be none to-mor-
row in the event of their dropping
every outward thing peculiar to them
as Gipsies, and Io,0oo the day fol-
lowing by their resuming it”; and
that “ Gipsies can become common
natives in a night, and be either as
often and at as short intervals as they
please.”f
What I have written shows that the
subject of the Gipsies requires a
thorough investigation on its merits,
and not according to preconceived
opinions and popular impressions. It
is surprising that people should not
have stumbled by accident on the true
position of the question rather than on
the current one, which led me to ask,
“How could anyone say that the pro-
geny and descendants of this people
had no more affinity with the tribe,
or even knowledge of it, than the
company that played the part on the
stage the night before?”f
“That there should be great difficul-
ties in the way of it being investigated
and the facts of it ascertained is nat-
ural enough; but that there should be
difficulties in the way of it being un-
derstood and treated with justice,
after being investigated and ascer-
tained, is surprising, for it is very sim-
ple in its nature.” $
* The Soczał Emance#azzon of the
Gºszes, p. 14.
# The Scottish Churches and the
Gºszes, pp. 5–6.
f Contributions to Natural History,
etc., p. II 2. -
§ Circular to the Scottish Churches, 1.
I 2
In my various publications on this
subject I think I presented every as-
pect in which it could be viewed.
In the Disquisition on the Gipsies, I
said :—
“What guarantee have we that Pro-
fessor Wilson was not ‘taking a look at
the old thing’ when rambling with the
Gipsies in his youth P. There are Gipsy
families in Edinburgh to-day of as re-
spectable standing and of as good
descent as could be said of him or many
Qthers who have distinguished them-
selves in the world " (p. 471). In The
Gºszes as 2//ustrated by John Bunyam,
Mrs. Carlyle and others, I have given
my reasons for thinking that he was “a
member of the tribe’” (p. 30).
I’erhaps there is no other subject
that could be mentioned that requires
us, in investigating it, to go so entire-
ly according to evidence, and lay
aside “preconceived opinions, preju-
dices and dogmatisms.” In my dif-
ferent publications I think I explained
it very logically, minutely and satis-
factorily, preparing the way for the ad-
mission of a person like Mrs. Carlyle,
who was described by Mr. Froude as
follows:– “Her features were not
regular, but I thought I had never
seen a more interesting-looking
woman. Her hair was raven black,
her eyes dark, soft, sad, with danger-
ous light in them.”
In my publication last alluded to,
I said :—
“In regard to her pedigree Carlyle
wrote in his Remzniscences that she
‘cared little or nothing about these | S
genealogies 'about John Knox. . . . Her
heart in that respect, beating in response
to her Gipsy blood and feelings, went
out to the Gipsy chief, Matthew Baille—
the granduncle of her grandmother,
who, as she said, ‘could steal a horse
from under the owner if he liked, but
left always the saddle and bridle '” (p.
22).
Mrs. Carlyle's admission of her de-
scent from William Baillie, and her
relationship, so affectionately express-
ed, to his son Matthew Baillie, and
his wife Mary Yorkston—all so mi-
nutely described in The History of
7"HE GIPSIES.
the Gipsies — should endear her to
all of the tribe, as well as human na-
ture itself, especially as I have said
that she is “the first Scotch woman
of standing, so far as I know, who
publicly avowed having been of the
Gipsy race” (p. 11).
I heard from Scotland lately that
people there “do not deny that there
are many people amongst them who
are of Gipsy blood, and are aware of
it ; but they do not believe that these
are Gipsies.” To that I replied:—
“That surely is more than half the
battle. Being “aware of being of Gip-
sy blood’ should of itself make them
‘members of the tribe.’ What is
wanted in this case seems to be dis-
cussion, accompanied by the publicly
expressed belief of people whose
opinions are apt to influence others.”
In The Gipsies as illustrated, etc., I
said:—
“Such is the position of Scottish Gip-
sydom, developed or ‘evolved' since
I 506, that we cannot distinguish to-
day who are Gipsy from who are not
Gipsy ; from which the conclusion is to
be drawn that the social proscription of
the name and blood should be removed,
and each member of the race as suº h
treated according to his personal merits.
They are both Scotch, that is, ordinary
or common Scotch, and Scotch on a Gip-
sy foundation, or Gipsy on a Scotch
foundation. The latter hold themselves
to be ‘Scoto-Egyptians,' or “of a Gipsy
family’ that came trooping into Scotland
at the beginning of the sixteenth century,
and were long allowed to govern them-
selves, through their chiefs, under treaties
with the various sovereigns '' (p. 30).
III. The Destiny of the Gipsies.
There should be no surprise ex-
cited in our knowing so little about
the Gipsies, especially after they
leave the tent or van ; the real won-
der being that they should tell us
almost anything about themselves.
For the idea of presenting the race,
so far as it is known, for the respect
of the world seems to many to be
little better than picking up a rattle-
snake and proposing to make a man
THE GIPSIES.
I3
of him ; while in Scotland the hum-
blest native will say that he “would
as soon take a toad to his bosom as
marry a tinkler.”
In my Contributions to Matural
Aſistory, etc., I said that the subject
of the Gipsies “presents little inter-
est to the world if it means only a
certain style of life that may cease
at any moment” (p. 153). “The
real interest, in the higher sense of
the word, attaching to this people is
centred in the relation in which it
stands to others around it, with refer-
ence to intermarriage and the destiny
of the mixed progeny and that of the
tribe generally, especially in English-
speaking countries”(p. 200). In Zhe
Scottish Churches and the Gipsies I
said :—“Who originated this idea of
the Gipsies “ceasing to be Gipsies’
it is unnecessary particularly to en-
quire ; it is of more importance to
say that it has acquired the strength
almost of truth, and illustrates how
careful people should be in making
assertions that may cause much evil
and more labour in setting them
aside ’’ (p. 5). The Gipsies being a
question of race cannot be affected
by a change of habits of any kind,
which led me to speak of the so-
called “ceasing to be Gipsies" as il-
lustrative of the “vagaries of the
human mind"; and to ask, “What
could two Scotch Gipsies propagate
in body and mind but Gipsies P. They
certainly could not give origin to
Jews or common Scotch ; but Gipsy
Scotch or Scotch Gipsy would infal-
libly follow.” In regard to this subject
I entered very fully into it in my Dis-
quisition on the Gipsies and asked:—
“What is to be the future of the
Gipsy race P A reply to this question
will be found in the history of it during
the past, as described; for it resolves
itself into two very simple matters of
fact. In the first place we have a
foreign race deemed by itself to be, as
indeed it is, universal, introduced into
Scotland, for example, taken root there,
* Z'he Scottish Churches and the Gipsies,
P, I9.
spread and flourished; a race that rests
upon a basis the strongest imaginable.
On the other hand there is the preju-
dice of caste towards the name, which
those bearing it escape only by assum-
ing an incognito among their fellow-
creatures. These two principles, act-
ing upon beings possessing the feelings.
of men will of themselves produce
that state of things which will consti-
tute the history of the Gipsies during
all time coming, whatever may be the
changes that may come over their
character and condition. . . . . How
can we imagine this race, arriving in
Europe so lately as the fifteenth cen-
tury, and in Scotland the century fol—
lowing, with an origin so distinct from
the rest of the world, and so treated
by the world, can possibly have lost a
consciousness of nationality in its de-
scent in so short a time after arrival P
. . . . This sensation in the minds of
the Gipsies of the perpetuity of their
race creates in a great measure its im-
mortality" (p. 441). In The Giższes
as z//ustrated, etc., I said:—“Hence
the natural feeling on the part of the
Gipsles for their origin, tribe and lan-
guage pulled very strongly in that di-
rection, while the prejudice of the
natives pushed them from them in the
same direction. The result has been
two currents in society, or a double
nationality — the Gipsy one and the
ordinary one of the country. A com—
£/ete amalgamation with the natives,
so that the Gipsy element and feeling
would disappear was thus in the nature
of things impossible " (p. 6).
In the Disquisition I said:—
“A Gipsy's life is like a continual
conspiracy towards the rest of the
world; he has always a secret upon his
mind, and from his childhood to his
old age he is so placed as if he were, in
a negative sense, engaged in some gun-
powder plot, or as if he had commit-
ted a crime, let his character be as
good as it possibly may. Into what-
ever company he may enter he natural-
ly remarks to himself, ‘I wonder if
there are any of us here?' That is the
position which the mixed and better
kind of Gipsy occupies generally and
passively ’’ (p. 453). I have compared
this phenomenon to “an essence her-
metically sealed. Keep it in that posi-
tion and it retains its inherent qualities
I4
undiminished, but uncork the vessel
containing it and it might (I do not say
it would) evaporate among the sur-
rounding elements’’ (p. 534).
In The Scottish Churches and the
Gipsies I wrote thus:—
“To ignore the whole subject . . .
would perpetuate what an acknowl-
edgment might possibly break up. The
social emancipation of the Gipsies
is in reality a turning-point in history.
It is surrounded by many difficulties
which I need not further expatiate on
except to say that preconceived opin-
ions, prejudices and dogmatisms would
be out of place in the discussion of it.”
(p. 24).
It seems unnecessary to say that
THE GIPSIES.
“members of the tribe "look at this
subject through their own eyes, and
not through those of others; just as
every other race has regarded their
descent, whatever may have been
the origin of their ancestors or their
state of civilization. In the case of
the Gipsies we have a race that
entered Great Britain about 1506—
as if it were yesterday; an inde-
pendent, oriental, tented tribe, of
great mystery and antiquity, that is
to be found everywhere, and hither-
to acknowledged by none. All the
circumstances connected with its
history have cast a fascination over
the mind of every one more or less
belonging or related to it.
C O N T E N T S.
VIPERS AND SNAKES GENERALLY, • * * * * * 7
WHITE OF SELBORNE ON THE VIPER, . . . . . IO
WHITE OF SELBORNE ON SNAKES, • * * * * - 17
SNAKES SWALLOWING THEIR YOUNG, . t © O © 23
SNARES SWALLOWING THEIR YOUNG, & O & © • 25
SNAKES CHARMING BIRDS, . . . . . . . & 30
MR, FRANK BUCKLAND ON ENGLISH SNARES, . . . • 31
MR. GOSSE ON THE JAMAICA BOA SWALLOWING HER YOUNG, , 33
AMERICAN SNAKES, tº e º º º & O & 36
AMERICAN SCIENCE CONVENTION ON SNAKES, • . . 36
CHARLES WATERTON AS A NATURALIST, . . . . 39
ROMANISM, o & tº Q o © tº Q º & e • 49
JOHN STUART MILL : A STUDY.
46 “ HIS RELIGION, C & O & © . 69
Gº “ HIS EDUCATION, . . . . . 82
G& * A CRISIS IN HIS HISTORY, o • , 90
66 “ HIS WIFE, tº e º O & © 97
GG “ MILL AND SON, . . . . . . Io;
SIMSON'S HISTORY OF THE GIPSIES, tº º º e º I I I
MR. BORROW ON THE GIPSIES, tº 0 ° sº
º Q • II 2
THE SCOTTISH CHURCHES AND THE SOCIAL EMANCIPATION
OF THE GIPSIES, . . . . . . . . . . 15c
WAS JOHN BUNYAN A GIPSY? . . . . . . . 157
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL ON THE PRESERVATION OF THE
JEWS, • . . . . . . . . . . . IGI
INDEX, © O º & © ſº tº © & © g tº & 171
A PP E N DIX.
I. JOHN BUNYAN AND THE GIPSIES, tº e . . I&3
II, MR. FRANK BUCKLAND AND WHITE OF SELBORNE, . 187
III. M.R. FRANK BUCKLAND ON THE VIPER, . . . . 192
IV. THE ENDOWMENT OF RESEARCH, . . . . • I'99
:：：:：::|×| || || , ||,，，,,,,,， ºr, J. №vae”， r:*（;|';ſgaeae ſaeſſae:
§ ;:§&&· · -ſºſ，*,*\ſ*:）*'，· （4！！！！!！！！=iſi
ſººſ.ae||×|{|
----★ →ſºſ,! !!!
X ș.##}#} +„*
► ►| 1*# aºſ ș#ș į ežįį
§3{?!ț¢1-ſ';';§§ķi{„№
-* ####8-șwſ|
{, } x}{ſ}3 {
!!!!！！!!„įgy*r|
, ' || , ، ، ||
|*, ,ſ ||||' !|
.ș|** ||- a . '#
į·, , ， ,| 3}
||| |
}#|| || . ||
||| 4
{· ~ . ., ! |
?||
·|ș|-
→|!
-*||{ |
*|i, -
�ſi și|
W.||{|
----| | |, ， ,
r||
|!
r.{•• → ·
\\• 'w*，----|~ | °
{* {|}
-*{ |!,|| | |
}ī£&• !
}}<•”
ķ+ }|-| |-
r|$.?}
|-|*}
w1į și* , !|t
-k|- * √*| |
tä,, !* ?||
|
șſăºſ |
|·| ||
}»|{",||
-{
-…|
|-|
-|
-·ı*！ |
{|×\,\ !|
}|
----|
||
!|
|
|!
{{ ||||
*→----ı…* , ,■|||
{||
*�| *
-|
�.！• |{
+| ,|
→|
} *|
|-' ， .||
J{*
{| }|
!||
||
r.|�|
|
|| |
\\| |
|' .|
| |
*|||-
||||
·|„".
eſłį
ºr| || | |
}
*|# ºſ
}*#*|
|||}
} {|',‘ , !|||j
}, !~* ， ,ſſ | ',*
* »·J|}}†
||||{
*→ ~|
.* |-*~|
| || .|||
|t.* （ ):----
»|+�|| || ||}
*|-►|į|
·İſ
` ||,| | |. '
+}' .4
|·
- iſ →
}►|| "|
ı|， }| ||T{
**{*g
:...“|- |-|*
}|
!,| .----
-{· ·
|
{-，į į|×
|}{#·
{||
|§! |
|} }}
| ||', !|│ │ │
→{{|-|! "|-
*-| … *
{|||*| |
·#|| 1
}|į||| |||
}*3*!|
f , !！+{|*|----·
'ſ!1ļ--|-|
}{ }}| || ||||*||
{{į į}į
ę} # Í| . || … … ," |• • .• | | || |||
!· ： „'， ，,,jae... （"…' ， ?-， " … !.*||||||||||}}**|||…|||
*s， w&i:ā，¿ " -- · · · · · ·| , ,| ,| . || , ||| ||













3.№i
§
º
º
|
8
|
2
<C
Ø
I
CD
>
Li–
O
ūō
[C
LL!
>
2
IO
§
. N. Y.
, 1908
2’
iſ $62
, 21
JAR
*
Syra
PAT
|-، ، ، ،***
-·-*№ſſae;
**… • ** = --！ ******, ** * * x）;* ----------|- ·|- -·--->- 5‰
- - -！ ！！！！！！！！！！！!！！！-|- <|-|- |-·،|- ，
-№s·-：№º---º---， ----±№ssº-t.-- * -... ~~~~...，-~~--~-
ſae?***=~~~~！！！！！！！！！！！ ¿?， ¿¿№， №8+*№:4-aer，-ar， rºz.º ya №: ：::: * · ***，:）= x（r，，,.，:.，，z- --* -≡*****************、、&&&&&#$%$§§§）！！！！！！！！！-
§§：№gº. №. ！！！！！！=---。。、、、。、。--·***>.*¿¿.***%-ºſºrºzt>.***.
--~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-*** *******-**4） ***
s- →-_ae， ajº-º， --★ →'，--~~~ - aer，** • •
************&&&&&&-&C&š （*******¿¿-+---，
¿¿.*- -" -" - -×××××

ſaes=<！=）
s::::::::::::: ·§§§§§-- -*w*·~
******************…*..*·-·ſae，•- . ***§،№vº！！！！！！！！！！~~=++~~~~ ~~
ſae?）， ¿№x-·！3！！！！！！！！$$$$§§--Š~~~~·£§§§§§§§§ſae，-，-，-，§§§§
：~·ºſ，（~#§§§§§§§§§§§?;ae&& ！$$-·¿、
§:::：:：:::：:::-·- -|-·-、。、、。
:::::：:：
*****）
Œ№º！！！*ş,
·-·:：::::::::::::::::：::：:::::::：:srxtae•。。
•，，+，-，*º Saezaeaeae
*№ez|-::：:：::：:：::：::：::::::::::*№.
±±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±,±,±），·---* ---------*********--~--~~~~）;
∞∞∞•=::::::::::
§§§§§§§
№，§§~
±±::::::：:::::::::::::::::::::::::：:：::：:
§§§§ ;~~、、、、、、
-****→ 'e = <！--* *>- ） » ***-
-§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§-š×。。、、、。、。
¿??¿¿.*¿¿.--
••••••^•*…** • ••••••ş» »， --★ → ∞， &！，*&.、、、、、、、、、、、、、、3
·-*... ~~~~ ~ .* - ） >:-¿$$$$§§§§§§§
*** *=~~~~*~*~*~*~*=~~~~：::：::::::::：<>-. .-.-.-.-.-.*:：::::：::&aesº2，，，，，，},~→.*.* * .** • •§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ī£ż:$§§§№.
****-->.*** →→→→→→•• • •••• -º=§§§§§§§§:№--:::：:：::：:：::::：:：::：:::::.ae-***************<！?！！?• ！！！--
-:::::::：::：:::：:::::::::：::*№ſſae§$%.）----|-~~~----→
|-:ſ:::::::::：::::::::::ſær--
3，4333333
;****… - x ： ««.§; } ********
pº.- ******* **+- & + &&****）→ → • ，
***********.**** 4. **< ».-§§įžęſ;$3： $4）
* ***、、、、、、、、、、。
;&??， sae 'ž ** ***