i6o 



WAS JOHN BUNYAN A GIPSY? 



can find him depicted in our author's 

 visit to this Scottish Gipsy family ; where 

 it can also learn the meaning of Bunyan, 

 at a time when Jews were legally ex- 

 cluded from England, taking so much 

 trouble to ascertain whether he was of 



* A rather singular notice of the His- 

 tory of the Gipsies appeared in the Atlantic 

 Monthly, for August, 1866, in which the 

 Disquisition is described as "of amusing- 

 ly pompous and inconsequent nature." 

 And yet the writer speaks of the argu- 

 ment showing that John Bunyan was a 

 Gips)', as being such, that the reader 

 "makes no struggle to escape the conclu- 

 sion thus skilfully sprung upon him ;" 

 which would show that that part of the Dis- 

 quisition, at least, was anything but " in- 

 consequent." He speaks of the theory of 

 Bunyan having been a Gipsy as some- 

 thing "invented," seemingly ignorant of 

 the fact that it is an " invented theory," 

 and a very foolish one at that, that he was 

 a common Englishman. It would be 

 interesting to have an argument in favour 

 of the common native hypothesis, beyond 

 the trifling remarks made by Blackwood, 

 which were amply anticipated in the Dis- 

 quisition. In the face of what Bunyan 

 said of himself, it is very unreasonable to 

 hold that he was not a Gipsy, but a com- 

 mon native, when the assumption is all 

 the* other way. Let neither, however, be 

 assumed, but let an argument in favour 

 of both be placed alongside of the other, 

 to see how the case would look. 



The writer in the Atlantic goes on to 

 say: "His subject has been too much 

 for him, and his mental vision, disordered 

 by too ardent contemplation of Gipsies, 

 reproduces them wherever he turns his 

 thought. If he values any one of his il- 

 lusions above the rest for they all seem 

 equally pleasant to him it is his persua- 

 sion that John Bunyan was a Gipsy." It 

 is amusing to notice the presumption of 

 this gentleman rushing in, in the sheer- 

 est wantonness, where, not an angel, but 

 even a fool would fear to tread in speak- 

 ing of the contents of the work being " il- 

 lusions," when the subjects specially 

 treated appear to have been unknown to 

 him, and evidently beyond his compre- 

 hension or candour. He concludes with 

 the remark : " Otherwise, the work is a 

 mass of rather interesting rubbish." It 

 would be interesting to know how such 

 ignorance and lack of the ordinary 

 courtesies could have gained admittance 

 to the pages of the Atlantic. Perhaps the 

 following will partly explain it : " Will 

 it be believed that the inventor of this 

 theory [that Bunyan was a Gipsy] was 

 denied admittance to the columns of 

 the religious newspapers in this country, 



that race or not. From the present 

 work generally, the world can learn 

 the reason why Bunyan said nothing of 

 his ancestry and nationality, when giv- 

 ing an account of his own history (Note 

 of Ed., p. 313).* 



on the flimsy pretext [in one instance] 

 that the editor could not afford the space 

 for a disquisition on John Bunyan's Gipsy 

 origin ? " That will be very easily believed, 

 if we consider the difficulty experienced 

 in getting a hearing for any new idea, let 

 it be what it may, and especially if it 

 would unsettle the belief of the world in 

 regard to John Bunyan, however much it 

 might add to his reputation and the 

 interest attaching to him. It was there- 

 fore anything but becoming that this 

 writer should have had the discourtesy to 

 insinuate and more than insinuate that 

 what I had stated was not true ; and ap- 

 parently made it the grounds of his 

 thoughtless, undignified, and ungrateful 

 remarks about the work generally. It 

 also indicated a low cast of natural intel- 

 ligence, whatever the education or train- 

 ing, that was anything but creditable to 

 the latitude of Boston. It is doubtful 

 whether a religious or almost any kind of 

 paper has, up to the present time, fairly 

 admitted the idea of John Bunyan having 

 been a Gipsy into its columns ; to say noth- 

 ing of stating it at any length, and giving 

 an opinion whether the question has been 

 settled, or even rendered probable, or 

 not. I think that the argument is suffi- 

 ciently "consequent" to hang a man, 

 especially if, as the writer in the Atlantic 

 says, it is such that the reader " makes no 

 struggle to escape the conclusion thus 

 skilfully sprung upon him." Blackwooa 

 and the Atlantic doubtless hold themselves 

 to be the high-priests of criticism, each 

 in his own country, whose prerogative, 

 sometimes, is rather to endeavour to sup- 

 press what contributes to knowledge ; 

 playing a part that is a useful though an 

 ignoble one. The remarks of the follow- 

 ing journals, although they show a timid- 

 it)- or an aversion to entertain the ques- 

 tion, are yet couched in language that 

 entails no discredit on them : " If our 

 readers are unconvinced, let them not 

 confess it" (Pall Mall Gazette). 11 He 

 thinks that because John Bunyan was a 

 tinker [and for other reasons], he was al- 

 most certainly [rather altogether] of Gipsy 

 origin. . . . We may possibly, some 

 day, devote an article to this strange peo- 

 ple " (British Quarterly}. " But we are 

 getting on dangerous ground, and as we 

 have no wish to illustrate the proverb, we 

 break off before catching the Gipsy's 

 hypothetical ancestor" (Westminster Re- 

 view). Englishmen, generally, are not in 



