In reading Hoyland's Survey of the Gypsies, there are a number of claims made and laws discussed that may have surprised you.
1) What do you make of the various iterations of the same laws Hoyland notes regarding punishments not only for being a Gypsy but also for pretending to be a Gypsy?
2) What do you make of the evidence Hoyland rejects and that which he accepts on the issue of Origins? That is, what how do you feel about his claim that it's somehow 'clear' that the Gypsies are of Indian origin? What kind of proof does he offer?
You can comment on either or both of these as well as any other issues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I may be wrong, or read it wrong, but I think one of the laws said that if you were caught acting like a gypsy, then you would have to spend time with them. I found this odd, because they would probably rather teach the person the right way to act, not send them to learn more of the gypsies. Then again, they may have thought that the person, in spending more time with the gypsies, would begin to dislike their lifestyle. And then there was a law saying anyone over the age of 14 could be punished if they hung around gypsies.
Hoyland described a caste of Indians. The lowest class were the Suders. They are "unclean" and are "held in disdain". So, because Gypsies are "filthy and disgusting", they are directly compared to the Suders. They also look alike, he says. Neither the Suders or Gypsies have a religion. He says that the war of Timur Beg in India can explain the date of the Gypsie arrival. So, this is why he believes that the Gypsies come from a line of Indians. This is his proof. I think it is a broad claim. Possible, but since no one knows for sure, then no one will ever know. ???
On pages twenty and twenty one the article discusses the consequences of being a gypsy in France. The quote says that the gypsies had they reputation to pick pockets and read fortunes, but the speaker had never know any of them to do either thing. But regardless, anyone who participated in gypsy-ness or pretend to believe in fortune telling, including those who had had their fortunes read by the gypsies were excommunicated and had to leave the country to they would be killed.
On twenty nine, it says that the name in Italy about gypsies was that they could not stay in one place for more than two nights, which ultimately meant that the gypsies caused as much havoc as they could and then moved along, without facing many consequences. Then the next band of gypsies would follow, and it was a never end circle.
In England, they were kicked out and told if they returned, their goats and cattle would be taken away. The lay even states they wouldn't get a fair jury trial if they were caught committing any crimes. If they were caught staying in England for more than a month, they would be treated at theives. Any person over the age of 14 who was caught hanging around the gypsies or even caught pretending to be one would be tried in court as a felony without benefit of a clergy. Benefit of a clergy, according to dictionary.com is, "he exemption of the persons of clergymen from criminal process before a secular judge -- a privilege which was extended to all who could read, such persons being, in the eye of the law, clerici, or clerks." So not even educated people or people of the church were exempt from the laws of punishment if caught associating with gypsies.
The common theme in the laws about gypsies is that no country, city, or town wanted them to stick around. They felt that having the gypsies in their area brought the area down, like having a contamination of dirty people ruining the city. Even a priest would be in trouble if caught hanging around the gypsies. That seems like a bit much.
Hoyland's "proof" on the origin of Gypsies as coming from the Indian Suder caste is patently absurd.
This is not to say that the Gypsies do not, in fact, derive from Indians. But Hoyland's proof relies on ideas such as: Gypsies conceal their language just like Indians, both groups are "fond" of horses, both "hunt" diseased, dead cattle, both practice the same "kind" of fortune telling, and both live near villages without living in them.
Hoyland's assumptions all very obviously ignore matters of class, by which most these "proofs" can be answered- POOR people probably eat diseased meat (instead of vegetables) because they are not allowed land on which to grow vegetables, nor can they buy them with their lack of money. They don't live IN villages because they are often not allowed to- even when not outright prohibited, one can assume there are prejudices against them. They are "fond" of horses and raising them perhaps because they traveled with them or had raised them traditionally? Others are unable to be proven- who exactly was an expert on the "types" of fortune telling (also interesting that this was considered an "Eastern" practice. And all scholars readily admit to not being able to understand language, so it would be difficult to compare the languages of either group. These "proofs" are very flimsy indeed.
Language is what Hoyland rests the bulk of his argument on. The language of the Gypsies is said to be similar to that of the Surat, so they must be derived from this people. However, the language is also described as having a "great affinity to the Oriental tongues; and is spoken when they have secrets to impart to each other." They were also remarked upon to have the speech of the "right Egyptian language."
It is obvious then, that the "origin" of the Gypsies is dependent on the idea of their otherness. First Egyptian, then, when England colonized India, Indian. No matter than everyone professed to not be able to understand Gypsy language- they were only trying to keep it secret!
Hoyland's argument is one of deception- he portrays Gypsies as deceptive in class, religion and linguistics then compares them to the Indians. In my opinion, this is done as a political move- by correlating these two groups in such a negative fashion, Hoyland is able to impart the already negative feelings about the Gypsies throughout Europe onto the Indians.
Hoyland associates the Gypsies with the Indians based on outer appearance. He says “the extraordinary resemblance of the female Gypsies to the women of India, was remarked b the British officers and men, in Egypt. So he is basing his claim on the bias of the British who so badly did not what their pure race to mingle or claim the “other” race. But I find it interesting that he quotes a British officer that was in Egypt, which is where Hoyland states that the Gypsies were believed to derive from. When Hoyland describes the Gypsies as “Zigeuners” or wonders it alludes to the Israelites and the way they wondered around in the wilderness after the mass Exodus from Egypt. Hoyland also states that “they chose to be considered as Pilgrims” and during the 15th century many individuals went on pilgrims to receive penitence for their sins. Furthermore, in the Bible the Israelites’ were wandering around for 100 years partly because of their sins. So this connection makes me wonder why the Gypsies, who connect themselves with Egypt, wonders around from place to place.
While the claims made and laws discussed were a bit surprising to me, I think that it showed the degree of seriousness with which the "problem" of gypsies was looked upon. If the law would go as far as to punish citizens that were merely pretending to be a gypsy, it shows that this subject was one that was not taken lightly and that they were serious about eliminating as much gypsy life and culture as possible. Also, the gypsies were looked at in a slightly different light as the Irish were. Although the Irish were detested, their population was still confined to their own country. The gypsies were perhaps a bigger problem because their population infiltrated a wide span of land. Because the gypsies were more widespread, they created more of a problem.
Also, Hoyland's language and tone while describing the features and habits of the gypsies made me view them as more of a pack of traveling animals, rather than people. Hoyland's use of words such as "hoard" and "swarm" compare them more to an infestation of insects than to an actual race of humans. Hoyland states, "They sleep like dogs in a kennel, men women, and children huddled together" (29). Imagery such as this clearly shows that the gypsies were viewed as a class below that of the human race.
To continue our class train of thought of more or less the nature vs nurture argument, I’d like to note the opening clause of “traits of character and the habits of the Gypsies on the Continent of Europe” as another example of the duality of other-ness (75). The Gypsies are both based on the characteristics of their supposed Egyptian heritage and their occupation of palm reading (76). The flip side is that they are also different from English by their habits, their way of doing things, which by no means constitutes a different species of other-ness, but a different action that the English play upon. Overall the Historical Survey of Gypsies provided by Hoyland in 1816 provides a fantastic piece of history of the creation and implementation of other-ness in the English society.
I want to focus on the idea of being a gypsy and acting like a gypsy and how both are punishable. It seems so ridiculous to be punished through association, but it seems to fit with the necessary means of subjugating a group of people. To enforce a law that puts a stigma on the group of people by putting a stigma on their influence and company seems so absurd in modern context. It makes me wonder rather the punishment is bestowed because the gypsies were such a bad group of people who were looked down on, or because people who were supposed to look down on them were not. Which is the bigger crime? Being a gypsy or not having prejudice against the gypsies? I feel that the people who kept company with the gypsies are the most punished because they are supposed to be superior to the gypsies or the idea of the "other", yet they aren't in perhaps such a disparaging way.
There were many harse stereotypes surrounding the gypsies, calling them thieves, fortune tellers and pick pockets. It seems to me their non conformity to the society around them is the root of the problem. Since they would not conform,they were isolated from the community and therefore became wanderers. I think many of their habits and ways of life are caused by thier isolation and poverty. I would say more but this is my sixth time trying to post a comment
If you are pretending to be a gypsy you will be punished. The fact that people might be concerned about this is the whole act of “becoming”. In the act of pretending one is actually turning into what they are pretending to be. Just like if someone is lying about lying, they are technically lying and should be punished as so. Pretending is technically not really being that which they are pretending to be; however, in pretending to be you actually ARE. So in pretending to be a gypsy one is also getting into the heads of others that being a gypsy is ok. If you pretend to be gay and make out with some other male, you are in fact participating in a homosexual act. Therefore, the act of pretending is becoming and being.
Post a Comment