Till the seventeenth century, the Egyptian descent of the Gipseys rested entirely on tradition. Thomasius was the first who endeavoured to establish this matter on satisfactory evidence. Those who, since him, have supported the same opinion, are principally the Englishman Salmon; and, lately, Signor Griselini. Before their vouchers are produced, it will be proper to mention that Thomasius speaks only of the Gipseys who travelled about Europe during the first seven years after their arrival; for he thinks that, after seven years were elapsed, these, excepting a very few, returned home again, and after their retreat the present set was produced, as has been already described. In this particular, he differs entirely from the other two writers, making the latter Gipseys a distinct race of people from those who first arrived. On the contrary, Salmon, as well as Griselini, consider the Gipseys that are now wandering in Europe, and with truth, as lineal descendants of the former, consequently bring them all from Egypt.
Thomasius says: “The first Gipseys never would allow themselves to be any people but Egyptians; asserting always, that the Lesser Egypt was their mother country: and they deserve credit, as they were an honourable worthy set of people.” One observation will be sufficient in reply:—Among the oldest writers who, prior to Stumpf, mention the Gipseys, not one seems to be acquainted with their worth. But Thomasius himself discovered the weakness of his first argument, and therefore hastens to another. “Be this as it may,” he proceeds, “they were in the earliest times, when doubtless something more certain was extant, always looked upon as Egyptians: so that it does not become us, who live two hundred years later, positively to reject what was at that time generally assented to.” Our author was not aware that this kind of reasoning proves too much; for by the same mode of arguing, every antiquated error, every ridiculous superstition, may be defended. If this be admitted, Satan gets his cloven foot again, of which modern unbelief had bereft him. Thus, Christian Thomasius acted unjustifiably when he laid violent hands on witches and sorcerers, and put an end to their existence, though credited from the highest antiquity. Thomasius imagines there were other proofs, beside the Gipseys’ own assertions, that they were Egyptians; this supposition, however, not only has nothing to support it, but is openly contradicted by Aventin, Kranz, and Münster. It is not authenticated because the chronicles universally mention it as a saying of the Gipseys, whenever they speak of their coming from Egypt. It is confuted by Aventin, who rejects their Egyptian descent; at the same time he alledges, that they wished to be thought from that country. In his time, nothing was known concerning them, but what came from their own mouths: and those who thought them Egyptians, rested their belief entirely on the veracity of their informants. This is collected with greater certainty from Kranz and Münster; for these declare expressly, that every thing which could be discovered, by any other means than their own assertions, contradicted rather than confirmed their Egyptian descent. Yet Thomasius has more proofs; he cites the resemblance between the Gipseys and the inhabitants of the Lesser Egypt, whence they say they came. But many people lay this difficulty in his way, that the name of Lesser Egypt is not to be found in any system of geography, but is a mere invention of the Gipseys. He rests his opinion on that of Vulcanius, who looks upon Nubia to be the Lesser Egypt, and thinks, for what reason does not appear, that the Nubians themselves called their country by that name. These are the similarities:—Nubians, as well as Gipseys, confess themselves Christians; both lead a wandering life, and both are of a dark brown complexion: to which some resemblances in shape between the Gipseys and Egyptians are introduced in general terms. Whether there be any affinity in their languages he leaves undetermined, because, he says, he knows nothing about it. That the name of Zigeuner is the same as Egyptian, and the former is derived from the latter, he proves in the following ingenious manner: “The Spaniards—who, instead of Egyptaner, call them Gitanos—have cut off the first syllable. Our forefathers, who exceeded the Spaniards in the art of mangling names, have rejected two syllables, and, instead of Egyptianer, first called them Cianer, afterwards, in order to fill up the chasm between _i_ and _a_, Ciganer.
