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_. 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.