{326} For example, in the _Historia de los Gitános_, of which we have had occasion to speak in the first part of the present work: amongst other things the author says, p. 95, ‘If there exist any similitude of customs between the Gitános and the Gypsies, the Zigeuners, the Zingári, and the Bohemians, they (the Gitános) cannot, however, be confounded with these nomad castes, nor the same origin be attributed to them; . . . all that we shall find in common between these people will be, that the one (the Gypsies, etc.) arrived fugitives from the heart of Asia by the steppes of Tartary, at the beginning of the fifteenth century, while the Gitános, descended from the Arab or Morisco tribes, came from the coast of Africa as conquerors at the beginning of the eighth.’ He gets rid of any evidence with respect to the origin of the Gitános which their language might be capable of affording in the following summary manner: ‘As to the particular jargon which they use, any investigation which people might pretend to make would be quite useless; in the first place, on account of the reserve which they exhibit on this point; and secondly, because, in the event of some being found sufficiently communicative, the information which they could impart would lead to no advantageous result, owing to their extreme ignorance.’ It is scarcely worth while to offer a remark on reasoning which could only emanate from an understanding of the very lowest order,—so the Gitános are so extremely ignorant, that however frank they might wish to be, they would be unable to tell the curious inquirer the names for bread and water, meat and salt, in their own peculiar tongue—for, assuredly, had they sense enough to afford that slight quantum of information, it would lead to two very advantageous results, by proving, first, that they spoke the same language as the Gypsies, etc., and were consequently the same people—and secondly, that they came not from the coast of Northern Africa, where only Arabic and Shillah are spoken, but from the heart of Asia, three words of the four being pure Sanscrit. {330} As given in the _Mithridates_ of Adelung. {346a} Possibly from the Russian _boloss_, which has the same signification. {346b} Basque, _burua_. {346c} Sanscrit, _schirra_. {346d} These two words, which Hervas supposes to be Italian used in an improper sense, are probably of quite another origin. _Len_, in Gitáno, signifies ‘river,’ whilst _vadi_ in Russian is equivalent to water.