I’ve read in a number of sources (Down Under by Bill Bryson for one) that in 18th Century England it was an offense to impersonate an Egyptian. Highway robbery I understand. Murder I understand. But why was impersonating an Egyptian a capital offense?
What if you just walk like one?
While Bryson may have been technically correct, take what he writes with a grain of salt.
I had heard that it was an offense for a commoner to wear the clothes of a gentleman (in the correct sense of the word). There may have been some peculiar social status vis-a-vis Egyptians (or foreigners generally) to the effect that impersonating one would have been considered socially disruptive.
I didn’t notice that you specified a capital offense. You got me there.
Bryson’s factoid becomes slightly less odd once one knows that ‘Egyptian’ was the contemporary term for ‘gipsy’.
Yes another source noted that it was also an capital offense to impersonate a Gypsy (which is of course derived from Egypt). But what I want to know is why.
Because it was a form of begging or vagrancy.
Ah! APB, that (kinda) makes sense to me. Thanks!
Bear in mind as well that England had lots of capital offences until the 19th century. One estimate that I saw indicated that there were over 200 capital offences.
Including (as every schoolboy used to know) the crime of impersonating a Chelsea Pensioner. As with the ‘Egyptians’, the issue was really about begging, as it was feared that a beggar dressed as a Chelsea Pensioner would attract more sympathy.
I’d just like to echo the warning that Bill Bryson, while occasionally an amusing writer, is not to be considered a reliable source of factual information.
I’ve always found Bryson scrupulous in citing the sources of his anecdotes.