The Great “Gypsy” Round-Up in Spain

Project

roma | history

education of roma children in euroPe

CounCil

ConsEil

of EuropE

dE l´EuropE

The GreaT “Gypsy”

3.3

round-up in spain

Antonio Gómez Alfaro

The Great

“Gypsy” round-up in spain

A preventive security Measure l A favourable Juncture l The strategy l funding the round-up l The

prisoners’ destination l review of the round-up l problems with freed “Gypsies” l The reasons for the pardon l An unexpected delay

The Age of Enlightened Absolutism provided the authorities with increasing opportunities to apply their measures on all the citizens in their range of powe r . I n Spain, this resulted in the most painful episode in the history of the country ’ s “ Gypsy” community: the general round-up carried out during the reign of Ferdinand VI, on July 30, 1749. The operation, which was as thorough as it was indiscriminate, led to the internment of ten to twelve thousand people, men and women, young and old, “simply because they were Gypsies. ” T h e c o-ordinatio n o f t h e d ifferen t p ubli c a uthoritie s i nvolved , t h e c o-operatio n o f t h e C hurch , w hich remained passive in the face of such injustice, the excesses committed by all those who made the operation possible, and the collaboration of the prisoners ’ f ellow citizens and neighbours made “Black W e dnesday”, as the round-up is also called, an unchallenged event in the long history of European anti-“Gypsyism”.

oviedo

cantabria astu r ias basque country

number of “gyPsy” families domiciled

following a list by the council of castile, probably of 1749

ill. 1 (from gómez alfaro 1993, p. 22f.)

gali c ia n a v a r r e

león santo domingo de la calazada

3

arag o n

1

la rioja

logroño

6

burgos

4

x

number of families

egea de los caballeros

7

borders of autonomous communities

Palencia agreda

8

5

2
4

Zaragoza

toro

soria

cas t i l e an d l e o n

7

6

aranda de duero calatayud

catalonia

4

introduction

Zamora

4

segovia

7

the appointed governor of the council of castile, at the time the highest political authority of the spanish monarchy, gaspar vázquez tablada, bishop of oviedo, presented a “consultation” proposing the adoption of “extraordinary remedies” to put an end once and for all to the “problems” of public order allegedly created by the “gypsies” to King

ferdinand vi, on july 5, 1747. [ill. 2]

The “proposal” brieﬂy reviewed

the legal measures which from ancient times had attempted to dilute the otherness of the “gypsies”; their evident

failure provided justiﬁcation, from the

bishop-governor’s point of view, for separating these irreducible persons from the body of society by means of two al-

ternative options. The ﬁrst of these con-

sisted of exiling them forever from the

la car raca

castellón de la plana avila

4

madrid

18

cuenca villarreal

5

8

Plasencia

10

toledo

8

cáceres

97

valenc ia

alcira san clemente

la man c ha

8

trujillo requena

12 4
14

e xtramad ura

chinchilla ciudad real

5

8

san felipe

15 8

villanueva da la serena infantes

almansa

yecla

denia

3

8

12

almaden

hellín

villena

7

Zafra

8

alicante

baeza

andújar

10

21

ubeda

córdoba

orihuela

45

7

14
49

lorca murcia jaén

4

an dalusia

mancha real

4

47

carmona

ecija

alcalá la real

18
130

35

3

seville baza

guadix

12
12

antequera

22 32

granada ronda

18
157

Puerto de santa maria malaga

cadiz

A preventive security Measure A favourable Juncture

ill. 2

ill. 3

King Ferdinand VI (1746 - 1759).

The order to round up the “Gypsies”, issued by Gaspar Vázquez Tablada on June 28, 1749

(to Orihuela authorities; first page).

(fromsánchez-albornoz,claudio(1971)españa,unenigma histórico. buenos aires: editorial sudamericana, p. 560b)

(from gómez alfaro 1993, p. 17) (detail)

kingdom, setting a time limit for them to nately considered as socially dangerous, their mobility (the lack of a fixed abode) leave and “irremissibly” prescribing ca- if not – at least certain individuals – as and by working in occupations that were pital punishment for all those who retur- criminals. irrespective of possible crimi- difficult to categorise. The word “Gypsy” ned, thus eliminating any possibility of nal behaviour deserving of specific pu- eventually became a legal label applied judicial intervention. if this measure of nishment, several contemporary accounts to a wide range of individuals who did expulsion “was to seem harsh“, a milder emphasise time and again the existence of not form a coherent, unified group. Since one could be adopted; this “milder“ “a second generic concept of idlers and responsibility for civil unrest is traditiomeasure consisted of rounding up the people disobedient to laws”, among the nally assigned to groups whose mobility “Gypsies” and finding them a suitable “gypsies”, “so that, as such, they should precludes effective state control, the supplace to serve their prison sentence.

the round-up was thus presented and end to their crimes and loaﬁng”.

as an inevitable preliminary step in im- for a long time, the “gypsies” had me aim of a police operation, in which be preventively separated in order to put pression of those referred to generally as
“gypsies” was about to become the pri-

posing preventive security measures on been suffering the consequences of being the army eventually became involved as a group whose members were indiscrimi- classiﬁed incorrectly, being deﬁned by the custodian of public order.

“on a fixed and appointed day”. Prison

boys up to the age of 12 were

a prevenTive securiTy measure

was a preliminary stage in the enforce- to remain with the women, while thoment of a preventive security measure se aged 12 to 15 were to be placed in that varied according to age and sex. apprenticeship in order to be initia-

relying in particular on the co-ope- [ill. 3]

ted into “useful“ trades, or were to be

ration of the army, which had become

female “gypsies” were to be entrusted to the navy if they showed an

essential for the round-up, the gover- held in three “depots”, a mixture of pri- aptitude for maritime activities. adults, nor of the council of castile, vázquez son, barracks and factory, situated in i.e. “gypsies” aged 15 or over, were to tablada, recommended the preparation strategic locations, “one for andalusia, be sent to the arsenals of cadiz, cartaof a police operation under conditions another for extramadura, la mancha gena and el ferrol as forced labourers of utmost secrecy, which would make and murcia, and the third for castile to replace those employed on the naval it possible to arrest all “gypsies” at and the Kingdoms of the crown of ara- reconstruction programmes undertaken

the same time throughout the country, gon, where fewer of them live.”

in this period.

ꢀ

CounCil of EuropE

roma | history

Project education of roma children in euroPe

3.3

order to the round-uP

The order was prepared in secrecy and distributed only in writ- ten letters which were mostly addressed to the “corregidor” (senior magistrate) of each regi- on where “Gypsies” were to be arrested. Every family in each town was indicated separate- ly; the “corregidor” was made responsible for arresting all of them. The original depicted here was addressed to the town of Ori- huela. Its initial sentence reads:

“The king (God save him) has resolved that the fourteen Gypsy families which are domiciled in that town with decrees from the council shall be moved …”

ill. 3 ill. 4

Gypsy mule clippers in Spain, about 1800, lithograph by Gérard René Villain. Bibliothèque nationale, Paris

(from gómez alfaro 1993, p. 15)

(from fraser (1992) the gypsies. oxford / cambridge: blackwell, p. 167)

male “gypsies” over the age of supervision and employed on tasks ap- sease, the disabled and the elderly were
50 were to be sent to the large cities, propriate to their physical condition; to be sent to hospitals and homes “to be where they were to be kept under close those suffering from an incurable di- cared for and to die a christian death”.

cedure to be settled between the civil order to achieve “the good and desired and ecclesiastical courts, another pon- effect”, that is to round up the “gyp-

a favourable juncTure

tifical decree was issued, authorising sies”, it would be sufficient to issue the same nuncio to delegate his powers the corresponding instructions to the the governor of the council was con- to the bishops as far as their respective authorities of the 75 towns where they vinced of the success of the operation, dioceses were concerned. in view of the combination of two spe- the second factor were the posi- council archives enabled its officials cific circumstances which were consi- tive results of a resettlement operation to draw up a list, which was the badered as a “favourable juncture”. which had been set in motion in 1717 sis for the work of the the strategists should still be residing. scrutiny of the the first circumstance concer- by a law which was an update with a of the round-up. this list revealed the ned the possibilities offered by a re- couple of amendments of the Pragma- existence of 881 families settled in 54 cent pontifical decree, which to some tica of charles ii from 1695. its prin- of the 75 towns, in the proportion leextent was the culmination of a leng- cipal novelty lies in designating forty- gally stipulated in a provision of 1746: thy process of diplomatic negotiations one cities as the sole authorised places one family, that is “the husband and with the holy see to deprive the “gyp- of residence for “gypsies”. a provision wife, with their children and orphaned sies” of the right to local ecclesiasti- of 1746 would add 34 new cities to this grandchildren, if not married”, for eve-

cal immunity. thereby it was possible list. [ills. 5, 6]

ry 100 inhabitants. With the distribu-

to neutralise any possible resistance the council had retained centra- tion at a ratio of one “gypsy” family through the use of holy places as sanc- lised control over this rehousing ope- per hundred inhabitants the authorities tuaries. after the nuncio had been em- ration, so that it knew the addresses of were to ensure that they were taking powered to order the transfer of re- over 800 “gypsy” families in the, by responsibility for supervising these fafuge-seekers to the prison churches, then, 75 towns where individuals of milies’ lifestyles and activities, taking where they would retain immunity for this category were authorised to live. particular care to keep them separated as long as it took for the appeal pro- vázquez tablada considered that, in from each other. [ill. 1]

ꢁ

The strategy

funding the round-up The prisoners’ destination

characteristic measures of the Pragmatica of charles ii in 1695

Numerous laws were passed in order to own language. They were allowed to remedy the “failures” of all earlier le- leave their place of residence only to go gislation. The first of these, signed by to work in the fields and they must not Charles II in 1695, ordered all “Gyp- travel to another locality without writ- sies” to register with the authorities of ten authorisation from the authorities. their place of residence within thirty The typical punishment for those who days. Following a period of a further failed to obey was six to eight years thirty days, all “Gypsies” had to be in the galleys (for men aged between gone from the country. The sole occup- seventeen and sixty years) or 100 to ation authorised for “Gypsies” was the 200 lashes or banishment (for women). cultivation of the soil. It was forbidden Boys between fourteen and seventeen for “Gypsies” to possess or make use were sent to forced labour for several of horses; they were forbidden to pos- years. Howeve r , p ersons travelling in sess firearms; buying, selling and tra- groups of more than three and carrying ding animals of all kinds was prohibi- a weapon were, for example, sentenced ted. “Gypsies” were not allowed to live to death.

ill. 5

together in the same quarte r , n or wear

The Pragmatica of Charles II, issued on June 12, 1695.

(from leblon 1995, p. 34)

costumes that were distinct from those of other inhabitants, or to speak their

ill. 6

(abbreviated from leblon 1995, p. 37ff.)

king and, in a letter dated august 12^th, true purpose of their detention, came he attributed the failings to the bishop- forward voluntarily in many places in governor “owing to the carelessness response to the public notices asking with which the news of this venture was them to report to the “corregimiento”

The sTraTeGy

an opinion was sought from the jesuit disclosed”. vázquez tablada had been (this word denotes both the office and father francisco rávago, confessor to dismissed two days earlier and replaced the jurisdiction of the “corregidor”).

ferdinand vi, whose immediate reply by the bishop of barcelona. ensenada

regarding sanctuary in holy

removed all doubts and scruples from then assumed full responsibility for the places, which could have hampered the his royal penitent’s conscience: “the operation and issued very detailed ins- arrests, there were only a few isolated means proposed by the governor of the tructions with the aim of extending it to cases which were promptly resolved.

council to root out this bad race, which “all gypsies living in these kingdoms,

because mixed marriages were a

is hateful to god and pernicious to man, whether or not they have a fixed abode, reality found in many parts of the counseem good to me. the king will be ma- regardless of sex, civil status and age, try in this period of history, the authoking a great gift to god, our lord, if he and without sparing any sanctuary in rities were forced to ask the council to

manages to get rid of these people.”

which they might have found refuge.” lay down specific rules for deciding

all that remained was to devise [ill. 9]

the fate of non-“gypsy” spouses and

a strategy for the operation, a subject

the available documentation children of mixed ethnicity. the coun-

dealt with exhaustively by the mar- indicates that the arrests proceeded cil declared the husband’s status to be quis of la ensenada, the driving force smoothly. there is only evidence of one predominant, that means, that married behind all the major projects underta- violent incident, when three “gypsies” women were to be included in the same ken during this period. the round-up fleeing from seville were killed du- category as their husbands, although was scheduled for july 30, 1749, and ring a confrontation that took place on this general principle did not prevent ensenada took a very close look at the the road to la cartuja. the “gypsies” that special value was attached to soinitial results. these were not to his li- themselves, perhaps unaware of the cially integrated behaviour. [ill. 7]

Ensenada’s instructions speciﬁed that the in the ancien régime. the only new de-

property of all those interned would be velopment seen in the round-up was an seized and auctioned in order to meet all element of solidarity in the way the auc-

fundinG The round-up

the costs incurred – the common practice tion proceeds were used by the “corre-

ꢂ

CounCil of EuropE

roma | history

Project education of roma children in euroPe

3.3

most detailed instructions

The instructions for the “corregidores” aimed at providing thoroughly detailed answers for any problem which might arise during the round-up. Having ac- counted for the preliminary steps and the arresting itself, they went on [...]: “After all the mentioned families have been arrested, the men must be separated with the boys of over seven, and the women with the younger ones. When this sepa- ration has been carried out, and with the respective testimonies listing the names,

they must be delivered to the ofﬁcer when

he has prepared his march, in two groups, arranging the stages according to their destinations, and for the transport of the prisoners the corregidor must prepare the wagons, baggage and guides necessary”.

(from gómez alfaro 1993, p. 28) ill. 7

Instructions for the “corregidores” (to Orihuela authorities, first page)

(from gómez alfaro 1993, p. 30) (detail)

gidores”. this money was used to cover train them in order to prevent them from preferential creditors to recover their the most varied of costs: the pay of the escaping. neighbours participated in money or their property. this was the “alguaciles” (the subordinate police ofﬁ- auctions of this kind without showing the case with a religious order that owned cers attached to a judge or a court) and least scruple when it came to purchasing the land on which a “gypsy” family had court registrars, and the ofﬁce paper used the internees’ property at attractive pri- been able to build its home under a royby the latter to record the details of the ces. the property was of little value in alty contract.

operation. furthermore the money was many cases, but of some considerable

furthermore, while detentions

used to pay the upkeep of the internees value in others, such as owned or rented and seizures were facilitated by the work in prison and during transfers, the hiring housing, animals used in farming or work of informers, there was also a considerof the carts and draught animals used for tools used by some blacksmiths, who able number of cases where people and

the journey, the medical assistance given were well-known as property owners.

property were hidden, despite threats by

to some prisoners during the journey, and some auctions were halted be- the “corregidores” to punish all those the irons, chains and ropes used to res- cause of legal actions brought in by who helped the “gypsies”.